Everyone is under surveillance now, says whistleblower Edward Snowden

[NanceGreggs]

121. Again, how does the NSA 'prove' ...

... that a specific program doesn't do X without revealing what that specific program DOES do - which is confidential information?

And yet again, would the Snowden fans EVER take the NSA's word for it? I think we both know the answer to THAT question: No, they would not.

The Snowden Adoration Society has ignored his exaggerations, his lies, his behaviour, his unproven statements. They have tied themselves into pretzels in order to "explain" his every word and every deed as being misinterpreted, mis-represented, mis-judged.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that if the NSA offered anything by way of proof that Snowden's allegations have no basis in fact, his fans would simply admit they'd been misled?

Yeah, fat chance of that. The SAS has dug its heels in, and nothing - NOTHING - will ever satisfy them in terms of proving their hero to have been a liar all along. To do so would be to admit having been led down the garden path by a blatant liar - and there is no way in hell they are ever going to admit any such thing.

That was what spawned the "it's not the messenger, it's the message" meme. It was an admission by the SAS - when confronted with undeniable evidence that Snowden was not the Great American Hero they'd initially declared him to be - that "the messenger's" character was of no import in assessing the truthfulness of what he had to say.

I, for one (and I know I am not alone), believe that when someone has been proven to be a liar, trying to convince others that "this one time he's telling the truth" doesn't quite cut it.

How many times have DUers responded to an article they don't agree with by saying "consider the source", as they go on to point out the unreliability of that source? Why does Snowden get a pass when HIS reliability as a source is questioned?

The statement It's not about the messenger, it's about the message was the last resort of those who know "the messenger" is untrustworthy, but still want to insist that "the message" has zero to do with the messenger who delivered it.