Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: regarding Edward Snowden, the point is being missed I suspect... [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)74. Nope, no points are being missed. There are several problems with your thesis.
Problem #1 - The President was already publicly talking about a need to have a national discussion about whether the Surveillance program infringed too much on privacy. Here is his speech two weeks before Snowden leaked his information. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university
Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.
.
.
.
Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of todays threats and how we should confront them.
And these questions matter to every American.
For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, helping to explode our deficits and constraining our ability to nation-build here at home. Our servicemembers and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions that we are making now will define the type of nation -- and world -- that we leave to our children.
So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us. We have to be mindful of James Madisons warning that No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do -- what we must do -- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. And to define that strategy, we have to make decisions based not on fear, but on hard-earned wisdom. That begins with understanding the current threat that we face.
So, the idea that Snowden started the conversation, or that there was no possibility we could know that the Surveillance program might be more than we would possibly accept privacy wise doesn't work.
Problem #2 - We have no idea if the documents Snowden took were authentic or reflect actual programs in existence. And that problem derives directly from his refusal to go through official channels.
Anyone who has ever worked at a medium or large sized firm with a document management system knows that there are tons of project proposal documents in the repository for projects that never were actually implemented. In fact, there are many more project plans and proposals in the repository for projects that were never implemented for various reasons than for those that were put into operation. Even the documents that reflect projects that were implemented often have many changes associated. So we don't know if what Snowden took reflects actual projects in operation, even if those projects were ultimately put in operation, we don't know if there were changes that make a big difference. We also don't know from a document whether the project is in operation all the time or just put into operation in the case of certain contingencies.
If Snowden had approached a congressman, senator or one of the intelligence inspector generals, an investigation would have ensued that had folks with the proper clearance who could determine what programs were in place and proceed from there.
In short, because of the very way that Snowden handled this, we have no idea of the veracity and accuracy of the documents.
Problem #3 - Unlike someone like Daniel Ellsberg, he fled rather than face the challenges of what he did. And he fled to two of Americas global antagonists putting classified documents at risk and potentially into the hands of the two countries with the most potential to do damage to the US with that information.
Problem #4 - His ridiculous hyperbolic statements lend more to the conclusion that this guy is a sophomoric fool who has no idea what was really going on and is a publicity hound with delusions of grandeur. To wit:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/listen-edward-snowden-defend-whistleblowers
"Do you think it's right that the NSA is collecting more information about Americans in America than it is about Russians in Russia?" Snowden asked. "Because that's what our systems do. We watch our own people more closely than we watch any other population in the world." Snowden explained how he himself could have spied on any person, "from a federal judge to the president of the United States," from his own desk, as long as he had an e-mail address or other digital identifier of the target. "When you make a purchase, when you buy a book. All of that is collected," Snowden said. "I could see it at my desk, crossing my screen."
Problem #5 - Related to Problem #1, As EFF points out, much was already happening in various branches of government regarding the surveillance program. Note this link https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline and everything that was going on between December 2005 when the NY Times revealed the NSA programs in existence at that time to June 2013 when Snowden leaked his documents, and also note the portions between January 2009 to June 2013 when President Obama took office. To say that nothing was going on without Snowden to discuss privacy issues and other Constitutional issues with regards to NSA Surveillance is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the President was already saying we need a national discussion because the Surveillance program might be over the top (he didnt get the chance to lead that discussion, and the discussion we have had has not been level-headed because of what Snowden did), congress was already having hearings about it, the courts were hearing cases about it, it's highly likely that classified information was put into the hands of the Chinese and Russians, and we still have no definitive idea of exactly what it is the NSA is or is not doing.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
146 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
regarding Edward Snowden, the point is being missed I suspect... [View all]
Soylent Brice
May 2014
OP
155 now, dude! That's like 2/3 of the recs that the weekly Kitty thread gets!!
Number23
May 2014
#58
most poll outcomes are determined on a less than 1% of total sample size.
Obnoxious_One
May 2014
#63
...and out of 65,490,495 posts since 2001 which even makes your response more worthless.
L0oniX
May 2014
#102
Actually, polls are usually based on relatively small samples of the population.
JDPriestly
May 2014
#46
The results of that poll leave no doubt that a huge percentage of DUers approve of Snowden's
JDPriestly
May 2014
#51
Excellent points, so Snowden 'broke a law'. Too bad HE had to do that. Too bad those we elected
sabrina 1
May 2014
#25
yeah agreed!...as it turns out, facts don't hit the right histrionic notes for many prolific posters
Sheepshank
May 2014
#113
"defending and upholding the constitution." for some is only important during Republican Admin.
rhett o rick
May 2014
#134
Could you summarize your point so we can tell where you stand on this democracy? N/T
sabrina 1
May 2014
#22
Well, you have to understand, it's hard trying to defend the indefensible. I am awed by the attempts
sabrina 1
May 2014
#26
That's the 3rd time in just over 24 hours you've tried to compare this to Libby revealing Plame
muriel_volestrangler
May 2014
#70
Pro if you could find a quote of Elizabeth Warren saying he is a criminal.....
VanillaRhapsody
May 2014
#78
There are only about 10 people here who are trying to propagandize us into submission
Luminous Animal
May 2014
#34
you think DU can survive three more years of organized bullying rightwing hatemongering?
carolinayellowdog
May 2014
#138
Nope, no points are being missed. There are several problems with your thesis.
stevenleser
May 2014
#74
You can try to downplay it, but it destroys a major theme used to justify Snowden.
stevenleser
May 2014
#93
If that's the best retort to the facts presented then (wether or not Obama "meant" what he said...
uponit7771
May 2014
#97
Yeah, I know, I'm a major Debbie Downer to the Snowden worship crowd because I focus on facts
stevenleser
May 2014
#98
Hmmm decisions decisions ...worship Snowden or worship the NSA. Did you make your choice yet?
L0oniX
May 2014
#126
There is no need to paraphrase, POTUS words speak for themselves. And your last sentence misses the
stevenleser
May 2014
#145
Far from being missed the not-about-him meme has been made as much as the "authoritarian"
UTUSN
May 2014
#86
Hmmm. Interesting but not definitive/conclusive. Still, cannot be dismissed either.
stevenleser
May 2014
#94
Drake deads this thread and many pro Snowden threads. He did the same as Snowden with the
uponit7771
May 2014
#95