Everyone is under surveillance now, says whistleblower Edward Snowden

[NanceGreggs]

106. It IS asking for proof of a negative.

How does the NSA "prove" that it's NOT doing something?

Let me give you a hypothetical: Have you ever been to a bar in Nova Scotia called "The Pipe & Pickle"? If your answer is NO, and I ask you to prove you've never been there, the only way you could do so would be to show evidence of your whereabouts elsewhere for every minute of your life.

The mandate of the NSA is to keep certain operations secret. How do they go about maintaining that necessary secrecy while, at the same time, accounting for their every move in order to prove that what Snowden has alleged has never taken place?

And let's not be coy. If the NSA DID adopt a posture of greater transparency, would the Snowden Adoration Society accept that the NSA has never done what Snowden alleges they do? We both know that cries of "they're just hiding their malfeasance while pretending to be more transparent" would be all over DU.

It is no coincidence that the "Obama is a POS used care salesman" crowd hang onto Snowden's every word, and the fact that he has yet to prove his allegations is, to them, of little or no importance. The man's character is of little or no importance. The man's actions are of little or no importance. The man's contradictory statements are of little or no importance. The man's obvious lies are of little or no importance.

The only thing that IS of importance to the Snowden-is-a-national-hero fans is that they have someone to believe in, someone they think will put Obama in the worst possible light.

I do appreciate the irony of hearing Snowden fans accusing Obama supporters of being "blind worshippers" - while they themselves swallow every Snowden statement as gospel, without so much as a modicum of proof to back up his allegations.