Jump to content


Snowden Surfaces in Hong Kong: New Information in South China Morning Post


191 replies to this topic

#41 Practical Girl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8282 posts
  • LocationAustin TX

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:35 AM

View Postdsp, on 13 June 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Interestingly enough, one defender of the US government and Obama has played the "gay" card on GG.

PG, do you still want to argue there are no smears going on here?




SOURCE OF QUOTE:

http://original.anti...chine-gears-up/

Yes. dsp, I do. In the largest part of reporting in the US, this sort of fringe crap is nonexistent. Are you still refusing to admit that Snowden's own video lays out the story that's been largely reported? Are you still carrying water for the stupid idea that the government runs the media?

I did note that Rep. Peter King has ditched both the First Amendment and, seemingly, the spirit and intent of whistleblower process. No surprise for this Republican who buys into the "evil media" meme, but worth the note.
Every woman needs a blowtorch.
---Julia Child


--- On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, at Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, a woman called out to him, saying, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”


--- LFC, on Gorsuch ruling: "Awesome. A Christianist who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the nation and bore false witness when he did it"

--- "Write hard and clear about what hurts"
Ernest Hemingway

#42 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9512 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:35 AM

View PostLFC, on 13 June 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

The more I've been reading about polling, the more it appears like the majority of Americans are just fine with the NSA program as described by official channels (FWIW). It appears that this type of wide open monitoring by our government bothers me (and others here) more than most U.S. citizens. Like it or not, I don't see the tide shifting on this issue, and I don't see much of a true national debate actually occurring.

I'm not sure about this actually. I agree most people seem to be 'meh' about it. On the the hand, this poll has the following question:

"In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, do you approve or disapprove of federal government agencies collecting phone records of ordinary Americans?"

Approve: 38%
Disapprove: 58%

I think it's really sorta hazy.

#43 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 11:08 AM

Rabiner: the news is that various parties in the media who are sympathetic to Obama's NSA position are waging an ongoing, organized campaign of slander against ES and now GG. Justin Raimondo gives examples. The pundit who brought up GGs homosexuality is one out of many that shows a clear pattern.

#44 Practical Girl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8282 posts
  • LocationAustin TX

Posted 13 June 2013 - 11:14 AM

View Postdsp, on 13 June 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Rabiner: the news is that various parties in the media who are sympathetic to Obama's NSA position are waging an ongoing, organized campaign of slander against ES and now GG. Justin Raimondo gives examples. The pundit who brought up GGs homosexuality is one out of many that shows a clear pattern.

dsp, I don't really care what infotainment you subscribe to, but can we please- never again- hear your tired meme about media bias? Your media hero/informant on this is a self-described "conservative paleo-libertarian". Again, I don't care, as long as you will admit to being under certain and specific influence as much (actually, more) than any of the liberals you love to hate.
Every woman needs a blowtorch.
---Julia Child


--- On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, at Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, a woman called out to him, saying, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”


--- LFC, on Gorsuch ruling: "Awesome. A Christianist who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the nation and bore false witness when he did it"

--- "Write hard and clear about what hurts"
Ernest Hemingway

#45 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 11:29 AM

I don't hate liberals. I am one myself on many issues. My main complaint with Obama is that he is not nearly liberal enough. I don't like it when liberals line with up with Bush/Cheney tactics, McCain, Graham, Chambliss, Brooks, Kristol, etc. and still claim they're liberal.

The government doesn't run the media. Large corporations with an agenda run it. But the government does work with the media. The Obama admin leaks all the time to shape narratives and influence perceptions. That what's happening with these smears on ES/GG.

#46 Rabiner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3726 posts
  • LocationCulver City, CA

Posted 13 June 2013 - 11:33 AM

View Postdsp, on 13 June 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

I don't hate liberals. I am one myself on many issues. My main complaint with Obama is that he is not nearly liberal enough. I don't like it when liberals line with up with Bush/Cheney tactics, McCain, Graham, Chambliss, Brooks, Kristol, etc. and still claim they're liberal.

The government doesn't run the media. Large corporations with an agenda run it. But the government does work with the media. The Obama admin leaks all the time to shape narratives and influence perceptions. That is what's happening here with these smears on ES/GG.

Liberals are more ideologically diverse than conservatives in Congress so it's expected that some will agree with conservatives on some select issues and others won't. I think that Democrats in Congress are on a whole more liberal than Obama but I like it that way. I didn't want a Mondale to become President, I wanted a pragmatist who isn't a doctrinaire liberal on everything.
Government in particular has an obligation to dismiss any employee who claims a right to discriminate against citizens. - Garret Epps

#47 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35463 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 13 June 2013 - 12:57 PM

View Postindy, on 13 June 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

I'm not sure about this actually. I agree most people seem to be 'meh' about it. On the the hand, this poll has the following question:

"In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, do you approve or disapprove of federal government agencies collecting phone records of ordinary Americans?"

Approve: 38%
Disapprove: 58%

I think it's really sorta hazy.

I looked at the poll link you provided and what I see is that while the one question you noted appears to be against collection of phone records, multiple other questions asked by both CBS and Pew show exactly the opposite. In fact, it appears that this type of response is decidedly in the minority. For example, look at the responses to these questions from the same link (you'll have to look up the poll results since the formatting was destroyed when I tried to put it in this post). So while the outcome may be a little mixed, the polls you provided appear to still show things being generally heavily weighted towards acceptance of the current government activities.


"How concerned are you, personally, that the government might be collecting your phone call records -- are you very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned?"

"How concerned are you, personally, that the government might be monitoring your internet activities, such as the web sites you visit and the email you send -- are you very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned?"

"Do you think the government's collection of Americans' phone call records is a necessary tool to help find terrorists, or do you think it is NOT necessary?"
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#48 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35463 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 13 June 2013 - 01:01 PM

An interesting post by Sullivan quoting some millennial views on PRISM:

http://dish.andrewsu...mn-about-prism/


I'm starting to feel like my 50+ year old views on personal privacy are considered a bit archaic by younger U.S. citizens.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#49 Practical Girl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8282 posts
  • LocationAustin TX

Posted 13 June 2013 - 01:25 PM

View Postdsp, on 13 June 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

I don't hate liberals. I am one myself on many issues. My main complaint with Obama is that he is not nearly liberal enough. I don't like it when liberals line with up with Bush/Cheney tactics, McCain, Graham, Chambliss, Brooks, Kristol, etc. and still claim they're liberal.

The government doesn't run the media. Large corporations with an agenda run it. But the government does work with the media. The Obama admin leaks all the time to shape narratives and influence perceptions. That what's happening with these smears on ES/GG.

Please do run through the story of Snowden, as it's been reported in the US. Who is the source of Snowden's story? How has it been reported, in the majority? Where in the are the "smears" that you want us all to see? So far, what we've seen reported has been what Snowden has said. Not very hard at all to do, since there's video and/or direct quotes from printed pieces. Where, oh where is the government in the reporting of Snowden's perspective?

I've been laboring under the idea that you're a seeker, when in fact you're not. You seem to see and hear what's not there and make up the rest. It's something we all saw at Frum, but I thought it was possible you actually had something to say that I couldn't hear on Alex Jones' radio show.

Again- if you have a factual case, then build it. If there's smears, if it's so clear this is a government smear campaign, then by all means pop up the links. Otherwise, is it possible for you to move on and just admit that it's your unsubstantiated opinion? You're doing very little to advance anything but paranoid thinking, at this point.
Every woman needs a blowtorch.
---Julia Child


--- On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, at Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, a woman called out to him, saying, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”


--- LFC, on Gorsuch ruling: "Awesome. A Christianist who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the nation and bore false witness when he did it"

--- "Write hard and clear about what hurts"
Ernest Hemingway

#50 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 01:53 PM

I have left a number of links around here in this thread and others illustrating undue focus on ES and apologetics for Obama/US gov/NSA policies. I hardly ever look at Alex Jones. A lot of my ideas/perceptions about mass media come from Noam Chomsky.

#51 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 09:22 AM

Reporting by Bloomberg vindicates Snowden with this article giving evidence for the basic truth of Snowden's PRISM allegations. Close cooperation between US intelligence and the major high tech and telecom players.

http://www.bloomberg...s-of-firms.html

#52 Practical Girl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8282 posts
  • LocationAustin TX

Posted 14 June 2013 - 09:47 AM

A much better take on what's been bothering me about Snowden's involvement and behavior all along.
Every woman needs a blowtorch.
---Julia Child


--- On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, at Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, a woman called out to him, saying, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”


--- LFC, on Gorsuch ruling: "Awesome. A Christianist who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the nation and bore false witness when he did it"

--- "Write hard and clear about what hurts"
Ernest Hemingway

#53 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 10:11 AM

Snowden critics keep advancing the view that it is somehow discrediting that he didn't turn himself in or stay to face the consequences for his deeds. If Snowden was truly acting on principle, this line of reasoning goes, he would have stayed to face the consequences like Ellsberg, Manning and the civil rights marchers. The fact that he did not do this, critics say, shows his motives must be something other than principle or what he publicly says they are.

I find this argument weak. The notion the US government would give Snowden a fair trial is laughable. Look at how the military is treating Bradley Manning. The country is a different place than during Ellsberg's time.

There are other problems with that article too apart from not noting how the country is different now than in the 60s/70s. For example, the author says Snowden lied about his salary. Says who Snowden lied? The source of the information about his salary is Booz Allen. The author also quotes Toobin's rubbish about Snowden being a "narcissist." Toobin is a lawyer/journalist not a clinician, and he is also a hypocrite who opposed overreach under Bush and now supports it. That inconsistency suggests that maybe Toobin is the one with an unspoken agenda. Also, if Snowden does have a clinically defective personality, it sure didn't stop the CIA and NSA from using him.

I mean, really, if the best they can do after a week is conjecture and innuendo, Snowden must have an astonishingly clean background.

#54 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35463 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 14 June 2013 - 10:25 AM

No matter what people think of Snowden, it appears that he may be making himself the story (intentionally or not) which is the exact opposite of what he said he wanted. If he ends up defecting to China or Russia, he'll have done more to boost support in the U.S. for the NSA program than anything that any politician could have dreamed of.

I guess one big question is whether his actions have been intentional or if he's simply in way over his head.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#55 Rabiner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3726 posts
  • LocationCulver City, CA

Posted 14 June 2013 - 10:26 AM

DSP:

Just because what Snowden leaked is true doesn't vindicate him in any way, shape or form. The government wasn't breaking the law and was briefing congress. Did Clapper lie? That's something that should be investigated but has nothing to do with these leaks except in a existential way. He leaked sensitive information, particularly regarding spying of foreign countries and entities overseas which was not needed.
Government in particular has an obligation to dismiss any employee who claims a right to discriminate against citizens. - Garret Epps

#56 Practical Girl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8282 posts
  • LocationAustin TX

Posted 14 June 2013 - 10:59 AM

dsp, Somehow, I think if this guy's name were Reza Abbassi (for example) and he did the same thing except chose Saudi Arabia to run to with the information of how the US is tapping into their networks, many Americans would feel much, much differently about this. Might even think more critically, even if it were initially done in a knee-jerk, racist way.

And that's sort of the point with the examination of Snowden, what he's done and where he goes from here. We definitely live in a different time than Ellsberg's 60's 70's. The information age has the capacity to both benefit and hinder national and international security interests of all types. We also seem to have a systemic issue whereby very low level, even disgruntled employees of the military and/or private contractors have unprecedented ease of access to sensitive, even classified information.

How would you have the government treat those who leak sensitive information to foreign nations? Would you have it so that these things are ignored? And where do you draw the line with prosecution- only if the subversive actions are "obviously" supportive of terrorists? Only if you agree with the leak? There's much afoot here. Some of it can be rectified in the US with respect to citizen privacy.

But we also have a man who's made an independent decision to eschew any and all legal protections offered to him in the US under our laws in order to curry favor with a government that we have, at the very most, tenuous and uneasy diplomatic relations. So POOF! You're the President. What would you do with Snowden? What would you do with Manning, a man who'splead guilty to at least 10 charges that he faced? And please answer within the real world situation under which you'd be governing, as the leader of the free world and Commander in Chief of a country that, actively or passively, is a target for both governments and private groups who wish to gain advantage. And don't forget- The US military has appx 1.5 million employees, with hundreds of thousands of private contractors snaking outward and inward within its most sensitive dealings. And they're all watching to see how it's handled. To whom are your alliances- the one who breaks the law and aids a foreign government, or perhaps your own people and the military commanders, soldiers and other personnel in harms way, every day?
Every woman needs a blowtorch.
---Julia Child


--- On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, at Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, a woman called out to him, saying, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”


--- LFC, on Gorsuch ruling: "Awesome. A Christianist who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the nation and bore false witness when he did it"

--- "Write hard and clear about what hurts"
Ernest Hemingway

#57 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 12:20 PM

Rabiner: I can only repeat my point from prior discussions. We do not know the programs at issue are legal. This is a US government talking point. The waters around these programs are extremely murky, and their legal status is in dispute. Courts strike down laws all the time. It took a supreme court ruling to resolve the legality of Obamacare after numerous ;legal challenges and conflicting rulings in lower courts. With these surveillance programs, the US government doesn't allow legal challenges. Since legality has not been established, I think he deserves a pardon or at a minimum whistle blower protections.

#58 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 12:31 PM

I think you have to take it on a case-by-case basis. This is not the same situation as the Rosenbergs, Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen or Jonathan Pollard. For that type of situation, direct disclosure of ultra-critical, top-secret information to foreign governments, I'd say execution or life jail terms are appropriate. This is whistle-blowing about the US government spying on us. It is not even remotely the same thing.

Quote

How would you have the government treat those who leak sensitive information to foreign nations? Would you have it so that these things are ignored? And where do you draw the line with prosecution- only if the subversive actions are "obviously" supportive of terrorists? Only if you agree with the leak? There's much afoot here. Some of it can be rectified in the US with respect to citizen privacy.


#59 Zen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 12:40 PM

This is just typical character assassination and hypocrisy. If some foreigner happens to do anything of the sort that Snowden (expose a police state), then he's a hero, and how could our tyrannical opponents imprison someone like that? This is usually accompanied by all sorts of lip service to democracy and human rights, and usually a few coy suggestions about how we should invade said country to 'liberate' it.

IF, however, someone in the States does it, well, then he's simply a vile traitor and anything he gets is too good for him. Oh, we love freedom, and it's great that someone opened up the debate, but there are laws you know, and they must be applied -- so let's catch him first.

Pure nonsense.

I have no animus against Snowden for playing a small part (small because the government has been doing this forever) in exposing and embarrassing the over bloated national security police state.

#60 Zen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 12:45 PM

Practical Girl:

Quote

4. Then he passed state secrets to China. He's vowed to fight extradition back, and that's about what I'd expect of a thief and a traitor. Not like Daniel Ellsberg, at all, a man who believed in what he was doing so much that he was willing to go to jail. Snowden has been willing to go to a luxury hotel, so far. Where next? Russia's invited him...

What sort of nonsense is this? Why should he agree to a farcical show trial administered by the US? So that he can be imprisoned and allow himself to be tortured and brutalized like Bradley Manning was? Again, it's interesting to note how many people feel so compelled to defend a police state.

Again, if this was some foreigner in some country that was despised by the US, he'd be hailed as a hero.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users