While I don't disagree that the NSA's directive is international information gathering, and that should be the limit of its scope, I think Colbert's wrong to think that's something that can exist without ever going far beyond its scope. By natural consequence of having an extremely well funded organization with zero oversight, if we don't have whistleblowers, they're going to take advantage of the situation.
Which brings me to the counterpoint which is that Snowden shouldn't spend the rest of his life in jail, which is what would invariably happen would be go to trial in the US. I think it's of little matter that he revealed how we spy on other countries. I think the point of that was to show that that's how we're being spied on by the 5 Eyes, who will freely share their spying information.
We still have a long way to go on educating the public. The 3 branches of government have conspired in secret to enable programs the violate the rule of law and create the conditions for a police state.
-The FISA court does not have the authority under statue or the Constitution to rule on the Constitutionality of NSA programs. The FISA court only has the authority to approve specific warrants.
- The Senators and Representatives who objected to the secret reinterpretation of Patriot Act for domestic surveillance have been unwilling to risk their positions on the committee to reveal this to the public as they have a moral duty to do.
- The NSA specifically lost the legislative battle to embedded backdoors, weaknesses and key escrow in commercial encryption battles. They lost and they went ahead and did it anyway. Clearly subverting democratic intent.
I just watched the 30 minute video trying to hear his opinion without being wrapped in blogspam, and I think this article is a bit sensational.
The only reference I heard made to Snowden was in the very last question where an audience member asks Colbert how to keep people from being afraid of the government. In his reply, Colbert asked if what Snowden did was illegal, and when the audience said yes, he essentially said one of the bravest (and most morally admirable) things Snowden could do after breaking an unjust law is to face trial and accept the resulting consequences. His position came across to me as a combination of civil disobedience and traditional stand-and-face-the-music thinking. He didn't at all come across as vitriolic of Snowden or deeply offended by Snowden's actions.
There were other references to Snowden in the video you linked. Two others I noticed in the first 15 minutes:
(1) Colbert mentions it bothers him that Snowden claimed he leaked in order to let us know how then NSA was spying on us, but then a lot of the information revealed turned out to be about how we were spying on others. Leaking that sort of info would only be justified if one is specifically opposed to us spying on other countries - and Colbert thinks the case for that position hasn't really been made.
(2) Somebody asked what Colbert sees as the likely endgame for Snowden. Answer: Colbert guesses the guy will probably come home in the end, but it's likely to take ten years before public opinion shifts his way enough to allow that. As an example of an analogous situation, Colbert brings up the Americans who fled the draft and were eventually pardoned by Ford and Carter.
Definitely worth watching. One other point he made is that the investigation necessary for prosecution would be beneficiary to the country, citing the missing investigation after the torture cases during the bush administration.
Why, if Snowden was concerned with letting us know how we are spied on, why did he let us know how we spy on other countries? I think we should spy on other countries.
The last sentence is where he is - only in my opinion of course - completely wrong; no country should spy on other countries without very good reasons. And wanting to know what is going on behind closed doors of foreign governments or companies misses my definition of very good reasons by orders of magnitude.
I think k we should spy on other countries and share his view of Snowden. I'm really glad Snow den leaked what he did, I just wish he didn't leak all of it. It does raise many questions on motivation. if he's disgusted with spy work in general he should just say so and be honest with the world. I could then have more respect for him doing what he did (and I do respect the conversation he's started.)
Yes, it's curious why countries assume adversarial stances towards each other as a default. Yes, game theory and all that, but its better to be optimistic and hope the humanitarian spirit will prevail.
I think our problems come when we start looking for any more than entertainment in our entertainers.
He attributes the "greatest threat to security" to not voting and not watching political money. I would politely disagree. Our "greatest threat to security" is that our people take their opinions from the mouths of celebrities and politicians, and not through careful consideration of the facts.
That smells uncomfortably like an ad hominem to me.
What does his Catholicism have to do with his abilities to think vis-à-vis the confines of the notional "box"? And since when is the rule of law a bad thing? You do know what that term means, don't you?
Speaking for myself only, if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, I'd think Snowden should come home and face trial, too. Of course, I also think that if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, his acquittal would be as foregone a conclusion as a conviction currently is.
But when it comes to doing the right thing for your
country, as Snowden has stated was his reason for leaking
the NSA documents, Colbert said that you must face the
consequences of the law.
Saddam Hussein faced the consequences of law too, but we all knew the outcome before the trial even started.
If I was Snowden I wouldn't be in a hurry to return to the United States and spend twenty years in prison.
Ironically, none of the officials that caused the last Iraq war have even been charged or investigated despite failing to produce any evidence of WMDs or massive support for Al-Qaeda.
Stating that "the American People" voted for the Patriot Act repeatedly is ignoring the massive disenfranchisement of Democratic voters in states with Republican-controlled legislatures, and the gerrymandering that leads to a lock on US House seats[1]. The goal of the Republican Party is to win government by hook or by crook, and lately it's been the latter.
Without this gerrymandering, it's debatable how things might have gone otherwise. Colbert might not have so much faith in the system if he played the Redistricting Game [2].
Gerrymandering works both ways; you can't bring up the disenfranchised Democratic voters in Republican districts without recognizing the disenfranchised Republican voters in Democratic districts, or third party voters in every district. You could have simply stated that the goal of established political parties is to win government by hook or by crook, with preference to the latter since it requires less effort.
Disgusting. For those that thought Comedy Central brought you alternative news (which I actually did during the Bush years) in the form of The Colbert Report and The Daily Show should now know if not already that they're both just talking heads paid for by the mainstream media apparatus.
[+] [-] dclowd9901|12 years ago|reply
Which brings me to the counterpoint which is that Snowden shouldn't spend the rest of his life in jail, which is what would invariably happen would be go to trial in the US. I think it's of little matter that he revealed how we spy on other countries. I think the point of that was to show that that's how we're being spied on by the 5 Eyes, who will freely share their spying information.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] icantthinkofone|12 years ago|reply
This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight.
>Snowden shouldn't spend the rest of his life in jail, which is what would invariably happen would be go to trial in the US.
This, too, is a false statement and conjecture.
[+] [-] zmanian|12 years ago|reply
-The FISA court does not have the authority under statue or the Constitution to rule on the Constitutionality of NSA programs. The FISA court only has the authority to approve specific warrants.
- The Senators and Representatives who objected to the secret reinterpretation of Patriot Act for domestic surveillance have been unwilling to risk their positions on the committee to reveal this to the public as they have a moral duty to do.
- The NSA specifically lost the legislative battle to embedded backdoors, weaknesses and key escrow in commercial encryption battles. They lost and they went ahead and did it anyway. Clearly subverting democratic intent.
[+] [-] bsimpson|12 years ago|reply
The only reference I heard made to Snowden was in the very last question where an audience member asks Colbert how to keep people from being afraid of the government. In his reply, Colbert asked if what Snowden did was illegal, and when the audience said yes, he essentially said one of the bravest (and most morally admirable) things Snowden could do after breaking an unjust law is to face trial and accept the resulting consequences. His position came across to me as a combination of civil disobedience and traditional stand-and-face-the-music thinking. He didn't at all come across as vitriolic of Snowden or deeply offended by Snowden's actions.
Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP9qqdE4O1I&t=1610
[+] [-] glenra|12 years ago|reply
(1) Colbert mentions it bothers him that Snowden claimed he leaked in order to let us know how then NSA was spying on us, but then a lot of the information revealed turned out to be about how we were spying on others. Leaking that sort of info would only be justified if one is specifically opposed to us spying on other countries - and Colbert thinks the case for that position hasn't really been made.
(2) Somebody asked what Colbert sees as the likely endgame for Snowden. Answer: Colbert guesses the guy will probably come home in the end, but it's likely to take ten years before public opinion shifts his way enough to allow that. As an example of an analogous situation, Colbert brings up the Americans who fled the draft and were eventually pardoned by Ford and Carter.
[+] [-] Perseids|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danbruc|12 years ago|reply
The last sentence is where he is - only in my opinion of course - completely wrong; no country should spy on other countries without very good reasons. And wanting to know what is going on behind closed doors of foreign governments or companies misses my definition of very good reasons by orders of magnitude.
[+] [-] wheaties|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsomaru|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thelettere|12 years ago|reply
He's a deeply religious catholic, is patriotic and apparently believes in the rule of law.
[+] [-] existencebox|12 years ago|reply
He attributes the "greatest threat to security" to not voting and not watching political money. I would politely disagree. Our "greatest threat to security" is that our people take their opinions from the mouths of celebrities and politicians, and not through careful consideration of the facts.
[+] [-] rosser|12 years ago|reply
What does his Catholicism have to do with his abilities to think vis-à-vis the confines of the notional "box"? And since when is the rule of law a bad thing? You do know what that term means, don't you?
Speaking for myself only, if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, I'd think Snowden should come home and face trial, too. Of course, I also think that if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, his acquittal would be as foregone a conclusion as a conviction currently is.
[+] [-] michaelt|12 years ago|reply
If I was Snowden I wouldn't be in a hurry to return to the United States and spend twenty years in prison.
[+] [-] pmr_|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thisiswrong|12 years ago|reply
Rather - Saddam Hussein faced the consequences of trying to sell his country's oil in something else than the dollar [1]. As did Gaddafi [2].
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro [2] http://rt.com/news/libya-all-about-oil-818/
[+] [-] mratzloff|12 years ago|reply
Without this gerrymandering, it's debatable how things might have gone otherwise. Colbert might not have so much faith in the system if he played the Redistricting Game [2].
[1] http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1...
[2] http://www.redistrictinggame.org
[+] [-] WiseWeasel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krisvage|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] axanoeychron|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] relampago|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zmanian|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] justtocommenta|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]