General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs it OK to criticize Edward Snowden?
13 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
10 (77%) |
|
No | |
3 (23%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)But we know what he did.
If I had to guess tho, likely a Fuck Ron Pauler. You know, that racist, sexist, every ist there is out there p.o.s.
flamingdem
(39,799 posts)duude i'd vote for him
RobinA
(10,076 posts)So I guess so. Besides, why do you ask? I thought you were the arbiter of who we are allowed to criticize.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Unless you are trying to suggest that the information he revealed is:
A) meaningless
B) a trick designed for a political end
---------------
Snowden is not a political figure. He is not elected. He has no political power and he has no duty to serve the people as do elected officials in the government.
So what is the purpose, import and validity of criticizing his personal politics or behavior --especially in contrast to the importance of the issues that surround him?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Instead of getting his freedom and liberty he needs to be incarcerated for a long time.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Ethics trumps sleazy corporate contracts in my book.
But that is all besides the point. The real question I asked is "Why criticize him or pay any attention to him on an individual level at all?"
The answer, of course, is that he dared to make the Obama Admin (and by extension the apologists) look like the rank hypocrites they are on the issue of surveillance.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)For a crooked cause.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)He is not worthy of consideration, but the issues he helped bring to light most certainly are.
So then why is he being considered so much? Hmmmm....
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Surveillance Act. So what issue did he bring to light?
Major Nikon
(36,877 posts)As yet, I'm not convinced of this.
Rise Rebel Resist
(88 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)"What's the point of "criticizing" his politics?...Snowden is not a political figure. He is not elected. He has no political power and he has no duty to serve the people as do elected officials in the government."
...same reason other people's politics are criticized. He exposed himself to public scrutiny by his actions. He committed a crime.
Bruce Schneier believes he will be remembered as a hero.
But before the Justice Department prosecutes Snowden, there are some other investigations that ought to happen.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/prosecuting_sno.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3009479
I don't think the situation bodes well for Snowden. The "hero" thing might not pan out.
Schneier also said that Snowden "broke the law," a fact that "isn't under debate," and that "the law is there for a good reason." He also acknowledged that the Justice Department will prosecute Snowden.
U.S. charges Snowden with espionage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023063699
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Worried that someone might believe you're more of a Libertarian than Democrat?
NRaleighLiberal
(60,336 posts)rucky
(35,211 posts)An internet message board?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"sure it's ok but it's also irrelevant. The messenger and the motivation are both irrelevant."
...you'd like to believe, but anyone who commits a crime is going to be subjected to scrutiny: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3065794
Why is it OK to make it about the messenger when labeling him a "hero," but not if he's being labeled in less flattering terms?
railsback
(1,881 posts)'Hero' = relevant
Everything else = not relevant, you WH cronies.
delrem
(9,688 posts)But w.r.t. Snowden, I prefer to focus on the facts that he's revealed.
If someone else wants to smear him as a person, that's their right.
But then, I think the WOT is a POS used for over a decade to fuck us over. And I think the WOT is getting so out of hand under Obama that neocons must be envious of his methods. I don't believe a word that comes out of an american politicians mouth anymore, whether "progressive", "liberal", "conservative", "tea-party", or "middle". Not one word of it has changed a bloody thing, however nice the sound byte.
I don't want to hear any more peachy keen rhetoric, I want to see people in politics making sacrifices and taking risks in attempts to actually fix the mess, and I don't see that.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)to Pharisees, Moneychangers and the like. Come to think of it, I sometimes wish I'd hear those words spring from Obama's lips, when speaking of McChinless and Boner
former9thward
(33,151 posts)Yes it is. It is ok to criticize anyone. Which is something you don't seem to believe.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Or even Obama?
Think about it...
It's YOUR point, right?
kentuck
(112,337 posts)How else can you have a discussion??
Jarla
(156 posts)I don't like when the media talk about his girlfriend, Lindsay Mills, as his "pole-dancing girlfriend," as though she's some kind of slut, because it really maligns her character and is completely irrelevant.
I don't like that some people seem to be very critical of the fact that he didn't finish high school. It feels to me like there's an underlying belief that if someone doesn't have a certain level of formal credentials, then that therefore means that s/he must uneducated or unintelligent.
And I'm uncomfortable with the claim that anyone who supports Ron Paul is an extreme right-wing nut job. I was under the impression that some people like him because he opposed the war in Iraq and is against the use of torture.
noise
(2,392 posts)No. It should be illegal.
Rise Rebel Resist
(88 posts)I have to wonder how much irrelevant weak sause against this person can be consumed
cali
(114,904 posts)you must set up a shrine with his photo, 3 glass containers of water, a lotus flower and a 3 inch shallow porcelain dish of pink tibetan sea salt, all arranged on a sea green hemp cloth, and pray to him 6 times daily. on your knees, head hung in shame for the the disrespect you've shown him.
silly op which deserved an equally silly response.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)that I'd poke fun at a silly poll?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Just don't expect me to take you seriously. Because I won't.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)figure, of course it's 'OK' to criticize him. But I'm still unclear as to why that would matter, other than to deflect attention from the grave breaches of trust his leaks and Greenwald's reporting have revealed.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What is the purpose of this poll? To the extent Snowden has made himself a public figure, of course it's 'OK' to criticize him. But I'm still unclear as to why that would matter, other than to deflect attention from the grave breaches of trust his leaks and Greenwald's reporting have revealed."
...to find out if it's OK to criticize Snowden. Sorry if that wasn't clear. The responses in this thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023065177) gave me the impression that he was above criticism.
I know, that OP is about Rand Paul, but I decide to focus the poll on Snowden instead of Paul because some of the responses seem to imply that the OP was designed to attack and discredit Snowden.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)not yet spun through it, so didn't make the connection.
Did I mention I really, really despise Libertarians? (Maybe even more than I despise Republicans, if such is even possible!
flamingdem
(39,799 posts)I can't see many Americans agreeing that this was acceptable. It was at best done as a bargain of some kind and at worst for payment. That is not to smear him but to recognize that's the way these things are done. Once he made certain choices those kinds of compromises had to follow.