John Oliver Interview with Edward Snowden re Mass US Surveillance & the Patriot Act

[sabrina 1]

As always lately, it takes a Comedian to get the news out!

And no, John Oliver did not 'make Snowden squirm'!

He gave him a platform to explain the seriousness of the issue of Mass Government Surveillance!

In this case the news that the Patriot Act is due to expire!

This is something Oliver has expressed concern over. Particularly the section that allows the Government to conduct massive spying on ordinary people.

So Oliver went to Russia to interview Snowden and conducted a wide ranging, sometimes funny, sometimes serious interview with Snowden with whom he discussed the upcoming expiration date of the Patriot Act.



JOHN OLIVER AND EDWARD SNOWDEN DISCUSS NSA, MISSING HOT POCKETS, AND THE D--K PIC SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM

With the Patriot Act ready to expire, Oliver has been outspoken on his show about his opinion of what ought to be done about it:

Last Week Tonight host John Oliver devoted Sunday's episode to the issue of government surveillance. Specifically, Oliver called for reforms to "Section 215," which enables the government to ask for "any tangible things" so long as it pertains to international terrorism.

Oliver called it a "blank check," on his show, saying:

Its like letting a teenager borrow that car on the strict condition that they only use it for 'car' related activities. "Okay Mom and Dad, I'm going to use this for a hand job in the Wendy's parking lot, but that is 'car' related so I think I'm covered."

Oliver also traveled to Russia and sat down with Edward Snowden to discuss the the NSA, the balance between privacy and security, dick pics, whether he misses Hot Pockets and Florida, and more.

After showing Snowden street interviews with Americans who apparently knew nothing about the leaks or Snowden, whose goal was to inform Americans, Oliver suggested that Americans might be more interested if Snowden were to tell them the 'Government is watching your Dick Pics'.


Watch John Oliver Interview Edward Snowden About NSA's 'Dick-Pic Sheriffs'

Snowden says that leaking sensitive national security documents to journalists in 2013 was a risk – but it was worth it to help inform the American public. "Is it a conversation that we have the capacity to have?" Oliver responds. "Because it's so complicated we don't fundamentally understand it." In order to make the issue more relatable for Americans, the host connects all facets of the subject to one topic: "This is the most visible line in the sand for most people: Can they see my dick?"

"The good news is there's no program named the Dick-Pic Program," Snowden says, before playing a game of NSA "Dick or No Dick." Snowden adds that, for the record, he doesn't think people should cease their crotch-selfie habits: "You shouldn't change your behavior because a government agency somewhere is doing the wrong thing. If we sacrifice our values because we're afraid, we don't care about those values very much." ("That is a pretty inspiring answer to the question, 'Hey, why did you just send me a picture of your dick?'" Oliver cracks. "Because I love America, that's why.&quot

"So there you have it, America — all of us should now be equipped to have this vital debate," Oliver says in summary. "Because by June 1st, it is imperative we have a rational, adult conversation about whether our safety is worth living in a country of barely-regulated, government-sanctioned Dick Sheriffs."

Sadly, Oliver may be right. And he is doing his part to get as much attention as he can using his Comedy Show, to get the people to pay attention to this issue.

I didn't notice any 'squirming' (the biased media editorialized version of the Oliver/Snowden interview), on Snowden's part regarding the question of his release of the documents.

As he always does when asked this question, Snowden once again explained that he personally did not release the documents, but used the Press to do so and relied on them to edit out anything that might be a threat to anyone or to this country.

Thanks once again to all the Whistle Blowers, Comedians and Journalists who insist on exposing wrong doing by Government Agencies, in this case, the NSA.

And thanks to Oliver for taking the trouble to go to Russia to draw attention and to keep it there, on this most serious issue!

The entire interview is available at the Rolling Stone Link, as well as Oliver's Show before he went to Russia on the issue of the Mass Spying being conducted by the NSA and the expiration of the Patriot Act.

It is pretty funny. And it is LONG but worth watching imo.

[Cleita]

1. Saw it. It was pretty interesting how Snowden and Oliver explained how men putting

a photo of their "junk" on a smart phone text would bounce all over the world and be stored somewhere forever. They could have used a less crude example but probably 90% of his audience would have tuned out.

[sabrina 1]

2. Oliver is a pretty crude comedian. The 'dick' scenario was his satiric suggestion as to how to get

people to pay attention to a serious issue.

If you don't like satire, I guess you might find it offensive.

But as with all satire, it has an element of truth to it.

[Calista241]

3. John Oliver is hilarious. This interview is epic. n/t

[JEB]

4. A lot of truth and humor in that interview.

Sadly it seems true that the American people by and large could care less about the egregious over-reach of the Patriot act.

[sabrina 1]

7. And it's interesting, if you watch the entire interview, how the media has tried to turn it into

a smear against Snowden with biased headlines, 'Oliver makes Snowden Squirm' eg.

So I decided to watch the interview myself, and was astounded that anyone could have the gall to try to twist this interview to that extent.

Saw two such headlines here on DU today.

I guess they proved Oliver's point, Americans don't want to extend themselves too far even when their liberties are at stake.

I guess the Daily Beast assumed we wouldn't watch the entire interview.

Which is why I did ....

[JEB]

9. Much of the media appears

to be dedicated to marginalizing, not only Snowden, but the issues at stake. Sad for what's left of our democracy.

[sabrina 1]

11. Not just the media, sadly. It appears that even some Democrats are helping to try to marginalize

those who risk so much to bring the truth to the American people.

Which is why I believe the people themselves must expose those attempts wherever possible.

This interview will probably get more people interested as, imo, Oliver intended, in the theft of their civil rights.

But to read some of the articles I saw today, you would have thought that Oliver was working for the CIA.

[gcomeau]

51. Did you just tune out part of that interview?

Snowden was plenty squirmy when Oliver put him on the spot about not actually reading the documents before giving them to the media, and how he owns any and all damage that does when said media then proceeds to release, as has already happened, legitimately damaging intelligence information.

Of course he could have made him squirm much more if he's asked him about releasing intelligence to the Chinese to get on their good side, as even Greenwald has said he did.

[sabrina 1]

70. You apparently didn't watch the interview either. If you did, and I keep asking for this from those

repeating this 'interpretation' from people like Morning Joe, could you please give us the time on the video where we can see this mysterious clip that we apparently missed?

Snowden has been asked that same question literally dozens of times. And he always answers it the same way, as he did this time.

He knew what was in the documents, but to make sure nothing got out that might be sensitive re someone's safety or compromising to this country, he GAVE IT TO JOURNALISTS to vet.

Now why would he be uncomfortable answering a question he has answered dozens of times already?

Seems to me Oliver was giving him a chance to answer those who have lied about what he knew and did re the documents. And he did it very well.

But please, go ahead and point us to what you are talking about on the video. Just the approx time where what Morning Joe et al claim they saw.

[cui bono]

76. Yeah, there's another thread about this and of course there are people in there trying to claim

that he didn't know what was in the documents because he never read them.

Some of the posts in that thread are seriously

[gcomeau]

111. You do realize...

That the OP and the article it links don't mention that question I talked about right? so the only way I would be tlking about it here was if I had in fact watched the interview?

Or did that little detail escape you?


And the time stamps I'm talking about, from the video at the Rolling stone link, are 19:30 through 21:40

--Oliver asks how many documents that he gave up he actually read.

--Snowden says he "evaluated" all of them.

--Oliver knows that is an evasion and repeats the question. He READ every single one?

--Snowden starts to squirm a little. Says he"understands what he turned over".

--Oliver spots the evasion again. Points out there is a difference between "understanding" it and actually reading all the information before he gave it up.

--Snowden now squirming more. Admitting he understands the concern. No longer trying to claim he actually read it all.

--Now Oliver appears to be getting a little annoyed at the evasions. Snarkily declares the last thing you want to do when handing over thousands of classified documents from the NSA is actually read them.


--Snowden goes on the retreat, pulls out the extremely well used bullshit "In my defense, I'm not handling anything, the journalists are" defense. (Yeah, because he handed them everything. He still owns that. And if you want to know where to find squirming, using the phrase "in my defense" in an interview is a pretty damn good signpost to lead you there)

--And then Oliver keeps on him. Yeah, he handed off highly technical intelligence data to journalists who don't have the capability of evaluating it as well as he can and then just let them loose with it. Gave it to less qualified people. And then washed his hands of the consequences of anything they do with it.

--Snowden declares "yeah, but they know it's important to get it right"

--Oliver hits him with "yeah, but they screwed it up" (leaked ISIS data). Snowden at least acknowledges after a bit of pressing that that was a fuck up (so he's more capable than some posters here of acknowledging damage was done I'll give him that much) but then he again tries to shrug off any personal responsibility for it happening and simply declares that oh well, in journalism mistakes happen. As if he had nothing to do with creating the conditions for that mistake to occur.

-Oliver calls him on that too (see, this is a big part of what makes it a fantastic interview. Oliver isn't taking Snowden's "I bear no responsibility for anything bad that happens" bullshit spin). Says point blank he handed over all this dangerous information and knew he was doing it and he's responsible for the consequences.

And then Snowden squirms some more... while Oliver keeps on him and Snowden just keeps trying to deflect all personal responsibility.

[truebrit71]

114. Nope. Just simple straight-forward answers.

No squirming whatsoever...except about potentially missing Florida or truck nuts....but on the substantive stuff he was solid as a rock...

Try again.

[gcomeau]

116. When Oliver has to call him on evading the question three times...

...we're not dealing with "simple straightforward answers". But thanks for playing.

[truebrit71]

118. He didn't "call him on evading the question"...

In fact, if you listen closely, you will see someone conducting a thorough interview...

[gcomeau]

123. When an interviewer has to rephrase the same point three different ways...

...because the interviewee didn't actually answer what they asked, they are calling their interview subject on evading the question.

That's what that looks like, for future reference.

[Autumn]

5. Posting to watch it later.

Rec

[riderinthestorm]

6. It's interesting how people have interpreted this interview - I never saw him squirm

but obviously others have interpreted it that way.

Goes to the differences in how people "see" Snowden obviously.

[sabrina 1]

8. That is why I watched it myself. I saw the attempt to make Snowden look bad

with Oliver, according to those biased 'reviews', making him 'squirm' and found it hard to believe, considering Oliver's own record on this issue, that he of all people would use the interview to undermine Snowden.

As I suspected, those headlines were more of the smear campaign being perpetrated against journalists, like Greenwald, and Whistle Blowers, like Snowden.

Thanks for your comment riderinthestorm!

[riderinthestorm]

10. It's why I watched it as well. Everyone else who claims he "squirms", haven't watched it

imho



Thanks for putting up a more complete picture instead of distorted bits. I had to go out and work for a while and meant to come back and respond to that other thread when I saw yours and decided to kick this one instead for a more honest appraisal.

[sabrina 1]

13. Well, I'm familiar with Oliver's opinion on mass surveillance so it didn't make sense to me that

he would try to make someone who has exposed it, look bad.

Snowden did not release the documents himself, so I knew that wasn't true.

He has stated many times why he did not.

Also made it clear in Citizen 4 that he did now want that burden. He wasn't really qualified to determine what might be harmful or not.

So he used the media who are far better equipped to do so.

I had a feeling we were being 'propagandized' again.

[truebluegreen]

12. Well, to be fair he DID squirm

when John Oliver asked if he missed Florida....that was about it, though.

[sabrina 1]

14. Considering who Florida's current Governor is, can anyone blame him for that?

[truebluegreen]

19. Certainly not me!

[Calista241]

21. Hawaii > Florida

And considering Snowden lived in Hawaii, it's no wonder he reacted as he did.

[JEB]

15. Oliver, himself, was squirming.

The topic of government over-reach and citizen obliviousness as well as media malpractice should make us all squirm.

[sabrina 1]

20. Yes, it should make everyone squirm. And I think that is what Oliver was trying to do by

using the 'dick selfies the government is watching' scenario, to try to get the attention of the most oblivious by making it personal to them.

Snowden's serious response to Oliver's 'dick' question was funny in itself.

[gcomeau]

53. Oh come on.

Yes that Flodida thing was amusing, but anyone who doesn't characterize Snowden's reaction when pressed on the fact that he hadn't actually read all that information before releasing it "squirming" isn't being honest with themselves.

[truebluegreen]

65. Thanks for playing. nt

[gcomeau]

68. Wow, substantive response. -eom

[sabrina 1]

69. Snowden's reaction was exactly what it has always been when asked that question, which has been

asked so often now that he doesn't even have to think about it.

The answer is, he did NOT release the documents, he gave them to the press because they have the means to do the work necessary to make sure nothing that might compromise anyone's safety, would not be published.

What were you watching? Could you point us to the 'question' you are referring to in the video, the time so we can go directly to it?

So far, no one has been willing to do this. Which leads me to believe they did not watch the interview, but are repeating Right Wing, Morning Joe, eg, interpretations of it.

But if YOU would just give us the time where this 'question' occurs in the interview, then we can figure out what they are talking about.

[gcomeau]

78. Yes.

And Oliver's point was he did that without even bothering to read them first. And just declaring "oh *I* didn't release them, I just stole them from a highly classified database and handed them out to multiple media outlets" doesn't magically absolve him of responsibility for anything damaging that proceeds to get out into the public as a result of his decision to do that. As has already occurred.

And yeah, he was squirming at that. If you're trying to pretend otherwise you're deluding yourself.

[sabrina 1]

82. Just WHY would he 'squirm' at a question he has been ASKED DOZENS OF TIMES and ANSWERED

the same way he answered this time?

That question at this point is the equivalent of asking him his name.

And he knows that RIGHT WINGERS who HATE WHISTLE BLOWERS have stupidly tried to make something out of a WHISTLE BLOWER going to the MEDIA so that they can get help to sort out what might be a problem releasing.

That is what good Whistle Blowers DO. And no there was no squirming. Which is why I am not getting the time on the video I keep asking for.

You must be a Morning Joe viewer also!

They really are scraping the barrel to try to find something, ANYTHING to 'get' every Whistle Blower who has stood up for this country against government wrong doing.

But at least they need to be RIGHT with their attempted smear campaigns.

It was a fantastic interview.

[gcomeau]

107. Perhaps because he's never given a satisfactory answer and know it.

(and I've never watched Morning Joe in my entire life, just an FYI)

As for your fun little rant about the great conspiracy against whistleblowers all throughout the history of forever, have fun with that. Since it has nothing to do with me I'm ignoring it. But yes, it was a fantastic interview and did what fantastic interviews generally do. Put their subject on the spot and make them squirm a bit facing the tough questions.

[sabrina 1]

109. Perhaps you should actually watch the interview and then point out to us what you are claiming

Because a majority of people have failed to see Snowden 'squirm'. Just give us the time on the video and we will rewatch it to see what we missed.

As for Snowden's answer to the question, he has answered that question so many times now, always the same way, a sign that someone is telling the truth, as he did AGAIN, when Oliver repeated the question.

There WAS no squirming. No sign he was uncomfortable.

Maybe it's best not to comment on an interview you have not watched in the future.

And there is no 'conspiracy' regarding the treatment of Whistle Blowers in this country. Only FACTS.

[truebrit71]

110. There was no 'squirming'..

...it's a fiction made up by those that don't like Snowden...

I must admit that I thought that Oliver was a good deal more confrontational than I would have expected of him, but that only validated how good the interview actually was...Shame none of the stenographers in the M$M can say the same...

[gcomeau]

113. Sigh...

From the video at the Rolling stone link, 19:30 through 21:40

--Oliver asks how many documents that he gave up he actually read.

--Snowden says he "evaluated" all of them.

--Oliver knows that is an evasion and repeats the question. He READ every single one?

--Snowden starts to squirm a little. Says he"understands what he turned over".

--Oliver spots the evasion again. Points out there is a difference between "understanding" it and actually reading all the information before he gave it up.

--Snowden now squirming more. Admitting he understands the concern. No longer trying to claim he actually read it all.

--Now Oliver appears to be getting a little annoyed at the evasions. Snarkily declares the last thing you want to do when handing over thousands of classified documents from the NSA is actually read them.


--Snowden goes on the retreat, pulls out the extremely well used bullshit "In my defense, I'm not handling anything, the journalists are" defense. (Yeah, because he handed them everything. He still owns that. And if you want to know where to find squirming, using the phrase "in my defense" in an interview is a pretty damn good signpost to lead you there)

--And then Oliver keeps on him. Yeah, he handed off highly technical intelligence data to journalists who don't have the capability of evaluating it as well as he can and then just let them loose with it. Gave it to less qualified people. And then washed his hands of the consequences of anything they do with it.

--Snowden declares "yeah, but they know it's important to get it right"

--Oliver hits him with "yeah, but they screwed it up" (leaked ISIS data). Snowden at least acknowledges after a bit of pressing that that was a fuck up (so he's more capable than some posters here of acknowledging damage was done I'll give him that much) but then he again tries to shrug off any personal responsibility for it happening and simply declares that oh well, in journalism mistakes happen. As if he had nothing to do with creating the conditions for that mistake to occur.

-Oliver calls him on that too (see, this is a big part of what makes it a fantastic interview. Oliver isn't taking Snowden's "I bear no responsibility for anything bad that happens" bullshit spin). Says point blank he handed over all this dangerous information and knew he was doing it and he's responsible for the consequences.

And then Snowden squirms some more... while Oliver keeps on him and Snowden just keeps trying to deflect all personal responsibility.

[gcomeau]

112. As pointed out above

From the video at the Rolling stone link, 19:30 through 21:40

--Oliver asks how many documents that he gave up he actually read.

--Snowden says he "evaluated" all of them.

--Oliver knows that is an evasion and repeats the question. He READ every single one?

--Snowden starts to squirm a little. Says he"understands what he turned over".

--Oliver spots the evasion again. Points out there is a difference between "understanding" it and actually reading all the information before he gave it up.

--Snowden now squirming more. Admitting he understands the concern. No longer trying to claim he actually read it all.

--Now Oliver appears to be getting a little annoyed at the evasions. Snarkily declares the last thing you want to do when handing over thousands of classified documents from the NSA is actually read them.


--Snowden goes on the retreat, pulls out the extremely well used bullshit "In my defense, I'm not handling anything, the journalists are" defense. (Yeah, because he handed them everything. He still owns that. And if you want to know where to find squirming, using the phrase "in my defense" in an interview is a pretty damn good signpost to lead you there)

--And then Oliver keeps on him. Yeah, he handed off highly technical intelligence data to journalists who don't have the capability of evaluating it as well as he can and then just let them loose with it. Gave it to less qualified people. And then washed his hands of the consequences of anything they do with it.

--Snowden declares "yeah, but they know it's important to get it right"

--Oliver hits him with "yeah, but they screwed it up" (leaked ISIS data). Snowden at least acknowledges after a bit of pressing that that was a fuck up (so he's more capable than some posters here of acknowledging damage was done I'll give him that much) but then he again tries to shrug off any personal responsibility for it happening and simply declares that oh well, in journalism mistakes happen. As if he had nothing to do with creating the conditions for that mistake to occur.

-Oliver calls him on that too (see, this is a big part of what makes it a fantastic interview. Oliver isn't taking Snowden's "I bear no responsibility for anything bad that happens" bullshit spin). Says point blank he handed over all this dangerous information and knew he was doing it and he's responsible for the consequences.

And then Snowden squirms some more... while Oliver keeps on him and Snowden just keeps trying to deflect all personal responsibility.

[truebrit71]

115. You can post your version of the interview as many times as you like...

...or you can just watch it....

There was no squirming.

[gcomeau]

117. I was practically quoting it. Response by response.

That does, you realize, require watching it? Or are you seriously that clueless?

[truebrit71]

119. No. You were editorializing and adding your own assumptions...

Which is not "practically quoting it"....

Clueless? No mate. That would be you.

[sabrina 1]

120. It WAS a fantastic interview, I agree with you there. And I went back to look at the

conversation you finally gave me the time sequence for, thank you for being the first to do that.

I saw no squirming at all on Snowden's part. I saw good questions from Oliver, and honest responses from Snowden.

His statement that he 'evaluated' all the documents, is exactly what Manning stated, Manning went into more detail about what that means regarding someone with the expertise these two Whistle Blowers have.

He did not say he read all of them, nor did Manning.

Eg, I can evaluate a book, let's say Gone with the Wind, even if I have not read it in its entirety.

But if I want to be sure that I do not make any errors should I need to make my evaluations public, I would ask someone with that kind of ability, to do that.

It is a VERY responsible thing for Whistle Blowers to do, to go to the Press who have the staff and capability and experience with that phase of releasing documents.

Snowden responded completely honestly without an sign of being 'uncomfortable' to those questions.

He was THOUGHTFUL when Oliver pointed out the 'fuck up' by the NYT, odd how often THAT publication fucks up, and stated, truthfully again, that you can not be 100% certain of anything.

But not once did he 'squirm' or seem uncomfortable, and Oliver gave him the opportunity to address those questions, again.

Snowden has NEVER denied that what he, and all Whistle Blowers, do is illegal. But when a country's democratic future is at stake, it is the duty of citizens who are witness to the threat, to ignore the law and inform the public.

The SC has essentially agreed with that in the case of the NYT's publishing Ellsberg's leaks.

I still do not see what you see.

I saw a great, funny, yet serious interview with two people who share the same concerns regarding Government Surveillance of its people.

Not one sign of a squirm there.

However, I appreciate you providing the segment so that we know where the claims were coming from.

They are baseless, as I thought.

Btw, anyone who has not watched that interview SHOULD watch it. It was BRILLIANT.

And remember the whole point is, THE PATRIOT ACT is coming up again and should be allowed to expire.

[gcomeau]

122. Just to focus on the key point here

...ignoring our subjective evaluations of what constitutes "squirming"....

Eg, I can evaluate a book, let's say Gone with the Wind, even if I have not read it in its entirety.

Yes, you could. Because Gone with the Wind is a single narrative arc. It's a story. If you miss parts of it you still get the gist.

These documents are not a story. They are thousands of discreet collections of information any single sentence of which could potentially contain information that would kill people if it got out into the public.

if you're going to just hand it out, you damn well read it *all* first. Because you are responsible for the consequences of whatever the people you gave it to decide to do with it. Skimming it to get the gist of it so you can say you "understand and have evaluated" what you handed over doesn't cut it.

Snowden didn't. That's a huge problem. He didn't evaluate "this is whistleblower material, I'll give the press this... oops this is sensitive information on an ongoing intelligence operation directed at Al Qaeda that's NOT whistleblower info I won't hand that out"...

He just dumped everything into the hands of the press. Not good. As has already been demonstrated.

[sabrina 1]

124. You need to read Manning's excellent explanation of what analysts and experts, such as Snowden, in

that field, can do regarding evaluating millions of documents they handle on a daily basis, plus what comes across their computer screens.

That was in the chat logs, before anyone knew who she was.

Iow, they know the gist of what is going on. In this case, the massive spying on the American people.

That isn't hard to do if your job is to handle material that has a THEME, and in this case the theme of all the material Snowden and Manning were witnessing, was disturbing enough that they felt they needed to do something about it.

Ellsberg 'dumped' far more documents on the Press. And as I stated already, when the Government tried to prevent their publication, the SC ruled that the People's Right to Know superceded the Government's right to HIDE what they were doing. Thankfully that illegal act by Ellsberg, helped end that horrific war.

I haven't read all those documents either, but I get the gist of what is in them. And am thankful to all the Whistle Blowers who risked so much to get that information to us.

Let me ask you something. Was Drake wrong when he too 'got the gist' of what the Bush Admin/NSA/Telecoms were doing? I doubt he read every document either, but he definitely was RIGHT.

How about Tice? He too most likely never read everything before he revealed the unconstitutional practices of spying on the American people.

What about Binney? Did he read every document before becoming a Whistle Blower? No, most likely not, but all got the gist of what was going on due to their witnessing of the crime in action.

All those Whistle Blowers support Snowden and the way he has gone about reaching the public who DO HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW what has been revealed.

Btw, why do you think Oliver went to Russia to interview Snowden?

[gcomeau]

125. Although I'm sure that would be interesting...

...no, I really don't need to. You're completely missing the point.

It does not *matter* if Snowden could get the "gist" of what was in the documents. Getting the "gist" of what was in the documents tells him exactly squat about whether, for example, the 13th sentence of the second paragraph on the 12th slide of document number 1,246 that he handed over contains information which would result in people's deaths if it got leaked to the public. Does it?

These documents are not Gone with the Wind. They're classified intelligence material.

Every single iota of information in those documents he handed over is his responsibility if it gets out and does harm. Every word. Every sentence.



And he didn't even bother to read it all before he let it loose.

[sabrina 1]

129. Well it looks like he, and all the others before him, DID get the gist of those documents right. So

right, that eg, Congress after the initial exposure during the Bush era, rushed to protect the criminals who violated the Constitutional rights of Americans under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution AND possibly the Fifth.

Snowden got it so right, that after the publication of the facts contained in the documents, this government had to admit that 'reforms' were necessary.

Again, why do you think Oliver went to interview Snowden?

I used a novel as an example. But if that isn't good enough for you, I and anyone who works in the legal profession eg, can easily get the gist of a case, without reading thousands of documents associated with that case.

But when going to court, it becomes necessary to get experts, lawyers eg, to sort out the documents and find what is directly relevant to the case. And that is what Snowden and Ellsberg and Manning among others did.

[gcomeau]

132. Wow, you are really just ignoring me completely.

I *do not care* if he got the "gist" right or wrong. Not in the context of this conversation. It is completely and totally irrelevant

The "gist" does not tell anyone anything about what harmful tidbits of information are scattered throughout the documents in question. The "gist" is totally useless for evaluating that. You cannot make that evaluation from the "gist".

You. Have. To. Read. Every. Word.

He didn't.

[sabrina 1]

133. No, you are ignoring me, Snowden and Manning and every other Whistle Blower who ever released

documents to the press. You think you 'got' something on him, when I have been telling you FACTS about ALL Whistle Blowers.

They work every day with material they KNOW the 'gist' of.

And when they realize that there is something VERY WRONG going on, they act on behalf of their country.

But not one of them, including SNOWDEN EVER CLAIMED to have read every document.

You really didn't get that interview at all.

When did Snowden EVER CLAIM to have read every single document?

When did Manning EVER CLAIM to have read every single document?

When did ELLSBERG EVER CLAIM to have read every single document?

They didn't, they don't NEED TO READ every single document and if you don't 'get' that, I can't help you.

But Oliver gets it. And he knows there are people who don't, so he gave Snowden another opportunity to answer that question AGAIN.

[gcomeau]

134. Sigh....

They work every day with material they KNOW the 'gist' of.

Still ignoring me.

I don't give a shit if they know the gist. The gist is not what we are talking about. The details are. You know, the kind of details that get people killed.

Do you or do you not understand that?

You really didn't get that interview at all.

When did Snowden EVER CLAIM to have read every single document?

FFS, THAT'S THE GODDAMN PROBLEM. THAT HE HASN'T READ THEM.

What the hell do you think you're accomplishing asking me where he claimed to have done it? The problem is he DIDN'T.

They didn't, they don't NEED TO READ every single document and if you don't 'get' that, I can't help you.

But Oliver gets it. "

Oh Oliver does indeed get it. You unfortunately didn't. There is a reason Oliver asked him TWICE if he had read every document (because that's really incredibly fucking important)

And then when it became clear Snowden hadn't but just claimed to understand them went back AGAIN and stated there is a difference between understanding what's in the documents and reading what's in them. (because that's really fucking important)

And then gave his single most snarky comment of the entire interview. And I quote. "Right, cause when you're handing over thousands of NSA documents the last thing you want to do is read them."

And THEN points out that Snowden instead handed over responsibility for actually reading them to people less technically qualified than him to evaluate and handle them and mistakes by those less qualified people let dangerous sensitive information that jeopardized lives out into the public.

That's. A. Problem.

Oliver very clearly knows that's a problem, and is pointing it out. Olivier made his position that he thinks Snowden damn well DID need to read every single document abundantly clear. How you don't pick up on that when he makes the point half a dozen different ways is beyond me. All I can come up with is that you're willfully blocking it out because you don't want to deal with it.

[sabrina 1]

135. You're obviously never going to get it, no matter how often it is explained to you.

And you don't appear to be very familiar with Oliver.

Once again, NO WHISTLE BLOWER HAS EVER READ EVERY DOCUMENT THEY RELEASED TO THE PRESS.

THAT IS WHY THEY GO TO THE PRESS.

What they have knowledge of is that their government is doing something illegal.

And if you had ever read Manning's explanation of how they know this, you would not be attempting to argue that reading every document is NECESSARY to know that their government is acting illegally.

The fact that each and every Whistle Blower who decided the people needed to know what their government is up to, turned out to RIGHT, not once have any of their detractors even addressed the actual issues, they ALWAYS attack the messenger, because they know that these Whistle Blower's assessments of what they have witnessed is CORRECT and only needed editing, done by the Press, to make sure nothing that should not get out, gets out.

Tell me, as Snowden wrong in his assessment of those documents?

[gcomeau]

136. Pure unadulterated bullshit.

Last edited Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

"Once again, NO WHISTLE BLOWER HAS EVER READ EVERY DOCUMENT THEY RELEASED TO THE PRESS. "

That is bullshit. Not every whistleblower does an epic massive document dump of thousands of documents. Some whistleblowers just release specific information they think the public specifically needed to know. Sometimes it's a single memo that they pretty fucking obviously read first. Sometimes it's nothing written at all.


Additionally, not all whistleblowers are releasing sensitive national security information that people's lives hang in the balance over. There are different standards of rigor called for for some things.

"THAT IS WHY THEY GO TO THE PRESS"

And that is the above bullshit's side of bullshit. They go to the press to PUBLICIZE THE INFORMATION to a larger audience than they are capable of reaching on their own. They do not go to the press to ask them to be their interns and "please read this stuff for me because I can't be bothered."

Or if they do then that is, to repeat, a BIG PROBLEM. Especially with the kind of information Snowden was dealing with.

And if you had ever read Manning's explanation of how they know this, you would not be attempting to argue that reading every document is NECESSARY to know that their government is acting illegally.

STILL ignoring me. Would you try paying attention for once? We are not talking about the fucking gist. We are not talking about the big picture "was a bad thing happening". Do you understand that or not?

We are talking about whether buried inside that bigger picture in all those documents is there a sentence on one page of one document which, if it became publicized, would kill somebody? Or lots of somebodies? Because THAT FUCKING SENTENCE shouldn't get document dumped to the fucking press with everything else.

And the only way to avoid that is to FUCKING READ EVERY WORD BEFORE DUMPING IT.



Geez.

Tell me, as Snowden wrong in his assessment of those documents?

Accurate in parts, inaccurate in parts. To repeat, NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.


Now you answer me a question since I answered yours, should the details of how the US was penetrating Al Qaeda information networks have been publicized? Yes or no? Is that something Snowden should have "blown the whistle" on? It wasn't illegal, it wasn't unethical, it was exactly what the NSA was meant to be doing... so tell me. Should that specific piece of classified information have been broadcast to the public?

[randome]

85. The part about journalists 'not acting in good faith' was surreal in its irony.

Snowden took the job at the NSA, he says, for the express purpose of stealing documents. (Actually, I don't even believe that, I think he was under the delusion that it sounded cool.) And he talked his coworkers into giving him their passwords.

Talk about not acting in good faith!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

94. Just post the time in the video where Morning Joe saw this 'squirm'. That's all we are asking for

since we've all watched it now and for some reason appear to have missed it.

[randome]

97. I never said he was squirming.

I'm not trying to "split the baby down the middle" but I think "squirm" was over-the-top. However, Snowden did, I think, seem uncomfortable. When Oliver suggested he should own up to his mistake, he blamed the very journalists he previously said were responsible.

When confronted with whether or not America should be up in arms about the NSA, he started talking about what the NSA could be doing, not any of the illegal stuff he initially claimed they did.

As I've said before, we've had this conversation already and Snowden simply doesn't like the outcome.

It's become something like this guy, really, really, really trying to convince us of something that the rest of us don't give much credence to.


[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[snooper2]

22. Do you still think the gubiment is RECORDING AND SAVING ALL YOUR PHONE CALLS!

because Snowy even finally admitted in this interview...uh, that isn't the case-

[sabrina 1]

23. Yes, I haven't seen anything to say this 'program' was ended. If you have a link to something

that says that, I will be happy to read it.

As far as I know, they are still 'collecting and storing Meta Data' as they call it. As Snowden has warned, they may not always be reading or watching what they are collecting, but if you DARE to go out and become active against, say, the Wall St Bank corruption, all they have to do is go to your 'data' to find something they might be able to smear you with.

Same thing with members of Congress, since we know now they WERE spying on them also.

[snooper2]

24. Re-watch the video, I thought you had-

Here is the OP where it is linked-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026465072

Pay attention at 29:25 minutes in

[sabrina 1]

25. I have followed this issue and the only references to ending this program go back to

last year, when Obama stated that reforms were necessary, that they should 'need a warrant' to access that data.

Nothing at all about ending it.

Your link does not provide any info on the ending of the program.

Nor has my search.

If you have something other than the President stating that the program needs reform, in the form of a warrant, then please post it. I couldn't find anything.

[bvar22]

45. "Only the meta-data"?

"What do they do with this information that does not apply to Al Qaeda?
Are we going to trust the President and Vice-President with that information?
"Don't count me in on that?"

Don't count me in on that either , Joe.

[sabrina 1]

71. I remember the OUTRAGE from Dems back then. Thanks for the clip, it's necessary to go

back every once in a while to keep the record straight.

And I join Biden also, don't count me in on trusting anyone with that kind of 'data' either.

[MannyGoldstein]

80. But that was different.

Because... it was, OK?

[randome]

84. No, because there were no controls on that collection. Now there are.

Snowden doesn't like to think about that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

87. What's the delta?

thanks in advance.

[randome]

89. Well, Bob Woodward said it seemed to him the safeguards were robust.

There are, what, 3 or 4 levels of approval to go through in order to look through the data now. That's a big difference. Maybe it's not perfect and it could be improved but that doesn't justify stealing thousands of documents and fleeing the country.

As for not collecting the data? It's a fair point. It should be debated. Snowden simply doesn't like the direction the debate has gone, which, as John Oliver pointed out, has become a collective 'Meh' from the country.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

91. I'm not sure that Bob Woodward is a good benchmark here

in any case, what's the substantial change in safeguards between the Bush and Obama administrations (prior to Snowden's actions)?

[randome]

99. It was all done without warrants under Bush. Now it's not.

You may not like the idea that a judge on a court can decide that surveillance is justified but that's pretty much how the system has worked for a long time.

I can understand the objection to the FISA court being secretive in nature but what's the alternative? Having a public discussion about each and every national security matter? That won't work, either.

I think the best thing to come out of Snowden's actions is the idea of having a privacy advocate part of the process. I don't know if that's been done yet but it should.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

101. What are the controls on the data? Has it been destroyed? Is it still 'stored'?

The only information I have found on 'reforms' is that they will have to get a warrant to tap into their collection of data. So the data is still there and it is still being collected. And we ALWAYS needed a warrant to get into people's 'papers and assets' according to the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

And since it has now been acknowledged with this 'reform', that they were doing it without a warrant, it is clear that the 4th Amendment rights of the American WERE and ARE being violated.

So, has anyone been arrested, charged, with these crimes against the constitution and WHY are they still allowed to collect 'papers and assets' of the people WITHOUT A WARRANT?

[randome]

103. I think the disconnect comes from thinking in terms of 'paper'.

In the Digital Age, it is impossible -not difficult but impossible- to only collect one person's data. If you have a warrant for the contents of a suspect's email, you will see emails from non-suspects as well. How would you avoid that? You can't. It's impossible without first sifting through and reading each email, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of not reading non-suspect mail.

As for "collecting but not accessing" data, that's a fair point. But the alternative would be to have Google, Microsoft, hundreds of telecoms on standby in their overseas data centers ready to send the NSA exactly what they need in a moment's notice. That wouldn't be impossible but it would be the next thing to impossible.

The most efficient manner of accessing digital data seems to be to place as much of it as you can into a black box and access it only with an appropriate warrant. That's what they're doing (so far as we know). There needs to be a balance and while I personally haven't examined other ways of doing the same thing, I'm okay with how it's being done now.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

104. You are repeating the excuses made by the NSA for their egregious violations of Constitutional

Rights. They have NO RIGHT to 'collect and/or store' ANY innocent person's communications, digital or otherwise.

What part of the Constitution allows the government to put their communications into any kind of 'storage'?

The telecoms were about to be sued, held accountable for their part in helping the government to spy on the American people when their illegal participation was first revealed under Bush.

The FISA law made it clear that if they were to violate the Constitutional rights of consumers, each customer was entitled to at least a $1,000 settlement, OR they had the right to sue for more.

People were ready to collect that money when Congress intervened.

Congress bailed them out, by making LEGAL what was clearly ILLEGAL with an amendment to the FISA BILL, a RETROACTIVE amendment.

A crime is a crime.

Nothing has been settled, the American people ARE being spied on by their Government. The only good thing is now we know it thanks to all the Whistle Blowers and journalists who continue to shine a light on these horrendous practices.

One day maybe, our rule of law and democracy will be restored. But for now, we are not living in a country where there are any controls on what the government can do.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

106. I tuned in for that reason as well --

to see for myself what had been described in "that" thread.

I am very glad I did.

Fantastic explanation of what was going on and why we should shoot down the Patriot Act renewal.

A big bravo to Oliver and Snowden.

And a big "boo" to those who tried to portray this as a slap-down of Snowden.

[truebrit71]

16. Excellent interview...

...well worth watching...and the 'average' American proves once again that they are (mostly) clueless about really important issues...

[hootinholler]

17. But Boxes! Stripper pole! Garage!

I haven't had a chance to watch yet, but I figured those threads were bullshit.

[sabrina 1]

18. You figured right. They were counting on people not watching the interview.

Oliver gave Snowden a platform to express himself to more people on why this issue is so serious.

It was funny, and serious at the same time.

Snowden did say people 'should not stop sending 'dick selfies' in response to Oliver's question, just because the Government is breaking the law.

But to be honest, not that I ever though of sending 'selfies' of body parts around the internet, I would probably refrain until the rule of law is restored, IF I were in the habit of doing so! Lol!

[Autumn]

35. You have got to watch it, that interview fucking rocked!

There was no squirming. Uncomfortable questions asked and answered, but no squirming on Snowdens or Olivers behalf. It was an excellent interview with a seriousness behind the humor. Oliver gave him a pic of his ( Olivers ) dick in a folder, that was as squirmy as it got. Best fucking interview ever. Those saying that Oliver made Snowden look bad in this interview? They have a fucking agenda and this episode and what they are claiming about this interview make their agenda clear as a bell.


Someone in another thread said heads of Snowdens fans would explode. Yeah mine fucking did. John Oliver and Edward Snowden did, in this interview what no interview about the NSA has ever done. It cleared everything about the NSA up in simple humorous, clear terms.

[sabrina 1]

40. I'm still waiting to be told where I will find the now infamous 'squirm'. All I want is for them to

give us the time on the video where we apparently missed it! Lol.

So far, nothing.

It was a great interview.

My favorite part was when Oliver asked Snowden if people should stop sending their 'dick selfies' knowing that the government is watching, and Snowden answered so seriously! 'No, they should not'!

It was like he was the straight man to Oliver.

It did ROCK thanks for watching!

[Autumn]

41. I absolutely loved this interview. It was pure gold

[sabrina 1]

43. I probably would have missed it if I hadn't seen two 'squirm' posts here today and found it hard

to believe that Oliver of all people would have gone all the way to Russia, considering his own well known views on mass surveillance, to play 'gotcha' with Snowden.

I know whenever you see the same word used over and over again, it is part of a 'memo' handed out to try to smear someone.

Still, I wanted to see for myself, and I have to thank those who posted the 'squirm' memo.

Because you are right, it is one of the best interviews with Snowden and will probably get a whole lot more attention for this issue.

[Autumn]

44. I saw those but I prefer not to read the threads they start on important stuff

so I just figured I would wait and someone would post the actual truth.

[sabrina 1]

46. They were pretty quick on the ball to try to paint the interview in a negative light for Snowden so

I was suspicious immediately of the motives. And before anyone had a chance to view the interview for themselves.

We have to be forever vigilant it seems. The smear campaigners never rest.

I'm still waiting to be told exactly where I will see this 'squirm'.

[Autumn]

47. There was no squirm, and he never looked uncomfortable and the questions and his

answers were concise and clear.

[nolabels]

95. It's hard to contemplate it all into one big picture but when i do........

I see it's the same establishment with such heavy investment in the character trashing of Snowden (among other weird things) that is also same stupid one that dragged the US into conflicts with Iraq and Afghanistan.

If i were to make an assumption on the weakest point of such establishment (that many, if not most, have issues with) i would point to their veracity and focus as being their weakest link with reality.

Pretty sure also that the same establishment, as it currently assembled, works lockstep with the wishes of that 1% very closely. I has also assembled and obliged most of the population as to do the same. So mostly it's easier for me, just as a rule, to consider whatever comes out of the bullhorn they tout around another case for them needing to give the general population some more misdirection, like kind of a smoke screen to hide what they are really doing.

[randome]

26. CNet says Snowden squirmed, too.

http://www.cnet.com/news/hbos-john-oliver-hits-snowden-hard-on-nsa-leaks/

I'm looking forward to watching the interview this evening.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[zappaman]

27. Watched it last night.

Snowden was very uncomfortable and looked ill prepared to be asked real questions.

[Autumn]

42. Uncomfortable?

Only with Olivers picture of his dick he gave him to keep. And even that wasn't uncomfortable just a bit WTF funny when Snowden looked in the folder.

[rhett o rick]

93. You know I think one of his shoes was untied also. Hmmmm.

When faces with the possibility that the very powerful, totally secret NSA/CIA Dark State is spying on everyone and possibly using the information to control our government, some prefer to comment on what kind of aftershave he is wearing.

Snowden opened the box as others have before him. He is done. Now it's time to look in the box and stop attacking him for opening the box. Those that try to use distraction to not only avoid looking into the box, but to try to stop others, are living in authoritative denial.

It was Ben Franklin that said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I think Mr. Franklin would side with Snowden and not General Clapper on this.

[sabrina 1]

28. Lol, it's a long interview. Very serious, very funny in parts. But someone had to scramble and

search very hard to find anything negative against Snowden there.

Rolling Stone, Huffpo, among others, including some of the MSM made no mention of this 'squirming' so I guess I'll go with I SAW not with what a few clearly biased publications told us we would see IF we were willing, which they probably hoped we weren't, to watch the entire video.

It's in the Rolling Stone link if you don't have a link already.

[zappaman]

29. Plenty of media have described his squirming.

Including MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/hbo-host-to-snowden--you-have-to-own-this-423539267705

Guess you didn't search very much...

[sabrina 1]

30. Guess you didn't watch it yourself, but prefer the biased 'memo' which was apparently handed out

to the media 'stenographers'. Snowden reacted exactly as he always does when asked that question. No squirming, an acknowledgement that one publication allowed something to slip through that 'was a problem'. But since that had nothing to do with him, no reason for him to 'squirm'.

I said 'some' in the MSM. MSNBC is getting worse by the day, which is why it has lost so much of its audience.

There was no squirming,

Funniest part of the interview was when Snowden answered Oliver's 'dick' question as to whether or not people should sending selfies of their dicks around the internet, answered him with a straight face. They made a great duo, it was a great interview, good for both of them.

[zappaman]

31. Watched it last night.

Let me know if you need more help with the google.

[sabrina 1]

33. Point out then the part of the interview where you saw this 'squirm' most of us

didn't see. The interview is linked in the OP, embedded in the Rolling Stone link.

Give us the time on the video where you witnessed the 'great Snowden squirm' missed by most of the viewing public! Lol!

[R B Garr]

126. Now it's morphed into "most of the viewing public!"...?

Where do you get that data? I see these kinds of morphs often in threads like this.

[sabrina 1]

127. I get it from googling to see who saw this 'squirm' and found that the Daily Beast and Morning Joe,

among other anti-Whistle Blowers, started the meme that Oliver was there to play 'gotcha' with Snowden.

Then I searched to see how the viewing public who actually WATCHED the interview felt. And found, virtually nothing.

So, why do you think Oliver went to Russia to talk to Snowden?

[R B Garr]

128. So you speak on behalf of the viewing public based on your Googling.

Not very convincing, but thank you for answering so honestly.

Anyway, it looks like Oliver went to Russia because he wanted to get a comedy piece with Snowden.

I guess I'll add for the record: Snowden definitely looked cagey and uncomfortable in the beginning, but he relaxed when he realized he was talking to a comedian. Some lazy journalists (or analysts/viewers) could have made assumptions on the entire segment based on those initial few squirmy minutes, which I think would not be entirely accurate since he did relax after awhile.

[sabrina 1]

130. Thanks for the response. Actually he went to highlight the upcoming expiration date of the Patriot

Act. He didn't go to play 'gotcha' with Snowden, he went to bring attention to the whole anti-Constitutional Mass Surveillance of innocent people started by the Bush/Cheney gang.

Iow, he believed he could use comedy AND one of the most well known Whistle Blowers of the misuse of power granted them by the Patriot Act, and to let the public know, since the media sure hasn't, that the Patriot Act made all this surveillance possible, section 217 airc. and is coming up to its expiration date, unless Congress quietly extends it again.

So those who were looking for something to make Snowden look bad, are like the right wingers who thought Bruce Springstein was a Republican and Colbert was on THEIR side.

They didn't get the brilliance of Oliver's plan to bring attention to the fact that the Patriot Act can now be rescinded. As it should, in his view.

I have a feeling Snowden knew this which is why he agreed to the interview. They are on the same page wrt to Mass Surveillance of the population.

Anyhow, thanks for your response, I agree with most of it.

[R B Garr]

131. Yes, I got that part about the Patriot Act from Oliver's setup

in the segment. I thought you were insinuating that this interview was supposed to be a "gotcha" interview for Snowden when it was clearly a comedy piece.

As to the thread question about "squirming," I can see how Snowden was shifty in the beginning and how people could have formed impressions from that. It was a very good segment, all in all.

[Ichingcarpenter]

34. Morning Joke? Really? Morning JOe dead intern show

Yes........... when I want someone's opinion I go to morning joe



I watched the whole show ............ it was a good interview and fun

you can watch it online without having someone tell you how to think.

[sabrina 1]

36. Lol, I know, I laughed too! n/t

[Autumn]

38. Yeah but watching that unfiltered might make someone squirm.

Much easier to believe what dead intern guy says about him squirming .

[cui bono]

77. You're using Morning Joe to represent MSNBC? Come on...

He's pure right wing. And the rest of MSNBC is not really that liberal either really.

I'd like to hear what Noam Chomsky or Michael Parenti or Greg Palast has to say about it.

[sabrina 1]

86. But at least we know now where the imaginary 'squirm' is coming from! Lol!

[ronnie624]

83. Oh my. You're citing a wingnut to support your 'view'.

How very awkward for you.

[nationalize the fed]

32. huge k&r thx for posting.

[whatchamacallit]

37. Only the most deranged hater (or troll) could watch that interview and conclude Snowden was "squirming"

But we have a lot of both on DU, so...

I'm not a fan of Oliver's ham-fisted satire. Despite his glee in profiling Americans as morons, and his attempts to trivialize the profound issue of government abuse, his silly interview left Snowden in a favorable light.

[Autumn]

39. Kicking, because this is the best fucking interview ever

Anyone who says this made Snowden look bad or Oliver was after him didn't watch it. This was an epic interview.

[Oilwellian]

48. Thanks for keeping it real, Sabrina!

K&R

[sabrina 1]

55. I went looking for the now infamous 'squirm' but didn't find it! Lol!

thanks for your comment Oilwellian!

[Oilwellian]

57. I saw the other thread's title, and laughed

I knew better of John Oliver to try and play gotcha with Snowden.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. It was a great interview and they both did well - great questions, good answers and great sense of

humor

My jaw drops in almost disbelief at just how much the anti-civil liberties/pro-surveillance state crowd completely misunderstood the interview and how it projected.

[sabrina 1]

58. Yeah, me too regarding the 'misunderstanding' of the interview. Or maybe more 'looking for something

to misinterpret'.

After all, Morning Joke apparently saw a 'squirm' and we all know how credible a source on Civil Liberties he is ...

[RufusTFirefly]

50. The squirming stories are designed to sow confusion

Much like global warming denial or, in the past, propaganda that questions the dangers of cigarettes, the goal is not total refutation, but simply doubt.

As a result, we have to invest our energy in reasserting the reality of the interview instead of spending valuable time deciding what to do to roll back these egregious violations of our civil liberties.

[sabrina 1]

56. When I saw the 'squirm' stories, same word repeated several times, I had a feeling it was a talking

point, handed out in a memo for the biased media. No doubt thinking people would not take the trouble to watch the entire interview.

But you never know, so I went to see for myself, and saw no such thing.

We know, since the Anonymous leaks of HB Gary/Stratfor emails, that Corporations, Big Banks et al, PAY for smear campaigns, send out bids apparently, to try to discredit the messengers.

I suspected that for a long time, since many of these smears always have the same old talking points, but Anonymous leaks of the Glenn Greenwald 'smear' campaign in progress, confirmed it.

Now I make sure to check anything that sounds a little 'off' and yes, we do have to keep pushing back against these nefarious characters in power positions who clearly have so much to hide.

Thank you for your comment, Rufus

[RufusTFirefly]

59. The effective dissemination of a particular distorted storyline is truly creepy

As for people who reinforce the meme, I truly wonder what makes them tick.

Are they lazy? ill-informed? authoritarian? or something else?

The mechanics of propaganda both intrigues and troubles me. I suspect that it's a combination of a few provocateurs, who start the ball rolling and then let the true believers take over. If I'm an agent provocateur who infiltrates a non-violent protest and throws the first punch, I can usually depend on others to follow up with the next ones while I dissolve unnoticed back into the crowd. Similarly, if I deliberately release a false or distorted story, the sad fact is that I can probably count on "regular people" to amplify and disseminate it without any further assistance from me.

Thanks for the post, sabrina!

[sabrina 1]

60. I think you've perfectly described how propaganda works.

It isn't necessary to have a paid army of posters to spread distortions around. Just get the ball rolling, as you stated, and without bothering to check out the veracity of the talking points, others will join in.

As for what makes people tick who join in with the anti-Civil Liberties propaganda, I wonder about that also.

Eg, I am almost 100% certain that my memory is correct when I recall the first exposures that Bush/Cheney were spying on the American people. My recollection is that every single Democrat was OUTRAGED.

I don't recall ANY attempts to excuse it, nearly everyone agreed that this was a huge threat to our Rights under the US Constitution.

So my question is 'what happened' that has now made it possible for people to oppose Whistle Blowers, Journalists and others who are not doing anything they weren't doing under Bush?

I imagine, eg, that if Manning's exposures had happened in 2007 Wikileaks would have been hailed as heroes.

On the good side, it appears that most on the Left still oppose what they opposed under Bush.

But it is curious to see any kind of excuse for any of this, on Left leaning forums.

[djean111]

52. I did not see squirming, either. Thanks!

[Cleita]

62. I thought he was trying hard not to laugh out loud.

I guess some people take that for squirming.

[djean111]

64. That is exactly what I was thinking. It looked like the two men were having a good time

with the interview.

[sabrina 1]

73. I got that impression also. It was funny, don't know how Snowden kept a straight face

when eg, Oliver asked him if people should continue to send those 'selfies' now that they know the government is watching them. He answered that question so seriously, it made ME laugh.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Snowden squirming? Not as much as the NSA is squirming over what he revealed. K&R

[boston bean]

61. I watched it.

I didn't see the squirming..

[sabrina 1]

63. Me neither, but apparently Morning Joe saw it!

[struggle4progress]

66. That was amusing, though Oliver looks somewhat disingenuous when, after complaining that the media

is likely to break into a serious interview to cover a turtle humping a sandal, he turns the interview into a discussion of sexting

And it really didn't shed much light on Snowden. The real question here is still, Who is he? And the answer still isn't clear. Naive libertarian ideologue? Heroic defender of Americans' liberty? Chinese agent? US double agent? Russian triple agent? Bored geek or attention whore?

Snowden's much better organized and more polished than he originally was. He quickly improved under Greenwald's coaching in the early days, of course. Since it's likely people continue to coach him, it's hard to know how genuine the Oh-golly-gosh! grin is. By continuing to participate in this Dick-Pic interview, he really doesn't look very serious: no serious self-respecting activist, that I've ever met, would have sat still for that interview, which suggests attention whore. But maybe he's so naive an ideologue that he thinks As long as they're talking about you, it doesn't matter what they say. Or maybe he's just a good actor with a competent US or Russian handler.

The Patriot Act was and still is a terrible piece of legislation, and author Sensenbrenner is lying when he claims not to know how it would be used. We need to go after it intelligently, and Snowden's not helping: he never really addressed the question about contact v.content information, for example. Bulk contact information collection, of course, offers real opportunities for social control, if safeguards break down, and there's no good reason to think the safeguards are robust enough to withstand institutional pressures, such as an Executive branch determined to obtain and misuse the information. Concern that sexting information should be safeguarded, however, is a guaranteed loser in this political fight

[sabrina 1]

67. The question of who Snowden is has been answered. He is a Whistle Blower.

He has exposed massive spying on the American people by their own government.

He isn't the first to do that.

Airc, there were not such 'doubts' about the messenger when another Whistle Blower revealed this Criminal behavior by the Bush gang.

In fact, that Whistle Blower, on every Dem Forum, WAS A HERO.

The question I'd like to see answered is 'who are these Democrats' who, at one time, were outraged by what Whistle Blowers, Binney, Drake, Tice et al revealed similar wrong doing by our Government, and are now 'questioning the messenger'.

Who ARE these 'democrats'? The issue isn't Snowden though he is the instrument that brought the wrong doing still ongoing to the attention of the people, it is that our rights are being violated by the government.

As for your silly 'assumptions', that is all they are. Started btw, by Rep Rogers, Chair of the Intel Committee, but when questioned by the Press for some proof of his allegations, he disappeared.

This is the ONLY question that matters.

Do the documents prove that our Government is conducting a massive spying program against their OWN PEOPLE.

And the answer is YES!

Everything is meaningless.

The interview was great. It will bring more attention to this ongoing crime against the people, and that is all that matters.

We can't fix what we don't know about.

Thanks to courageous people like Snowden, Greenwald, Binney, Drake, Tice, Poitras, Ellsberg, our democracy has a chance of surviving.

[MrMickeysMom]

72. The brilliance of this interview will do more for people removing their heads from the soil...

As the video reveals, men and women on the street are so ill-informed, but if it was a matter of someone sharing a "dick pic", they're ready to take arms!

Pretty good display of where Mr. and Mrs. America are on loosing their civil liberties. Also… and I mean this seriously, this was the most excellent use of comedic spin to point out the obvious in what happened.

Once again, for anyone who hasn't seen "Citizen Four", please try to.

[sabrina 1]

74. I finally got to see Citizen 4 last weekend. It was excellent. Watched it with a friend who

was only vaguely aware of all this and she was engrossed. It definitely made her aware of the seriousness of what is going on.

As for this interview, I wrote the OP after reading a few 'interpretations' from the anti-whistle blower contingency, Morning Joe among them apparently. It appears they saw this as a 'hard hitting interview that didn't play softball with Snowden and caused him to SQUIRM when asked if he had read the documents'.

I found that to be odd, since Oliver has been quite clear how he views mass surveillance, so I went to look for the interview.

I could not find the 'squirm' anywhere in the interview and have been unable to get anyone who claimed they saw the 'squirm' to point out where exactly it occurred in the video.

I agree with your interpretation. His use of comedy to suggest that to get the attention of the apathetic it might be helpful to let them know the government is looking at their 'selfies' depicting their body parts, was actually good advice.

I am still waiting for someone to show me where Snowden squirmed, but at this point, with no responses from those who claim to have seen it, I have concluded they were merely repeating what they heard the anti-Whistle Blower pundits say.

[MrMickeysMom]

81. Those looking for "squirm" are the only ones to see it. I've had the chance to see more of him...

I've observed Snowden's address to a diverse audience of writers/hackers en mass, general public events, the spontaneous unfolding of his decisions explained in that award winning documentary, Citizen Four…

I also observe people, I have for over 40 years in a career whereby my observation of "body language" demonstrates various levels of comfort or discomfort relative to ones' self. I will tell you that there is an observable physiognomy in Snowden's reaction to all manner of conversation surrounding his actions a few years ago. "Squirm" does not define it.

I seriously doubt anyone could show you what you or I cannot find. But, they wouldn't be happy with a polygraph either, Sabrina!

[ronnie624]

75. Lol.

Very funny.

There was no squirming whatsoever. I suspected there were some exaggerations in that other thread.

[sabrina 1]

88. Well, at least we have now located who saw the imaginary squirm in this thread. Morning Joe

appears to be the source. And surely no one would question HIS eyesight or motives when it comes to Whistle Blowers!

[ronnie624]

92. Morning Joe was unable to even edit a 'squirm' into their clip.

There was no squirming.

A strong emotional investment, can make one 'see' just about anything, I suppose.

[merrily]

79. Anyone who saw both John Oliver shows and revels over Snowden's alleged

flinching but is silent about Oliver on drone killings simply cannot be taken seriously, IMO.

[Marr]

90. I was really surprised to see the anti-Snowden types giddily citing this

interview, thinking Oliver put some kind of smack down on Snowden here and backed up all of their own positions. It's like we watched two different interviews.

Really reminds me of how so many Republican politicians didn't 'get' Colbert when he first started out, and thought he was on their side.

[sabrina 1]

96. That's a good analogy, how Right Wingers thought Colbert was on their side, and they also thought

Bruce Springstein was on their side airc. Lol.

I'm still waiting for someone to give me the time of this 'squirm' on the video because I apparently completely missed it. So far, I'm still waiting.

What I think happened was a memo went out to the usual MSM suspects, Morning Joe for one.

Fans of Joe et al didn't watch the video, but rushed to the internet to post what they heard on TV.

When I saw the posts claiming 'Oliver made Snowden squirm' it didn't make sense to me.

So I did the unthinkable, I watched the interview myself, having learned to NEVER allow Right Wingers interpret anything for me.

And as I expected, I saw no squirm. They really are getting increasingly desperate since they have not been able to silence Snowden the way all the other Whistle Blowers were silenced.

[Marr]

100. Yep. I watched it with zero media context myself.

I didn't even know he did the interview until he teased it in his opening monologue. I thought Oliver's stance on the issue was crystal clear, myself, so it was surprising to pop onto DU and see the usual suspects all excitedly chattering about it like they'd been exonerated.

You're right- it really is like they haven't actually seen the interview at all, and are just repeating what others have told them.

[cbayer]

98. Excellent and well worth the watch.

At the end, I still have very mixed feelings about Snowden, but my desire to do something about the Patriot Act is strengthened.

John Oliver is great.

[wildbilln864]

102. those who say he "squirmed" are just projecting.

they are the ones who squirm. And slither!

[deutsey]

105. Watching John Oliver's complete video, I saw no squirming, either

However, in its "Your World in 90 Seconds" opening I saw yesterday, CBS This Morning gave the clear impression that a grim-faced Oliver was berating Snowden with hard questions and that Snowden was intensely uncomfortable and unable to answer.

In other words: they served up their usual crock of shit.

They completely missed the real story (but what can you expect in their visually hyperactive "summary" of world news in 90 seconds?). CBS may have gone on to do a longer segment on it later in the show, but even if they did, I can't imagine them doing the issue justice.

Oliver's piece was brilliant in how he boiled an immensely complex and snore-inducing issue into something that underscores what's at stake and did it in an entertaining way.

I lean toward supporting Snowden, but I do have reservations about what he did, so I didn't mind the pressing questions Oliver had. Snowden should be held accountable and it didn't seem to me that he minded being pressed (after he got over the dick-pic ).

I came away from this piece not only more informed but with even more respect for Snowden.

[sabrina 1]

108. Thank you, great post. I did not see any of the MSM coverage of the interview.

But then I don't watch much Corporate Media 'news' anymore.

I think it's fair to question why Whistle Blowers do what they do. What is not fair, is to attack them personally while attempting to distract from what they have revealed.

Snowden is not the first Whistle Blower to reveal this massive spying program. There has been a relatively long list of Whistle Blowers attempting to get this information out to the people.

Three who come to mind are Tice, Binney and Drake. Clearly there are many inside the government who are extremely concerned about the Constitutional violations perpetrated by government agencies started under Bush/Cheney.

All of the Whistle Blowers who tried to inform Congress, took all the required steps, had their lives destroyed, were persecuted for years, lost their jobs, Drake eg, was a decades long Military and National Security veteran with an unblemished reputation, who followed the rules for Whistle Blowers, but was silenced and destroyed in the process.

Snowden saw these persecutions, and as happens when a country lapses into lawlessness for powerful people, he chose to seek political asylum to ensure that he would not be silenced.

I doubt he will be the only one now to do this in the future.

Making it about Snowden was the tactic from the beginning.

What he has revealed should cause every American to squirm, regardless of whether they like or dislike the messenger.

I thought the interview was excellent. Hopefully with a continuing light shining on this issue, we will one day restore the rule of law in this country.

I thought that would have happened by now. Sadly, I guess, these things take a long time. Once you lose something as valuable as Civil Rights, it is very difficult to get them back.

[marlakay]

121. Just watched it thanks for reminding me he was off for a few weeks

John has been great about trying to take large issues we aren't paying attention to and putting it in a way that makes ordinary people care.

By showing that people (the ones that don't follow news) didn't know who he was, but they sure cared if people saw their private parts, was a form of waking those people up.