Snowden was a traitor


Snowden is not a hero as he is being made out to be. It was hard listening to the pretentious acceptance speech by the makers of Citizenfour while standing next to the unscrupulous British journalist that published all the secret US documents stolen by Snowden...

Then Neil Patrick Harris came to the rescue by joking "Edward Snowden could not be present for some TREASON!". I love Neil more than ever now!!!!

reply

Edward Snowden is not a traitor. He did not betray the US. He revealed facts that every American citizen has the right to know.

And Harris' remark was as ignorant as it was rude.

And by the way, which "British journalist" do you mean? Glenn Greenwald is American.

jj

reply

I'm surprised Greenwald is walking free. He would be charged with treason if it weren't for Obummer. If Putin can poison his critics in UK, surely the CIA can take out Snowden.

No more Democracy! Obola Care! $18 trillion!

reply

British journalist?

jj

reply

Born in the United States, works for a British paper, and resides in South America.

reply

Ever heard of the first amendment (freedom of the press)? Guess not.
Ever heard of the sixth amendment (right to a fair trial)? Guess not.

You're probably one of those bitching about Obama ignoring the constitution, even though you've never bothered to read it.

reply

[deleted]

Opponents will argue that it was the government who betrayed their citizens with the PRISM program, and that Snowden is merely a whistleblower.
Proponents will argue that the information about the workings of the PRISM program was secret and Snowden didn't have the right to publish this information.

I would say both are right.


However, we must not forget about the social contract that exists between a government and its citizens. Untargeted surveillance, by itself, is a breach of this social contract.
Governments should be the only organizations that are allowed to exercise the monopoly of violence and apply freedom restrictions on citizens (although this probably is a very European way of looking at things). The cost of having this exclusive right are restrictions in its appliance. I would argue that a fair restriction is that these powers must be targeted on entities that are suspected of criminal activities. Because without it, there is no real right of privacy.
Whether or not a person 'has anything to hide' is besides the point, since you can only find this out after applying said powers. By then, the power already has been applied wrongly.

A Leviathan's power must be restricted!

reply

Did he betray the US government and his job? Yes.
Did he betray his country and his people? No.

One's Country and its fellow countrymen equals not its party and government in power.

reply

I like what you did there

reply

Did he betray the US government and his job? Yes.


Since the US Government is "We, The People" - last time I checked WE elect them all into office - he did in fact betray THE PEOPLE.

www.Kodi.tv

"Come to the dark side. We have cookies."

reply

one could argue that the Government only represents the people when acting withing the parameters given by law, and within their competence, and within the pact done with the people, for which they were elected. When it starts acting illegally, betraying the people's trust, deceiving and downright lying to the people, acting in opposition to what they committed to do, and overall abusing the power they received, they're no longer representing the people, they're only serving their own personal agenda.

Obs: Not saying i agree with what Snowden did, i´m somewhat on the fence about it all. But, coming from a Country with a terribly corrupt government (Brazil), which does not seem to give a *beep* about the citizens and are well too occupied with filling their pockets with public money, i know all to well how this connection between government and people can be veeery loose.

reply

This is why the U.S. government's specific type of tyranny is so subversive.

The government IS acting within the parameters of the law, because the parameters of the law have been expanded so far that the law permits the government to do almost anything it pleases, such as murdering U.S. citizens on foreign soil via drone strikes without a trial. Normally the Supreme Court would be there to put the government back in its place, but they are completely silent, both the liberal and conservative justices. What happens now, is that the government just expands the definition of things, and redefine what is reasonable or acceptable, and the masses will go along it because it doesn't affect them personally.

And even when the Government does blatantly illegal things (Operation Fast and Furious) the people responsible go unpunished because "Its classified." Or worse, set up an "unimportant" person to take the fall.

reply

"Since the US Government is "We, The People" - last time I checked WE elect them all into office - he did in fact betray THE PEOPLE."
Ignorance is so amusing, or would be if it weren't so sad. "the People" elect thier leaders in a democracy, this is a republic. Read a book.

reply

What, so you don't have elections? Read a newspaper.

reply

[deleted]

I would say such a "social contract" as you describe is a fiction invented to convince people that government in general is a benevolent entity. Government of any type exists purely to ensure its own continued existence, and to increase its power over the people it rules. "Protecting and ensuring the prosperity of its citizens" is a convenient lie that all governments tell their citizens, but because a government's interests and the interests of its citizens sometimes coincide, the masses are able to convince themselves that their government cares about them.

The Founders of the U.S. tried their hardest to ensure that the Federal Government would never become a tyranny, it put unparalleled power in the hands of its people in the hopes that they would be forever watchful. But they didn't take into account that the people would give away their power so willingly.

What's amusing is that you talk of European style freedom restrictions, and in the same breath expect the very institutions that restrict individual freedoms to abide by arbitrary rules they put on themselves, like a lion living in the same room as a wildebeest, but the lion has made a solemn vow to never eat the wildebeest or make the wildebeest uncomfortable. I fully know why most Europeans are fine with this particular type of cognitive dissonance: because their lives are comfortable and the vast majority of them have never known hardship in their entire lives.

If it sounds like I'm an anarchist, I'm not. I fully appreciate the role a government is "supposed" to have, at least in the eyes of the people who are ruled. Its just that no government in history has ever actually filled this role.

reply

Is that why british secret service members were recalled dur to fear of being exposed? Can thank snowden for that.

reply

Actually he did. He revealed sensitive information that was classified without permission. This falls under the definition of treason. Why he did it or even if it was the right thing to do does not change the fact that it is treason. As such, Eric Snowden is a traitor to his country and he should be executed for it. Whether you believe that every American has a right to know that information is irrelevant since it does not change the fact that it's treason.

While I am generally not a fan of Neil Patrick Harris, in this case he was spot on. Rude is irrelevant when you are talking about a traitor. You're not supposed to be polite to an enemy of the state. Accuracy is far more important.

reply

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” - Patrick Henry


“Information is the currency of democracy.” ... “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their government, for whenever things go so far wrong as to attract their notice, they can be relied on to set thing right.” - Thomas Jefferson, principle writer of the Declaration of Independence


“A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.” - James Madison, principle writer of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights


“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.” - John F. Kennedy


“Secrecy is the freedom zealots dream of: no watchman to check the door, no accountant to check the books, no judge to check the law. The secret government has no constitution. The rules it follows are the rules it makes up.” - Bill Moyers


Is it treason to uphold the Constitution and expose activities that violate such?

reply

mydisplayname
Thank you for the dictionary definitions, and regurgitating the law of the US. You are technically correct, but at what cost? Do you feel better now knowing the information he revealed or would you rather not have known? All the best progress is made by revolution. Your government is without a doubt one of the most "broken" systems of control, its a corporation, not a government. History will show, as it has many times long past, that his (Snowdens) actions will always be seen as "positive" revolution. The really cool thing is, even though he has given up so much, his actions will certainly make him live on for many years after you and me.

reply

'Technically correct' is technically... correct.

All the best progress is made by revolution.


Tell that to the people living in Mesopotamia, if they feel like progress is being made.

Your government is without a doubt one of the most "broken" systems of control, its a corporation, not a government


By that, you're referring to one of the most stable countries on the planet? Seems like we're getting pretty good mileage out of this 'non-government'.

The really cool thing is, even though he has given up so much, his actions will certainly make him live on for many years after you and me.


I'm sure the Kremlin is working out in their budget how to simultaneously house Snowden and memorialize him for services rendered to the Russian government.

But what sacrifice. He gave up what he considered a thankless desk job for international celebrity fueled entirely by Anti-US rhetoric, all the while escaping any consequences of his actions. The Cambridge Five wish they had it as good as this guy.

Y'know, a lot of Russian intelligence folks have defected our way, too. The difference is we don't post their *beep* faces on billboards in mocking gesture. http://images.politico.com/global/2013/07/04/130619_snowden_nsa_ap_328.jpg

reply

stable countries on the planet?

lol yeah right, can you give me some evidence of that?
made by revolution

Do you really want me to list all the places where revolution freed people?..you do have google right?

Seriously...what sacrifice did he make? The guy makes your "balls" look like atoms.
Go back to sleep dearest...lol

reply

Actually he did. He revealed sensitive information that was classified without permission. This falls under the definition of treason. Why he did it or even if it was the right thing to do does not change the fact that it is treason. As such, Eric Snowden is a traitor to his country and he should be executed for it. Whether you believe that every American has a right to know that information is irrelevant since it does not change the fact that it's treason.


Is that how you feel about Libby, Cheney, and Bush outing CIA operative Valerie Plame as political retaliation, lying about it, and then commuting Libby?

reply

What is the United States, to you? Just another country that can do anything it wants to its citizens? Some of us grew up thinking it was something special.

When you burn the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you are betraying the country itself. After you have shredded the Constitution, you no longer have the United States. You have only a name which is a lie. So, what is there to protect? You've flushed the real value down the toilet in the name of National Security and what is left is another Gulag in a Tyrannical State. So, all the protests to protect the nation become meaningless. You're protecting thugs and their slaves.

Calling Snowden a traitor is like calling Adolph Hitler a hero or Joseph Stalin a saint. Your lack of accuracy betrays your stupidity.

You talk about accuracy, but you're shooting your arrow in the opposite direction. You'll never be accurate doing that.

Sieg Heil!

Imagine the government comes for you, locks you in a tiny cell. No phone call. No hearing. You contract some disease while in your undeserved prison and they toss out your cold corpse. After all, Bush's New World Order has no need for 7+ Billion people. All those extra bodies are just "useless eaters," like you and me.

Accuracy? You're the traitor for not protecting the very thing that makes the United States unique amongst nations. You're the traitor for your 180-degree wrong, lack of accuracy.

You're like the Corporate news media calling American wars, "peacekeeping actions," like some Orwellian Newspeak / doublethink.

When scientists in America's Bureau of Standards try to sell the world on the notion that solid steel could ever offer zero resistance, they were hoping that we're all as stupid as you. "Don't look at us. We didn't commit scientific fraud. We're not even here."

When Mayor Giuliani committed a felony, destroying evidence at the largest crime scene in American history, he was hoping that people were ignorant of the law and wouldn't notice his butt hanging out for all to see.

When the top military officers in the land fail to protect the country from the worst breach of security in American history, they each get promotions instead of courts martial. Like you, the psychopathic elite think upside down and backwards. The officers were rewarded for their incompetence.

What is a hero? It is a person who does not think of themselves and risks everything to help their friends. Did Snowden do this? Did he reveal crimes of the corrupt US government? Yes, and yes. He was a hero in the most classic sense.

I voted for Obama in 2008. He is a traitor. Not for betraying most of his campaign promises; but for betraying his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

You are a domestic enemy. So is Obama. So is Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the Neo-Cons and psychopaths.

Other than that,... have a nice day.

reply

bump

reply

The founding fathers of the USA were traitors... Do you similarly condemn them?

reply

not a logical comparison.

reply

My point is that it's not a question of whether he's a traitor, but rather whether he was justified. History is replete with examples of righteous traitors (e.g. founding fathers), so the accusation of being a traitor is pretty hollow... You also have to demonstrate that his betrayal of the US government couldn't be morally justified.

reply

Were the founding fathers really righteous traitors or is that just the lessons in American Exceptionalism speaking?

reply

Well, they overthrew their colonial masters and instituted democracy. A far from perfect democracy, but revolutionary at the time. I think pretty much any colony of a European power were within their moral rights to rebel and separate. So, yes... Righteous traitors in my book, and I'm British.

Don't get me wrong... I do still have a big problem with American exceptionalism, which is just dressed up chauvinism. But I don't feel it applies here, on balance. Of course the hero worship can be a bit much, but like I said... On balance.

reply

Your comparison is oversimplified. The Founding Fathers were trying to overthrow the oppression of their parent country and form their own country. They wanted freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Eric Snowden had freedom and he did something that he knew would damage the country. The motivations, goals, and situation were very different. You might want to pick up some books on the Revolutionary War. These situations are not at all the same.

reply

I was just making the point that "traitor" is a hollow insult, in and of itself.

reply

The Founding Fathers were trying to overthrow the oppression of their parent country and form their own country.


This only after they could not reconcile. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read deliberations about the Constitution. Read the why and what for of our government. You will see that what the Founding Fathers were trying to escape from is what our government is today. We have no king, but we have an aristocracy entrenched in politics for their own gain over that of the country and the majority of its people.

They wanted freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Eric Snowden had freedom and he did something that he knew would damage the country. The motivations, goals, and situation were very different.


The point is that Snowden realized that freedom of the people was in jeopardy. We have a secret government with secret laws run by secret corporations. Snowden was much less free than the Founding Fathers were when they drafted the Declaration of Independence.

reply

[deleted]

his name is EDWARD dammit

reply

You are lost in semantics. The comparison perfectly applies.

The Founding Fathers were trying to overthrow the oppression of their parent country


What did Snowden try to do if not exactly that? Violating citizen's constitutional rights, lying to and spying on them illegally, locking them up without due-process and sometimes killing them without trial is nothing but oppression. Wake up.

They wanted freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


And what exactly do you think Snowden wants? Ever occurred to you that there might be a link between freedom and right to privacy? You do know that the constitution, its Bill of Rights and the whole idea of sedition to begin with was an attempt to protect the people against the unjust state power (British crown) they were the victim of, right?
I'm not sure you even understand what's at stake here because you are quoting the very document (constitution) that Snowden tries to defend against the people and institutions which violate it on a daily basis. You defend the very organizations and entities who soil the spirit of the document you implicitly claim to endorse. That's just a conceptual mess.

Eric Snowden had freedom and he did something that he knew would damage the country.


So are you asserting that the founding father didn't anticipate that sedition would damage the empire? Please. They too had freedom and they too chose to undertake drastic actions that would have terrible consequences for their lives and those around them in the name of a higher ideal and motivated by what they perceived to be morally justifiable reasons. Again, the comparison applies.

The motivations, goals, and situation were very different. You might want to pick up some books on the Revolutionary War. These situations are not at all the same.


You have yet to back up those numerous claims. Throwing a bunch of words in the discussion doesn't fool the more astute reader; if those situations are indeed so obviously dissimilar, then demonstrate it. Just repeating they are is not an argument.

As for who's right and who's wrong, in both cases, i don't pronounce myself. I know that in matters of history, there's no right nor wrong, just the winning side writing what will remain forever the "official account", what we commonly refer to as the Historical Truth.


People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

reply

The founding fathers of the USA were traitors... Do you similarly condemn them?


Excellent point.


People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

reply

Agreed. And a huge slap in the face to the memory of the 3000-plus who died on 9/11 because of a lack of precisely the kind of information the NSA was collecting.

As a great article in the Daily Beast observed, Snowden etc cant point to a single person harmed by the program. Not one.

And about half of the material the paranoid Snowden stole was unquestionably legal: foreign espionage, which he then handed over to the Russian and Chinese governments.

Nice going. None of us should feel safer because of Snowden.

reply

And a huge slap in the face to the memory of the 3000-plus who died on 9/11 because of a lack of precisely the kind of information the NSA was collecting.


The problem with this remark is that our intelligence services did know about the 9/11 attacks and did not act.

Also, Snowden handed the material over to journalists who then shared it with The Guardian and other news outlets. He did not turn anything over to a government.

However, your final comment has some truth in it. Knowing what Snowden revealed should make everyone on earth feel less safe because those programs are still ongoing.

jj

reply

[deleted]

In spite of all the hysterical - and untrue - accusations about Snowden putting people in danger, no one has been able to point to the death or imprisonment of any US agent due to his actions.

Actually, Snowden was smart enough to pick people who ARE qualified to decide how and when to release the material. Greenwald and Poitras are certainly smarter than you and your fellow trolls.

jj

reply

U.S. agents aren't the ones who were put in the greatest danger by the information Snowden released. There are people in this world who would love to have planted enough explosives in the Dolby Theater last night to kill every single person who attended the Academy Awards. Africans, Arab Muslims (mostly Sunni), Persians, etc. who want to prevent such events as much as you and I do and have worked with American agents to that end are the ones who were put in the greatest danger and some have been killed since Snowden leaked his information. Whether or not the leaked information led to their deaths is not known, but compromising the information of such allies is anything but heroic.

reply

some have been killed since Snowden leaked his information.


Can you substantiate this claim?

Whether or not the leaked information led to their deaths is not known, but compromising the information of such allies is anything but heroic.


What allies? The people you are describing could easily be considered traitors to their own countries. If the CIA is using Iranian agents to interfere with Iran's government then the US is wrong.

jj

reply

Can you substantiate this claim?


I will not substantiate that claim and you are welcome to disregard it. Whether or not my claim could even possibly be true and members of ISIL (ISIS) may have executed Syrian and Iraqi Muslims who sought aid from U.S. agents in their battle against those radical Islamic terrorists I will leave for you to decide.

What allies?


The Syrian and Iraqi Muslims who are engaged in the fight against ISIL are some of the allies I'm referring to. I don't think you could accuse them of treason against their countries for fighting ISIL, but since you have such a high opinion of treason to start with I won't stop you.

If the CIA is using Iranian agents to interfere with Iran's government then the US is wrong.


Interference with a nation's government by another organization is obviously not something you think is wrong if you're a supporter of Edward Snowden and Wikileaks. I honestly have no knowledge of any Iranian agent working for the U.S. in opposition of the Iranian government, though. When I mentioned Persians, I was referring to people of Persian descent who are actively opposing Islamic terrorist organizations.

reply

The Syrian and Iraqi Muslims who are engaged in the fight against ISIL are some of the allies I'm referring to.


The Syrian Muslims fighting against ISIL would include the government of Syria which the US is currently trying to overthrow. Assad is a US ally? Israel will be thrilled to hear that.

Interference with a nation's government by another organization is obviously not something you think is wrong if you're a supporter of Edward Snowden and Wikileaks.


Why did you say "other organization" instead of "other nation"? Why did you deliberately avoid using the more specific - and more correct - term? And please let us know for which "organization" Snowden was working when he took the material that he gave to Greenwald and Poitras.

When I mentioned Persians, I was referring to people of Persian descent who are actively opposing Islamic terrorist organizations.


Which people would that be?

You have not made a single statement that you can back up.

jj

reply

The Syrian Muslims fighting against ISIL would include the government of Syria which the US is currently trying to overthrow. Assad is a US ally? Israel will be thrilled to hear that.


Bashar al-Assad is fighting to maintain control of Syria. Until 2011, ISIL (formerly JTJ) had made no attempt to exercise power over any Syrian government facilities, although they operated comfortably in the country knowing that Bashar al-Assad supported their operations against the U.S. and Iraq and he would not allow U.S. troops into Syria. It was a U.S. raid across the Syrian border in 2008 to take out the Al Qaeda Amir of Al-Anbar (Badran Turki Hishan) that really signified the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom (or the War in Iraq). The U.S. had known about Hishan's base of operations in Syria for some time, and had given this information to the Syrian government, who denied it. Following the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the beginning of the Syrian Civil War, ISIL began their campaign to replace the Syrian government with a Sunni Islamic State. Now, if Israel were to subscribe to the philosophy "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", they would have no problem with your assertion that Bashar al-Assad is a U.S. ally. As I mentioned earlier, the U.S. attempted to gain his support in fighting ISIL during the occupation of Iraq and this was public knowledge anyway.

Of course I was not referring to Bashar al-Assad when I mentioned the Iraqis and Syrians who are engaged in the fight against ISIL, but you might find it interesting to know that Assad is the Arabic word for lion, and there is indeed a group of Iraqis and Syrians who actively oppose ISIL and use the name Assad, so your statement about Assad being a U.S. ally is something I can agree with in more ways than one.

Why did you say "other organization" instead of "other nation"? Why did you deliberately avoid using the more specific - and more correct - term?


I used the term other organization to refer to Wikileaks, but since most of this post has been about ISIL I can suggest it as another example. I'm not suggesting, of course, that you would support ISIL in any way, but I think even if you're an American who loves your country and wants what's best for her and her people, you'd support an organization like Wikileaks in interfering with an organization like the NSA. I'm assuming, of course, that's the side you're on, but correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as my statement about Persians, I won't back it up and if you choose to believe no Persians are working with any Americans to actively resist radical Islamic terrorists then that's fine by me. Those specifics are not important to the conversation.

reply

Are you seriously trying to claim that the safety of "Iraqis and Syrians who are engaged in the fight against ISIL" is threatened by Snowden rather than by ISIL shooting at them, kidnapping their wives, and slitting their throats?

As if ISIL needed any of Snowden's revelations on the NSA to slaughter people...

It's as if you were looking at an Ebola patient, and worrying about the chances he might be harmed getting struck by lightening.

reply

Good analogy. It's absolutely ridiculous, to the point where I'm wondering if the OP is simply trolling.

reply

Stop speaking and start reading you *beep* idiot. You don't know *beep* of what you are talking about.

Look everybody it is the stereotypical idiot american.

reply

'American agents were put in danger'...? GREAT!

reply

Nice blanket statement....what info was released and how did it get someone killed? I have yet to read anything that would substantiate your claim and I think the only reason this is said by you and the government is an attempt to wrongly convict Snowden in the court of public opinion. BTW, did you watch CitizenFour?

reply

[deleted]

if some ' Africans, Arab Muslims (mostly Sunni), Persians' as you so eloquently put it, did in fact blow up the dolby theatre, so what? as opposed to them blowing up a market every five minutes in the middle east. Im sure a new group of semi-talented thespian narcisists would rise to the fore...

But for real; I do not care about american agents or russian agents or chinese agents or *beep* ISIS agents, i just want to live my life in peace without my freedoms being intruded on, wihout my data being stolen and stored forever. If the security forces percieve any individual to be a threat they should apply to the appropriate authorities (with appropriate checks and balances) to have that person monitered. If the basic premise is now that everyone is a suspect; then governments should take the dna, retina scans and fingerprints of everyone at birth, Im sure a few of the 'patriots' here would be up in arms (literally) about that.

Apparently at least 1.2 million americans are being actively monitered. The rest of us are being passively monitered. Thats absolutely jawdropping to me.

But most importantly 'patriots' like you seem to lack the basic understanding that this kind of mass intrusion on communications brings everything in your so-called democracy into disrepute; it means that if they wanted (for whatever reason...) the secret services can/could/will try to manipulate your democracy for whatever end they wish. If you have any understanding of the world; this information should bring things into sharp perspective for you. But i guess, and without prejudice, that basic understanding is lacking in many of the blinkered and ill-educated people who like to spout on the internet.

That aside, even if YOU are happy to be spied on and have your every communication monitered , stored and indexed; I am not, and I have nothing to do with the USA, but it seems that even that cannot protect me from the intrusion of your security institutions; simply because if i have any kind of electronic or telephonic communication with a US citizen they have the mandate to track me and furthermore track the communications of the contacts I have. Dont you think that that is not only criminal, but could also mean that totally innocent people are put on some kind of watch-list simply because someone they have communicated with, has communicated with someone who has visited a certain website that is deemed 'undesirable' to a certian cabal.

Anyway; Snowden is a HERO to me; and every american citizen (all of whom -I think- loved their country and their way of life and valued their freedoms) I have met over the last 12 months or so has agreed with me. Its sad that some blindly follow the bs spouted to them by any of the 2 sides 1 coiners...



p.s. you are also winning the war on drugs...

reply

How is what Snowden did treason and lying under oath in Congress to save your own a$$ and that of your agency is not even regarded as a misdemeanor? Why hasn't the congress impeached the director of the NSA who lied to their face?

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

reply

Some massive FAIL going on with your post.

It's obvious that the "slap in the face" is being conducted by those in government and in corporations to increase surveillance on everyone with no oversight. Snowden clearly knows more about this than you do, as he was paid to do it. Fortunately for us, Snowden has a conscience.

cant point to a single person harmed by the program. Not one.


Yeah...that would be a really great way to prove how you don't know what you're talking about.

First, the whole point is that NO ONE knows that they're being watched. That is exactly what he was bringing forward.

Second, we see that there is no "oversight" to insure us that no one is "unfairly" being spied on.

Lastly, the fact that we ALL are being subject to this data collection HURTS us. That is an invasion of privacy. The Constitution insures us a right to privacy- this data collection is over-riding that. Due process is supposed to insure that someone has to do SOMETHING to warrant being spied on- this film shows that is not the case.

Nice going....you're really showing how those that attack Snowden haven't a leg to stand on.

reply

Looking for patterns in metadata, how SCARY!! No wonder you are freaked.... Do note that Google etc etc do exactly the same thing. The main watch group is said to be around 1.3 million. Not even a hypothetical example of all this supposed harm to the other 300 million of us happening?

You are barking up the wrong tree anyway. There IS a problem at federal level but it is not this one. Its that nobody at that level has the slightest idea how to induce real economic growth. (I worked in DC on bringing in the federal planning.) Neither in the US nor in countries invaded.

Recent gains from growth have been feeble and all repeat all went to one one-percenters. This factors into every other problem existing or pending, in the US and everywhere. Sure recipe for more terrorism.

Worry about real problems. There are some.

reply

Looking for patterns in metadata, how SCARY!! No wonder you are freaked.... Do note that Google etc etc do exactly the same thing. The main watch group is said to be around 1.3 million. Not even a hypothetical example of all this supposed harm to the other 300 million of us happening?


Uh...yeah. Again, that's not an argument.

We give Google "permission" to do that to use their "free" services. Or you can opt not to use them at all. This is surveillance without permission or our knowledge, and last I checked, Google isn't the state. They can't charge, detain, or arrest you.

It's not exactly a "hypothesis" that if everything is being monitored, and tomorrow I decide to start behaving like a political activist, then I or anyone else would slide from the "other 300 million" to the watch list.

To your other point, plenty of people know how to produce real economic growth. For one thing, it's called Keynesianism. The same policies of higher real wages and better benefits for the Bottom 90%, while taxing the Top 1%, ending corporate welfare and defense boondoggles, would produce real growth. Need I say that those with the most political power keep preventing these policies from being implemented. I worry about that as well as the invasion of privacy. I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

reply

Well said, on all points.

I simply cannot understand how ANYONE, unless they work for the police state or are terminally naive (or of sub-average intelligence) can actually SUPPORT and defend these injustices, and how they can castigate those who have the immense courage, at huge personal risk, to bring these injustices to light. I think this is what saddens and scares me most, the fact that the machine's propaganda and lies seems to be getting traction! I expect the rich and powerful to be corrupt and even evil, and to continue perpetrating crimes against us all for as long as they can get away with it, after all, that's how most of the self-made super-rich have got there, and it is, sadly, human nature - absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that- but for what I assume are fellow downtrodden people who aren't part of the ruling elite to be taken in like that, and to actively destroy any hope we might have for a united front against the oppressors, crooks and liars, this is what hurts the most!

reply

Damn mr Blue, you end alot of arguments don't you!
I'd hate to have to debate you.

Cheers!

reply

How to induce real economic growth? Yep, that's a doozy! Hmmm, how to do it, how to do it... well, here's a few ideas: how about stopping the insanity of spending BILLIONS on spying (on your own people), on defense (defending yourselves from a few fanatics with last century AK47s and home-made explosives), on making, maintaining, and directing flying murder machines that ultimately CREATE more terrorists and insurgents than they eliminate, on waging wars in countries that have nothing to do with you, on sending the sons and daughters of your own people to be killed abroad for the ends of a super-rich elite just so that they can accumulate more riches and more power, all under the guise of freedom and patriotism?
How about STOPPING LYING, even if for just a little while? You know, let the world catch its breath.

How do you think you are going to have prosperity in a country that's broken, divided, exhausted, scared, confused and paranoid? (And I don't mean Iraq or Afghanistan). You need peace and STABILITY in order to get to a point where the people can concentrate on doing their work, and all your government has been doing is sowing the seeds of fear, mistrust and instability. You need people to feel safe and happy. Do you think anyone in Iraq, bar a few of the ruling elite, feel safe and happy? Do you think the great majority of the American people feel safe and happy?

reply

Google does the same thing, but only within the context of Google search and their various other services. The main difference is that Google does not have the power to incarcerate people and Google doesn't lie about the fact.

reply

Looking for patterns in metadata, how SCARY!! No wonder you are freaked.... Do note that Google etc etc do exactly the same thing.


Actually, we both know that much more than metadata gets collected
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/nsa-collects-millions-tex t-messages-daily-untargeted-global-sweep

And as you say yourself, all private companies like google or facebook mine our data as well.
You think that who you vote for is secret? Nope, a few data points and here's who each of us votes for.
You think your health problems or your sex life's private? Nope, crunch the data, establish correlations, and bingo!
And it's all for sale.

And thank the NSA for making manufacturers have backdoors on all their devices.
Cause cyber terrorists and cyber criminals have many reasons to rejoice!
And so do all foreign governments.

Soon enough, drug cartels won't need to smuggle cocaine anymore: they'll "smuggle" our data and extort anyone for money, or they'll blackmail those in power since they'll have their dirty little secrets about those secret online chats with gay prostitutes, or that secret struggle with mental illness.

Of course, data smugglers will buy and sell industrial espionage.
Tell me, how do you think the economy'll be doing then?

reply

Nice post. I assume you mean unquestionably illegal. If people want to know the harm done by Edward "The Thief" Snowden then search for Mrs. Hillary Clinton's speech on the subject that spelled out all the harm done to US efforts around the world by Fast Eddie's actions. Much of the harm done will never be known to the public.

The congress knew about the NSA program (or should have known since congress permitted it). The problem was one of tighter oversight rather than an automatic rubber stamp on all search requests. The patriot act took away a lot of privacy that Obama was already reigning in (although it has admittedly been accelerated since the leaks).

However, Snowden went way to far in stealing and sending the insane amount of information to a reporter for The Guardian (they will publish anything they get from anyone - true or not, ethical or not). Our gov't would be irresponsible if they didn't spy on our behalf. What harm has the gov't done to you by searching for terrorist communications? None? Thought so.

If you are so paranoid about privacy, don't send postcards in the mail that the gov't can easily read (or yahoo mail). Use encryption.

reply

As a great article in the Daily Beast observed, Snowden etc cant point to a single person harmed by the program. Not one.


It’s not what the information that is being illegally collected has been used for, it's what it can, and eventually will be, used for.

I’m guessing you either don’t know about the 4th amendment to the US Constitution, or just think it no longer matters?

reply

Not one person harmed? ALL THE PEOPLE have been harmed. All of them.
When you will have all of your most basic human rights stripped from you, you will finally understand how we got there and how utterly wrong you have been, but by then it will be too late. This (meaning: TOTAL information) is simply one of the first steps in creating a totalitarian, fascistic police state. My words might have sounded like paranoid "end is nigh"-type mutterings a few years ago ("Spying on you? Yeah, sure they are!!") but not any more.

The next steps are supression and persecution. These too are certainly happening to many innocent people in the ostensibly free and democratic countries of the U.S. and U.K., and have been happening for a while.
The final step is permanently silencing the opposition.

By not only NOT speaking out against these heinous acts of trampling all over our democracies and our freedoms, but in fact SUPPORTING them, what YOU are doing is being a traitor. YOU are a traitor to humanity. I don't know whether you are a puppet of the regime whose boot is now firmly on our necks or if you just naively swallowed up all their lies, but whichever it is, you need to wake up, because this situation is not sustainable and something will have to give, I just hope it's sooner rather than later, because the sooner it is, the better the chance for a meaningful recovery rather than the horrifying consequences of a fully entrenched dictatorship or an all-out civil war, with its ensuing atrocities, insanity, turmoil, chaos, poverty, famine and desperation.

reply

Every individual whose communications were targeted by untargeted surveillance has been harmed by the program. An invasion of privacy without a suspicion of criminal activity is - by itself - harmful. It's the price the government pays for its exclusive right to apply violence and induce freedom restrictions on civilians. It's the social contract any legal government must undersign to obtain these rights.

Untargeted surveillance is a breach of this social contract.

reply

Give us one piece of evidence that Snowden handed anything over to the Russian or the Chinese. Oh, right, you can't!

Any covert CIA agents expelled from Russia or China? Nope.

Meanwhile, the NSA has forced manufacturers to leave backdoors open on all their devices. Thank you NSA for leaving the doors wide open for cyber terrorists, for foreign powers, and for almost anybody with a computer and the know-how to get in.

Most victims of cyber crimes have been harmed by the program!

Nice going: None of us should feel safer because of the NSA!

reply

What happened on 9/11 was a tragedy and in no way am I trying to diminish what happened on that day. However, there are several problems I see with your analysis. First, while terrorism is a threat the truth is you have a far bigger chance of being killed in a car accident than you do a terrorist attack. So do we all of sudden stop driving cars or reduce the speed limit to five miles per hour on all roads?

Of course not. So why fundamentally change the ways rules and laws concerning surveillance? Why spy on monitor the calls, emails, and electronic transactions of all Americans? Another point to consider is if you are a terrorist or criminal of any kind, are you really going to discuss your plans openly on the phone or computer? Wiseguys don't talk on their phones because they know the government's probably monitoring them. It's the same with terrorists. Therefore, why monitor every single American or citizen in the world if you're not going to even obtain the intelligence in the first place?

Finally, the program is harmful to the American public because it strips away the right of search and seizure as defined in the fourth amendment of the constitution. Under the fourth amendment, it is strictly stated that the government (police, federal agents, etc.) cannot enter your home without either probable cause or search warrant. But if the government already knows what your up to at all times, all of this goes out the window. That's the danger and that's what scares me about this program.

reply

Existence of programs such as PRISM is a huge slap to the memory of those people. They mean that terrorists already won.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

Agreed. And a huge slap in the face to the memory of the 3000-plus who died on 9/11 because of a lack of precisely the kind of information the NSA was collecting.
Yes, I am certain if they had just taped the phone of the German Chancellor before 9/11 that would never have happened! And let's not forget your aunt Judy. Taping her phone is crucial to the protection of citizens. Let's face it, her bridge club consists of some pretty subversive old ladys.

Were you born this stupid or did you have to undergo some medical procedure to get there?

reply

The 3000+ Who died on 9/11 are becoming like God: often quoted as the justification for any kind of crime - from terrorism to crimes against the Constitution. And, like with God, as the last refuge of people who have no clues about what they are talking about.

reply

i whas thinking the same thing.
i just can not believe that citizens of the free world would condemn him after seeing this.

btw The title of this post seems like subliminal messaging to me and i'm normally not the paranoid or conspiracy type, but i did see some diturbing things 5 min ago.
Please don't put me on the black list Americans.

reply

A subliminal message of the same title would have this form :
Sonedwn aws a tiortar :)
(now you are done for good :p )

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

reply

[deleted]

You must not know what a traitor is, or you're stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAKG-kbKeIo

reply

I think technically, it's correct to call him one. If nothing else, he betrayed his employers. But it's wrong to draw the conclusion that this automatically makes him a bad person. He's a traitor in the same way as an employee of a sweatshop informing authorities of illegal working conditions; or someone betraying a family member by indicting them for abuse.

Whether someone thinks Snowden's actions have overall done more harm or more good, I think everybody will have to agree that he never had anything but good intentions. That he didn't intend to put American citizens in harm's way, but wanted to defend them at great personal sacrifice.

It's a thing that bugs me about some polemic simpletons: that they call people "anti-patriotic" for trying to better their country. My understanding of the concept of "patriotism" is not submissive obedience to one's national government, but the willingness to help make the country the best it can be. And you can't improve something by ignoring and hiding its faults, only by finding and acknowledging them. When it becomes frowned upon to criticize something, that will not only prevent it from growing and adapting, but inevitably also lead to its corruption and deterioration.

reply

[deleted]

It's one definition of the word, but not the only one – Wiktionary also has as a second definition: "one who betrays any confidence or trust." So the word can be used no matter whose trust is betrayed; it doesn't necessarily have to be on a national scale, about governments, friends and enemies.

And yes, some trust is better broken. Such as in any situation where it takes someone to stand up for what's right. Civil courage often requires betraying someone's confidence, for the sake of the rest of society.
Big topics =)

reply

[deleted]

I just found this quote by George S. McGovern, which I think sums it up nicely:

The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher standard.

reply

Did the people of the United States elect its government with the mandate to be spied upon and lied to? If it did not, then the government and its institutions are those that betrayed the trust received from the people.

reply

I don't know all the facts of the case, but I don't understand how anyone could call him a traitor. He didn't reveal any sensitive documents about specific information. He revealed a system that should never have been private in the 1st place and violates our fundamental constitutional rights against unlawful searches.

If history remembers him, and I doubt he will be more than a footnote, it will be a a patriot being he acted in a selfless way to protect the freedom of everyone the world over.

It's not that the NSA shouldn't have access to important information about people under investigation. Obviously they should. It's that they don't need information about everyone about everything.

reply

After seeing the film, a friend said you shouldn't go to the Imdb message board as it will be full morons using words from the Middle Ages like traitor or treason. I thought he was being paranoid, but he was right there are fcking idiots doing just that.


reply

[deleted]

Neil Patrick Harris is very smart and likes to stir things up. Well I guess he did on the topic of Edward Snowden. Again, Mrs. Hillary Clinton is probably one of the most intelligent speakers I know and probably one of the best candidates to be our next President (IMHO)... read her thoughts on the subject of Edward Snowden's actions (stealing and releasing a huge quantity of Top Secret US documents) before making your mind up on the subject.

She was interviewd by Democracy Now.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/9/wikileaks_julian_assange_responds_to_hillary


reply

Hilary Clinton, the unabashed corporatist, warmonger and barefaced liar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EENUb2mQlw

Listen to her opinion on the subject, yeah I don't think so. Why should anyone respect what she has to say about anything? What is legal is often not in accordance with what is moral.

reply

Unfortunately all American politicians are corporatists, so you must select the lesser evil when you vote. Would you prefer those politicians that swear by the 99% (democrats) or those that swear by the 1% (republicans)?

From Al Gores' book "The Assault on Reason".... {{speaking of the right-wing republicans that hold sway in congress}} "They are deeply concerned that government programs to provide health care, housing, social insurance, and other financial support will adversely affect work incentives. They are also opposed to the minimum wage, the forty-hour workweek, job safety laws, consumer protection, the right to sue an HMO, the right to privacy, and the right to clean air and water."

But you would condemn Hillary because she said they 'landed under sniper fire' when they landed in Bosnia. An exaggeration to seem like she is willing to risk her life to represent America's interest abroad... seems like a forgivable mis-statement to me.

reply

The democracynow link is the Julian Assange response, so it gives the best argument on boths sides. Should be good information for everyone. Enjoy!

reply

heh, i just knew you were a Clinton supporter. Debauchery lives on!

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply