General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFuck... Another Hero Down The Tubes... Must Want His Chops Back...
“What Mr. [Edward] Snowden did is treason, was high crimes, and there is nothing in what we say that justifies what he did,” said Richard Clarke, a former White House counter-terrorism advisor and current ABC News contributor. “Whether or not this panel would have been created anyway, I don’t know, but I don’t think anything that I’ve learned justifies the treasonous acts of Mr. Snowden.”
Clarke was part of a five-person panel that spent months studying top secret information about the NSA’s foreign and domestic surveillance operations before Wednesday giving Obama 46 recommendations to change the way the secretive agency monitors the world. Perhaps the most drastic among them, the panel said the NSA should stop its years-long practice of vacuuming up so-called telephony meta-data on the phone calls of millions of Americans.
The panel determined that practice was “not essential to preventing [terrorist] attacks” and presented a “lurking danger of abuse.”
Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/white-house-nsa-panel-member-snowdens-leaks-treasonous/story?id=21277856
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
liberal N proud
(61,181 posts)they will disappoint.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Clarke worked for the State Department during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.[2] In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed him to chair the Counter-terrorism Security Group and to a seat on the United States National Security Council. President Bill Clinton retained Clarke and in 1998 promoted him to be the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council. Under President George W. Bush, Clarke initially continued in the same position, but the position was no longer given cabinet-level access. He later became the Special Advisor to the President on cybersecurity. Clarke left the Bush administration in 2003.
Clarke came to widespread public attention for his role as counter-terrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush administrations in March 2004, when he appeared on the 60 Minutes television news magazine, released his memoir about his service in government, Against All Enemies, and testified before the 9/11 Commission. In all three instances, Clarke was sharply critical of the Bush administration's attitude toward counter-terrorism before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and of the decision to go to war with Iraq. Following Clarke's strong criticisms of the Bush administration, Bush administration officials and other Republicans attempted to discredit him or rebut his criticisms, making Clarke a controversial figure.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
neverforget
(9,512 posts)Mr. Snowden" except, you know, the recommendations of your panel which would not have existed without Snowden.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Snowden did lie, did steal, did expose military information to outside powers, did make a run for it (contrast with Manning), did expose the activities of allies.
Yes, what the NSA did may or may not have been unConstitutional; the a court has yet to decide although the Judge is minded to consider it so; but Snowden remains a traitor because it could have been revealed without so much of the damage to the USA.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Perhaps the frayed relations with foreign governments due to their leaders being outraged at revelations of NSA spying on their private phone calls?
Against supposed allies none-the-less, like Germany?
I suppose it would have been better if everything was kept "hush-hush" so that "business as usual" could prevail? 
it is ok when the government abuses power and treats the public like criminals. But when someone finds a way to expose this corruption that person is a traitor. Talk about warped values.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)without fleeing to China and Russia and coughing up intelligence info to them.
But that would have required some courage — sort of like Chelsea Manning.
roody
(10,849 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The Damage is being done by the NSA and all those who we elected to stop them but refused to do so.
Snowden is not doing any damage, but if he knew all that that has been revealed so far was going on, he would have done grave damage by NOT exposing it.
Unbelievable that anyone thinks it is the Whistle Blowers who are damaging the country.
That's like saying that if an employee reports witnessing his boss cooking the book at their place of work it is the EMPLOYEE who is causing damage to the business.
neverforget
(9,512 posts)released what he did. If you'll also remember that Sen Wyden was saying the NSA was doing some questionable things. None of this would have been discussed because of its classified nature had it not been released. I agree that Snowden broke the law but he has also shown that NSA was up to no good.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)We all knew that a gruff commission of bipartisan military industrial complex lobbyists / puppetmasters would fix all of this leak shit up real good.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And he is contradicting himself.
If he thinks Whistle Blowing about clear wrong doing is 'treason' then he should have refused to take part in a panel that was convened to fix what the Whistle Blower reported. And he helped try to fix what was revealed by the Whistle Blower.
People can't be right about everything, and he is a Republican who are even more prone to be wrong.
We don't throw people under the bus unless they are consistently wrong about important issues. We leave that to petty right wingers.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)If Snowden had limited himself to exposing some questionable domestic practices an argument *could* have been made that he was nothing but a whistleblower.
Instead he ran straight into the arms of unfriendly foreign governments then proceeded to publicly and systematically, with clear malice aforethought, release information compromising international intelligence operations.
Clark is exactly correct about what Snowden did.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to do what we always wanted done. The EU eg, is now considering laws to reign in the abuses technology is being used for. The laws have not kept up with technology and without Snowden's courage, it might have been way too late to start correcting that situation.
What did Clarke achieve by doing it the way you suggested? He lost the power he had under Clinton eg as a terror expert, he was ignored by the Bush administration. If he had done what Snowden has done things might be very different right now.
Most people would do what Clarke did. Most would not have the guts to do what Snowden did. I hope there are more like him. We've had more than a few since the Bush War Criminals began tearing apart the Constitution, Binney, Manning, Tice among others. And I hope they keep coming so that the runaway abuses using 9/11 as an excuse, come to end, and it can't happen soon enough.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Detail what part he's wrong about and how.
Nothing you just stated is in any manner a refutation of anything he asserted.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)administration was lying, he APOLOGIZED to the American people for not being able to stop them, or have you forgotten? He PLAYED BY THE RULES when the situation was dire enough to break them, with so many lives AND our Civil Rights, at stake. And the War Criminals got their way.
Too bad he played by the rules, although I understand. It takes people of great courage to risk their own lives, careers, freedoms, to do the right thing, as Snowden did.
And Clarke, while admonishing Snowden for NOT playing by the rules, as he did, which would mean Clarke would not KNOW what he clearly finds reprehensible enough to want to change, CONTRADICTS himself by the very fact that he is USING Snowden's information to correct wrong doing.
Now how would he be abe to correct wrong doing if someone had played by the rules, as he did?
If only he, or others who knew what was going on at the time, had had the courage to know that there are times 'in the affairs of men' when 'rules' need to be broken.
He's wrong about Snowden's actions. But he IS a Republican in the end, one with a conscience but not the courage to break the rules when the country is in need of rules being broken.
He APOLOGIZED to the American people, I am repeating that to demonstrate that he knew he had not 'done enough' to warn them about Bush's criminal gang of warmongers. He is in no place to admonish someone who HAS done all they can to warn the American people of the theft of their precious rights.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...unless you can point me to the part of Clark's record that has the first damn thing to do with deliberately leaking details of US foreign intelligence activities to foreign governments. Which none of your little rant did.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Who leaked details of US Foreign Intel to foreign Governments?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)two name just 2 of them...
But somehow you think THEIR press is more "free" than ours...yeah right!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)leak info to Foreign Governments, he did what MOST Whistle Blowers do and have done for centuries, he released it to the Press.
By that logic, Ellsberg and Tice and every other Whistle Blower 'leaked information to Foreign Governments'.
What a ridiculous assertion. I had a feeling this would be the answer since I knew Snowden had not done any such thing.
To try to paint exposing corruption in the only way open to Whistle Blowers, by using the Press, the Fourth Estate, as the crime, RATHER THAN focusing on the crimes that have been exposed is reprehensible.
Did you support Bush's policies when we first learned that he had put these policies in place? Did you support the Republican Whistle Blowers when theY exposed his violations of the Constitution? Airc, EVERYONE here and on every other Democratic forum considered those Whistle Blowers to be heroes.
What has changed here? We are talking about Republicans, like Clapper (who should have been FIRED being the good friend of Bush that he is) and a whole host of Bush appointees who remain in our government who are responsible for these crimes that Snowden has exposed.
Why on earth would any Democrat be trying to protect Bush policies and Bush Loyalists???
I know this, if Snowden had done this while Bush was president, not one person on this site, unless they were an infiltrator, would have a bad word to say about him.
It is pretty nauseating to see how easily people will forfeit our rights.
Well go ahead and give up YOUR rights for whatever reason you are doing so, but do not give up mine or anyone else's. We value our rights more than we care about particular politicians especially any one of them who would abuse the power we gave them this way.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
GMAFB!
Because the "dreadful" US govt is the only one that could possibly do that to Journalists right?
Would it be okay to name names on who our undercover operatives are to those organizations...because they are not "govt"?
By this method...anyone can just leak whatever they want no matter how secret it is because YOU say they are not government. Like to see that theory of yours tested in court!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)US Government who forced him to stay in Russia when they took away his passport. Had they not done that, he would have been on his way in a few hours.
You are wildly speculating on everything else which you have a right to do, but that is all you are offering here.
As for your last sentence, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Our country was set up with seriously thought out methods designed to protect the people's rights in their homes, their papers and belongings, against Government interference and there was very good reason for that. No government official can enter anyone's property NOT JUST without a warrant, but to get that warrant they must have PROBABLE CAUSE. Maybe you can tell me, what probable cause was presented to the 'Secret Court' (imagine that if you can, a secret court in a democracy) that issued the warrant that allowed MY TELEPHONE Corp to 'collect and store (and we know now they are doing more than that) my personal information?
How did they get a warrant WITHOUT probable cause as required by the US Constitution, the law of the land in case anyone forgot? I asked my Telephone Co, Verizon, to show me the warrant and especially the probable cause that was used to do this. THEY denied they were spying on my phone. I didn't believe them, the President admitted it, shamefully. I cancelled them but still didn't get an answer.
You have failed to answer my questions regarding supporting Bush appointees and Bush policies so I presume you always supported them??
To protect this Democratcy the very first Amendment to the Constitution was included to ensure that we had a 'free and open press' because without that there is no democracy.
It was a very important part of the setting up of the governing of this country and the role it is supposed to play is to tell the truth to American people about their government.
IF the government was not engaged in wrong doing, there would be no Snowdens, period.
So direct your anger at those who make Whistle Blowers necessary, not at those report the crimes.
If the government doesn't want foreign countries knowing what they are up to, then all they have they to do is abide by their OATHS of office and the Constitution of the US. Whining about the exposure of corruption and violations of all of our rights, gets no sympathy from me or anyone I know.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You cannot possibly be so in love with Snowden...
He is not a whistleblower...he is a criminal. Whistleblowers do not just document dump nor do they run away to countries that are seriously oppressive of their people. That is what makes him a joke! He will NEVER be trusted by ANY govt again...nor should he.
2 wrongs don't make a right and the ends do not justify the means.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Congress eg, and Alexander and all the others who are still there despite the fact that we threw them out in 2008 ....
They are not patriots .... they are criminals. They broke the law. Good citizens entrusted with the security and the protection of the US Constitution do NOT break the law of the land, violate the Constitutional rights of every single American by spying on the them.
Snowden watched no doubt what was done to Chelsea Manning, torture, isolation and 35 years in jail, FOR TELLING THE TRUTH.
And he sought asylum elsewhere, NOT in Russia, the US forced him into Russia, got any idea why btw? And he received it.
Clearly those rogue Private Security Corps, Booz Allen, Clappers Corp eg, were lying to Congress to get billions of tax dollars under false pretenses.
Even the President was not aware of the crimes they were committing. They allowed him to tell the American people that they were only 'collecting and storing' meta data when we now KNOW, and so does he thanks to Snowden, that they were LYING to us to the President and to Congress.
And that is what makes Snowden, Manning, Tice, Binney et al HEROES.
There is only ONE wrong here and it isn't the Whistle Blowers and thankfully now a majority of the people understand this.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you cannot seperate what Snowden did with the NSA story....
do you believe 2 wrongs make a right or not? Do you believe that the ends justify the means or not?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Elected officials take an oath. They are required to do one very important thing. 'Defend and Protect the Constitution of the US'.
When they hand over THEIR responsibility to do that to Bush appointees who then go right ahead and violate that sacred trust, someone needs to expose them. It SHOULD be our Representatives in Congress. Some of them TRIED, Democrat Udall and Ron Wyden eg, but most looked the other way.
Snowden should not have had to do what he did IF our Representatives honored their oath of office. Neither should Chelsea Manning. But they didn't and THAT is why Snowden and Manning and other whistle blowers like Ellsberg eg, and Binney and all the others who have risked everything to protect and defend our Constitutional Rights, are HEROES.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Edward Snowden has written an "open letter to the people of Brazil" offering to help Brazil's government investigate allegations of U.S. spying, but on the condition that he be granted permanent political asylum.
...while you extract your foot from your mouth.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)Forever.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Response to zappaman (Reply #87)
VanillaRhapsody This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)As demonstrated time and time again. 
zappaman
(20,627 posts)Seems like dozens...
Number23
(24,544 posts)Not that it will mean anything to his gullible and shrinking fan base.
Edit: He's got two problems now. According to reports, the president of Brazil has already denied his asylum claims on more than one occasion and has said that she has no intention of giving him asylum. That may or may not change.
The second thing is that he says he's been "vindicated" since a federal judge said that NSA surveillance was "most likely" (he appears to have completely missed the significance of that MOST LIKELY) unconstitutional. Since then, another judge has said that the surveillance is legal, but anyone who is even remotely familiar with the Patriot Act already knew that. So we've got "most likely" unconstitutional and most definitely legal, and neither of those give him a case for his claims of being a whistleblower meaning that his claims for asylum are that much shakier.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It's very simple. Our elected officials and our military take an oath. It requires very little of them.
Perhaps you are not familiar with that oath. It asks them to 'defend and protect the Constitution of the US'. See, it isn't much to ask, and when they fail, or worse, cooperate with those who violate the Constitutional Rights of the American people, THEY become criminals.
When a citizen learns that their elected Reps are committing treason, because violating one's oath of office, helping to destroy the Constitutional Rights of the people who entrusted them with protecting those rights IS treason, that citizen is obligated to expose their crimes. Most of us do not have that kind of courage and most would simply remain silent. But every once in a while a Whistle Blower steps forward and does the right thing, they INFORM the people of the corruption they have witnessed.
In today's America, Whistle Blowers are being persecuted, tortured, accused of egregious crimes and jailed for 35 years.
But the actual crimes are never investigated. Whistle Blowers from now on know that they will be persecuted, see Chelsea Manning and ask yourself why his revelations did not result in an investigation of Bush War Crimes.
When elected officials cooperate with Private 'Security' Corps who are breaking the law, and those Private Security Corps are receiving BILLIONS of tax dollars to break the law with the approval of Congress, and a Whislte Blower exposes those Private Security Corps (Clapper's old Corp, Booz Allen in this case) they are in no way acting against their country.
Unless you believe that Private Corporations rule this country and are entitled to 'loyalty' when they break our laws.
Since Clapper lied to Congress, it is possible he has lied before in order to fund his old Corporation.
Revealing the corrupt practices of Private Corporations who have lied to Congress is what you are talking about.
Now perhaps we can start removing the power Bush gave to these Corporations, Clapper is an old friend of his.
So what is your point? That American citizens should protect the corruption of Private Corporations who are acting in the name of the US when in fact they are violating EVERYONE'S Constitutional Rights, and are doing so ONLY because they lied to Congress?
What nonsense.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...to avoid saying one single word about the conclusive evidence that your claim that Snowden hasn't been undermining foreign intelligence operations (which is the fact under dispute here and the primary subject of Clark's claim in the OP) is so much bullshit.
Impressive the lengths you'll go to to refuse to admit plain facts.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is clear. Good for him. Bush's Private Security Corporations are destroying this country. Expose them, stop them any way we can. And maybe one day our Elected officials will get the guts to throw them in jail, as they SHOULD HAVE done back when Bush gave them the power to steal our tax dollars under the pretext of 'fighting terror'.
I have no allegiance to corrupt, lying Private Corporations.
Do you?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Or do you have some kind of condition that forces you to ignore everything anyone says to you and just launch off on rants any time you hit the reply button?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a requrement for citizens, elected officials or whistle blowers in this country. Especially when they are violating the rights of innocent people.
Hope that is not too much for you read and understand.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"I'm yet again not going to say one goddamn thing about the subject actually under dispute"
Well at least you're consistent. There's that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Yes, thank you at least for acknowleging my 'consistency'.
Consistency:
I opposed Bush's Corrupt Private Corporate takeover takeover of this Government AND our security when Bush was occupying the WH, and I still oppose Bush's corrupt Private Corporate takeover of the Government and would have cheered had the Democratic President I supported, FIRED Bush's Corporate infiltraters such as Clapper and Alexander and returned our Security to our ELECTED OFFICIALS, rather than handing it over to Bush's Corrupt Private Security Corporations.
In line with that consistency I support the exposure of Bush's Corrupt Private Security Corporations by anyone with the courage to do so.
How about you? Did you oppose Bush's Corrupt, Private Corporate Takeover of our Govenrment and if so, what has changed your mind since then?
Snowden and Tice and Binney and Manning and every other Whistle Blower since 2001 are HEROES.
Do you even know what the 'subject under dispute' is?
You seem to have lost your focus.
"Do you even know what the 'subject under dispute' is? "
Yes... but then I read the OP.
And all the posts we've exchanged since then.
I appear to be the only one.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Clarke is a Republican who played by the rules rather than expose what he knew when he had the opportunity to STOP Bush/Cheney from dragging this country into an illegal war. NOW, he is criticizing someone who had more courage than he did, while at the same time, USING Snowden's revelations to try to reign in the corrupt, private corporations who are destroying this country.
He was right to apologize to the American people for his lack of courage. I understood his dilemma but it takes a lot of gall to fail to do the right thing and then attack someone who had the courage he lacked at the time.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The very first post in which I pointed out your error.
What was the topic? Hint: It's the one I've been talking about in every post since... and which you've been avoiding since your error was conclusively illustrated to you in post #70.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Guess what is included in the set of "everyone" Captain Perceptive?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)press.
Guess what, if the people place their trust in you to protect and defend your rights, the best way to ensure that there will be no need for Whistle Blowers, a very necessary part of any democracy, to leak anything to the Press is to honor the trust that was placed in you.
If you fail to honor the trust of the people you should EXPECT to have your crimes exposed. And the actions of the perpetrators, Clapper eg, lying to Congress in an effort to cover up the crimes against the people they people they committed, clearly shows they betrayed that trust.
I shed no tears for people in whom such a sacred trust is placed who betray that trust.
Did you support Bush when he was caught instituting these 'policies' btw?
Are you familiar with the Oath of Office taken by the military and by elected officials to this government?
You haven't said whether or not you supported Bush when he was caught spying on the American people. I would be interested in where you stood when we first found out that he was the Telecoms to spy on their customers.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...between domestic activities you have objections to and foreign intelligence activities the guy compromised and exposed to foreign governments.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)sad to see anyone on a Democratic forum attempt to dismiss the importance of those rights and the enormous crime it is for anyone who was entrusted with their protection, to betray that trust. Snowden is a hero for having the courage that Clarke lacked, to do the right thing.
You have no answered any of my questions. So I'll ask again. Did you support Bush when he was caught instituting these policies of using the Telecoms to spy on innocent Americans? It's not a difficult questions, either 'yes' or 'no' would suffice. I totally opposed them as I do now, just so you know, and my mind didn't change when the 'R' became a 'D' because for some this important, it is way beyond partisan politics.
I look forward to your response to my question.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)she doesn't hear anything other than the sound of her own voice in her head.
Then writes long tropes to profess her undying love for Snowden no matter what he does!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)fun with Bush supporters once I gave up trying to reason with them about them Human Rights, Government Corruption (they thought Bush would always be 'king', no foresight at all) illegal wars, torture etc and simply played with them to expose their ignorance. You can't cure stupidity with reason which was a valuable lesson they taught me.
But they had favorite 'responses' consisting of repeated words and phrases for Liberals to cover their inability to defend their support for all the horrors Bush inflicted on this country. Rush Limbaugh was their 'teacher'. He provided the stupid phrases and words and it is not surprise that those idiots picked them up believing they were 'brilliant'.
Eg, if a Democrat like, Clinton (who they were still obsessed years into the Bush years) was under attack by Right Wing lunatics, and we and other democrats defended him, their most BRILLIANT 'comeback' was 'You're so IN LOVE with Clinton' and variations of it. Rush would explain 'democrats' to them this way. 'They have no minds, they are IN LOVE with Clinton' and the morons thought they were listening to GOD.
Rush got his anti-Liberal talking points from Karl Rove who was their mastermind, stupid yes, but they knew their 'followers' couldn't hold their own in a real discussion so they taught them to avoid discussion by flinging 'poo' in response to reasoned arguments and never addressing the substance. They included: 'schoolgirl crush' 'fan girl' 'so in love, etc.
The other one I saw on DU this week brought me back to those Bush supporters also.
'Liberals are so anti-American they WANT us to be attacked by Terrorists'.
Coming from Bush chickenhawks, I never expected anything better.
But can someone explain when Rush Limbaugh/Karl Rove feeble attempts to undermine the dreaded 'left', made their way to DU? I would have at least expected, if we are to resort to similar tactics, that we surely would have a higher standard than those morons. Worse, to RE-USE what was stupid to begin with!
This TROPE (another one of their words which, considering the sources, I always took as a great compliment (Bush supporters could never read more than single lines! ) is just a short history for those who mught not have been there at the time.
Note the 'undying love for Snowden' as exhibit #1 eg. Perfect example of what I am talking about, almost word for word.
Having written this 'TROPE' to provide a short history of the origin of these feeble tactics, it will be clear why I am so certain that the commenter could not refute a word I said.
I tried to make this LONGER just for you, but decided to save it, the history of right wing anti-left propaganda online over the past 12 years, for another time.
Snowden is a hero!
'Fan girl, in love with, school girl crush, jr high cheerleader'..
If you need any more let me know!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Everyone I know would laugh right in your face at that notion!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)back when THEY thought they were so brilliant and certainly never made it to Democratic forums where the dialogue USED to be a whole lot more intelligent. To see them again, just reminded me of the stupidity of Bush supporters and how dangerous that stupidity turned out to be for this country.
I haven't seen those stupid old tactics for quite a while now, but thanks for the reminder of how important it is that people never stupidity lightly, ever again.
What you said could not have been more, to be kind, ridiculous. I never thought it would be necessary here, to have to explain why. What you said was that I was in love with a man I never met, know nothing about on a personal level, and certainly YOU know nothing about.
Do you see what a stupid and ridiculous statement that was especially when you completely refuse to discuss the illegality of what we have learned the NSA is doing. You may not have been a Bush supporter, but I would worry that some might think that considering your avoidance of real discussion about Bush policies that have been exposed, your defense of those policies, and the silly, Karl Rove-like tactics 'nyeh, nyeh you're in love with Snowden' nonsense.
Snowden is a Hero. Bush and Cheney were traitors. Snowden has revealed the crimes against this country committed now for a long time, by Bush appointees and other hangers on.
I'd love you to explain, because I'm the curious type, how you came up with the 'brilliant' decuction that when Democrats, like me among millions of others CONTINUE as they always have, to oppose those policies, it must mean they are 'in love with Snowden'. I just find the 'logic' or lack thereof, interesting.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)just sayin. Which is why I never read any of your long tropes....
zappaman
(20,627 posts)Shakespeare said it best...
"Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Macbeth Quote (Act V, Scene V).
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Whistle Blowers are the ones who will save this country from Neocon policies. AND those who support them.
I've had so much fun that in your honor, from now on, whenever I defend anyone who is standing up for our rights, which will be frequently, I will note for anyone reading who didn't know this before, that when Democrats defend heroes, like Snowden, who stand up for our rights or who we generally support, from right wing attacks, Obama eg, it means they are 'in love with' that person. 
Right wing talking points, written for ditto heads, now on DU. I never thought I'd see the day back then.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and as I said...two wrongs do not a right make sabrina...and YOU KNOW this!
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
okaawhatever
(9,565 posts)I'm sick of people using the excuse 'How would we have ever known' in their defense of his CRIMES.
'This person didn't go to prison for a crime they committed' is also an invalid and worn out defense.
noise
(2,392 posts)Without Snowden there would have been no review.
What is spying on all public data called? Democracy? How is it not treasonous for the NSA to set up an American Stasi state?
politichew
(230 posts)Then the media and a large majority of the country will move on from there.
How we got there should not matter.
noise
(2,392 posts)Did you watch 60 Minutes? Did you see the grandiose sense of entitlement? The NSA comes across as a Stasi-like organization.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)There's no such thing as "treason" against a corrupt state.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)That's what makes being a revisionist historian so challenging on the internet.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'playing by the rules' when the Bush War Criminals were making stuff up to go start their illegal and brutal wars in the ME.
As I pointed out above, he APOLOGIZED to the American people for 'not doing enough' at a time when heroes were definitely needed and he chose to remain silent until it was too late. I don't BLAME him for that, but the least he could do is to admit that it takes great courage to break the rules when your country is in trouble, when the people's rights are being stripped away.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)exposure of crimes proves he knows that the Whistle Blower was simply doing his duty as a citizen, reporting very serious wrong doing on the part of a Government Agency.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)almost
Logical
(22,457 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Just put me on ignore. Have a decent life.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...beginning, it was clear that Snowden broke the law (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439290). There was a point where even Snowden supporters accepted that he knew he broke the law. Snowden said it himself.
Fleeing the country and releasing state secrets did not help his case.
His actions since then have only made the situation worse.
Whistleblowers have been making that point, some in subtle ways.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023236549
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035550
Of course, this is dimissed because they're also critical of the NSA. It's as if some think that you can't be against NSA overreach unless you support Snowden.
What's that line thrown out whenever Greenwald is criticized: Were you against Clarke when he went after Bush?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023002358
Cha
(317,947 posts)for calling out the propaganda.
bobduca
(1,763 posts) Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)"Unhappy is the land that NEEDS heroes"
from GALILEO)
(perhaps Clarke was asked later why he denounced Snowden and said, in response "They showed me the instruments"
.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... everyone involved in taking us into Iraq, politicians, "journalists", cheerleaders of all sorts - THEY have done more to create terrorism than anyone else and THEY are guilty of high crimes in which PEOPLE, LOTS OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY DIED FOR NO REASON.
Fuck you Clarke.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/worry-nsa-article-1.1369705
Wonder what could motivate a flip-flop of that magnitude....much as President Obama flip-flopped on the issue from what Senator Obama said.
Could it have to do with a domestic version of a program like this?
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/27/report_nsa_spied_on_online_sexual_habits_of_muslims_to_discredit_radicalizers/
Business as usual when "Sciencia est Potentia"
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...when people are incapable of comprehending that you can be critical of NSA activities and simultaneously NOT automatically have to support a traitorous little weasel just because he doesn't like the NSA too.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)literally a flawless human being, then everything he revealed must be wrong.
Desperation to control the message, I guess....
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...since you're clearly not bothering to speak to me despite your message appearing to be in reply to mine.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)It was the point going over your head.
But cool rant bro...
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...when you actually made some form of valid point relevant to the material you were responding to.
Also, a sentence is generally not plausibly labelled as a "rant" bucko.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)doesn't make it invalid regardless of your wishes.
Clarke flip-flopped. Therefore he is as flawed an individual as Snowden and so by the apologist criteria his opinion is completely invalid.
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
Sorry about misusing rant, I meant to say snide, self-righteous, arrogant snark but was looking for a few less characters.
Seriously, are you bucking to be the Starship Captain's first mate or something?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...multiple times... no. He did not flip flop.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)My point is now made. Now even you cannot pretend that you didn't get it. Thank you.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Like the fact that your erronious claim has already been addressed in this very thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4243028
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4239525
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Yes, your second point was salient. That's why it was upthread.
Rerun much?
So why should I consider the nuance of what Clarke wrote when nuance is completely ignored when apologists feel the script demands that Greenwald's past association with Cato or anything about Snowden just has to mean that they are simply black and sinful in the core of their souls?
Thanks for playing, but please try to do better next time.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And yes it did bear repeating... seeing as you are still ignoring the facts of the matter. I thought you found that annoying?
And "nuance" is in no way required here. We're dealing with hit-over-the-head-with-a-bat obvious statements.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)End of story. Any nuance to that is irrelevant to the fact that he is a bad, bad man because he flip flopped.
Again, good for the goose, good for the gander.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I refer you to the already linked refutations of your incorrect statement. Which you have done nothing to address.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Richard Clarke was concerned about NSA overreach until he got the seat at the table he figured he deserved.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Pay freaking attention before typing. You'll make a fool of yourself less.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Infuriating, isn't it? To cite a fact over and over again only to have some dumbass try to refute it with made up attacks about the target's psychology and motivation that are unproveable and inconsistent with the evidence.
Since June, every time I wanted to discuss the actual issues of dragnet surveillance invariably some apologist would try to shut it down with "but Greenwald is egotistical" and "Snowden obviously is a narcissist" blargblargblarg.
Oh, and don't forget "you must be a libertarian" insinuations. Those never go out of style.
Anyway, you shouldn't have taken this so seriously. I just decided that given Clarke's unique situation, I could adopt the same style of argument and see how it plays out. It was way too fun, and far less work than actually having to know something.
Game's over, it was never in doubt that you had a valid take on the apparent discrepancy, so thanks for playing.
Snowden had other avenues to expose NSA but went the international flight intelligence information disclosing route.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)You can applaud what Snowden did, but it DOES fit the definition of treason.
dawg
(10,777 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Washington stayed right here. He and the other Founders admitted that if we lost, they would be hung for treason.
Eddie didn't commit treason, just violated sections of 18 United States Code, the max penalty is ten years. Nothing near what any FF did. They were creating this country. The country they created is still here.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)OMG...
can Ghandi or Jesus Christ be far off?
dawg
(10,777 posts)He took up arms against King and country. Had we lost the revolution, he would be a villain in our textbooks to this day.
But sometimes, the "traitor" is actually the good guy.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Unless you are suggesting that the U.S. Government needs to be overthrown like that of King George?
dawg
(10,777 posts)You may be comfortable with the creeping surveillance state, but I am not.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and whistleblowing...
Opposing what Snowden did and opposing the NSA are not mutually exclusive.
dawg
(10,777 posts)It's called "thinking for yourself". I do that all the time.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I don't get to "think for myself" when it comes to the laws of this country...I don't get to decide when it should be applied and when it shouldn't and neither do you. No matter how much I tell myself it is "thinking for myself".
dawg
(10,777 posts)I said that you are displaying authoritarian tendencies. Legalistic appeals to authority don't impress me. Lot's of my greatest heroes broke the law. Sometimes that is the only way things can change.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)we have methods of changing them when we need to....
Snowden wants to circumvent those laws....he will pay for that error in judgement!
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
1) Did he levy war against the U.S.? No.
2) Did he "adhere to the enemies" of the U.s., giving them aid and comfort? Did he give Al Queda guns, nukes or money? No.
Not treason, sorry.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... don't seem to know what it means.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Not trying to make any enemies here on DU.
dflprincess
(29,271 posts)the Constitutional definition.
But that was all in the past...
brush
(61,033 posts)a more apt definition.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)He hasn't been charged with that.
So not sedition.
brush
(61,033 posts)He hasn't been charged because he's not in custody, but according to the following definitions he could be charged with both if he's ever in custody in this country.
"Sedition is an overt subversive act which leads to incitement against status quo or authority or order. It is a challenge to the establishment. It may be a book, a painting, an idea, a speech, pretty much anything that can act as a vehicle of an anti-establishment idea.
Treason, on the other hand, involves colluding with anti-national forces in terms of providing material support to people or groups who work against the idea of one's nation."
Snowden did kinda commit "an overt subversive act which leads to incitement against status quo or authority or order."
And he did kinda "collude with anti-national forces (two foreign countries) in terms of providing material support to people or groups who work against the idea of one's nation."
So I take back my sedition only post to say he's guilty of a little of both sedition and treason. He shoulda showed a little courage and stayed home and exposed the NSA through alternative means and be a true whistle blower and not collude with Greenwald, who it now seems was only out for himself and his next big career move — partnering with Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar in a new media venture to rake in dough — while poor, naive Snowden is stuck in Russia with nowhere to go.
Sure looks like he was used to me.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)You either did it or not. This is actually pretty black and white. If there was enough evidence he had committed treason or seditious conspiracy, he would be charged with them. He hasn't been charged with those.
Espionage and theft of government property? The government thinks he did, hence the charges.
brush
(61,033 posts)He can't be charged if he's not here and in Russia.
What's hard to understand about that?
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)"Edward Snowden Charged With Espionage Over NSA Leaks"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/edward-snowden-charged_n_3480984.html
brush
(61,033 posts)so he may have been "charged" with both including the espionage charge.
Espionage against your own country — usually equates to treason, but being that he's not in custody the "charges" are more symbolic than anything.
If they get him here, I'm sure the full array of charges will be revealed.
Tikki
(15,082 posts)Tikki
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... his panel would have been created without Snowden's revelations? I overestimated the man.
The NSA surveillance programs were going on for 12 years without any meaningful public oversight, and within weeks of Snowden's revelations, we have a panel in place. But I'm sure the timing was a coincidence. Right...
treestar
(82,383 posts)Oh wait, they did. They required NSA to get warrants.
Risen is still in the US risking jail for not revealing sources.
But no one makes a hero out of him.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)even logic doesn't make sense. Logic defined as treason is what has happened. I always hear, "He could have gone through proper channels to report this." Except, there are NO proper channels. It would have taken years to investigate and then the real white wash would begin. His motives asside. Nothng. Absolutely nothing would be done about the abuse. This will happen again. Julian Assange and Snowden are just the beginning in this digital age. Changes throughout history has always been accomplished by people with the guts to take the fallout. It will happen again unless the internet is compromised by power or government fiat.
mitty14u2
(1,015 posts)Indeed, scientists have shown that people will go to absurd lengths - and engage in mental gymnastics – in order to cling to their belief in what those in authority have said.
Part of the reason so many are so vulnerable to naive belief in authority is that we evolved in small tribes … and we assume that the super-elites are just like us.
In reality, there are millions of psychopaths in the world … and they are largely running D.C. and on Wall Street.
These people have no hesitation in lying to promote their goals.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/5362721/5362721
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)seriously...come on...
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Civil rights marchers broke laws that changed things. Objectors during the Vietnam war broke laws and changed things. Political ideology cycles from left to right over a period of time. We need to get rid of the politics of right and left and shift to the politics of right and wrong. Treating the American people as criminals who need to be spied on is wrong. People dying in a war that is a lie is wrong. The Government "never" needs to lie to the American people to protect anything. That is a fallacy. Most of the time our enemies know more than we do about what our government is doing in our name. We seemed to always find out after the fact. Why do they keep us in the dark? What is the point. I want to hear more about the Saudi connection to 9/11 that was contained in the 28 pages that was left blank in the CIA report. Will it take a "law breaker" to reveal that? I have friends who died for a lie. Some times a law is not right just because it is a law. That negates the two wrongs argument.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)these are high crimes...no matter how you slice it.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)wrong. The law is to be interpreted. And the interpretation can depend on 'who' is defining it. Just ask the Supreme Court. The phrase, two wrongs don't make it right, is a nice sounding idiom. Defining the specific two wrongs is something else. The three strikes laws have sent people to jail for a long time yet the are now being considered as cruel and unusual and soon to be changed. I think Snowden may have broken laws but by doing so has changed the conversation and caused the federal government to have hearings to change the way the NSA conducts themselves. This conversation would not be happening without his actions. He is also a whistle blower and should be protected as one. The whistle blower laws have been lobbied hard against by corporations who don't want their abuses to come to light. I guess the 'two wrongs' saying doesn't apply to them.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)as has been bandied about...
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
gulliver
(13,843 posts)Snowden needs to go down. He's kind of whack and kind of young, but he needs to be charged with the crimes and face justice.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Snowden gets to face Justice the same day Bush & Cheney do...
AND... put it up to a jury of there "peers"...
Let's see how that goes.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Since it is clear that not arresting them has undermined the entire moral foundation of the justice system.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)regarding your quip "not arresting them has undermined the entire moral foundation of the justice system."
When we the people failed to prosecute the Bush Administration war criminals, that inaction certainly undermined our justice system, no doubt in my mind.
Regarding the fact that you think it's a joke, that would be a rhetorical form known as an appeal to absurdity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
"Reductio ad absurdum"
a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.
hack89
(39,181 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)My sarcasm detector thingy must be adjusted! cheers!
Logical
(22,457 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that just makes me feel more sure.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)Really? Not on this planet.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Edward Snowden is ten times the patriot Richard Clarke ever dreamed of being.
What a huge disappointment you are, Richard Clarke.
Just another worthless fucking authoritarian/surveillance/police state tool.
Way to sell out, asshole.