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
Editorials & Other Articles
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: 'I Have Been to the Darkest Corners of Government, and What They Fear Is Light' [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)144. "I say, you are traitors to this country and to it's citizens"
"To Greenwald's and Snowden's detractors and propaganists I say, you are traitors to this country and to it's citizens -- all in the name of cheerleading for your guy and blind devotion to a political party that has been ideologically dead for 25 years. History will not be kind to you. "
So if you don't approve of Greenwald and Snowden, you're "traitors"?
The OP e-mail is gobbledygook. Sounds like a line from a cheesy novel.
Snowden: U.S. Is Not Going To Be Able To Cover This Up By Jailing Or Murdering Me
Edward Snowden, the self-proclaimed source of recently leaked top secret National Security Agency documents, has answered the first questions asked to him on Monday in an open-to-the-public live chat on The Guardian's website.
The second question, from The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, read as follows: "How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?"
Snowden stopped short of answering the question directly.
"All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me," he wrote. "Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/snowden-us-is-not-going-to-be-able
Edward Snowden, the self-proclaimed source of recently leaked top secret National Security Agency documents, has answered the first questions asked to him on Monday in an open-to-the-public live chat on The Guardian's website.
The second question, from The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, read as follows: "How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?"
Snowden stopped short of answering the question directly.
"All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me," he wrote. "Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/snowden-us-is-not-going-to-be-able
Snowden is the one who seems preoccupied with spying on other countries, which is why he's in the predicament he is today.
More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower#block-51bf317be4b0d3c14258337b
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower#block-51bf317be4b0d3c14258337b
The Constitution is an American document.
If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country to make their own assessment, independent of my bias, as to whether or not the knowledge of US network operations against their people should be published.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023084875
Greenwald said that some journalists accounts of the Snowden leaks scandal, the impression many get is that America would turn to extraordinary methods to eliminate the threat posed by Snowden if he decided to turn over to a foreign government the information at his disposal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035095
"Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro with the Argentinean daily La Nacion.
"The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."
"The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023242606
More "traitors" who believe Snowden should be prosecuted:
Carter: Snowden's leaks 'good for Americans to know'
Susan Page
NEW YORK -- Former president Jimmy Carter defended the disclosures by fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden on Monday, saying revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies were collecting meta-data of Americans' phone calls and e-mails have been "probably constructive in the long run."
<...>
Does he view Snowden, now granted asylum in Russia, as a hero or a traitor?
"There's no doubt that he broke the law and that he would be susceptible, in my opinion, to prosecution if he came back here under the law," he said. "But I think it's good for Americans to know the kinds of things that have been revealed by him and others -- and that is that since 9/11 we've gone too far in intrusion on the privacy that Americans ought to enjoy as a right of citizenship."
Carter cautioned that he didn't have information about whether some of the disclosures "may have hurt our security or individuals that work in security," adding, "If I knew that, then I may feel differently." And he said Snowden shouldn't be immune from prosecution for his actions.
"I think it's inevitable that he should be prosecuted and I think he would be prosecuted" if he returned to the United States, the former president said. "But I don't think he ought to be executed as a traitor or any kind of extreme punishment like that."
- more -
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/24/usa-today-capital-download-jimmy-carter-edward-snowden-probably-constructive/6822425/
Susan Page
NEW YORK -- Former president Jimmy Carter defended the disclosures by fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden on Monday, saying revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies were collecting meta-data of Americans' phone calls and e-mails have been "probably constructive in the long run."
<...>
Does he view Snowden, now granted asylum in Russia, as a hero or a traitor?
"There's no doubt that he broke the law and that he would be susceptible, in my opinion, to prosecution if he came back here under the law," he said. "But I think it's good for Americans to know the kinds of things that have been revealed by him and others -- and that is that since 9/11 we've gone too far in intrusion on the privacy that Americans ought to enjoy as a right of citizenship."
Carter cautioned that he didn't have information about whether some of the disclosures "may have hurt our security or individuals that work in security," adding, "If I knew that, then I may feel differently." And he said Snowden shouldn't be immune from prosecution for his actions.
"I think it's inevitable that he should be prosecuted and I think he would be prosecuted" if he returned to the United States, the former president said. "But I don't think he ought to be executed as a traitor or any kind of extreme punishment like that."
- more -
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/24/usa-today-capital-download-jimmy-carter-edward-snowden-probably-constructive/6822425/
I stand with anyone who recognizes that one doesn't have defend Snowden playing Putin's tool to be on the "right side of history."
<...>
BLITZER: What about Snowden? Do you think that he committed a crime or he was simply a well-intentioned whistle-blower?
SANDERS: Well, I think what you have to look at is -- I think there is no question that he committed a crime, obviously. He violated his oath and he leaked information.
On the other hand, what you have to weigh that against is the fact that he has gone a very long way in educating the people of our country and the people of the world about the power of private agency in terms of their surveillance over people of this country, over foreign leaders, and what they are doing.
So, I think you got to weigh the two. My own belief is that I think, I would hope that the United States government could kind of negotiate some plea bargain with him, some form of clemency. I think it wouldn't be a good idea or fair to him to have to spend his entire remaining life abroad, not being able to come back to his country.
So I would hope that there's a price that he has to pay, but I hope it is not a long prison sentence or exile from his country.
BLITZER: You wouldn't give him clemency, though, and let him off scot-free?
SANDERS: No. BLITZER: All right, Senator, thanks very much for joining us.
<...>
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1401/06/sitroom.02.html
BLITZER: What about Snowden? Do you think that he committed a crime or he was simply a well-intentioned whistle-blower?
SANDERS: Well, I think what you have to look at is -- I think there is no question that he committed a crime, obviously. He violated his oath and he leaked information.
On the other hand, what you have to weigh that against is the fact that he has gone a very long way in educating the people of our country and the people of the world about the power of private agency in terms of their surveillance over people of this country, over foreign leaders, and what they are doing.
So, I think you got to weigh the two. My own belief is that I think, I would hope that the United States government could kind of negotiate some plea bargain with him, some form of clemency. I think it wouldn't be a good idea or fair to him to have to spend his entire remaining life abroad, not being able to come back to his country.
So I would hope that there's a price that he has to pay, but I hope it is not a long prison sentence or exile from his country.
BLITZER: You wouldn't give him clemency, though, and let him off scot-free?
SANDERS: No. BLITZER: All right, Senator, thanks very much for joining us.
<...>
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1401/06/sitroom.02.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024292659
Senator Blumenthal: prosecute Snowden, overhaul FISA courts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023425884
Rep. John Lewis: "NO PRAISE FOR SNOWDEN-Reports about my interview with The Guardian are misleading"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023427908
What Mr. Snowden did is treason, was high crimes, and there is nothing in what we say that justifies what he did, said Richard Clarke, a former White House counter-terrorism advisor and current ABC News contributor. Whether or not this panel would have been created anyway, I dont know, but I dont think anything that Ive learned justifies the treasonous acts of Mr. Snowden.
From the beginning, it was clear that Snowden broke the law (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439290). There was a point where even Snowden supporters accepted that he knew he broke the law. Snowden said it himself.
Fleeing the country and releasing state secrets did not help his case.
His actions since then have only made the situation worse.
Whistleblowers have been making that point, some in subtle ways.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023236549
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035550
Of course, this is dimissed because they're also critical of the NSA. It's as if some think that you can't be against NSA overreach (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023002358) unless you support Snowden.
What's that line thrown out whenever Greenwald is criticized: Were you against Clarke when he went after Bush? Were you for Scooter Libby when he leaked Plame's identity?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
220 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
'I Have Been to the Darkest Corners of Government, and What They Fear Is Light' [View all]
Octafish
May 2014
OP
Because it's very different. Also, the USG is both buying AND selling our info in the marketplace.
merrily
May 2014
#85
It was not intentional. In fact, I had edited my original version of that sentence
merrily
May 2014
#182
Yes, no and maybe. I stand by my statement, as it was phrased, in the context in which I made it.
merrily
Jun 2014
#215
Oh, I know...that's more what I was thinking when I first posted, actually.
BlancheSplanchnik
Jun 2014
#216
I agree that there is the left and then there is the left. (We need some new vocabulary words, but
merrily
May 2014
#105
Thanks..and if you go to the link he has news reports to back up all of his statements
KoKo
May 2014
#50
Is this some kind of federal holiday that the anti-Snowden crowd is taking off?
JDPriestly
Jun 2014
#203
Rather than protect the First Amendment, they attack the whistleblower and the reporter.
Octafish
May 2014
#69
Me too. I was going to say that sound you hear is the security-state apologists heads exploding. nt
silvershadow
May 2014
#77
How can anyone not get that he is a hero of epic proporations, with a fearless heart of justice?
DesertDiamond
May 2014
#9
And This Matters To You Why? - Seems Irrelevant To Others - Further Where Is The Proof?
cantbeserious
May 2014
#86
Yes - The Cognitive Dissonance In Left Leaning Authoritarians Is Surely Debilitating
cantbeserious
May 2014
#88
The left lionized Ellsberg for revealing info that happened to embarrass a Democratic President.
merrily
May 2014
#90
This *did* hit the fan during the Bush administration. Does nobody else remember 2005?
Recursion
May 2014
#92
Are you saying th left all supportive of Bush at that time? Is that your point about my post?
merrily
May 2014
#103
Congress can pass any law it wants, at which point the sanctioned activity is "legal"
Recursion
May 2014
#118
No, that is "merely wrong." Violations of the Constitution do not become legal when Congress
merrily
May 2014
#119
I had already answered your question. BTW, how many of my questions and point have you avoided
merrily
May 2014
#122
Well, now you've resorted to pretending I said things I never said. Know another word for that?
merrily
May 2014
#125
Do you mean the South China Morning Post? Is this the interview you're referencing?
merrily
May 2014
#108
Do you seriously think that China and Russia did not know which of their systems
JDPriestly
Jun 2014
#204
"That meant the NSA was secretly and indiscriminately collecting the telephone records
yodermon
May 2014
#15
The case cited by the poster does not dispose of the legality issue as to what is going on now.
merrily
May 2014
#134
The applicability of Smith v. Maryland to the NSA's blanket surveillance activities is questionable.
Maedhros
May 2014
#36
You do understand that the court is there literally for the purpose of interpreting the law... right
TroglodyteScholar
May 2014
#62
Trog, you are right. Case law can overturn statute law. Marbury v. Madison, 1803.
Manifestor_of_Light
May 2014
#67
Don't conflate a court interpreting a statute--which Congress can overrule by enacting a new law--
merrily
May 2014
#159
Nothing you say here is incorrect nor does it contradict what I said. So we agree!
Vattel
May 2014
#166
Google "Gov. George Wallace denied a Supreme Court decision was the law of the land."
merrily
May 2014
#158
The point is kind of pedantic, but even when a court does overturn an earlier decision
Vattel
May 2014
#180
Yes, it does. Unless and until Plessy was overturned, it was the law of the land.
merrily
May 2014
#185
You are quite right that in the case of common law, judges make law and and change law.
Vattel
May 2014
#189
Not in those exact words, but that was the implication, given that the subject was whether judges
merrily
May 2014
#198
So no spying? No wiretaps? No investigations? What a perfect world you must live in.
randome
May 2014
#21
Our Constitution is a contract entered into by representatives of the people of the US.
JDPriestly
May 2014
#29
The Social Security Administration does not compile and analyze your data with huge
JDPriestly
May 2014
#60
If the laws need to be updated, I don't have a problem with that. Why would I?
randome
May 2014
#104
A couple of other whistleblowers tried to warn us without bringing out the huge array of
JDPriestly
May 2014
#172
Which still avoids answering, let alone, asking, the question of whom the NSA monitors.
randome
May 2014
#96
Exactly. It's modified legally only by amendment. Let someone put a modification to a vote.
merrily
May 2014
#137
'Allies' as in liberal thinkers of DU. Not 'allies' as in international espionage.
randome
May 2014
#161
No they'll never end spying, its been going on since mankind first days
LiberalLovinLug
May 2014
#191
How is it that you know the answer as to whether the NSA's actions are directed at American
JDPriestly
May 2014
#53
And was this info from the NSA provided as a consequence of international monitoring?
randome
May 2014
#100
Well, at least bringing up that point out of nowhere spared you from the Constitutional issues.
merrily
May 2014
#107
The NSA was not supposed to turn its powers on the citizens of the United States.
Octafish
May 2014
#24
Yes. I know about Gehlen. I will have to read Blowback. Somehow I missed it. Thanks.
JDPriestly
May 2014
#75
+10000 I wish I could rec this post. It should be on the top of every forum.
woo me with science
May 2014
#169