Everyone is under surveillance now, says whistleblower Edward Snowden

[NanceGreggs]

128. In other words ...

... when Obama talks about the need to "strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are," and, "reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse,", he ISN'T discussing the issue of surveillance, and what limitations on its use are appropriate?

He really isn't talking about what he is obviously talking about?

"He vaguely talked about the need to balance national security and privacy in intercepting communications in the US. Hardly an expression of any commitment to NSA reform or even to a national discussion of the issue."

I think that most reasonable people would agree that when the POTUS delivers a public speech about surveillance, he is obviously addressing the topic - something the Snowden Adoration Society keeps insisting their boy was the first to speak out about.

Apparently, Obama's remarks were about the weather. Because we wouldn't want to admit that Snowden DIDN'T start a conversation that had already been started by Obama, would we now?

The SAS's contention has been that Eddie "started the conversation" - apparently he didn't. Ergo, the need to move the goalposts to say that Obama's comments were "hardly an expression of any commitment to NSA reform or even to a national discussion of the issue."

No one was talking about "an expression of commitment" to anything. We were discussing the idea that Snowden started the discussion. He didn't; Obama did.

But keep moving those goalposts - it is a necessary action when one's argument has been shown to be without merit.