NSA whistleblower: Edward Snowden, 29

[JRoyal]

Like I said before, when it comes to the NSA stuff and the crackdown on whisteblowers, I (and many of my liberal friends) strongly disagree with Obama. His words when he ran in 2008 (and in his first inaugural you quoted) run counter to his actions in office. It's too easy to listen to your security advisers saying that they need this instead of standing up and saying, "Too bad, find another way."

But I don't think this is a matter of, "Oh, he was just lying back then." I think he ran thinking it was something he wanted changed, but when he got in office, he saw what it can do and listened to the people in the intelligence community who said it was necessary. If Obama had lost in 2008, I truly believe whoever run would have been running the same programs now. And I don't mean that as a partisan defense. I mean these programs are a natural growth from what came before, and I think whoever was in office would've acted this way thinking that what they were doing was best for the defense of the American people.

And Congress is to blame as well. The laws that made this stuff possible were passed and renewed with strong GOP support. Obama is using the tools right now, but both sides of the aisle share blame for what's going on.

There needs to be a debate on this, but with so much of it kept secret, it's nearly impossible to have an honest debate. They say it's necessary, but they won't show how because it risks security. Show an example. Even if you keep some of the details secret, show us someone who was caught or some plot foiled. Then let us decide if we think it's worth giving up liberties guaranteed to us in the Fourth Amendment.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Just one Senator voted against the Patriot Act in 2001. Russ Feingold. He said this during the debate.

Some have said rather cavalierly that in these difficult times we must accept some reduction in our civil liberties in order to be secure.

Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.

But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.

Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.

 

[Boom_70]

Like I said before, when it comes to the NSA stuff and the crackdown on whisteblowers, I (and many of my liberal friends) strongly disagree with Obama. His words when he ran in 2008 (and in his first inaugural you quoted) run counter to his actions in office. It's too easy to listen to your security advisers saying that they need this instead of standing up and saying, "Too bad, find another way."

But I don't think this is a matter of, "Oh, he was just lying back then." I think he ran thinking it was something he wanted changed, but when he got in office, he saw what it can do and listened to the people in the intelligence community who said it was necessary. If Obama had lost in 2008, I truly believe whoever run would have been running the same programs now. And I don't mean that as a partisan defense. I mean these programs are a natural growth from what came before, and I think whoever was in office would've acted this way thinking that what they were doing was best for the defense of the American people.

And Congress is to blame as well. The laws that made this stuff possible were passed and renewed with strong GOP support. Obama is using the tools right now, but both sides of the aisle share blame for what's going on.

There needs to be a debate on this, but with so much of it kept secret, it's nearly impossible to have an honest debate. They say it's necessary, but they won't show how because it risks security. Show an example. Even if you keep some of the details secret, show us someone who was caught or some plot foiled. Then let us decide if we think it's worth giving up liberties guaranteed to us in the Fourth Amendment.

The whole program was set up so it would not stick to anyone including the phone and internet companies.

Then Snowden shows up, the tide goes out and all of Washington is standing there without their swim
suits on.

 

[Songbird]

This is going around FB. Tried Snopes'ing it but didn't find anything.

 

[Songbird]

Sales of "1984" jump 6,000 percent after Snowden's little admission.

From NPR.org:

* As of this morning, Amazon sales of George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 had jumped 6,021 percent in just 24 hours, to No. 213 on Amazon's bestseller list. As NPR's Alan Greenblatt recently pointed out, many people have found uncomfortable resonances between Orwell's "Big Brother" state and the news that broke last week of U.S. government surveillance programs. The news can often be a major driver of book sales: In 2008, sales of Ayn Rand's conservative classic Atlas Shruggedspiked during the banking industry bailouts.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Many liberals have always viewed Mark Felt ( Deep Throat) and Daniel Ellsberg ( Pentagon Papers) as a heroes. In same light you would think that they would view Ed Snowden as a hero as well.

Stop making sense Boom!

 

[LongTimeListener]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-outraged-his-private-information-being-co,32783/

Michael Landler, 46, told reporters Monday that he is outraged his private information is being collected by someone other than advertisers. "I can't express how infuriated I am that my credit history, phone activity, and online browsing habits are being systematically collected and archived without my knowledge by undisclosed organizations that aren't trying to sell me products," said the visibly disturbed man, adding that if his private information isn't being used by advertisers to create a targeted consumer profile, it shouldn't be used at all.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Obama is probably sending a drone over to Hong Kong.

 

[TrooperBari]

Sales of "1984" jump 6,000 percent after Snowden's little admission.

From NPR.org:

* As of this morning, Amazon sales of George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 had jumped 6,021 percent in just 24 hours, to No. 213 on Amazon's bestseller list. As NPR's Alan Greenblatt recently pointed out, many people have found uncomfortable resonances between Orwell's "Big Brother" state and the news that broke last week of U.S. government surveillance programs. The news can often be a major driver of book sales: In 2008, sales of Ayn Rand's conservative classic Atlas Shruggedspiked during the banking industry bailouts.

That's a pity since people should be reading Kafka's "The Trial." Still, if it gets them reading....

 

[dog eat dog world]

Liberals who excuse the illegal behavior of the administration which brought about a tell-all by the name of Snowden in the first place are probably people who are used to breaking your own rules. Some of you might chase your tail figuring the suggestion there but so be it.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

When something like this happens, I've often wondered, is the fact that a rather insignificant person like Edward Snowden could ultimately affect some sort of major changes in our government, perhaps even have what he says lead to the impeachment of the President, a good thing or something that is wrong about this country?
It always bothered me that Monica Lewinsky, a total nobody whom no one but her closest friends and relatives would have cared if she ever lived or died, was the one who led to Clinton being impeached.
Should some low-level computer technician be able to be in the position where when he talks, people listen?

 

[dog eat dog world]

When something like this happens, I've often wondered, is the fact that a rather insignificant person like Edward Snowden could ultimately affect some sort of major changes in our government, perhaps even have what he says lead to the impeachment of the President, a good thing or something that is wrong about this country?
It always bothered me that Monica Lewinsky, a total nobody whom no one but her closest friends and relatives would have cared if she ever lived or died, was the one who led to Clinton being impeached.
Should some low-level computer technician be able to be in the position where when he talks, people listen?

That's what the Brits thought of the colonists.