It is unbelievable how (self)censored the mainstream media/politics discussion is. Keith Alexander lied to the congress on record, whistleblowers before Snowden were jailed for blowing the whistle and there was absolutely no chance he could reveal/fix any illegal wrongdoing by the government via the official whistleblowers channels. He did not run away and ruin his sweet life for the lulz, there was clearly no other way. Why is this argument not immediately raised every time some clown uses the "he broke the law, he has to face the music" argument?
>Why is this argument not immediately raised every time some clown uses the "he broke the law, he has to face the music" argument?
Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions. They seek to frame the debate in the context constructed by Wall Street and Washington and redirect anger and angst so that people fight against each other instead of against their masters. That's why "identity politics" has become so resurgent in recent years, as the class divide has sharpened and the middle-class has withered. As long as people are polarized and can be pitted against each other on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sexuality, they aren't united against the oligarchs. Its the same exact strategy used by prison guards to maintain control of the prisons. Pit the blacks against the whites against the hispanics and the prison guards can observe safely from the walls. The guards only face a threat from the prisoners when they are united against those who keep them in bondage.
Snowden represents the greatest threat in that regards. If you support Snowden's actions, you are explicitly acknowledging not only that the law is dog shit, but that Snowden was justified in breaking it because of how incredibly repressive the government is. He represents the ultimate repudiation of the system that runs the entire country and most of the world. The corporate media is the voice of this system.
Yeah, it's a comical argument, that he should come home and "face justice". You can't even call it just because the judge would probably prohibit a moral defense, and even if the judge did, the jury wouldn't couldn't be told that they could consider anything beyond the law itself.
So Snowden should come home, be robbed of a chance of justice, be robbed of his voice and his freedom, to prove... what, that the NSA was right all along?
I agree. This is a form of self-censorship in the media to stay tight with Washington. They have special privileges they don't want to loose. They might also be concerned given the reaction of Obama Administration to leakers and anyone supporting them. Cover their ass on top of their normal games.
What a load of BS. He praises him for "raising the debate", but condemns him for "...the way he did it -- was inappropriate and illegal..." then going on to invite him to "Go to trial, try to cut a deal."
The issue has been brought up many times, with no positive change, because there was no massive dump of incredibly embarrassing evidence. All those hoping for some kind of Obama surprise turn around in the unprecedented level of whistleblower prosecution: you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
"...the way he did it -- was inappropriate and illegal..."
What the government was doing (and still is) is inappropriate and illegal. Can't Holder understand or accept the fact that this is why Snowden chose the option that he did? Of course, were matters of law are concerned, I'm not sure Holder is a good source - he after all, let the biggest heist in the civilized world go without consequence to those involved.
I find Holder's remarks to be ironic. After Operation Fast and Furious [0], I would be tempted to say there's more blood on Holder's hands than on Snowden's hands.
What a confusing remark. He says that both it is a "public service" "but still must pay a penalty." I don't understand what that means, why should one pay a penalty for a public service?
I also think this line "America's interest" is thrown around a lot. Are we talking the interest of Americans? Or interests of the American government? It seems more and more now the two are at odds with each other...
'The state is the name of the coldest of all cold monstrosities. It lies coldly, too; the lie that creeps out of its mouth is this: "I, the state, am the people."' (Nietzsche)
Politics likes to treat the notion of the state as interchangeable with its people, and although I don't think the US is alone in this, it certainly seems to have made an art out of it at times.
President Susanna Luchenko: [to Sheridan after his forces free Earth]
Half of Earth Force wants to give you a kiss on the cheek and the
Medal of Honor. The other half wants you taken out and shot. As a
politician you learn how to compromise - which by all rights means
I should give you the Medal of Honor then have you shot.
I also agree with this. He should get all that, in addition to a proper trial in court for some of his misconducts, because while I do believe he performed a great public service that sparked a hugely beneficial conversation regarding privacy and government secrecy, he also neglected one of his basic responsibilities as a whistleblower by offloading all the documents he could get his hands on to the press in their original forms without even reading all of them [1], instead of exercising his own discretion and leaking only those documents that he had personally confirmed was of public interest, and performing his own due diligence by redacting any irrelevant sensitive information in those documents to the best of his abilities.
While I can sympathize with the fact that he was probably under a tremendous amount of stress at the time, that probably led to this unfortunate decision, a whistleblower like Snowden simply shouldn't have placed so much blind trust in the media. Letting this slide without any consequences would set a dangerous precedent, regardless of how well the ends justified the means in this case.
I agree. I think however those must come at least with a delay though I'm afraid, realistically, or it would send too much of a double message about how the US treats the sources of it's intelligence leaks. Intelligence safety is still a pretty big deal.. you can't just go and have the president give a medal to the guy responsible for one of the biggest intelligence leaks of all time.
I think this is a trial balloon and Holder is acting as a stalking horse for the Obama administration. They're setting up to pardon him if the public approves.
More prosecutions under the Espionage Act than every prior administration combined... I don't see a pardon in the cards. Also, a trial balloon wouldn't be Holder calling for a trial - that has been said many times by many politicians for a long time.
That would be wonderful, but i fear it won't come to pass. The Whitehouse won't, and frankly can't. They have to consider how many other NSA employees hold similar opinions and will consider going public with their information if their administration has anything but a hardline response to the Snowden case.
I hope Obama does something to resolve both the Snowden situation and get Chelsea Manning out of prison before he leaves office. I can't see what the downside is to him of doing the right thing at this point.
Manning isn't the same as Snowden. Lumping them together is a disservice to what Snowden did.
Manning volunteered for the military and gave up some rights as a result. He then distributed data that put lives in danger because he didn't think to clean it up.
Snowden was a private citizen, one who felt his country was not going down the right path. He took time to hatch a plan and release data that he believed wouldn't risk the lives of others.
Sometimes I wonder if keeping the Snowden hero/traitor debate in the media is some kind of psyop to keep us from actually talking about the stuff that he revealed.
I'm wondering if they're getting ready to pardon him, perhaps with a provision like spending 10 years under house arrest or losing his citizenship. I don't think this could happen under Clinton but Obama might issue a last minute pardon as they tend to do when they leave office. Failing that it is possible Trump might do it as a sign of pragmaticism. He's the only one who could sell it to his supporters, the same might be true of Obama for his people.
Now that time has passed both factions agree it was all inevitable, case of when and not if. That leaves Snowden hanging there as an awkward reminder.
> Failing that it is possible Trump might do it as a sign of pragmaticism. He's the only one who could sell it to his supporters, the same might be true of Obama for his people.
Donald Trump would literally hang Snowden:
“I think Snowden is a terrible threat, I think he’s a terrible traitor, and you know what we used to do in the good old days when we were a strong country — you know what we used to do to traitors, right?” Trump said, Politico reported.
> I'm wondering if they're getting ready to pardon him, perhaps with a provision like spending 10 years under house arrest or losing his citizenship. I don't think this could happen under Clinton but Obama might issue a last minute pardon as they tend to do when they leave office. Failing that it is possible Trump might do it as a sign of pragmaticism. He's the only one who could sell it to his supporters, the same might be true of Obama for his people.
> Now that time has passed both factions agree it was all inevitable, case of when and not if. That leaves Snowden hanging there as an awkward reminder.
I hope you're right. I am currently thinking about a decidedly unscientific research where they showed "The Colbert Report" to very conservative people (college students? I don't remember the specifics) who had never seen the show before and they thought the persona was real. This is in context with people like the host of NPR's Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me coming on air to say that he might have been living inside a bubble because we got blindsided by Trump's ascendancy.
This is unrelated but I am afraid I might be projecting my own positions and opinions on the candidates. Things like: "Of course, Trump never said bar citizens from entry based on religion". and "Of course, Bernie Sanders understands the issue of wage gap is more nuanced than can be explained in 140 characters https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/736649251799732224 "
Won't happen. Even as a Senator, Obama was signaling his support of the NSA in his vote in 2008 FISA amendments bill which granted retroactive immunity to telecoms when complying with illegal and unconstitutional search requests from the government. If Obama is secretly on the side of whistleblowers, it's one of the best kept secrets in the world.
[+] [-] dandare|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|9 years ago|reply
Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions. They seek to frame the debate in the context constructed by Wall Street and Washington and redirect anger and angst so that people fight against each other instead of against their masters. That's why "identity politics" has become so resurgent in recent years, as the class divide has sharpened and the middle-class has withered. As long as people are polarized and can be pitted against each other on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sexuality, they aren't united against the oligarchs. Its the same exact strategy used by prison guards to maintain control of the prisons. Pit the blacks against the whites against the hispanics and the prison guards can observe safely from the walls. The guards only face a threat from the prisoners when they are united against those who keep them in bondage.
Snowden represents the greatest threat in that regards. If you support Snowden's actions, you are explicitly acknowledging not only that the law is dog shit, but that Snowden was justified in breaking it because of how incredibly repressive the government is. He represents the ultimate repudiation of the system that runs the entire country and most of the world. The corporate media is the voice of this system.
[+] [-] ipsin|9 years ago|reply
So Snowden should come home, be robbed of a chance of justice, be robbed of his voice and his freedom, to prove... what, that the NSA was right all along?
[+] [-] tdkl|9 years ago|reply
You forgot the war liars/criminals Bush, Rice and Powell.
[+] [-] vermontdevil|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickpsecurity|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] woodman|9 years ago|reply
The issue has been brought up many times, with no positive change, because there was no massive dump of incredibly embarrassing evidence. All those hoping for some kind of Obama surprise turn around in the unprecedented level of whistleblower prosecution: you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
[+] [-] w3ightl355|9 years ago|reply
What the government was doing (and still is) is inappropriate and illegal. Can't Holder understand or accept the fact that this is why Snowden chose the option that he did? Of course, were matters of law are concerned, I'm not sure Holder is a good source - he after all, let the biggest heist in the civilized world go without consequence to those involved.
[+] [-] jwarren116|9 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious
[+] [-] dandare|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexandercrohde|9 years ago|reply
I also think this line "America's interest" is thrown around a lot. Are we talking the interest of Americans? Or interests of the American government? It seems more and more now the two are at odds with each other...
[+] [-] _petronius|9 years ago|reply
Politics likes to treat the notion of the state as interchangeable with its people, and although I don't think the US is alone in this, it certainly seems to have made an art out of it at times.
[+] [-] ljw1001|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droithomme|9 years ago|reply
I agree with Holder on this. Snowden should get a ticker tape parade, the Congressional Medal of Freedom, and the Nobel Peace Prize.
[+] [-] pdkl95|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lewisl9029|9 years ago|reply
While I can sympathize with the fact that he was probably under a tremendous amount of stress at the time, that probably led to this unfortunate decision, a whistleblower like Snowden simply shouldn't have placed so much blind trust in the media. Letting this slide without any consequences would set a dangerous precedent, regardless of how well the ends justified the means in this case.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/06/edward-snowde...
[+] [-] make3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msie|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmaunder|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woodman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fede_V|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] liquidise|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meursault334|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gogopuppygogo|9 years ago|reply
Manning volunteered for the military and gave up some rights as a result. He then distributed data that put lives in danger because he didn't think to clean it up.
Snowden was a private citizen, one who felt his country was not going down the right path. He took time to hatch a plan and release data that he believed wouldn't risk the lives of others.
Snowden deserves a medal not prison.
[+] [-] dandare|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] athathra|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krapp|9 years ago|reply
It would be political suicide for the Democratic Party and guarantee a Trump victory.
[+] [-] d33|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _shed|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xcde4c3db|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] internaut|9 years ago|reply
Now that time has passed both factions agree it was all inevitable, case of when and not if. That leaves Snowden hanging there as an awkward reminder.
[+] [-] mikeyouse|9 years ago|reply
Donald Trump would literally hang Snowden:
“I think Snowden is a terrible threat, I think he’s a terrible traitor, and you know what we used to do in the good old days when we were a strong country — you know what we used to do to traitors, right?” Trump said, Politico reported.
[+] [-] newjersey|9 years ago|reply
> Now that time has passed both factions agree it was all inevitable, case of when and not if. That leaves Snowden hanging there as an awkward reminder.
I hope you're right. I am currently thinking about a decidedly unscientific research where they showed "The Colbert Report" to very conservative people (college students? I don't remember the specifics) who had never seen the show before and they thought the persona was real. This is in context with people like the host of NPR's Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me coming on air to say that he might have been living inside a bubble because we got blindsided by Trump's ascendancy.
This is unrelated but I am afraid I might be projecting my own positions and opinions on the candidates. Things like: "Of course, Trump never said bar citizens from entry based on religion". and "Of course, Bernie Sanders understands the issue of wage gap is more nuanced than can be explained in 140 characters https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/736649251799732224 "
[+] [-] monocasa|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kilo9|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asimpletune|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackson_1|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]