Snowden and the Pulitzer

I'd view people like Snowden (as well as Greenwald, and Manning) far better if their releases were narrowly tailored, in order to show actual wrongdoing on the part of the US government. That's something I can always stand for in one sense.

Instead, though, we get a series of claims that are either outlandish (Snowden's claim that he could read the President's emails were laughable), or perfectly in keeping with our international operations. "The NSA is spying on China!" Yeah, no kidding, wanna know one country where China's spies are operating?

I won't jab at everyone at the Post or the NYT, but these folks are no Daniel Ellsberg.
 
asydhouse said:
If he's a traitor to the USA, but a person who has done the public of the rest of the world a good service, what does that make America?
Click to expand...

Problem is, he seems to be under the conviction that the US, and *only* the US, shouldn't be allowed to spy on other countries, which...yeah, no.
 
Ryokan said:
My point was that making things legal doesn't necessarily make them right. The extreme examples were to drive that point home, not to compare them.
Click to expand...
Which is an argument that shouldn't have to be supported unless someone uses the red herring tactic of insisting the legality of something means all sorts of other things such as whether something is just or right.



Joey McGee said:
I covered this when I asked the question "Did he prove that the programs were being abused?" If you're not aware, the programs were carefully constructed to catch terrorists while guaranteeing civil liberties and were approved and overseen by all three branches of government. Did they fail? Were civil liberties abused? I haven't seen any evidence of this, therefore, he is not vindicated. What was wrong about the programs that is actually based in reality and not a hysterical interpretation of the facts? Ok you accept they were legal, democratic and constitutional, so why were they wrong in any way?
Click to expand...
I think one could say that lying to Congress and spying on the German Prime Minister's cell phone calls is abuse.

In addition the reassurances no calls were listened to is suspect if not clearly false:

NSA Says It Can Listen to Americans’ Phone Calls Without a Warrant
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”
If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Click to expand...
NSA spying flap extends to contents of U.S. phone calls
National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.
Click to expand...



Mumbles said:
I'd view people like Snowden (as well as Greenwald, and Manning) far better if their releases were narrowly tailored, in order to show actual wrongdoing on the part of the US government. That's something I can always stand for in one sense.

Instead, though, we get a series of claims that are either outlandish (Snowden's claim that he could read the President's emails were laughable), or perfectly in keeping with our international operations. "The NSA is spying on China!" Yeah, no kidding, wanna know one country where China's spies are operating?

I won't jab at everyone at the Post or the NYT, but these folks are no Daniel Ellsberg.
Click to expand...
Both of these whistleblowers teamed up with someone else to censor the releases. Snowden chose reputable news sources invested in investigative reporting (as the Pulitzer's confirm) and Manning choose Wikileaks which at that time at least gave the impression they would sort through the material and release only some of the material. I know Assange threatened to release it all, but it only makes Manning guilty of gullibility if he believed he was only releasing some of the data to the public.

Mumbles said:
Problem is, he seems to be under the conviction that the US, and *only* the US, shouldn't be allowed to spy on other countries, which...yeah, no.
Click to expand...
And of course there's that option, you spy on our citizens and we'll spy on yours cooperation that it looks like the US and the UK are possibly mutually benefitting from.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Any reason you left out Daniel Ellsberg?
Click to expand...
For the same reason I left out Jane Fonda - because they aren't officially traitors, so if I included them then I would also have to include all the 'traitors' who supported the Vietnam war.

How are Ames and the Rosenberg's analogous?
Click to expand...
They gave secrets to the Russians. Snowden tried it with the Russians and the Chinese!

As for Manning, not only is that a proper analogy, they both did a lot of good, appeared to be acting on their conscience and I'd put Manning up there with Snowden, the information they revealed served an important purpose and they've sacrificed a lot for it.
Click to expand...
Both stole vast quantities of intel and distributed it indiscriminately. But I give Manning more slack than Snowden because she did at least reveal some atrocities, whereas Snowden has done nothing but undermine our efforts to stop terrorism.

But you are right. If Manning was not traitor then it could be argued that neither were any of the others. Perhaps Ames and the Rosenbergs actually helped to maintain the balance of power during the Cold War, or even hastened the destruction of the Soviet empire. And perhaps their motives were more patriotic than we have been led to believe. Perhaps giving away secrets is actually a good thing.

Today many people are saying that the government shouldn't be allowed to keep things from us, but also that they shouldn't be allowed to discover our secrets. Well I say it should be one or the other - if we think our military and security organizations have no right to keep secrets from us, then neither should we have an expectation of privacy in matters of national security.
 
asydhouse said:
If he's a traitor to the USA, but a person who has done the public of the rest of the world a good service, what does that make America?
Click to expand...
But Snowden hasn't done the World a good service. All he's done is foment suspicion and undermine the security of many other countries as well as our own.

However some have definitely benefited - certain journalists and the news media in general, would-be terrorists and other undesirables. So the next time some terrorist explodes a bomb or starts picking off random bystanders, we can thank Snowden for 'doing the public a service' by helping to keep the population down and increase news ratings!
 
People have loyalties to all sorts of things: to nations, to friends, to ideals.
Friends and ideals have limited power to try someone for treason.
Betraying your ideals is easy. Nine times out of ten, nobody will even know.
Except you.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
For the same reason I left out Jane Fonda - because they aren't officially traitors, so if I included them then I would also have to include all the 'traitors' who supported the Vietnam war.

They gave secrets to the Russians. Snowden tried it with the Russians and the Chinese!

Both stole vast quantities of intel and distributed it indiscriminately. But I give Manning more slack than Snowden because she did at least reveal some atrocities, whereas Snowden has done nothing but undermine our efforts to stop terrorism.

But you are right. If Manning was not traitor then it could be argued that neither were any of the others. Perhaps Ames and the Rosenbergs actually helped to maintain the balance of power during the Cold War, or even hastened the destruction of the Soviet empire. And perhaps their motives were more patriotic than we have been led to believe. Perhaps giving away secrets is actually a good thing.

Today many people are saying that the government shouldn't be allowed to keep things from us, but also that they shouldn't be allowed to discover our secrets. Well I say it should be one or the other - if we think our military and security organizations have no right to keep secrets from us, then neither should we have an expectation of privacy in matters of national security.
Click to expand...

Balance of power between countries is not a goal I want to see met.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
...
They gave secrets to the Russians. Snowden tried it with the Russians and the Chinese! [snipped more unsupportable accusations]
Click to expand...
There's no since discussing your unsupportable claims.

There's no evidence he gave anything to China or Russia just because he flew to those countries. You can believe that if you want, I see no evidence and there are other plausible explanations. If he gave secrets to China, why did he have to leave in fear of extradition?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
But Snowden hasn't done the World a good service. All he's done is foment suspicion and undermine the security of many other countries as well as our own.

However some have definitely benefited - certain journalists and the news media in general, would-be terrorists and other undesirables. So the next time some terrorist explodes a bomb or starts picking off random bystanders, we can thank Snowden for 'doing the public a service' by helping to keep the population down and increase news ratings!
Click to expand...

What terrorists? You believe that all the surveillance, cameras, and cataloging of email of our own citizens, etc etc, is an appropriate response to terrorism in the USA?

Do you actually fear getting "picked off" by a terrorist? I know the last thing I worry about when out in public is getting killed by a terrorist. Statistically, I'd be right not to worry.

I'm much more concerned, every day, that my own government is treating its own citizens like criminals. I'd rather live with a little danger then have my rights trampled.
 
fuelair said:
Balance of power between countries is not a goal I want to see met.
Click to expand...

Indeed. A balance of power between enlightened democracies and Fascist or Communist dictatorships is not a good thing. And multi-polar worlds are over-rated anyway. Want to see a multi-polar world... try Europe in 1914.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I think one could say that lying to Congress
Click to expand...
Prove it. Read my link to the NYT and prove that is not the case. LOL the ENTIRE moral case of the Snowden supporters tends to rest on one statement by James Clapper, it's *********** pathetic.
and spying on the German Prime Minister's cell phone calls is abuse.
Click to expand...
We're verrrry sowwy :)
In addition the reassurances no calls were listened to is suspect if not clearly false:

NSA Says It Can Listen to Americans’ Phone Calls Without a Warrant

NSA spying flap extends to contents of U.S. phone calls
Click to expand...
LOL I guess you didn't even read the article?
James Owens, a spokesman for Nadler, provided a statement on Sunday morning, a day after this article was published, saying: "I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans' phone calls without a specific warrant."
Click to expand...
LOL the day after this original story came out we debunked it on other threads. It still has legs I see. One guy says something, then later says he got clarification and retracts it, it's actually a conspiracy theory that they "got to" Nadler! You didn't know? Embarrassing.
 
schplurg said:
What terrorists? You believe that all the surveillance, cameras, and cataloging of email of our own citizens, etc etc, is an appropriate response to terrorism in the USA?
Click to expand...
Yes.

To prevent terrorist attacks you have a few options:-

1. Just ask people to be nice to each other. :)

2. Identify potential terrorists and watch them closely. Expect to be accused of 'profiling' and still miss the ones that you didn't suspect.

3. Gather as much intel as you can on the general population, then electronically filter out all the mundane stuff so that you can concentrate on actual terrorist activity.

4. Kill 'em all and let God sort it out.

If it wasn't for scaremongers bleating about 'freedom', option 3 would be by far the best. Normal citizens could go about their lives without being hassled, while terrorists would have nowhere to hide. But oh no, "I'd rather live with a little danger then have my rights trampled". I'm sure the terrorists agree...

Do you actually fear getting "picked off" by a terrorist?
Click to expand...
No, but only because such incidents are few and far between in this country. Perhaps there is a reason for that...

The only people who had anything to fear from the NSA were terrorists. And now? Terrorists will love having the freedom to plot in secret and carry out their murderous plans undetected, and I bet they are laughing at how willing we are to sacrifice much needed security for 'freedom'. So if you are cowering in fear thinking about what 'secrets' the NSA might have on you, don't worry. Soon you will have more tangible things to fear.

Unfortunately we live in a country that thrives on fear, with every morsel being savored and chewed over until the next one comes along. The government isn't interested in your peccadillos. The government is just trying to protect you from people will kill if they get the chance. But the fear mongers don't care. Breaking our national security is a win-win for them, because the weaker they can make our defenses the more incidents there will be to play up! Some do it for money, some for fame, others just want to see the World burn. But whatever their motives, they are playing you.

I'm much more concerned, every day, that my own government is treating its own citizens like criminals.
Click to expand...
Sorry to tell you this, but a fair proportion of our citizens are criminals. These people have something to hide, so naturally they are concerned about their 'right' to not be found out.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Yes.

To prevent terrorist attacks you have a few options:-

1. Just ask people to be nice to each other. :)

2. Identify potential terrorists and watch them closely. Expect to be accused of 'profiling' and still miss the ones that you didn't suspect.

3. Gather as much intel as you can on the general population, then electronically filter out all the mundane stuff so that you can concentrate on actual terrorist activity.

4. Kill 'em all and let God sort it out.

If it wasn't for scaremongers bleating about 'freedom', option 3 would be by far the best. Normal citizens could go about their lives without being hassled, while terrorists would have nowhere to hide. But oh no, "I'd rather live with a little danger then have my rights trampled". I'm sure the terrorists agree...
Click to expand...

This presupposes that the wheat can be reliably sorted from the chaff and the huge volumes of data can be turned into effective anti-terrorism intelligence. The current facts don't seem to bear this out.

  • There seems to be a trend to collect and hoard data "just in case" rather than be selective about the data that is captured and retained
  • There are enough "false positives" where innocent people are hassled because of the oversensitive nature of some of the algorithms involved
  • Then again, there are also cases of terrorists slipping though the net so the algorithms are not that sensitive

The security services need to demonstrate that they are using the information effectively in the way you describe
 
Joey McGee said:
LOL the ENTIRE moral case of the Snowden supporters tends to rest on one statement by James Clapper, it's *********** pathetic.
Click to expand...
That seems like a fair and level headed assessment. Wow, yes, I'd never even heard of James Clapper, but it must be the reason for my opinion on Snowden, because that is apparently my "entire moral case."

We're verrrry sowwy [for spying on friendly heads of state despite signing agreements not to]
Click to expand...
Apparently this has nothing to do with why I find Snowdon's actions justified. Or the thousands of innocent poor sods in Iraq, Afghanistan and God knows where who died for the "war on terror"; the conflict started to prevent attacks like at the World Trade Center, which has now cost twice as many additional American lives as the WTC attack, and in total has cost a multiple of the lives lost during all terror attacks in the last 40 years combined.
It has brought us blessings such as Guantanamo Bay, execution by Drone without trial and "enhanced interrogation".

All that for the small small price of our privacy and our moral high ground.

Also, after reading your linked articles I am somewhat amused. So Mr. Clapper did not lie about massive storage of telephony metadata, he mistakenly assumed the question was about the contents of phone calls.
Well, phew! I guess Americans can rest easy knowing that the NSA is only interested in where they are at any time, who they know and talk to, who they meet and where, not in what they say.

I'm vewwy sowwy this Snowden guy happened to you.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Yes.

To prevent terrorist attacks you have a few options:-

1. Just ask people to be nice to each other. :)

2. Identify potential terrorists and watch them closely. Expect to be accused of 'profiling' and still miss the ones that you didn't suspect.

3. Gather as much intel as you can on the general population, then electronically filter out all the mundane stuff so that you can concentrate on actual terrorist activity.

4. Kill 'em all and let God sort it out.
Click to expand...
The option that seems to be left out here is to not give the terrorists quite so much reason to hate your guts.


Normal citizens could go about their lives without being hassled,...
Click to expand...
provided the government does not make mistakes.

But oh no, "I'd rather live with a little danger then have my rights trampled".
Click to expand...
Everybody lives in danger every day. The question is what we want to stand for as a society, and what risks we accept as a consequence of that.

No, but only because such incidents are few and far between in this country. Perhaps there is a reason for that...
Click to expand...
"Say, why do you keep snapping your fingers?"
"It's to keep the tigers away."
"What tigers?"
"See? It works."


The only people who had anything to fear from the NSA were terrorists.
Click to expand...
and people who happen to regularly frequent the same places, the neighbours, the terrorists' colleagues, the friends they make as cover for their operation, people who happen to be near them when the hellfire missile explodes... I could go on.


Unfortunately we live in a country that thrives on fear, with every morsel being savored and chewed over until the next one comes along. The government isn't interested in your peccadillos. The government is just trying to protect you from people will kill if they get the chance. But the fear mongers don't care. Breaking our national security is a win-win for them, because the weaker they can make our defenses the more incidents there will be to play up! Some do it for money, some for fame, others just want to see the World burn. But whatever their motives, they are playing you.
Click to expand...
Hahaha! This has to be one of the most ironic things I've read in a while.
"Don't listen to those fear mongers, listen to me! They're coming to kiilllll you!!!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom