General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Re: Attacks on Snowden, Greenwald. How the fuck do people like that sleep at night? [View all]NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... re my pieces on the hypocrisy of the "unChristian" behaviour displayed by the born-agains, and those who hold themselves out as followers of Christ's example.
As for the "gist" of what I've said, you've missed it entirely. I didn't even mention punishment, no less the severity thereof, that Snowden might deserve. I believe he has been the victim of his own ego and sense of self-importance. I also believe that he has been, to a great extent, used as a patsy by Greenwald. Glenn has made money from a book on the Snowden affair, the movie rights, and used his association with Snowden to leverage a job with The Intercept - and I think we both know he was probably offered a substantial amount to leave his Guardian position in order to make the change. In the meantime, Snowden is the one sitting in Russia, his fate uncertain.
Stating that I said Snowden deserves to be punished unmercifully is not a mater of semantics. It was a complete falsehood; I never came close to saying anything even remotely like that.
As for the "dog and pony show", that's what this has been from the start, orchestrated by GG. He promised startling revelations, a "fireworks display" of information, the "naming of names" - and he has lived up to none of it. He is as self-serving as they come; a con-artist who has spared no effort in making money for himself and garnering the attention he craves.
As for the "derogatory remarks" about Snowden, let's remember we're posting on a website where Obama has been called a "piece of shit used car salesman", and much, much worse. So any pleas from anyone here to tone down the derogatory remarks about Snowden/GG are downright laughable.
I must take strong exception to talking about my "defense of governments to be able to lie about the extent they collect their own citizens activity on personal communications". Again, I never "defended" any such thing. And that's been the problem throughout the Snowden discussion - people accusing those who don't find Snowden credible as "defending" the NSA, or any and all of its activities. We do not live in a black-and-white world, and this is not an either/or situation. Just because one dismisses Snowden's version of things does not mean they are accepting of over-reach by the NSA, nor "defending" it in any way.
DU used to be a lot better than this; people used to recognize the shades of gray that exist in such matters, and did not take the ridiculous stance that not taking one position automatically means one is taking the exact opposite position. For many, many people, not believing Snowden's assertions (many of which have never been proven to this day) does not constitute a defense of domestic spying, or anything of the kind.