General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

225. Regardless of the OP, the 4th amendment is real issue in the entire scenario.

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 01:19 AM

Mar 2014

Speaking of not providing evidence, you did not respond to my request to provide any evidence from my posts that I believe anything he says.

On the other hand, I have at least one post on this thread that say IF Snowden is telling the truth, which clearly indicates that I neither believe him nor disbelieve him. Guess why i don't trouble myself about it? Because massive violation of the 4th Amendment by government with my tax dollars is the real issue. I know you don't agree, but I am happy to live with that disagreement.

But again, even if I did believe him, so what? I have an absolute right to believe whatever I want. So do you.

So are these posts even about Snowden or do you just want to fling accusations at me, even if they are only about what I "seem to want to believe."

Actually, never mind answering unless it makes you feel good. Our exchanges do not seem to lead anywhere. I am going to stop before they devolve. I again apologize for my part in our exchanges on the poll thread, and again bid you good night,

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

469 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Snowden: I Raised NSA Concerns Internally Over 10 Times Before Going Rogue - WaPo [View all] WillyT Mar 2014 OP

Why didn't he say this in the beginning? fried eggs Mar 2014 #1

Seems an important point BainsBane Mar 2014 #3

This has been said repeatedly. That private security contractors have no whistleblower avenues riderinthestorm Mar 2014 #10

Actually SCOTUS ruled this week they do have whistleblower protection BainsBane Mar 2014 #12

Ruled this week. Not applicable to Snowden at the time however nt riderinthestorm Mar 2014 #14

Unfortunately, whistleblowers still get smeared and have their lives ruined. cui bono Mar 2014 #110

Not Ellsberg. merrily Mar 2014 #146

And Ellsberg says that Snowden made the right call. His words: cui bono Mar 2014 #156

Yep. Because the 2010s are very, very different from the 1970s. merrily Mar 2014 #157

Not for lack of trying. backscatter712 Mar 2014 #172

Yes, but the case did get dismissed. merrily Mar 2014 #178

And if that is the best outcome Aerows Mar 2014 #181

You are singing to the choir, but please don't stop. merrily Mar 2014 #182

You likely couldn't keep me from it! Aerows Mar 2014 #188

That's fair. backscatter712 Mar 2014 #204

Taht is simply untrue--the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 msanthrope Mar 2014 #17

Whistleblowers do not fair well even if they have supposed protection. cui bono Mar 2014 #111

Funny how Rex Mar 2014 #439

For me, the article is not specific enough. merrily Mar 2014 #158

Yes. He did the honorable thing. cui bono Mar 2014 #335

I agree. merrily Mar 2014 #361

I'll ask you again Aerows Mar 2014 #191

The issue is deprivation of Constitutional rights, but merrily Mar 2014 #202

Disclosing the identity of who you complained to to federal prosecutors, or the judge assigned to msanthrope Mar 2014 #250

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2014 #210

Did you read the excerpt you posted? udqamlqc Mar 2014 #237

Welcome To DU udqamlqc !!! WillyT Mar 2014 #243

Indeed...he had the Act available to him, chose not to conduct himself under it, and now, msanthrope Mar 2014 #249

Why would he follow an act which would not have protected him? JJChambers Mar 2014 #281

But it would have protected him--all he needed was an "urgent concern" of what *he* believed was msanthrope Mar 2014 #283

Again, other people say leaving the US was his best hope. merrily Mar 2014 #410

Apparently YOU didn't read it. All Snowden needed to do was to go to his hero Rand Paul, who has MADem Mar 2014 #302

Too bad the law protecting the PEOPLE rather than CORPORATIONS, was tampered with sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #293

LMFAO ...sure they will be protected by some ignored Act. L0oniX Mar 2014 #318

He didn't have to go to a lawyer--he could have gone to the OIG, or any member of certain msanthrope Mar 2014 #321

Would we know if Snowden had consulted with a lawyer? merrily Mar 2014 #364

Not only private contractors. Other whistleblowers merrily Mar 2014 #142

good citizen father founding Mar 2014 #297

This has been pointed out. Repeatedly. That you didn't know this riderinthestorm Mar 2014 #5

Is it authoritarian to note that Mr. Snowden hasn't provided documentation of this claim? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #8

Does he have to? Wouldn't that "ruin" another NSA person's career as he's already been accused of? riderinthestorm Mar 2014 #16

Well, yes. FYI--Snowden was protected under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act msanthrope Mar 2014 #20

Your post has an interesting legal opinion: ddddemarco Mar 2014 #101

Thank you - my sentiments also. erronis Mar 2014 #141

Of course....had he used the Act, he would have been shielded. But he didn't use the Act, did he? msanthrope Mar 2014 #165

I disagree that he would have been shielded. cui bono Mar 2014 #177

Oh--I think had he followed the proper channels and gone to Sanders or Warren, he would have been msanthrope Mar 2014 #259

Do you have proof of that? cui bono Mar 2014 #322

The problem with your hypo is that the law that would have shielded Snowden was not in existence msanthrope Mar 2014 #325

So he should have stayed because of your faith in the system? cui bono Mar 2014 #330

He should have stayed because of his faith. Otherwise, his motive was purely malicious. msanthrope Mar 2014 #336

He didn't have faith in the system. Not many people do. cui bono Mar 2014 #340

Obviously, his faith was not in US fairness to whistleblowers. merrily Mar 2014 #411

I don't want to seem tit for tat, but merrily Mar 2014 #405

Skip out BEFORE stealing documents? OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #425

Skipping out before stealing is not what I meant. merrily Mar 2014 #453

The problem with your assertions is that several Whsitle Blowers who abided by the letter of the law sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #422

IIRC, Drake has as well. merrily Mar 2014 #408

Former whistleblowers, including Drake and Ellsberg, beg to differ. merrily Mar 2014 #394

Did they go to Warren, Sanders, or otherwise take action as directed by the whistleblower msanthrope Mar 2014 #396

You tell me. merrily Mar 2014 #404

P.S. FWIW, Drake's wiki also says he went through channels. merrily Mar 2014 #454

Says he tried. Doesn't matter now. This is NSA v. 4th Amendment. That matters. merrily Mar 2014 #184

Not to those that Aerows Mar 2014 #187

4th amendment rights are the issue, not Snowden. merrily Mar 2014 #193

Indeed, the issue is about 4th Amendment rights Aerows Mar 2014 #194

Yes, the issue is deprivation of our rights, but merrily Mar 2014 #199

Sorry I wasn't clear Aerows Mar 2014 #201

No worries. I did not take anything personally. merrily Mar 2014 #203

Your citation says that Snowden would not have been shielded. IOW ddddemarco Mar 2014 #314

No, but none of us knows if he really would have been shielded or merrily Mar 2014 #409

Well of course we should treestar Mar 2014 #103

If he has to prove it, it's to the country, if any, that entertains his request merrily Mar 2014 #189

He doesn't have to prove any of that until he comes to the US to be tried treestar Mar 2014 #271

I included a nation who takes his application for amnesty, if they request it. merrily Mar 2014 #360

This is a crop circle thread--the lack of proof confirms the truthiness of the claims. msanthrope Mar 2014 #277

LOL nt SunSeeker Mar 2014 #301

For reasons stated in my reply to treestar and others, the real crop circle may be merrily Mar 2014 #402

Or any claim for that matter.... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #30

Here you go... cui bono Mar 2014 #113

Not proof....merely his words with no paper to back it up. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #164

So what does it matter anyway? Does it change what the NSA is doing? cui bono Mar 2014 #168

What does it matter? Well, first of all, it's a claim in mitigation of the criminal msanthrope Mar 2014 #170

But how does that change what the NSA is doing? cui bono Mar 2014 #171

But the thread isn't about the NSA...it's about his claim of reporting 10 times to his superiors. msanthrope Mar 2014 #173

You're absolutely right about the thread. cui bono Mar 2014 #175

He's not in court yet, no court in the world. merrily Mar 2014 #406

Not proof, but evidence, isn't it. merrily Mar 2014 #196

Evidence of what? In what court do you think this is evidence? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #262

All of them? JJChambers Mar 2014 #282

No, my friend, no. First, you have to clear the hurdle of relevancy. Explain to me msanthrope Mar 2014 #285

Perhaps, initially, you intended to address the admissibility of this evidence? JJChambers Mar 2014 #292

No. And no. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #305

Then we're in agreement; evidence is evidence. JJChambers Mar 2014 #306

No, we are not in agreement. And you seem to be ducking a very precise question I posted msanthrope Mar 2014 #308

Yes, we are in agreement, unless you contend that evidence isn't evidence. Good day. Nt JJChambers Mar 2014 #310

I asked you a very specifc question about what you think is evidence, and it seems you cannot answer msanthrope Mar 2014 #313

In which post number did you ask that? JJChambers Mar 2014 #316

Post 285. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #319

In that post you asked about relevancy. JJChambers Mar 2014 #320

Yes. Exactly. You are claiming this statement is "evidence." That is an apriori msanthrope Mar 2014 #323

Diversion JJChambers Mar 2014 #326

No--I'm really serious--you are claiming this is "evidence." Of what, exactly, pray tell? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #328

You know it is evidence JJChambers Mar 2014 #334

Okay--you say it's "evidence" of motive and it's a mitigating factor. msanthrope Mar 2014 #337

How are they not? JJChambers Mar 2014 #339

Okay--the law does not work by proving negatives. It works by you claiming msanthrope Mar 2014 #341

Okay--forum discussions do not work constantly shifting the focus of the discussion. JJChambers Mar 2014 #344

Backing down? Okay. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #345

I've addressed your post 262 concerning evidence JJChambers Mar 2014 #348

No--you still haven't answered the question--what is this evidence of, precisely? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #357

It's a confession, it goes to motive, and it's a mitigating factor. JJChambers Mar 2014 #358

Oh dear, sweet Christ....if he's confessing to the crimes he's charged with, then msanthrope Mar 2014 #370

I think you're confused, my friend. JJChambers Mar 2014 #371

So now this is evidence for a forum, but not a court? Yeah...I can see why you'd back down. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #372

Still confused? JJChambers Mar 2014 #373

No--again, when confronted with the illogical nature of your claims, you've backed down. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #374

Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it true. JJChambers Mar 2014 #377

His claim is not evidence. OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #342

And how is testimonial evidence not evidence? merrily Mar 2014 #412

Testimonial evidence IS evidence. OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #420

thanks. I thought you were making a distinction between merrily Mar 2014 #426

... and may be admissible in court... OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #430

No idea why we beat the evidence issue to death when there's no arrest, let merrily Mar 2014 #451

Links to the statutes. merrily Mar 2014 #363

The court that is trying this case. merrily Mar 2014 #362

For anyone interested in admission against interest: merrily Mar 2014 #365

Yes....and I think any defense lawyer who tried to get this submitted would msanthrope Mar 2014 #369

Get this... Evidence... In? JJChambers Mar 2014 #380

I didn't call it "evidence," did I? And I do think that a defense attorney who msanthrope Mar 2014 #383

You don't have to call it evidence on DU for it to be evidence. merrily Mar 2014 #386

I responded already to your post on admissibilty. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #392

Thanks. I'm thinking a prosecutor could probably get it in. merrily Mar 2014 #429

There is no question his sworn testimony in court would be evidence. merrily Mar 2014 #443

Your question wasn't whether the evidence was beneficial or damaging, JJChambers Mar 2014 #389

You and I will not agree. So what do you think this is evidence of? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #393

We do agree JJChambers Mar 2014 #398

Secretly I agree with you? I think you've spent a little too much time trying to figure out my msanthrope Mar 2014 #399

Reeeedirreeecting JJChambers Mar 2014 #403

I'd better hope? Why? Is someone going to prosecute me? merrily Mar 2014 #382

That's a facile interpretation of an admission against interest--- msanthrope Mar 2014 #391

Again, it seems Snowden or attorney cannot introduce it. merrily Mar 2014 #413

To the best of my knowledge, he's not been charged in England. OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #428

He is under no obligation to do so and, AFAIK, no one has asked. merrily Mar 2014 #159

So just when will he "provide this documentation to us"? Aren't we important enough to see it? VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #205

The issue is not Snowden, but violation of the 4th Amendment. merrily Mar 2014 #217

No actually it is NOT this is about the truthfulness of Snowden again saying something VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #220

No, actually, it is about massive violation of the constitution. merrily Mar 2014 #222

NO in this thread we are discussing the fact that SNOWDEN again SAYS he has done something VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #223

Regardless of the OP, the 4th amendment is real issue in the entire scenario. merrily Mar 2014 #225

so are you saying that just the name Snowden is synonymous with the 4th Amendment? VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #226

No. You are absolutely not important enough. cui bono Mar 2014 #338

and apparently neither are you! VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #352

I'm not outraged about it. cui bono Mar 2014 #356

No but blindly believing Republicans Clapper and Alexander could be considered authoritarian. nm rhett o rick Mar 2014 #227

Look at these sub-threads! Rex Mar 2014 #438

That's simply not true. I admit I haven't followed the Snowden debates that closely fried eggs Mar 2014 #22

Help? merrily Mar 2014 #163

He can't legally name the 10 officials Aerows Mar 2014 #192

There is no prohibtion on naming NSA employees. Perhaps you could cite the law you msanthrope Mar 2014 #257

The Espionage Act of 1917 MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #268

WHAT???? Kindly cite the actual subsection of the law you are referring to. You know, the one msanthrope Mar 2014 #275

It is just a joy to watch you in evisceration mode Number23 Mar 2014 #347

What is your response to this comment... DonViejo Mar 2014 #126

I replied to it Aerows Mar 2014 #195

Indeed--where is the documentation proving this claim? I would have saved an email or two. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #6

And taken on a treason charge Aerows Mar 2014 #197

Kindly cite the law you are referring to, please? I am quite serious about this---kindly cite the msanthrope Mar 2014 #258

I'm around lawyers all the time 1awake Mar 2014 #265

True...but since you are around lawyers all the time, why not ask them if it's a crime to msanthrope Mar 2014 #276

I wouldn't need to; I already know the answer. 1awake Mar 2014 #286

Really??? Care to cite the provision of law you think tells you this? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #288

Which part? Your not really trying to say nobody at the NSA is doing convert/secret work? nt 1awake Mar 2014 #289

Again....point me to the law you think precludes you from naming an NSA employee, even if they msanthrope Mar 2014 #307

Your playing word games, thus not debating honestly. Ill opt out. nt 1awake Mar 2014 #309

I'm asking you this in all seriousness....you've made a claim, kindly provide the law you think this msanthrope Mar 2014 #311

If they're doing covert work, wouldn't that come close to the Plame situation. merrily Mar 2014 #419

I don't know, but I don't think that would have stopped the debates in the least. cui bono Mar 2014 #19

Maybe he did, and it simply didn't fit the reporting narrative? AtheistCrusader Mar 2014 #92

Maybe. Maybe not. merrily Mar 2014 #135

Bingo Aerows Mar 2014 #183

Because he just thought about it. eom 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #317

This was made public, but if you think it would have avoided what you saw on DU... MrMickeysMom Mar 2014 #375

Sure didn't avoid it on this thread, did it? merrily Mar 2014 #414

Don't confuse the Snowden bashers with Cleita Mar 2014 #2

I would love the information!! Where's the actual proof he did this? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #26

Do you think the WAPO reporter would have written this article Cleita Mar 2014 #29

Yes--I do. She provides a link to testimony, but not to actual evidence...like emails, or copies of msanthrope Mar 2014 #32

Sorry, I didn't write the article. Maybe you need to ask that author the Cleita Mar 2014 #34

Um...this was unsworn--as you can see by your link provided. And where's the link to the evidence msanthrope Mar 2014 #38

You need to email this reporter, if you really care, and ask her but I have Cleita Mar 2014 #61

Enough for what? He says he complained! Okay....show proof of that. It's pretty simple. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #65

The burden of proof is not mine. Stop with the red herrings already. Cleita Mar 2014 #75

Then why do you believe it's there without seeing it first? treestar Mar 2014 #105

"Just because Eddie said so?" Oh plez. nm rhett o rick Mar 2014 #219

You are saying that asking for proof instead of relying on hearsay neffernin Mar 2014 #129

It goes both ways. merrily Mar 2014 #423

"you have a feeling" VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #206

Uh, you *are* a lawyer, right? Aerows Mar 2014 #190

Yes. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #312

Here... cui bono Mar 2014 #115

That's a statement...not proof of anything. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #169

Be honest... MrMickeysMom Mar 2014 #376

Good lord....I don't want to hear about your sexual fantasies towards me. How uncouth. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #378

predictable answer... MrMickeysMom Mar 2014 #379

How should one answer your rudeness? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #381

As you know, the OP article provides information. merrily Mar 2014 #415

I've been begging for information nonstop since the whole ordeal began Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #59

Does he have any evidence of this? Any? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #4

He has this much evidence. randome Mar 2014 #9

I was thinking it was more the jack/shit quotient myself. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #13

He's a liar. He needs to show proof if he's going to spout off his fucking mouth. Cha Mar 2014 #71

I await the proof of a single email. And enjoy reading the reasons why it can't be produced. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #73

And if he did? Union Scribe Mar 2014 #161

So, because his proof might be treated with skepticism, that's the reason there is no proof? msanthrope Mar 2014 #167

He's a liar? We have plenty of documentary evidence that NSA is pakced with liars. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2014 #162

No, he doesn't need to show proof before he speaks. merrily Mar 2014 #427

Much like the birthers and the President's birth certificate SwankyXomb Mar 2014 #95

And you can be convinced just because Eddie says so? treestar Mar 2014 #107

I wouldn't mind there being some evidence behind it SwankyXomb Mar 2014 #123

If he showed he went through what the WPA allows him treestar Mar 2014 #132

And for one reason Aerows Mar 2014 #185

Almost anything can be falsified anymore, even money. merrily Mar 2014 #433

So far, everything he's said has checked out, while MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #251

So Snowden must be telling the truth because James Clapper lied? I don't think that's a logical msanthrope Mar 2014 #254

Which part of "most likely" means "must"? MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #255

Again--not a very logical test for candor. I am dismayed to hear you echo a RW talking point: msanthrope Mar 2014 #256

Oh, now I'm a CPAC member. MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #260

I'm saying that your concern over the Exec. branch echoes a hot CPAC topic--much like your Benghazi msanthrope Mar 2014 #263

"You're not CPAC... BUT YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN PLANT OF SOME KIND, DAMMIT!!!" MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #266

You seem upset. I am merely noting the various concerns you raise, and the sources msanthrope Mar 2014 #267

It cracks me up that in the thread you refer to, you refuse to look at links I supplied MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #269

Manny, your complaint doesn't seem grounded in logic or facts. msanthrope Mar 2014 #273

Before you know it you will be told that you have issues with your mother. L0oniX Mar 2014 #384

My mother ...drunk or sober. L0oniX Mar 2014 #333

Who did he go to, and when? Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #7

He's talking out his ass. randome Mar 2014 #11

His Lawyers are not going to let him give names. He has a sealed indictment KoKo Mar 2014 #50

I'm pretty sure he isn't planning to come back for the foreseeable future Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #82

You responded to an unbelivable non-sequitor. OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #89

It's up to Congress & EU Countries Parliaments to Open Investigations KoKo Mar 2014 #94

Why isn't it up to the Justice Department? Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #98

True why not identify them all if they did such terrible things? treestar Mar 2014 #109

I think Snowden in his mind has the notion (rightly or wrongly) Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #137

I have no idea......... KoKo Mar 2014 #176

MIght not be his choice. merrily Mar 2014 #431

Who says he has to fly under a U.S. passport? Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #464

No one, including me, said that, but I don't think merrily Mar 2014 #466

He couldn't apply for RU citizenship? Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #468

The only lawyer with access to Eddie is that guy from Russian intelligence, Anatoly struggle4progress Mar 2014 #224

Look--if his lawyers had any control over him, they would have stopped him from talking to the EU msanthrope Mar 2014 #264

did he keep copies of the emails? nt geek tragedy Mar 2014 #15

You know--you'd think he would. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #23

Knowing what he knew about emails, I'm amazed he emailed. merrily Mar 2014 #432

In govt work...you DON'T just delete emails.....you keep a paper trail of all communication because VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #33

I'm sure he has email records of having raised issues. Right? Otherwise, it is hard to prove Pretzel_Warrior Mar 2014 #18

Did he say he raised issues about revealing top secret stuff via email? merrily Mar 2014 #424

Thank you, Edward Snowden. woo me with science Mar 2014 #21

Asking if he kept copies of his complaints is "truth supression?" nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #25

Stasi!!! Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #43

My criminal clients need to try this strategy....I had a guy whose alibi msanthrope Mar 2014 #46

How DARE you come in here with your years of legal knowledge and experience and stuff! Number23 Mar 2014 #150

This is a crop circle thread. The lack of proof of aliens means.... msanthrope Mar 2014 #174

A crop circle thread. By George, you've nailed it Number23 Mar 2014 #216

Oh my. (Seventeen techniques for truth suppression) woo me with science Mar 2014 #229

It's a vague improvement over your usual sentences of noun, verb and "PROPAGANDA!1!" but not Number23 Mar 2014 #231

I know! How *unrealistic* the concepts of advertising and propaganda are. woo me with science Mar 2014 #234

I should probably be surprised a photo of crop circles set you off like this but for some reason Number23 Mar 2014 #235

"set you off like this" woo me with science Mar 2014 #238

Everything is simple when you see enemies and conspiracies around every corner Number23 Mar 2014 #245

Still Number 5. Trying desperately to invoke crop circles and "conspiracy" theories, woo me with science Mar 2014 #246

Spoken like a true #19 Number23 Mar 2014 #247

For eleven year olds anyway. merrily Mar 2014 #421

Apparently the crop circles have numbers, now. I suppose it got tiring to write msanthrope Mar 2014 #252

Yes and many others have noted the same thing. That asking for proof of Snowden's claims Number23 Mar 2014 #346

It's coming out now because Greenwald's book is out at the end of the month. It's part of a larger msanthrope Mar 2014 #351

Psst. woo me with science Mar 2014 #232

When she misspells "Orwellian" I'll be sure to let you know Number23 Mar 2014 #233

Yes, it's certainly tempting to make the allusion to that great novel woo me with science Mar 2014 #248

What was that wonderful piece of "Newspeak" used by General Clapper? bvar22 Mar 2014 #444

But even 60 years in law school wouldn't tell her if he has evidence or not. merrily Mar 2014 #434

Whatever the hell this is even supposed to mean Number23 Mar 2014 #460

Obviously, many care, including her, or this thread wouldn't be this long. merrily Mar 2014 #461

haha, Respect our Authoritay! Signed: Authoritarians of da BOG. Whisp Mar 2014 #209

Nope, it's a shameless Number 13. woo me with science Mar 2014 #236

LOL !!! WillyT Mar 2014 #27

LOL nt Mojorabbit Mar 2014 #28

LMFAOROTFLOL L0oniX Mar 2014 #385

Riiight. So he takes a shitload of classified documents/military secrets and TwilightGardener Mar 2014 #24

Too bad we live in a country in which he HAD TO flee WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2014 #31

Snowden said he ran because he was afraid, now he is saying he was not afraid Whisp Mar 2014 #212

lol WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2014 #213

this is nothing but observable opinion.. frylock Mar 2014 #45

Fact: He took the B/A/H job to access the material (he said this). TwilightGardener Mar 2014 #69

It may appear to you that he is a spy, but it does not appear to everyone that way. merrily Mar 2014 #435

Oh? South China Morning Post on 12 June 2013 reported that Snowden told them struggle4progress Mar 2014 #35

LIke I said. snowden's a fooking liar. Anyone who believes his shit.. Cha Mar 2014 #77

It's kinda like a mafioso reporting to the Godfather that the Mafia is doing illegal stuff. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #36

Comparing Snowden to a rat is pretty apt. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #39

As is comparing the NSA to the Mafia. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #41

Without a doubt. Some of us don't think in terms of good and evil. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #42

Exactly. BlueCheese Mar 2014 #152

One thing is certain: Maedhros Mar 2014 #37

So you say on a thread about Snowden. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #40

All you do is throw bombs azureblue Mar 2014 #47

Excuse me? Look, if you've got proof that he actually complained, please post it. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #49

It's always a moving target for you and your type DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2014 #70

Actually, it's not a moving target at all. He says he complained 10 times. Any proof? As for msanthrope Mar 2014 #72

So What So What So What Caretha Mar 2014 #270

We attorneys tend to know the difference between lying and perjury. And if you msanthrope Mar 2014 #274

Funny someone wants to question your bonafides after having proven them over many years. randome Mar 2014 #284

It's the same reaction criminal clients have when you tell them something they don't want to hear. msanthrope Mar 2014 #287

No one questioned her bona fides. merrily Mar 2014 #462

Just a FYI. Puglover Mar 2014 #290

Speaking of grandiose claims, that's just funny. Attorneys get fooled all the time. merrily Mar 2014 #416

Attorneys are not the sole owners of some special kind of Lie Detector. bvar22 Mar 2014 #445

In fairness, merrily Mar 2014 #463

Whether they filed has nothing to do with whether they merrily Mar 2014 #458

Please see post 458. Thanks. merrily Mar 2014 #459

Umm...where else would I post it? Maedhros Mar 2014 #54

... Rex Mar 2014 #118

Which is his own fault, to be fair... Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #88

Some others? He's already outed a good portion of the whole government. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #153

Oops!.. There goes another irrelevant Talking Point favored by the Snowden haters. bvar22 Mar 2014 #44

Can you provide proof that he complained? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #48

Did you read my post? bvar22 Mar 2014 #52

Oh, I read your post. I'm just wondering if you actually have any proof that he complained. If he msanthrope Mar 2014 #58

Can you provide proof that he didn't? Can you provide proof that Clapper didn't lie? Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #53

The person making the claim provides the proof. Otherwise, I can claim I'm the Empress of Russia, msanthrope Mar 2014 #56

Yet you seem inclined to believe what the NSA and the regime tell you. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #60

What? Kindly cite where I've done that? Further, I'm not claiming that msanthrope Mar 2014 #66

Ouch. GoneFishin Mar 2014 #74

Why believe what the NSA tells us? randome Mar 2014 #80

Well, I'm a helluva lot more inclined to believe Snowden than the NSA. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #86

Understandable. randome Mar 2014 #87

I rather doubt that you did anything near as devastating as the NSA has done. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #155

Why? treestar Mar 2014 #114

I imagine in it's history it must have (maybe) done something beneficial. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #154

So far, Snowden has a MUCH better record of Telling the Verified TRUTH than the NSA. bvar22 Mar 2014 #99

I'd rather believe Snowden. 840high Mar 2014 #207

If you believe, wherever you are, clap your hands and he'll hear you . . . ucrdem Mar 2014 #291

The NSA has been proven to have lied to us. merrily Mar 2014 #465

There may be DU members who work for the NSA. L0oniX Mar 2014 #388

Funny how that works zeemike Mar 2014 #90

The only people who mention boxes are the Snowden defenders. randome Mar 2014 #93

For me "boxes in the garage" is a metaphor for zeemike Mar 2014 #96

+1000 bvar22 Mar 2014 #139

Yup. It's called flinging shit woo me with science Mar 2014 #300

My mother ...drunk or sober. L0oniX Mar 2014 #331

yep..nt xiamiam Mar 2014 #102

He admits that he was guilty! treestar Mar 2014 #116

There it is! Maedhros Mar 2014 #124

He admits it treestar Mar 2014 #127

Then post that, rather than some stupid smilie that belongs on a middle-school twitter feed. [n/t] Maedhros Mar 2014 #131

You don't like that smiley? treestar Mar 2014 #134

No reason, other that a desire to see the level of discourse improve [n/t] Maedhros Mar 2014 #148

It would be a waste of time. It seems some of you must see Snowden discredited at any cost. rhett o rick Mar 2014 #221

Fantastic Post! Recommend! KoKo Mar 2014 #51

+ 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!! WillyT Mar 2014 #57

+1000! n/t Catherina Mar 2014 #64

" than a cat trying to bury shit on a linoleum floor" woo me with science Mar 2014 #68

woo please add solicitor general lying to sc to list questionseverything Mar 2014 #304

Thank you for adding this. woo me with science Mar 2014 #353

I'm not even a hater... Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #91

Questioning Snowden is now questioning democracy treestar Mar 2014 #112

1000+ DeSwiss Mar 2014 #133

^^^THIS^^^ ...should be its own op. + a billion bvar L0oniX Mar 2014 #390

Snowden!? Look out a chemical reaction has started! Rex Mar 2014 #55

I might be wrong but I tend to believe Snowden more than my own government. ... spin Mar 2014 #62

Me Too... Well Said... WillyT Mar 2014 #63

No kidding.. BlueJac Mar 2014 #97

+10000000 woo me with science Mar 2014 #100

Snowden has a better track record of telling the truth: bvar22 Mar 2014 #147

Indeed. woo me with science Mar 2014 #240

+ another billion L0oniX Mar 2014 #395

...^ 840high Mar 2014 #208

Spare me your tales, Comrade Eddie. SoapBox Mar 2014 #67

Ooh, accusation of *Russkie* sympathies. woo me with science Mar 2014 #106

WOLVERINES!!12 frylock Mar 2014 #128

Time to Crawl Out from that Nuclear Bunker fascisthunter Mar 2014 #442

This is simply ProSense Mar 2014 #76

Snowden's a whiny liar. Cha Mar 2014 #78

Good catch treestar Mar 2014 #120

Changing his story again? Try reading this from 4 months ago: SomethingFishy Mar 2014 #121

Yes, ProSense Mar 2014 #143

Flawless Victory, Prosense. Whisp Mar 2014 #200

But he didn't go through proper channels and is not claiming he did. merrily Mar 2014 #436

Same old BS. No matter how many times he is proven right, and them wrong. It is the same GoneFishin Mar 2014 #79

To ascend to that 'proven' dimension, one needs 'proof'. randome Mar 2014 #81

I'll let time do the talking. It has and will continue to do so. Meanwhile no one here is fooled GoneFishin Mar 2014 #104

Kicked and recommended a whole bunch.....nt Enthusiast Mar 2014 #83

Thank you, Edward Snowden. randome Mar 2014 #84

This ^^^^^^^^^ treestar Mar 2014 #117

guffaw... Whisp Mar 2014 #211

Oh? What concerns? That tyranny is coming? ucrdem Mar 2014 #85

I was waiting for this smear! He's a dirty LIBERTARIAN!!!!!11! woo me with science Mar 2014 #108

Not a smear. Snowball forked over $500 to Ron Paul in 2012: ucrdem Mar 2014 #119

Bwah! woo me with science Mar 2014 #140

I'm a bot like Snowball is a journalist. nt ucrdem Mar 2014 #166

Nice. I bookmarked that collection of links. Thanks. GoneFishin Mar 2014 #296

Oh, so Poitras is a "Libertarian" now? Do you even realize how clueless that makes you appear? Maedhros Mar 2014 #130

Let's just say her horizons expanded when she joined the Koch crowd. nt ucrdem Mar 2014 #180

You, sir or madam, are out of your mind. Maedhros Mar 2014 #230

You don't seem very good at figuring things out. ucrdem Mar 2014 #242

You don't think it's concerning that some junior analyst at the NSA... Hippo_Tron Mar 2014 #144

He's never offered any proof he could do that. randome Mar 2014 #149

Only 10 times? Obviously 11 times would have been the correct number, but he did not raise his GoneFishin Mar 2014 #122

This is the reason for all the... ReRe Mar 2014 #125

Interesting thought...isn't it. KoKo Mar 2014 #215

They've been stacking the deck for decades... ReRe Mar 2014 #218

K&R DeSwiss Mar 2014 #136

K&R Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #138

He just blew a gigantic hole right through the "why didn't he do this officially" crowd LittleBlue Mar 2014 #145

Well, we know at least he didn't go to the Inspector General Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #179

+1 The talking points have become sad parodies of themselves. woo me with science Mar 2014 #239

It seems obvious to me. BlueCheese Mar 2014 #151

Unlike those valiant citizens mentioned by name, Snowden ran. idendoit Mar 2014 #160

And Yet They Support Snowden.. WillyT Mar 2014 #186

They didn't say they supported him running away. idendoit Mar 2014 #198

They support what he did. And are grateful. truebluegreen Mar 2014 #280

Still don't see any support for him running away. idendoit Mar 2014 #294

"All the other REAL whistleblowers either retired or were reassigned." truebluegreen Mar 2014 #349

Just can't accept your boy being what he is. idendoit Mar 2014 #359

Your concern is noted. truebluegreen Mar 2014 #366

Really? Before or after 2009? underthematrix Mar 2014 #214

puhleese, the generals and Fearless Defenders will just respond by asking "but why didn't he go MisterP Mar 2014 #228

People outside the intelligence community know what happens to whistleblowers too. JoeyT Mar 2014 #241

Recommend! KoKo Mar 2014 #279

+1000. They're desperate and full of shit, and they know it. All because they could not just GoneFishin Mar 2014 #295

You nailed it. What a great summary of the relentless, irrelevant diversion woo me with science Mar 2014 #298

Excellent encapsulation! bvar22 Mar 2014 #303

How can people who do things like that believe that anyone but a conservative Zorra Mar 2014 #324

+ 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! WillyT Mar 2014 #350

he still criticized the policies of a sitting Democratic president and that will NEVER,NEVER NEVER Douglas Carpenter Mar 2014 #244

and why should we believe this without hard evidence?? DCBob Mar 2014 #253

"Oh, and by the way, I saved President Obama's life once." randome Mar 2014 #261

You've summed it up the most succinctly treestar Mar 2014 #272

Absolutely. nt mimi85 Mar 2014 #327

CYA works better before "going rogue", Snowjob. nt tridim Mar 2014 #278

Ummmm....WTF? Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #299

Our government wants to be totalitarian and fascist. L0oniX Mar 2014 #315

Did he say this before or is this new? hrmjustin Mar 2014 #329

New, apparently. You'd think he might have mentioned this before. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #343

Then this is suspect if he never mentioned this before. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #354

Whatever it takes to get our TLA's to actually do their jobs instead of "collect it all." Pholus Mar 2014 #332

K & r! n/t wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #355

*****SHOW PROOF NOT JUST A THEIVES WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!************* uponit7771 Mar 2014 #367

Perhaps you meant "thief's" /nt think Mar 2014 #400

I was gonna say I before E except after C. Puglover Mar 2014 #441

Yeah...Make CLAPPER give some! Pholus Mar 2014 #447

Clapper an admitted thief too? uponit7771 Mar 2014 #449

What's your point? merrily Mar 2014 #455

Nope, he gave the "least untruthful" answer to avoid admitting it. Pholus Mar 2014 #457

"Least untruthful" = gobbledegook speak for "huge lie." merrily Mar 2014 #469

Another NSA Whistleblower, Russell Tice, was ignored by ABCNNBCBSFakeNoiseNutworks. Octafish Mar 2014 #368

Let's be totally blunt here. Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2014 #387

+1 woo me with science Mar 2014 #407

Agreed. How true. GoneFishin Mar 2014 #418

agreed. nt La Lioness Priyanka Mar 2014 #440

Agreed. bvar22 Mar 2014 #446

BULL FUCKIN SHIT!!! If an idiot haphazardly puts folks lives in danger (per Der Spiegel) NEEDLESSLY uponit7771 Mar 2014 #450

The disclosures have not been haphazard. merrily Mar 2014 #456

I'll take Der Spiegels word for it, they said he handed over items that could put peoples lives in uponit7771 Mar 2014 #467

I hear you, Snowden. I hear you. Baitball Blogger Mar 2014 #397

Highly recommend. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2014 #401

I. Don't. Believe. Him...nt SidDithers Mar 2014 #417

Kudos. merrily Mar 2014 #437

I.don't.believe.CLAPPER.neither. Pholus Mar 2014 #448

Clapper admitted he lied to congress and the American people, but merrily Mar 2014 #452