Ed Snowden is a hero to Russian spies

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Russians love this guy. I wonder how long until they crack the encryption on his files.

Are you serious? The minute he landed in Moscow. They said, "Comrade you want Mother Russia's protection, then open the files and keep that between us. If you do that we will take you in, protect you, give you good job and good Russian wife!"

Deal was done. Snowden is no hero, even if he revealed a very good thing!

Proof? Oh, that's right. You have none.

Do foreign nations typically send proof when they've stolen our secrets?

 

[dblack]

The Hypocrisy Of Liberals Defending The NSA

A number of weeks ago I wrote a piece denouncing the attacks on the Obama Administration by Republicans who claimed the Tea Party had been unfairly targeted by the IRS. I stand by those remarks, convinced now, more than ever, that the non-scandals of Benghazi and the IRS are nothing more than conservative politics-as-usual where smoke and mirrors are instigated instead of honest governance. These attacks, in other words, are nothing more than a result of nasty, blind partisanship.

But this critique is a two-way street and the transgressions that conservatives are capable of are as easily committed by liberals as by the most diehard reactionary voter. Such as proved to be the case as with the recent story developments of the AP phone records, NSA spying program, and the continued Obama Administration-led persecution of whistleblowers and activists. For during the Bush era no shortage of justified outrage could be found when it came to members of the left denouncing the Executive for overreaching its powers and challenging civil liberties in its quest to “protect” the domestic peace. It was precisely this outrage that so intoned many on the left with a young politician at the 2004 Democratic National Convention who said, in part:

“The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states: red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.”

That last line, delivered by then state senator Barack Obama, was a direct rebut to the Bush policy of overreaching their executive power, and trampling civil liberties in the process. Fast forward nearly a decade later and that same rising star in the Democratic Party is now the President of the United States, carried to power in part by his awesome ability to deliver oratory of hope and paint a picture where the United States roles back the “long political darkness” (his words from 2004) of the Bush Administration and restore some normalcy to the notion of civil liberty in the United States. Yet, how has time changed that perception.

Today with the Obama administration’s aggressive prosecution of whistle blowers and activists, along with the expanded drone policy of assassinating people without judicial processes, and continuing the “political darkness” of immorally spying on people, it is difficult to imagine that at one time this same political figure expressed outrage over library records.

Yet to raise this shift in attitude and show that candidate Obama of 2008 is different from governing Obama of 2012 is to earn the criticism of many on the left. Many, who under the Bush Administration, would have been the first to cry foul when civil liberties were not protected. For example the site Forward Progressives had this to say about the NSA leaked details of the spying program:

“I just find it a little ironic that in this day and age where people willfully and publicly parade themselves, their food and their locations all over the internet—suddenly people are in an uproar over their privacy.”

This line of thinking, somewhat prevalent by die-hard defenders of the Obama Administration was accompanied in the piece by this line of reasoning:

“After all, isn’t this basically what the Patriot Act has been — a tool the government can use to push the envelope when it comes to our Fourth Amendment rights? After 12 years, suddenly now people want to act shocked?”

These statements are illogical in two regards. The first is obvious. Although people do voluntarily give up huge amounts of information on social media they do not consent to have massive amounts of data compiled by the government. When someone emails another person, posts a comment or picture on facebook, or makes a Youtube video they are engaged in discussions or individual expression and have not consented to have a spy agency, funded by their taxes and ran by their government, creating a digital portfolio to be used at whim when the government sees fit.

This attitude is paramount to saying that plain clothes policemen, infiltrating public meetings and spying on people, is justified because, really, if the people in question did not want to be targets of espionage they would have refrained from exercising their constitutional rights to assemble and speak freely. It is undemocratic, and furthermore considering the outrage that many on the Left expressed at Bush, it is hypocritical.

The second point that this all began under the Patriot Act is true, but ultimately it serves neither as a defense or an explanation. No one has been able to satisfactorily explain how Obama and his administration are somehow cleared of wrongdoing because Bush II initiated the War on Terror and the Patriot Act. Yes, Bush disregarded the Constitution. Yes, it was wrong. How does that make it okay for Obama to do the same?

Aaron Swartz, Bradly Manning, Julian Assange, and now Edward Snowden all have the commonality of being individuals targeted/persecuted by the government for standing out as activists and whistle blowers. HSBC, Goldman Sachs, BP, and Monsanto all have the commonality of being large private based institutions that have engaged in illegal and immoral activity and have faced little to no push back from our “democratic” government.

Therefore this defense of the current administration’s tactics leaves a very important question. Namely, many on the left need to ask themselves whether or not we are liberals, sustained by ideology and principle or primarily Democrats, sustained by party loyalty and politics? If the answer is the latter, if we are primarily engaged in only protecting our political party’s prospects and its elected members, then we really have no business criticizing the GOP when they manufacture outrages to score political points. For the only thing worse than manufacturing a controversy is ignoring one.

I understand that under the alarmingly expanded powers of the executive the Obama administration may very well be within its legal limits but it is precisely because of this legal limbo that we should all be alarmed and outraged. Also given the knowledge that Bradly Manning may have been denied some of his basic human rights, that Julian Assange is still forced to live in an embassy because of the imperial power of the U.S., that Aaron Swartz was forced into suicide by a zealous Justice Department more eager to protect corporations then individuals, and that now Edward Snowden, a U.S. citizen, felt it necessary to flee his own country because of the repercussions that come with challenging an imperial executive, liberals are charged with doing much more than simply being cheerleaders of the President.

If we cannot do this, then we really are no better than the conservatives. And that is a reality that is truly frightening.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Hypocrisy Of Liberals Defending The NSA

A number of weeks ago I wrote a piece denouncing the attacks on the Obama Administration by Republicans who claimed the Tea Party had been unfairly targeted by the IRS. I stand by those remarks, convinced now, more than ever, that the non-scandals of Benghazi and the IRS are nothing more than conservative politics-as-usual where smoke and mirrors are instigated instead of honest governance. These attacks, in other words, are nothing more than a result of nasty, blind partisanship.

But this critique is a two-way street and the transgressions that conservatives are capable of are as easily committed by liberals as by the most diehard reactionary voter. Such as proved to be the case as with the recent story developments of the AP phone records, NSA spying program, and the continued Obama Administration-led persecution of whistleblowers and activists. For during the Bush era no shortage of justified outrage could be found when it came to members of the left denouncing the Executive for overreaching its powers and challenging civil liberties in its quest to “protect” the domestic peace. It was precisely this outrage that so intoned many on the left with a young politician at the 2004 Democratic National Convention who said, in part:

“The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states: red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.”

That last line, delivered by then state senator Barack Obama, was a direct rebut to the Bush policy of overreaching their executive power, and trampling civil liberties in the process. Fast forward nearly a decade later and that same rising star in the Democratic Party is now the President of the United States, carried to power in part by his awesome ability to deliver oratory of hope and paint a picture where the United States roles back the “long political darkness” (his words from 2004) of the Bush Administration and restore some normalcy to the notion of civil liberty in the United States. Yet, how has time changed that perception.

Today with the Obama administration’s aggressive prosecution of whistle blowers and activists, along with the expanded drone policy of assassinating people without judicial processes, and continuing the “political darkness” of immorally spying on people, it is difficult to imagine that at one time this same political figure expressed outrage over library records.

Yet to raise this shift in attitude and show that candidate Obama of 2008 is different from governing Obama of 2012 is to earn the criticism of many on the left. Many, who under the Bush Administration, would have been the first to cry foul when civil liberties were not protected. For example the site Forward Progressives had this to say about the NSA leaked details of the spying program:

“I just find it a little ironic that in this day and age where people willfully and publicly parade themselves, their food and their locations all over the internet—suddenly people are in an uproar over their privacy.”

This line of thinking, somewhat prevalent by die-hard defenders of the Obama Administration was accompanied in the piece by this line of reasoning:

“After all, isn’t this basically what the Patriot Act has been — a tool the government can use to push the envelope when it comes to our Fourth Amendment rights? After 12 years, suddenly now people want to act shocked?”

These statements are illogical in two regards. The first is obvious. Although people do voluntarily give up huge amounts of information on social media they do not consent to have massive amounts of data compiled by the government. When someone emails another person, posts a comment or picture on facebook, or makes a Youtube video they are engaged in discussions or individual expression and have not consented to have a spy agency, funded by their taxes and ran by their government, creating a digital portfolio to be used at whim when the government sees fit.

This attitude is paramount to saying that plain clothes policemen, infiltrating public meetings and spying on people, is justified because, really, if the people in question did not want to be targets of espionage they would have refrained from exercising their constitutional rights to assemble and speak freely. It is undemocratic, and furthermore considering the outrage that many on the Left expressed at Bush, it is hypocritical.

The second point that this all began under the Patriot Act is true, but ultimately it serves neither as a defense or an explanation. No one has been able to satisfactorily explain how Obama and his administration are somehow cleared of wrongdoing because Bush II initiated the War on Terror and the Patriot Act. Yes, Bush disregarded the Constitution. Yes, it was wrong. How does that make it okay for Obama to do the same?

Aaron Swartz, Bradly Manning, Julian Assange, and now Edward Snowden all have the commonality of being individuals targeted/persecuted by the government for standing out as activists and whistle blowers. HSBC, Goldman Sachs, BP, and Monsanto all have the commonality of being large private based institutions that have engaged in illegal and immoral activity and have faced little to no push back from our “democratic” government.

Therefore this defense of the current administration’s tactics leaves a very important question. Namely, many on the left need to ask themselves whether or not we are liberals, sustained by ideology and principle or primarily Democrats, sustained by party loyalty and politics? If the answer is the latter, if we are primarily engaged in only protecting our political party’s prospects and its elected members, then we really have no business criticizing the GOP when they manufacture outrages to score political points. For the only thing worse than manufacturing a controversy is ignoring one.

I understand that under the alarmingly expanded powers of the executive the Obama administration may very well be within its legal limits but it is precisely because of this legal limbo that we should all be alarmed and outraged. Also given the knowledge that Bradly Manning may have been denied some of his basic human rights, that Julian Assange is still forced to live in an embassy because of the imperial power of the U.S., that Aaron Swartz was forced into suicide by a zealous Justice Department more eager to protect corporations then individuals, and that now Edward Snowden, a U.S. citizen, felt it necessary to flee his own country because of the repercussions that come with challenging an imperial executive, liberals are charged with doing much more than simply being cheerleaders of the President.

If we cannot do this, then we really are no better than the conservatives. And that is a reality that is truly frightening.

I'm not defending the NSA

 

[dblack]

I'm not defending the NSA

Aren't you though? Isn't that the point of focusing all your attention on defaming Snowden, rather that demanding that the spying stop?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'm not defending the NSA

Aren't you though? Isn't that the point of focusing all your attention on defaming Snowden, rather that demanding that the spying stop?

No.

 

[dblack]

I'm not defending the NSA

Aren't you though? Isn't that the point of focusing all your attention on defaming Snowden, rather that demanding that the spying stop?

No.

Then what is the point of focusing all your attention on defaming Snowden rather than demanding the spying stop?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Aren't you though? Isn't that the point of focusing all your attention on defaming Snowden, rather that demanding that the spying stop?

No.

Then what is the point of focusing all your attention on defaming Snowden rather than demanding the spying stop?

Would you like me to pen a letter to my Congressman?

If its such a big deal to you, you should head over to the NSA headquarters right now, stand in front of it, douse yourself in gasoline, and set yourself ablaze.

 

[dblack]

No.

Then what is the point of focusing all your attention on defaming Snowden rather than demanding the spying stop?

Would you like me to pen a letter to my Congressman?

If its such a big deal to you, you should head over to the NSA headquarters right now, stand in front of it, douse yourself in gasoline, and set yourself ablaze.

I'm merely pointing out that you ARE defending the NSA spying, implicitly, by attacking Snowden for revealing it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then what is the point of focusing all your attention on defaming Snowden rather than demanding the spying stop?

Would you like me to pen a letter to my Congressman?

If its such a big deal to you, you should head over to the NSA headquarters right now, stand in front of it, douse yourself in gasoline, and set yourself ablaze.

I'm merely pointing out that you ARE defending the NSA spying, implicitly, by attacking Snowden for revealing it.

I'm attacking him for trading secrets to the Russians for safety from U.S. jurisdiction. Why do you think Putin wanted Snowden to stop leaking secrets to the public? He wants them all for himself.

 

[dblack]

Would you like me to pen a letter to my Congressman?

If its such a big deal to you, you should head over to the NSA headquarters right now, stand in front of it, douse yourself in gasoline, and set yourself ablaze.

I'm merely pointing out that you ARE defending the NSA spying, implicitly, by attacking Snowden for revealing it.

I'm attacking him for trading secrets to the Russians for safety from U.S. jurisdiction. Why do you think Putin wanted Snowden to stop leaking secrets to the public? He wants them all for himself.

Sure. I get your schtick. I just don't buy the hypocrisy of it all.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'm merely pointing out that you ARE defending the NSA spying, implicitly, by attacking Snowden for revealing it.

I'm attacking him for trading secrets to the Russians for safety from U.S. jurisdiction. Why do you think Putin wanted Snowden to stop leaking secrets to the public? He wants them all for himself.

Sure. I get your schtick. I just don't buy the hypocrisy of it all.

If you can please link us to any evidence that I have ever been in support of U.S. citizens defecting to the Russian government with our national secrets, I'd love to see it.

 

[dblack]

I'm attacking him for trading secrets to the Russians for safety from U.S. jurisdiction. Why do you think Putin wanted Snowden to stop leaking secrets to the public? He wants them all for himself.

Sure. I get your schtick. I just don't buy the hypocrisy of it all.

If you can please link us to any evidence that I have ever been in support of U.S. citizens defecting to the Russian government with our national secrets, I'd love to see it.

As I said, that's a 'line' - and I ain't buying it. I don't believe you give one rat's ass about our 'national secrets'. You're shilling for Obama and the Democrats, trying to distract attention away from the surveillance state they are creating.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

sure. I get your schtick. I just don't buy the hypocrisy of it all.

if you can please link us to any evidence that i have ever been in support of u.s. Citizens defecting to the russian government with our national secrets, i'd love to see it.

as i said, that's a 'line' - and i ain't buying it. I don't believe you give one rat's ass about our 'national secrets'. You're shilling for obama and the democrats, trying to distract attention away from the surveillance state they are creating.

ok. Whatever you say.

 

[Toro]

Sure. I get your schtick. I just don't buy the hypocrisy of it all.

If you can please link us to any evidence that I have ever been in support of U.S. citizens defecting to the Russian government with our national secrets, I'd love to see it.

As I said, that's a 'line' - and I ain't buying it. I don't believe you give one rat's ass about our 'national secrets'. You're shilling for Obama and the Democrats, trying to distract attention away from the surveillance state they are creating.

Obama and the Democrats aren't "creating" a surveillance state. That was created decades ago. And the Republicans under Bush accelerated it. This administration is just picking up where the last one left off.

 

[dblack]

If you can please link us to any evidence that I have ever been in support of U.S. citizens defecting to the Russian government with our national secrets, I'd love to see it.

As I said, that's a 'line' - and I ain't buying it. I don't believe you give one rat's ass about our 'national secrets'. You're shilling for Obama and the Democrats, trying to distract attention away from the surveillance state they are creating.

Obama and the Democrats aren't "creating" a surveillance state. That was created decades ago. And the Republicans under Bush accelerated it. This administration is just picking up where the last one left off.

Weak. And untrue. They are accelerating it as well. A blind, partisan defense of these policies won't help our nation - or your party.

 

[Toro]

As I said, that's a 'line' - and I ain't buying it. I don't believe you give one rat's ass about our 'national secrets'. You're shilling for Obama and the Democrats, trying to distract attention away from the surveillance state they are creating.

Obama and the Democrats aren't "creating" a surveillance state. That was created decades ago. And the Republicans under Bush accelerated it. This administration is just picking up where the last one left off.

Weak. And untrue. They are accelerating it as well. A blind, partisan defense of these policies won't help our nation - or your party.

I'm a Republican. You are totally clueless if one doesn't know that the NSA has been doing this for decades, and that Bush and the Republicans accelerated it after 9/11. Partisan hacks will blast the other side but shut up when their side is doing it.

 

[bravoactual]

The Hypocrisy Of Liberals Defending The NSA

A number of weeks ago I wrote a piece denouncing the attacks on the Obama Administration by Republicans who claimed the Tea Party had been unfairly targeted by the IRS. I stand by those remarks, convinced now, more than ever, that the non-scandals of Benghazi and the IRS are nothing more than conservative politics-as-usual where smoke and mirrors are instigated instead of honest governance. These attacks, in other words, are nothing more than a result of nasty, blind partisanship.

But this critique is a two-way street and the transgressions that conservatives are capable of are as easily committed by liberals as by the most diehard reactionary voter. Such as proved to be the case as with the recent story developments of the AP phone records, NSA spying program, and the continued Obama Administration-led persecution of whistleblowers and activists. For during the Bush era no shortage of justified outrage could be found when it came to members of the left denouncing the Executive for overreaching its powers and challenging civil liberties in its quest to “protect” the domestic peace. It was precisely this outrage that so intoned many on the left with a young politician at the 2004 Democratic National Convention who said, in part:

“The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states: red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.”

That last line, delivered by then state senator Barack Obama, was a direct rebut to the Bush policy of overreaching their executive power, and trampling civil liberties in the process. Fast forward nearly a decade later and that same rising star in the Democratic Party is now the President of the United States, carried to power in part by his awesome ability to deliver oratory of hope and paint a picture where the United States roles back the “long political darkness” (his words from 2004) of the Bush Administration and restore some normalcy to the notion of civil liberty in the United States. Yet, how has time changed that perception.

Today with the Obama administration’s aggressive prosecution of whistle blowers and activists, along with the expanded drone policy of assassinating people without judicial processes, and continuing the “political darkness” of immorally spying on people, it is difficult to imagine that at one time this same political figure expressed outrage over library records.

Yet to raise this shift in attitude and show that candidate Obama of 2008 is different from governing Obama of 2012 is to earn the criticism of many on the left. Many, who under the Bush Administration, would have been the first to cry foul when civil liberties were not protected. For example the site Forward Progressives had this to say about the NSA leaked details of the spying program:

“I just find it a little ironic that in this day and age where people willfully and publicly parade themselves, their food and their locations all over the internet—suddenly people are in an uproar over their privacy.”

This line of thinking, somewhat prevalent by die-hard defenders of the Obama Administration was accompanied in the piece by this line of reasoning:

“After all, isn’t this basically what the Patriot Act has been — a tool the government can use to push the envelope when it comes to our Fourth Amendment rights? After 12 years, suddenly now people want to act shocked?”

These statements are illogical in two regards. The first is obvious. Although people do voluntarily give up huge amounts of information on social media they do not consent to have massive amounts of data compiled by the government. When someone emails another person, posts a comment or picture on facebook, or makes a Youtube video they are engaged in discussions or individual expression and have not consented to have a spy agency, funded by their taxes and ran by their government, creating a digital portfolio to be used at whim when the government sees fit.

This attitude is paramount to saying that plain clothes policemen, infiltrating public meetings and spying on people, is justified because, really, if the people in question did not want to be targets of espionage they would have refrained from exercising their constitutional rights to assemble and speak freely. It is undemocratic, and furthermore considering the outrage that many on the Left expressed at Bush, it is hypocritical.

The second point that this all began under the Patriot Act is true, but ultimately it serves neither as a defense or an explanation. No one has been able to satisfactorily explain how Obama and his administration are somehow cleared of wrongdoing because Bush II initiated the War on Terror and the Patriot Act. Yes, Bush disregarded the Constitution. Yes, it was wrong. How does that make it okay for Obama to do the same?

Aaron Swartz, Bradly Manning, Julian Assange, and now Edward Snowden all have the commonality of being individuals targeted/persecuted by the government for standing out as activists and whistle blowers. HSBC, Goldman Sachs, BP, and Monsanto all have the commonality of being large private based institutions that have engaged in illegal and immoral activity and have faced little to no push back from our “democratic” government.

Therefore this defense of the current administration’s tactics leaves a very important question. Namely, many on the left need to ask themselves whether or not we are liberals, sustained by ideology and principle or primarily Democrats, sustained by party loyalty and politics? If the answer is the latter, if we are primarily engaged in only protecting our political party’s prospects and its elected members, then we really have no business criticizing the GOP when they manufacture outrages to score political points. For the only thing worse than manufacturing a controversy is ignoring one.

I understand that under the alarmingly expanded powers of the executive the Obama administration may very well be within its legal limits but it is precisely because of this legal limbo that we should all be alarmed and outraged. Also given the knowledge that Bradly Manning may have been denied some of his basic human rights, that Julian Assange is still forced to live in an embassy because of the imperial power of the U.S., that Aaron Swartz was forced into suicide by a zealous Justice Department more eager to protect corporations then individuals, and that now Edward Snowden, a U.S. citizen, felt it necessary to flee his own country because of the repercussions that come with challenging an imperial executive, liberals are charged with doing much more than simply being cheerleaders of the President.

If we cannot do this, then we really are no better than the conservatives. And that is a reality that is truly frightening.

While I condemn the actions of Snowden, let me remind the Conservatives that when bush43 was shredding the Fourth Amendment, you people had no problem Illegal Search and Seizure, Illegal Detention and the Gross Violations of Eighth Amendment by using Water Boarding.

Conservatives defended bush43 time and again "If you have nothing hide" was the constant refrain.

Right Wing Hypocracy is just as real.

What Snowden should earn him a long jail term.

What bush43 did should have earned him impeachment.

Don't cry Hypocracy when your just as guilty as the "Liberals" you condemn.

 

[dblack]

What Snowden should earn him a long jail term.

What bush43 did should have earned him impeachment.

And Obama and the NSA?

Don't cry Hypocracy when your just as guilty as the "Liberals" you condemn.

You clearly don't know me.

 

[dblack]

Obama and the Democrats aren't "creating" a surveillance state. That was created decades ago. And the Republicans under Bush accelerated it. This administration is just picking up where the last one left off.

Weak. And untrue. They are accelerating it as well. A blind, partisan defense of these policies won't help our nation - or your party.

I'm a Republican. You are totally clueless if one doesn't know that the NSA has been doing this for decades, and that Bush and the Republicans accelerated it after 9/11. Partisan hacks will blast the other side but shut up when their side is doing it.

Yes. If. If. and if. The sorry excuse of 'Bush did it too' is sad recompense as we watch our nation slide down the shitter. I don't care who started it. Who's gonna put a stop to it? Obviously, not Obama.

 

[GHook93]

The Russians love this guy. I wonder how long until they crack the encryption on his files.

Are you serious? The minute he landed in Moscow. They said, "Comrade you want Mother Russia's protection, then open the files and keep that between us. If you do that we will take you in, protect you, give you good job and good Russian wife!"

Deal was done. Snowden is no hero, even if he revealed a very good thing!

Proof? Oh, that's right. You have none.

LOL, if I had proof to that then I wouldn't post that here for free, I would sell if for millions to a news network. Unlike America, Russia doesn't reward politicians for leaking secret talks, they execute them!