in the middle of last week.

It's just how it gets done, and everyone knows it. So, it's Aravosis who proves to be Mr. "Dumbass"

It's an honest question, since there are too many stories for me to keep up with at work

arguably the worst at it. China was the leader in cyberespionage and hacking. Mainly due to their ability to use their army and keep all of it a secret. Think about it. Obama was the first Pres to officially call out China for cyber espionage. Obama finally had enough proof about China to call them out at the last summit (seemingly due to the program Snowden is opposed to) And then all of the sudden, the Snowden stuff comes to light. So, let's see, Snowden is so opposed to spying that when Obama has evidence of China spying on people like the Dalai Lama and human rights protestors, Mr. "all for the people" Snowden releases info that effectively kills Obama's big move against S-P-Y-I-N-G, because why again? Oh, yeah, he's opposed to spying.

Now that you mention it.

The ironies are numerous. Not to mention, nobody has produced an actual, real-life victim of of this heinous and frightening NSA overreach.

I've seen John Aravois, Josh Marshall and my fav., Charlie Pierce turning on this guy. Josh put it this way.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/like_the_oj_simpson_trial.php

snip

Snowden is doing more than triggering a debate. I think it’s clear he’s trying to upend, damage – choose your verb – the US intelligence apparatus and policieis he opposes. The fact that what he’s doing is against the law speaks for itself. I don’t think anyone doubts that narrow point. But he’s not just opening the thing up for debate. He’s taking it upon himself to make certain things no longer possible, or much harder to do. To me that’s a betrayal. I think it’s easy to exaggerate how much damage these disclosures cause. But I don’t buy that there are no consequences. And it goes to the point I was making in an earlier post. Who gets to decide? The totality of the officeholders who’ve been elected democratically – for better or worse – to make these decisions? Or Edward Snowden, some young guy I’ve never heard of before who espouses a political philosophy I don’t agree with and is now seeking refuge abroad for breaking the law?

I don’t have a lot of problem answering that question.

Individual conscience is always critical. But when it comes to taking a stand on conscience it’s not just the thought that counts. You put yourself to the judgment or the present and the future about whether you made the right judgment.

All three branches of the government oversee the NSA. I'm sure you 'know' they are all mindless, rubber-stampers but what else would you have us do to replace that system?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

across this piece about the Nixon administration and plans it made with regards to its 'enemies list':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gemstone

so it's not an excluded middle, Josh-- Snowden is enabling them to do their job

When he was starting out. We had such high hopes for him. Bill Moyers did a Segment on him as the Future for New Journalistic Investigation...

Josh doesn't do that anymore. But, he's always hiring new reporters and looking for "interns" for his site. Just saying.....

When you think about it, it's a question of whether or not you believe President Obama when he said he had approved the programs and that they had sufficient safeguards in place.

I believe Obama. If I did not I would not have voted for him.

I understand as a citizen in times like these I must allow for some government secrecy..and I cant help but compare those that want no such spying with those that want no gun control..both in the name of "protecting their freedom"..

no, it's not a question of whether or not you believe President Obama when he said he had approved the programs and that they had sufficient safeguards in place.

and transcends ideologies. The far left and far libertarian right have more or less joined together in favor of Snowden's leaks (both sides being, I suppose, at once anti-government and pro–total transparency). Most liberals and conservatives are looking at Snowden's actions (and the interpretations of the information) askance. I suppose they align in some common basic understanding of how the government needs to operate, though we might disagree on the details.

I think that if you're of the generation (or opinion) that there is never a need for intelligence gathering or spying, on the one hand, or that all music, movies, copyrighted material should be free for the taking and that government secrets should never be kept, then you're going to see Snowden in a positive light.

It should come as no surprise that the US government (and every other major government) spies. We've been doing it since before the American Revolution. Someone who worked for the CIA should certainly understand that the very raison d'être of this agency is spying. And if you're going to insist on transparency for everything the CIA does, then you might be better off arguing for abolishing it. This is not to say that we should condone everything the CIA does. Goodness knows it has been put to terrible uses, as in Chile during the Allende years. But a true whistleblower blows the whistle on a specific abuse like this, to correct history and end future abuses. Wholesale dumping of state secrets is not whistle blowing. As Josh Marshall said, it seems to be about trying to "damage the US intelligence apparatus" altogether, rendering it unable to operate. That's a dangerous decision for a 29-year-old to make on his own.

The divide in viewing this act also has to do with our views on transparency and ownership. There are those who believe that whatever the new technologies make possible should be open game. This began all the way back with Napster, when many of us couldn't comprehend the idea that people felt entitled to free music (or movies, or books), outside the public domain. Others felt that if you could take it, you should ... be it images or other people's writing or bank information or government documents that have been classified. It's not targeted ... it's a principle of opening things up. Hacking now seems romantic to some. We will not agree on these issues, and the rules of the game have not yet been established for this radically new technological era.

So in the end, this discussion is not really about the NSA's programs. It's about our views about government (it's trying to do its job (even if it sometimes goes astray) or it's always a horrible thing to be fought) and about technology (it's the wild west or it needs to be an ordered universe). It's about morals (both the leakers' and the government's). It's about anarchy and order.

And that is why you can't predict whether a liberal will be for or against this leaking episode, or a conservative.

I was beginning to wonder if DU had totally jumped the shark!

into our Constitution and Bill of Rights. No matter how the Scalia/Roberts Court RULES...or Terra Mongering.....it's about "WE THE PEOPLE." We have a BASIC RIGHT to OUR PRIVACY...and when we feel it's been invaded we have the RIGHT to RISE UP and FIGHT BACK.

It's there..

Otherwise...I thought you were asking interesting questions...but, it was at the end when you gave only TWO choices for why people are Pushing Back...that I thought you were "off course."

Just saying....

really quite insightful and helps me understand what at first glance seems exceedingly and kaleidoscopically trippy; Michael Moore and Glen Beck agreeing on something while Obama and Peter King converge on the opposite side.

Much appreciated. Hope to read more of your work soon.

Over the last week or two as I've tried to ponder what it is that has bugged me about it so much; and then to understand why there are such ardent reactions on both sides of the issue.

It started to coalesce around these two themes for me: views about government, and views about technology. I really haven't figured out enough about it to write something more coherent ... but I thank you for your encouragement and welcome ideas from anyone who has thoughts about these issues.

As for myself, I'm wondering if these new "coalitions" may lead to an entirely new political landscape in the not too distant future: a far left-right coalition coalescing around libertarian issues, and a center left-right coalition coming together around more traditional views of government. Who knows. I do know the issue of hacking and leaking is only going to grow bigger as we face more and more actions of this sort.

snow globes and the snow settles in one place or another, depending on how you shake the globe.

One element that seems to be getting shorter shrift that should be getting more attention, imo, is the false and misleading testimony being given to Congress by administration officials like DNI Clapper. I'm frankly surprised that no one in Congress has yet called for Clapper's head on a pike. Clapper's line about the 'least untruthful' lie is sticking in my craw this morning.

Of course, lying to Congress is pretty small potatoes when war criminals openly brag about their exploits and there are no consequences.

Interesting political landscape you hypothesize - very interesting times indeed.

that we're trying hard to spy on Russian leaders. DUH!! It's rarely about intent--rather, it's about capability. The real damaging part of Snowden's latest disclosure is that now, the Russians know we know that they changed their signals strategy as of 2009, and that strategy has been compromised.

good song

"faith" in him but the document he released is undeniably legitimate. Three NSA veterans back his story up.

much more important. Try to focus on the issues.

Can I blame it on adult ADD?

have us look at Snowden, and not the fourth amendments issues in play, have been shouting about his girlfriend.

or the one he released to us? Oh that's right....all WE got was this lousy Powerpoint Presentation.

and you'll know what I'm talking about.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

employees said that Snowden's information about the Verizon warrant was valid and the first time they had actually seen this type of document, although they had heard and known of the existence of such documents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

and I don't believe that he had the access he claims...and I have good reason not to....So...

But he DID release information about our program in the U.K. and to China....not to YOU or I....so my point remains.

about what he was privy to or had access to...
So?

hahahahahahaha!

Since you can't discuss this without being an ass, end of discussion.

He himself hasnt provided anything of substance to the American people ......He has admitted that he HAS shown things to the Chinese press and about our operation in the U.K. (he took an oath to even get the job so telling the Brits and Chinese people how we spy on them and nothing of substance to the American people is pretty telling)

and if anyone who disagrees with you is being an ass...then you don't belong in a discussion with me..so buh bye!

or is he just sayin' stuff and people believe him.

I wouldn't be surprised if that does happen, the spying part. Not at all.

What I'm surprised at, if he isn't showing real evidence (something he stole that can be used as proof) to support what he says - then he can just make any shit up and people will believe him!

Next Snowden Twit: Obama really is a Muslim. I gots the info, you just have to take my word for it.

I don't understand why people don't see the possible danger in this.

believes anything he says.

Sounds to me like he's a Libertarian and doesn't care which government he is attacking and/or he's working for China, rather working knowing he'll be working for China to be able to stay in HK.

Not sure I quite get your comment.

... I should care what some clown named "John Aravosis" thinks or believes? Another duffus pimping the authoritarian smear campaign. Big effen woopee.

and he ameriblogs

Not very impressive. Gonna have to come up with something that actually is not trivial poppycock.

was attempting satire without the emoticon.

I gleaned these DU-worthy facts from wikipedia. Didn't remember he was part of guckert gate.

... glad that wasn't serious, judging from some of the inanities and drivel the NSA Apologist Society has been posting, it can be hard to tell.

A man with a GED and a few college courses should not be in positions that require degrees - if for no other reason than respect for current employees. And in some of the jobs he had, bullshitting your way in is a federal offense.

If someone wanted to seriously damage the Obama administration or the United States, it would work a hell of a lot better to force someone to run to the press with a really steamy revelation, like this PRISM stuff, than it would to do it the old-fashioned way by having him steal classified documents. Thanks to Wikileaks, there's not many bona fide secrets left anymore. And if he wouldn't do it, prison cells and jobs at McDonalds await.

sweated blood and tears to get their degrees and are probably paying for student loans out the nose....meanwhile....Snowden coming from apparently a family that could afford to educate him...tosses that opportunity away. Office politics and all that...

He has degrees from Harvard and Yale - clearly, he's more intelligent!

The three-letter agencies are very popular places for extremely-well-educated, very smart people to apply to work at, for many reasons - among them being the lack of a profit motive. Therefore, somewhere like NSA or CIA has hard drives packed with beautiful resumes from folks with doctorates in electrical engineering, computer science, mathematics and other useful fields. There is no need whatsoever to hire a guy with his educational background no matter how smart he is.

The depth of the idiotic behavior by some here can no longer astonish me.

It's crowded under that bed...soon it will be the red coats.

Why would anyone care about he has to say? He just another nobody with a blog.

End of story. End of discussion. Snowden is the MOST irrelevant part of this story. Why are you establishment types continuing to talk about him. Oh yes! That's right! Keeps you from having to talk about THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.

the 'elephant in the room' wasn't the embellished pink sort.

Sorry, we part ways on this one. I don't like being spied upon.