GLENN GREENWALD: Have you given thought to what it is that the US government's response to your conduct is in terms of what they might say about you, and how they might try to depict you?
EDWARD SNOWDEN: I think the government’s going to launch an investigation. I think they’re going to say I’ve committed grave crimes, that I’ve violated the Espionage Act. They’re going to say I’ve aided our enemies in making them aware of these systems, but that argument can be made against anybody who reveals information that points out mass surveillance systems, because fundamentally, they apply equally to ourselves as they do to our enemies.
GLENN GREENWALD: When you decided to enter this world, did you do so with the intention of weaseling your way in and becoming a mole so that one day you could undermine it with disclosures? Or what was your perspective or mindset about it at the time that you first sort of got into this whole, this whole realm?
EDWARD SNOWDEN:I joined the intelligence community when I was very young, sort of the government as a whole. I enlisted in the Army shortly after the invasion of Iraq. I believed in the goodness of what we were doing, I believed in the nobility of our intention to free oppressed people overseas. But over time, over the length of my career, as I watched the news, and I increasingly was exposed to true information that had not been propagandized in the media, that we were actually involved in misleading the public and misleading all publics, not just the American public, in order to create a certain mindset in the global consciousness.
And I was actually a victim of that. America is a fundamentally good country. We have good people with good values who want to do the right thing. But the structures of power that exist are working to their own ends to extend their capability at the expense of the freedom of all publics.
LAURA POITRAS: Can you talk about what you think some of the most important primary documents are and what they reveal?
EDWARD SNOWDEN: The primary disclosures are the fact that the NSA doesn't limit itself to foreign intelligence. It collects ALL communications that transit the United States. There are literally no ingress or egress points anywhere in the continental United States where communications can enter or exit without being monitored and collected and analyzed. The Verizon document speaks highly of this because it literally lays out (that) they're using an authority that was intended to be used to seek warrants against individuals and they're applying it to the whole of society by basically subverting a corporate partnership through major telecommunications providers. And they're getting everyone's calls, everyone's call records, and everyone's internet traffic as well.
On top of that you've got Boundless Informant, which is sort of a global auditing system for the NSA's intercept and collection system that let's us track how much we're collecting, where we're collecting, by which authorities and so forth.
The NSA lied about the existence of this tool to Congress and to specific Congressmen in response to previous inquiries about their surveillance activities.
Beyond that, we've got Prism, which is a demonstration of how the US government co-opts US corporate power to its own ends. Companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, they all get together with the NSA and provide the NSA direct access to the back-ends of all of the systems you use to communicate, to store data, to put things in the Cloud, and even just to send birthday wishes and keep a record of your life. And they give NSA direct access that they don't need to oversee so they can't be held liable for it.
I think that's a dangerous capability for anybody to have but particularly an organization that's demonstrated time and time again that they'll work to shield themselves from oversight.
GLENN GREENWALD: Was there a specific point in time that you can point to when you crossed the line from contemplation to decision, making a commitment to do this?
EDWARD SNOWDEN: I grew up with the understanding that the world I lived in was one where people enjoyed a sort of freedom to communicate with each other in privacy, without it being monitored, without it being measured or analyzed or sort of judged by these shadowy figures or systems any time they mention anything that travels across public lines.
I think a lot of people of my generation, anybody who grew up with the internet, that was their understanding. As we've seen the internet, and government's relation to the internet, evolve over time, we've seen that sort of open debate, that free market of ideas sort of lose its domain and be shrunk.
GLENN GREENWALD: But what is it about that set of developments that makes them sufficiently menacing or threatening to you that you are willing to risk what you've risked in order to fight them?
EDWARD SNOWDEN:I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded. That’s not something I’m willing to support, it’s not something I’m willing to build, and it’s not something I’m willing to live under. I think anyone who opposes that sort of world has an obligation to act in a way they can.
Now, I've watched and waited and tried to do my job in the most policy-driven way I could, which is to wait and allow other people, wait and allow our leadership, our figures to sort of correct the excesses of government when we go too far. But as I watched, I've seen that's not occurring and in fact we're compounding the excess of prior governments and making it worse and more invasive and no one is willing to stop it.
The USA harbours and supports whistleblowers, defectors and dissidents from around the globe all the time without any call for such to 'face justice' in their own nations.
the US has been guilty of many crimes and acts of espionage and state terror in foreign lands without facing any punishment or sanctions that other countries would. they fear a bit of balance, honesty and karma. tough i say.
...Pearl Jam, a group filled with pride, passion, and intricate musicianship. Their music is full of subtle textures, rich color, soul-searching power, imagery, and eerie dissonance.
Anyone know how Venezuela stands on spying on their own citizens? I assume they don't. Otherwise it would be hypocritical for Snowden to even consider going there.
After staying in Russia and China, two of the world's biggest supporters of citizen's rights, I would hope he takes Venezuela's past track record into account before going there.
Anyone know how Venezuela stands on spying on their own citizens? I assume they don't. Otherwise it would be hypocritical for Snowden to even consider going there.
After staying in Russia and China, two of the world's biggest supporters of citizen's rights, I would hope he takes Venezuela's past track record into account before going there.
He never entered Russia. He's been staying in a transit zone at the airport.
Anyone know how Venezuela stands on spying on their own citizens? I assume they don't. Otherwise it would be hypocritical for Snowden to even consider going there.
After staying in Russia and China, two of the world's biggest supporters of citizen's rights, I would hope he takes Venezuela's past track record into account before going there.
He never entered Russia. He's been staying in a transit zone at the airport.
God damn, Byrnzie! You are tireless in your posting on this topic. I appreciate it and applaud you for that. It makes me sad that here we have someone who isn't even a U.S. citizen displaying more U.S. patriotism than many others in this thread who are U.S. citizens. I mostly just see nationalist apologists misdirecting the real issue at hand.
God damn, Byrnzie! You are tireless in your posting on this topic. I appreciate it and applaud you for that. It makes me sad that here we have someone who isn't even a U.S. citizen displaying more U.S. patriotism than many others in this thread who are U.S. citizens. I mostly just see nationalist apologists misdirecting the real issue at hand.
Because U.S. citizens exercising their right to free speech by posting opinions you do not agree with somehow makes them less patriotic than others? :?
God damn, Byrnzie! You are tireless in your posting on this topic. I appreciate it and applaud you for that. It makes me sad that here we have someone who isn't even a U.S. citizen displaying more U.S. patriotism than many others in this thread who are U.S. citizens. I mostly just see nationalist apologists misdirecting the real issue at hand.
Because U.S. citizens exercising their right to free speech by posting opinions you do not agree with somehow makes them less patriotic than others? :?
Maybe look up the definition of Patriotism and then get back to me.
God damn, Byrnzie! You are tireless in your posting on this topic. I appreciate it and applaud you for that. It makes me sad that here we have someone who isn't even a U.S. citizen displaying more U.S. patriotism than many others in this thread who are U.S. citizens. I mostly just see nationalist apologists misdirecting the real issue at hand.
Because U.S. citizens exercising their right to free speech by posting opinions you do not agree with somehow makes them less patriotic than others? :?
Maybe look up the definition of Patriotism and then get back to me.
No, I understand it just fine. Maybe you should look up some of the political tactics of neo-conservative Republicans since 9/11 and get back to me. Calling someone unpatriotic or un-American because they disagree with you is a slippery slope.
No, I understand it just fine. Maybe you should look up some of the political tactics of neo-conservative Republicans since 9/11 and get back to me. Calling someone unpatriotic or un-American because they disagree with you is a slippery slope.
Oh, but there is a difference between what you profess I am doing and what is actually being done. I am not at all calling anyone unpatriotic for not agreeing with me, the U.S. government, or anyone; it is actually the opposite.
In fact I didn't call anyone unpatriotic. I felt Byrnzie was displaying more of a Patriotic spirit by questioning the officials and why they continually misdirect and lie, by questioning the fact that more people are interested in defaming the messenger rather than taking a look at the grievances the message brings to light. The definition of Patriotism is most definitely not an individual who defends the government message and makes excuses for it.
No, I understand it just fine. Maybe you should look up some of the political tactics of neo-conservative Republicans since 9/11 and get back to me. Calling someone unpatriotic or un-American because they disagree with you is a slippery slope.
Oh, but there is a difference between what you profess I am doing and what is actually being done. I am not at all calling anyone unpatriotic for not agreeing with me, the U.S. government, or anyone; it is actually the opposite.
No, not really. We saw countless examples of Republicans (and some Dems) attack anyone who disagreed with their politics and label them unpatriotic. That is EXACTLY what you did. I understand you believe you are correct and on the side of the angels, but your comment was no different than those we have seen far too often since 9/11.
In fact I didn't call anyone unpatriotic. I felt Byrnzie was displaying more of a Patriotic spirit by questioning the officials and why they continually misdirect and lie, by questioning the fact that more people are interested in defaming the messenger rather than taking a look at the grievances the message brings to light. The definition of Patriotism is most definitely not an individual who defends the government message and makes excuses for it.
Certainly not, but that definition is also not an individual who attacks that government at every turn. I am not defending the government or the actions of the NSA. I am stating that not everyone who disagrees that the government is evil or always in the wrong is somehow "less patriotic". As I said, that is a very slippery slope.
Also, the title of this thread is "Edward Snowden", so if the messenger has been discussed that is probably a big part of the reason why.
No, I understand it just fine. Maybe you should look up some of the political tactics of neo-conservative Republicans since 9/11 and get back to me. Calling someone unpatriotic or un-American because they disagree with you is a slippery slope.
Oh, but there is a difference between what you profess I am doing and what is actually being done. I am not at all calling anyone unpatriotic for not agreeing with me, the U.S. government, or anyone; it is actually the opposite.
No, not really. We saw countless examples of Republicans (and some Dems) attack anyone who disagreed with their politics and label them unpatriotic. That is EXACTLY what you did. I understand you believe you are correct and on the side of the angels, but your comment was no different than those we have seen far too often since 9/11.
In fact I didn't call anyone unpatriotic. I felt Byrnzie was displaying more of a Patriotic spirit by questioning the officials and why they continually misdirect and lie, by questioning the fact that more people are interested in defaming the messenger rather than taking a look at the grievances the message brings to light. The definition of Patriotism is most definitely not an individual who defends the government message and makes excuses for it.
Certainly not, but that definition is also not an individual who attacks that government at every turn. I am not defending the government or the actions of the NSA. I am stating that not everyone who disagrees that the government is evil or always in the wrong is somehow "less patriotic". As I said, that is a very slippery slope.
Also, the title of this thread is "Edward Snowden", so if the messenger has been discussed that is probably a big part of the reason why.
Seems to me you are jumping to conclusions about what I am saying. I didn't single out, nor attack a specific person. I made a statement that I felt Byrnzie, someone who isn't even from the U.S., was displaying more Patriotic tendencies in questioning those in positions of authority than those who are too busy attacking the messenger; doing so rather than discussing the message and the ramifications it entails. If you feel I was attacking you personally that is your own thing and may be indicative of a need to rethink some things you have said that would cause you to take such offense to what I have stated.
I didn't label anyone unpatriotic. I didn't even mention the word until you brought it up. Here is what I did, I made a statement that I felt there were too many nationalistic apologists in this thread. Meaning there are too many people so ready to blindly back up what the government is saying. People more interested in condemning the messenger and not the message. How can anyone have an honest debate about the issue at hand within those parameters?
The thread is indeed title "Edward Snowden" but perhaps one should look at the content of the OP to use context information to see what the discussion is about.
Furthermore, I think you confuse "attacks against the U.S. government" with "legitimate questions that should be asked of any government". The U.S. is in the spotlight in this incident because that is the relevant topic in regards to this thread.
Seems to me you are jumping to conclusions about what I am saying. I didn't single out, nor attack a specific person. I made a statement that I felt Byrnzie, someone who isn't even from the U.S., was displaying more Patriotic tendencies in questioning those in positions of authority than those who are too busy attacking the messenger; doing so rather than discussing the message and the ramifications it entails. If you feel I was attacking you personally that is your own thing and may be indicative of a need to rethink some things you have said that would cause you to take such offense to what I have stated.
I didn't label anyone unpatriotic. I didn't even mention the word until you brought it up. Here is what I did, I made a statement that I felt there were too many nationalistic apologists in this thread. Meaning there are too many people so ready to blindly back up what the government is saying. People more interested in condemning the messenger and not the message. How can anyone have an honest debate about the issue at hand within those parameters?
The thread is indeed title "Edward Snowden" but perhaps one should look at the content of the OP to use context information to see what the discussion is about.
Furthermore, I think you confuse "attacks against the U.S. government" with "legitimate questions that should be asked of any government". The U.S. is in the spotlight in this incident because that is the relevant topic in regards to this thread.
I didn't think you were attacking me personally at all, no. (Were you and I missed it?) I also don't think I jumped to any conclusions, nor have I confused a thing. The words you used were "more U.S. Patriotism", implying that others were displaying "less U.S. Patriotism." If you insist on splitting hairs between that and "unpatriotic", go right ahead. Had you not played the Patriotism card I would not have responded to you at all.
I don't know you at all, but I am willing to bet you were/are not a big fan of Karl Rove. The statement you made that I took issue with:
It makes me sad that here we have someone who isn't even a U.S. citizen displaying more U.S. patriotism than many others in this thread who are U.S. citizens. I mostly just see nationalist apologists misdirecting the real issue at hand.
is 100% Rovian. You believe that we "questioning those in positions of authority". That does fit with my definition of Patriotism. We should, we have, and we will. But condemning those that think or approach issues differently than you as "nationalistic apologists" or assuming that those people are "so ready to blindly back up what the government is saying" because they think differently, that is Rovian. It is possible to view the government differently than you and to not be a dupe, and holding those different views makes no one less a Patriot. Verbage such as that was very good for the GOP early in the Bush years.
And I have no real comment on Byrnzie as an American Patriot. That one stands on its own.
God damn, Byrnzie! You are tireless in your posting on this topic. I appreciate it and applaud you for that. It makes me sad that here we have someone who isn't even a U.S. citizen displaying more U.S. patriotism than many others in this thread who are U.S. citizens. I mostly just see nationalist apologists misdirecting the real issue at hand.
Thanks. It is a shame that so many Americans are so quick to jump to the defense of a government that treats them with utter contempt.
God damn, Byrnzie! You are tireless in your posting on this topic. I appreciate it and applaud you for that. It makes me sad that here we have someone who isn't even a U.S. citizen displaying more U.S. patriotism than many others in this thread who are U.S. citizens. I mostly just see nationalist apologists misdirecting the real issue at hand.
Because U.S. citizens exercising their right to free speech by posting opinions you do not agree with somehow makes them less patriotic than others? :?
No, U.S citizens jumping to the defense of the government/corporations because they're deluded, and have been brainwashed into believing that that same government, and those same corporations, represent 'America'.
It's pretty fucking hilarious that I am a brainwashed moron because I don't immediately jump on the snowden bandwagon while posting greenwald articles. Excuse us for actually processing a situation and thinking about it before rushing to judgement and wanting to see how the situation and conversation plays out
Mind you, perhaps Americans aren't just preoccupied with reality tv as some have suggested and don't see it as a big deal, ESPECIALLY while half the country is dying for a good Obama scandal
God damn, Byrnzie! You are tireless in your posting on this topic. I appreciate it and applaud you for that. It makes me sad that here we have someone who isn't even a U.S. citizen displaying more U.S. patriotism than many others in this thread who are U.S. citizens. I mostly just see nationalist apologists misdirecting the real issue at hand.
Because U.S. citizens exercising their right to free speech by posting opinions you do not agree with somehow makes them less patriotic than others? :?
No, U.S citizens jumping to the defense of the government/corporations because they're deluded, and have been brainwashed into believing that that same government, and those same corporations, represent 'America'.
So...people who disagree with you are also brainwashed and deluded? I see.
Americans, much like people all over the world, can have opinions contrary to yours and not be brainwashed or delusional. Are some? Perhaps. Is it an easy card to play when dismissing contrary views? Definitely.
It's pretty fucking hilarious that I am a brainwashed moron because I don't immediately jump on the snowden bandwagon while posting greenwald articles. Excuse us for actually processing a situation and thinking about it before rushing to judgement and wanting to see how the situation and conversation plays out
Mind you, perhaps Americans aren't just preoccupied with reality tv as some have suggested and don't see it as a big deal, ESPECIALLY while half the country is dying for a good Obama scandal
Careful now...it has been dictated that Edward Snowden is a hero. How dare any of us question that?
It's pretty fucking hilarious that I am a brainwashed moron because I don't immediately jump on the snowden bandwagon while posting greenwald articles. Excuse us for actually processing a situation and thinking about it before rushing to judgement and wanting to see how the situation and conversation plays out
Mind you, perhaps Americans aren't just preoccupied with reality tv as some have suggested and don't see it as a big deal, ESPECIALLY while half the country is dying for a good Obama scandal
You can put your dummy back in your mouth now.
I wasn't referring to you specifically. On the first page of this thread Snowden is labelled a traitor and as 'bullshit'. And the last 18 pages of this thread contain calls for his imprisonment, and accusations of him being a spy in the pocket of the Chinese and Russians. Not one person has called for any action against James Clapper after it was proved that he lied under oath about the NSA's surveillance programs.
So...people who disagree with you are also brainwashed and deluded? I see.
No, that's not what I said. And it's not what Sludgefactory said either.
No, I don't believe Sludgefactory ever did say anything like that. Nor did I say he/she did. You on the other hand...your words speak for themselves.
Why don't you go back to accusing me of being filled with hateful bias and prejudice against America and all Americans again? That argument was a sure winner.
It's pretty fucking hilarious that I am a brainwashed moron because I don't immediately jump on the snowden bandwagon while posting greenwald articles. Excuse us for actually processing a situation and thinking about it before rushing to judgement and wanting to see how the situation and conversation plays out
Mind you, perhaps Americans aren't just preoccupied with reality tv as some have suggested and don't see it as a big deal, ESPECIALLY while half the country is dying for a good Obama scandal
You can put your dummy back in your mouth now.
I wasn't referring to you specifically. On the first page of this thread Snowden is labelled a traitor and as 'bullshit'. And the last 18 pages of this thread contain calls for his imprisonment, and accusations of him being a spy in the pocket of the Chinese and Russians. Not one person has called for any action against James Clapper after it was proved that he lied under oath about the NSA's surveillance programs.
I thought this was the Edward Snowden thread, not the James Clapper thread :P
Why don't you go back to accusing me of being filled with hateful bias and prejudice against America and all Americans again? That argument was a sure winner.
Seems to me you are jumping to conclusions about what I am saying. I didn't single out, nor attack a specific person. I made a statement that I felt Byrnzie, someone who isn't even from the U.S., was displaying more Patriotic tendencies in questioning those in positions of authority than those who are too busy attacking the messenger; doing so rather than discussing the message and the ramifications it entails. If you feel I was attacking you personally that is your own thing and may be indicative of a need to rethink some things you have said that would cause you to take such offense to what I have stated.
I didn't label anyone unpatriotic. I didn't even mention the word until you brought it up. Here is what I did, I made a statement that I felt there were too many nationalistic apologists in this thread. Meaning there are too many people so ready to blindly back up what the government is saying. People more interested in condemning the messenger and not the message. How can anyone have an honest debate about the issue at hand within those parameters?
The thread is indeed title "Edward Snowden" but perhaps one should look at the content of the OP to use context information to see what the discussion is about.
Furthermore, I think you confuse "attacks against the U.S. government" with "legitimate questions that should be asked of any government". The U.S. is in the spotlight in this incident because that is the relevant topic in regards to this thread.
The fact you are calling him "more" Patriotic is the problem. In this thread I haven't necessarily been defending the government, I stated that I understand what the program is, despite the fact it sucks that civil liberties were being abused. To me I see the benefits of it, despite it solving a problem that barely happens, and its ability can help solve more than what it is intended for.
Me, and others who feel the same as well as different, are as patriotic as the others in this issue. We just have different opinions on the matter. In the end we all come to a conclusion on what is best for America.
You may not agree with my view, but in my opinion this program, despite how bullshit it might be, has some potential (and supposedly proven) benefits.
Yes, it might violate the Constitution, but as years go on, and technology keeps getting better, and enemies get smarter, the Constitution may hold us back from using measures to protect us.
To be clear, I respect your view and know you are a caring American as well. Glad you are an aware citizen.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB9L1PD7Cpo
GLENN GREENWALD: Have you given thought to what it is that the US government's response to your conduct is in terms of what they might say about you, and how they might try to depict you?
EDWARD SNOWDEN: I think the government’s going to launch an investigation. I think they’re going to say I’ve committed grave crimes, that I’ve violated the Espionage Act. They’re going to say I’ve aided our enemies in making them aware of these systems, but that argument can be made against anybody who reveals information that points out mass surveillance systems, because fundamentally, they apply equally to ourselves as they do to our enemies.
GLENN GREENWALD: When you decided to enter this world, did you do so with the intention of weaseling your way in and becoming a mole so that one day you could undermine it with disclosures? Or what was your perspective or mindset about it at the time that you first sort of got into this whole, this whole realm?
EDWARD SNOWDEN: I joined the intelligence community when I was very young, sort of the government as a whole. I enlisted in the Army shortly after the invasion of Iraq. I believed in the goodness of what we were doing, I believed in the nobility of our intention to free oppressed people overseas. But over time, over the length of my career, as I watched the news, and I increasingly was exposed to true information that had not been propagandized in the media, that we were actually involved in misleading the public and misleading all publics, not just the American public, in order to create a certain mindset in the global consciousness.
And I was actually a victim of that. America is a fundamentally good country. We have good people with good values who want to do the right thing. But the structures of power that exist are working to their own ends to extend their capability at the expense of the freedom of all publics.
LAURA POITRAS: Can you talk about what you think some of the most important primary documents are and what they reveal?
EDWARD SNOWDEN: The primary disclosures are the fact that the NSA doesn't limit itself to foreign intelligence. It collects ALL communications that transit the United States. There are literally no ingress or egress points anywhere in the continental United States where communications can enter or exit without being monitored and collected and analyzed. The Verizon document speaks highly of this because it literally lays out (that) they're using an authority that was intended to be used to seek warrants against individuals and they're applying it to the whole of society by basically subverting a corporate partnership through major telecommunications providers. And they're getting everyone's calls, everyone's call records, and everyone's internet traffic as well.
On top of that you've got Boundless Informant, which is sort of a global auditing system for the NSA's intercept and collection system that let's us track how much we're collecting, where we're collecting, by which authorities and so forth.
The NSA lied about the existence of this tool to Congress and to specific Congressmen in response to previous inquiries about their surveillance activities.
Beyond that, we've got Prism, which is a demonstration of how the US government co-opts US corporate power to its own ends. Companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, they all get together with the NSA and provide the NSA direct access to the back-ends of all of the systems you use to communicate, to store data, to put things in the Cloud, and even just to send birthday wishes and keep a record of your life. And they give NSA direct access that they don't need to oversee so they can't be held liable for it.
I think that's a dangerous capability for anybody to have but particularly an organization that's demonstrated time and time again that they'll work to shield themselves from oversight.
GLENN GREENWALD: Was there a specific point in time that you can point to when you crossed the line from contemplation to decision, making a commitment to do this?
EDWARD SNOWDEN: I grew up with the understanding that the world I lived in was one where people enjoyed a sort of freedom to communicate with each other in privacy, without it being monitored, without it being measured or analyzed or sort of judged by these shadowy figures or systems any time they mention anything that travels across public lines.
I think a lot of people of my generation, anybody who grew up with the internet, that was their understanding. As we've seen the internet, and government's relation to the internet, evolve over time, we've seen that sort of open debate, that free market of ideas sort of lose its domain and be shrunk.
GLENN GREENWALD: But what is it about that set of developments that makes them sufficiently menacing or threatening to you that you are willing to risk what you've risked in order to fight them?
EDWARD SNOWDEN: I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded. That’s not something I’m willing to support, it’s not something I’m willing to build, and it’s not something I’m willing to live under. I think anyone who opposes that sort of world has an obligation to act in a way they can.
Now, I've watched and waited and tried to do my job in the most policy-driven way I could, which is to wait and allow other people, wait and allow our leadership, our figures to sort of correct the excesses of government when we go too far. But as I watched, I've seen that's not occurring and in fact we're compounding the excess of prior governments and making it worse and more invasive and no one is willing to stop it.
"Venezuela confirms receipt of Snowden asylum request"
http://rt.com/news/snowden-asylum-venez ... ragua-801/
the US has been guilty of many crimes and acts of espionage and state terror in foreign lands without facing any punishment or sanctions that other countries would. they fear a bit of balance, honesty and karma. tough i say.
After staying in Russia and China, two of the world's biggest supporters of citizen's rights, I would hope he takes Venezuela's past track record into account before going there.
He never entered Russia. He's been staying in a transit zone at the airport.
Please try to keep up with the facts.
From what i read in a snowden release. It is an assassination program hidden under the cloak of " natural phenomenon research"
i find it interesting that the US has authority to divert a plane that is flying over sovereign air space ...
Because U.S. citizens exercising their right to free speech by posting opinions you do not agree with somehow makes them less patriotic than others? :?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Maybe look up the definition of Patriotism and then get back to me.
No, I understand it just fine. Maybe you should look up some of the political tactics of neo-conservative Republicans since 9/11 and get back to me. Calling someone unpatriotic or un-American because they disagree with you is a slippery slope.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Oh, but there is a difference between what you profess I am doing and what is actually being done. I am not at all calling anyone unpatriotic for not agreeing with me, the U.S. government, or anyone; it is actually the opposite.
In fact I didn't call anyone unpatriotic. I felt Byrnzie was displaying more of a Patriotic spirit by questioning the officials and why they continually misdirect and lie, by questioning the fact that more people are interested in defaming the messenger rather than taking a look at the grievances the message brings to light. The definition of Patriotism is most definitely not an individual who defends the government message and makes excuses for it.
No, not really. We saw countless examples of Republicans (and some Dems) attack anyone who disagreed with their politics and label them unpatriotic. That is EXACTLY what you did. I understand you believe you are correct and on the side of the angels, but your comment was no different than those we have seen far too often since 9/11.
Certainly not, but that definition is also not an individual who attacks that government at every turn. I am not defending the government or the actions of the NSA. I am stating that not everyone who disagrees that the government is evil or always in the wrong is somehow "less patriotic". As I said, that is a very slippery slope.
Also, the title of this thread is "Edward Snowden", so if the messenger has been discussed that is probably a big part of the reason why.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Seems to me you are jumping to conclusions about what I am saying. I didn't single out, nor attack a specific person. I made a statement that I felt Byrnzie, someone who isn't even from the U.S., was displaying more Patriotic tendencies in questioning those in positions of authority than those who are too busy attacking the messenger; doing so rather than discussing the message and the ramifications it entails. If you feel I was attacking you personally that is your own thing and may be indicative of a need to rethink some things you have said that would cause you to take such offense to what I have stated.
I didn't label anyone unpatriotic. I didn't even mention the word until you brought it up. Here is what I did, I made a statement that I felt there were too many nationalistic apologists in this thread. Meaning there are too many people so ready to blindly back up what the government is saying. People more interested in condemning the messenger and not the message. How can anyone have an honest debate about the issue at hand within those parameters?
The thread is indeed title "Edward Snowden" but perhaps one should look at the content of the OP to use context information to see what the discussion is about.
Furthermore, I think you confuse "attacks against the U.S. government" with "legitimate questions that should be asked of any government". The U.S. is in the spotlight in this incident because that is the relevant topic in regards to this thread.
I didn't think you were attacking me personally at all, no. (Were you and I missed it?) I also don't think I jumped to any conclusions, nor have I confused a thing. The words you used were "more U.S. Patriotism", implying that others were displaying "less U.S. Patriotism." If you insist on splitting hairs between that and "unpatriotic", go right ahead. Had you not played the Patriotism card I would not have responded to you at all.
I don't know you at all, but I am willing to bet you were/are not a big fan of Karl Rove. The statement you made that I took issue with:
is 100% Rovian. You believe that we "questioning those in positions of authority". That does fit with my definition of Patriotism. We should, we have, and we will. But condemning those that think or approach issues differently than you as "nationalistic apologists" or assuming that those people are "so ready to blindly back up what the government is saying" because they think differently, that is Rovian. It is possible to view the government differently than you and to not be a dupe, and holding those different views makes no one less a Patriot. Verbage such as that was very good for the GOP early in the Bush years.
And I have no real comment on Byrnzie as an American Patriot. That one stands on its own.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Thanks. It is a shame that so many Americans are so quick to jump to the defense of a government that treats them with utter contempt.
No, U.S citizens jumping to the defense of the government/corporations because they're deluded, and have been brainwashed into believing that that same government, and those same corporations, represent 'America'.
Mind you, perhaps Americans aren't just preoccupied with reality tv as some have suggested and don't see it as a big deal, ESPECIALLY while half the country is dying for a good Obama scandal
So...people who disagree with you are also brainwashed and deluded? I see.
Americans, much like people all over the world, can have opinions contrary to yours and not be brainwashed or delusional. Are some? Perhaps. Is it an easy card to play when dismissing contrary views? Definitely.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Careful now...it has been dictated that Edward Snowden is a hero. How dare any of us question that?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
You can put your dummy back in your mouth now.
I wasn't referring to you specifically. On the first page of this thread Snowden is labelled a traitor and as 'bullshit'. And the last 18 pages of this thread contain calls for his imprisonment, and accusations of him being a spy in the pocket of the Chinese and Russians. Not one person has called for any action against James Clapper after it was proved that he lied under oath about the NSA's surveillance programs.
No, that's not what I said. And it's not what Sludgefactory said either.
No, I don't believe Sludgefactory ever did say anything like that. Nor did I say he/she did. You on the other hand...your words speak for themselves.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Keep blowing hot air, and lame inanities. It's definitely not making you look like a 5 year old that's had his toys taken away.
Why don't you go back to accusing me of being filled with hateful bias and prejudice against America and all Americans again? That argument was a sure winner.
OK Byrnzie.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I thought this was the Edward Snowden thread, not the James Clapper thread :P
Again, your words speak for themselves.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The fact you are calling him "more" Patriotic is the problem. In this thread I haven't necessarily been defending the government, I stated that I understand what the program is, despite the fact it sucks that civil liberties were being abused. To me I see the benefits of it, despite it solving a problem that barely happens, and its ability can help solve more than what it is intended for.
Me, and others who feel the same as well as different, are as patriotic as the others in this issue. We just have different opinions on the matter. In the end we all come to a conclusion on what is best for America.
You may not agree with my view, but in my opinion this program, despite how bullshit it might be, has some potential (and supposedly proven) benefits.
Yes, it might violate the Constitution, but as years go on, and technology keeps getting better, and enemies get smarter, the Constitution may hold us back from using measures to protect us.
To be clear, I respect your view and know you are a caring American as well. Glad you are an aware citizen.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense