The people who want to focus entirely on the man, rather than what he revealed, are perfectly fine with a Big Brother police state. Heck, some of them will proudly declare it, while others will twist off on a tangent if you ask them to simply straightforward deny or assert that they do believe that every American's every online or telephone activity should be monitored. I won't go so far as to say that they're shills - if they were, the government would be wasting even more money. I just think that on issues of privacy, they're 100% believers in authoritarianism and 'central control'. They're perfectly happy with none of us having privacy.

who is doing well with this government? Who seems to control it?
-
as you said: "They're perfectly happy with none of us having privacy."

And entirely unjustified. Really, one can't question Eddie or one is fine with Big Brother? The NSA as it exists is not Big Brother. It is still subject to the law. Comrade Eddie and his supporters make the most outrageous statements.

really, just keep on parodying yourself

How does that make it any less ridiculous to claim we support a totalitarian state ? It's just a joke anyway. Eddies supporters are so sensitive.

live king Clapper, eh?

Snowden chose to flee to Russia. Those that support him and his actions must admit this was a poor choice.

I have no problem with Snowden taking the path of Daniel Ellsberg or John Kerry for that matter. He chose another route.

they cannot complain when people judge them by their own words. 'Comrade Eddy', really? If you don't want to be viewed as described above, then it would be advisable not to emulate those whose images are next to the word 'authoritarian' in the dictionary.

It is entirely possible to have problems with the NSA and FISA - as most of us did when the legislation to regulate it --and retroactively make it legal - was written --- AND have major problem with Snowden deciding that he could steal millions of documents and give them to reporters of his choosing.

Does it disturb you that he could not even have read all that he took - and then passed to several other people? Would you blame him if anything that you would agree should have remained secret is compromised via one of these people (or someone who gets their info)?

I'd rather he simply just release all the documents, and let the chips fall where they may.

Have you not read it? Big Brother is the head of the state, and perfectly legal.

1984 was a fictional totalitarian state quite unlike the USA

My point was telling us that not agreeing with Eddie means we accept a totalitarian state. That's a bit much.

labeling the Left with those old cold war 'commie' tags, has always been the right wing's pathetic attempt to attack the Left with?

What's interesting is how it is ALWAYS the Left that is targeted both from the so called 'left' and from the 'right'.

And what else is interesting, is how the Left is always correct. Is there a connection there? People who tell the truth to those in power = 'The Left', those old 'comrades' 'commies' etc.

What's so sad about using those old labels now is the more than half the country, maybe even more than that, don't even know what they mean, they were around during the McCarthy era and just wonder 'wth are they talking about'.

Here's what I think, those who want to hide what they are doing need some new talking points because all that happens when they try to invoke the scary 'McCarthy era' is they lose their audience, either because most of them have no clue what they are trying to say, or they KNOW, and despise that reprehensible old McCarthy era scare tactic from what is thankfully, a long gone, very disreputable historical period of our history. Definitely not one of America's finer moments.

Well put, Sabrina

...now resort to that right or wrong, black or white thinking.

Did you watch the episode in which he explained how much information the NSA can glean about the user of a throwaway phone just from the metadata on the phone? If the user of the phone is suspected of a crime, that information can be obtained legally. But the NSA is collecting the metadata on many, many Americans and without obtaining warrants and without suspecting them of crimes. That's where the problem is. Why are they interested in my or your metadata?

I can only think of one reason: for information about our political opinions and associations.

NSA is lying and abusing our privacy as we sit here breathing. Calling Edward Snowden comrade Eddie is juvenile and unbecoming...a cheap GOP tactic. Edward Snowden risked his life, career and freedom of movement for all of us even if some of us don't appreciate what a grand service he's done by revealing some nasty US secrets. Remember, not one account of anyone being endangered has been reported.

When the W administration ignored the threat from Bin Laden, allowing 911 to happen, and then the subsequent Patriot Act, which was a gift from heaven for the neocon assholes, we became a different country in extreme ways.

What to do about it is the question, Snowden is a Ron Paul admirer as I recall, this bothers me, but who cares, he isnt important anyway

affiliations other than to say how brave they were to buck their own party to speak out against these Bush policies.

Frankly if someone is telling the truth I don't give a rat's ass about their personal beliefs, private lives or whatever else is going to be used to try to distract from the truth they are telling, because that is all this is, an attempt to distract and for that reason alone, I don't care who the messenger is, so long as s/he is telling the truth.

...the pooty poot shit didn't help either.

Yes, we can not agree with the Spy agenecies and SnowGlen at the same time

The only reason these debates devolve into personality evaluations is because of a lack of convincing evidence. Everything Snowden has caused to be revealed so far has to do with spying on non-Americans. The metadata stuff has been known since 2006.

That's why we see threads with 'Snowden Fan Club' or 'NSA Fans' or counter-threads like this one.

And the DU wheel turns once more...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

Then he should just release all the documents and be done with it. Then we could all evaluate the evidence for ourselves, once and for all.

with "Greenwald fan(s)" thrown in for good measure - occurrences on DU, via Google search:

"nsa fan": 81
"snowden fan" 3190
"greenwald fan": 3500
"nsa fans": 259
"snowden fans": 6630
"greenwald fans": 4050

"Bootlicker(s)'. 'Apologist(s)'. Etc. Etc. We should all stop playing the insult game.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

And yes, I realize the irony.

Orwellian, and the other exaggerations.

Corporatist (applied to the NSA?)
Obama bootlickers
Obama apologists
etc,
etc

It's all just "poopiehead". Kindergarten level discourse.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

And, of course, it gets nasty with accusations that people who type "GG" are homophobes.

"Snowden apologist": 8
"Greenwald apologist": 44
"NSA apologist": 2880
"Snowden apologists": 726
"Greenwald apologists": 582
"NSA apologists": 4770

So while 'apologist' is used more against the NSA, the overall insults are flowing more against anyone supporting Snowden and Greenwald.

The "GG" may seem nasty to you, but when we saw a few DUers were using "GiGi", I think the accusations of homophobia against them were then justified. And from what I saw, the posts were saying that "GG" was being used without people knowing some right-wing homophobes used it to be like "GiGi", and so people ought to stop; rather than saying anyone using "GG" was doing it on purpose.

Just one modification of your search changed the stats significantly. If I wasn't on my phone I'm sure I could show it.

As far a "GG" I was personally offended by that BS. I know there were attempts to double down, but the whole thing was a hurtful cruel attempt to shut down critics. Many of whom are gay.

"NSA" + "authoritarian": 801,000

"NSA" + "third way": 90,600

Here are other useful searches:

greenwald defenders: 501

snowden defenders: 1,530

NSA defenders: 2,620

greenwald haters: 2,260

snowden haters: 5,560

nsa haters: 1

nsa supporters: 1,580

snowden supporters: 3,220

greenwald supporters: 538

Note: Snowden and Greenwald supporters tend to have 50/50 positive / negative connotations.

You fail to provide any substantive case with your analysis, as actual exploration into the biases shows the exact opposite of the narrative you were pushing.

"'Snowden Fan Club" and "NSA Fans". Take it up with randome.

You contended that it's only one side doing it and the other side is defensive.

I've been called an authoritarian third way NSA supporter plenty of times when all I do is question the story and lament the lack of any meaningful reform. I only rarely, when my buttons get pushed, name call back.

times, it is not people just expressing their own opinion, it is the use of deliberately constructed phraseology intended to try to undermine those who are legitmately asking questions about their government.

Many just repeat them probably without realizing they are helping to spread paid for talking points, all it takes is a few to begin the 'meme' and they know others will do the rest for free.

People who think for themselves generally do not use other people's talking points, they tend to speak in their own words.

Very interesting.

to show how ridiculous the first one was. The second, iow, would not have existed without the first. But I agree, that was posted in an attempt to distract from all the evidence of wrong doing, ie, the massive spying on the American people by our own government agencies.

So you are correct, about why we see 'Snowden Fan Club' 'Comrade Eddy' 'Greenwald cheerleaders' etc, it is a desperate attempt, and a massively failing attempt, to distract from an issue that has continued since the War Criminals from the Bush era began breaking the law and violating Constitutional rights.

Why is Clapper still in the position Bush gave him btw?

It means the Emperor is naked as a j bird...and that is something that cannot be seen.

seeing just how naked the Emperor really is. And that is the reason for the desperation, imho.

. . . having folks here doing the NSA's dirty work of discrediting critics for them.

It's mainly a defense of the Obama administration. I'd think that the President would secretly welcome these revelations, as his own administration has been blindsided by these revelations and compromised by the NSA activity - little of which I believe has been shown that the President was actively involved in or actively approved.

as soon as another President takes office. Especially if it's a Republican.

At leas then we'll be able to separate the people who only care about President Obama from the ones who only care about Team Blue from the ones who are simply all for a Big Brother police state.

We have a winner. I'd bet that most of the people who think Snowden is a traitor would have no issue with him at all if this had been reported under a Repug. administration rather than a Dem. Of course, there's always the provocateurs and those would also go away too if we were unlucky enough to get a Repug. president - perish the thought. Wonder if there would be any true NSA supporters left?

It is not true that not thinking Comrade Eddie is the hero of all time and equal of Patrick Henry mean that. No one said that, ever. Refusing to acknowledge that is abject worship of Comrade Eddie. He is victim of no such thing. The NSA has not created a police state and saying it does is worse than exaggeration - it's some other plain of absurdity.

I don't want random people revealing documents under Republican administrations either. That never came up with Bush and he did way worse anyway and we had that to talk about.

Republicans do much worse things, that's why. What Eddie did would barely make the news because of the things the actual Republican President will do.

And how is it you happen to distinguish "especially if it's a Republican." Why would be be any different with another Democratic President?

But there are a number of different possibilities.

The people tearing their hair out on this website and other dem websites over the *disclosure* of bad actions on the part of the US (as opposed to those bad actions themselves) can have a variety of motives. 1. They're Obama fans, who are attacking simply because these disclosures came on his watch. 2. They're team blue fans, who are attacking simply because it happened under a dem president. 3. They're NSA fans, and are attacking "Comrade Eddie" because they actually believe that Americans SHOULD be spied upon by their government, and are upset that anyone dared to reveal that our government is doing so in a staggeringly wide variety of ways.

I'm guessing there are a variety of 1's, 2's, and 3's around. Not everybody is pulling their hair out for the same reasons.

Your 4. is that you 'don't want random people revealing documents', I guess. But given what is being revealed, I can't understand why you wouldn't want it revealed unless you also agree with #3.

. . . but I'm not going to argue with you about it, or argue about another thread in this one.

My opinion stands.

(on edit) Of course, folks can have different motivations for the stands they take, but I don't see it as much of an insult to view defense of the NSA as a defense of the administration. I really didn't see this type of support here for the NSA during the Bush years. I think it goes with the territory.

My opinion stands too.

. . . my comments weren't directed toward another thread.

The denigrating, condescending nature of that person's posts have disgusted me for a long while now ...

I love President Obama, and while I respect him greatly, I do not intend to be the bootlicking sycophant that some posters here expect ...

The President is NOT above reproach, and he shall be criticised for his loss of focus on Liberal traditions and his apparent embrace of at least some conservative policy positions ...

'That' poster doesn't like that criticism ... and that's just too damned bad ...

. . . I have to apologize for not recognizing whatever might be behind the op or any of the replies.

The poster you are referring to is, if nothing else, completely transparent about her affinities or disfavor. (I hope that's not taken as an insult - wasn't meant as one.

Constitutional Rights, unless they are using the old 'this is old news' nonsense, they attack the messenger and the millions of people who have received the message and are gravely concerned about what has happened to this country.

That is the same tactic the Right tried to use when in 2005 we learned that Bush/Cheney and their band of criminals were spying on the American people, airc, the 'left' who were unanimous in their outrage, until a certain law was passed legalizing retroactively, the crimes committed, when the list of dems who went along with that egregious amendment was revealed, but up til then, Dems were unanimous in their outrage over these violations of our Constitutional rights.

And we still are. Despite the attempts to distract, despite the same old talking points, all of which we heard back in 2005. And will continue to be until the rule of law is restored in this country.

regarding the Patriot Act and the NSA. You really should. Now, I don't see eye to eye with some here regarding Snowden and I have stated why and I do have a more nuanced view of things than some are looking for . That does not make me a right winger nor does it make me any less a liberal or less concerned about this nation that I love. There are truths to be found on both sides of this debate. I have been willing to hear people out and have adjust some of my thinking accordingly. I find it astonishing that there is such an investment in getting people to call Snowden a hero or whatever. I just think that there is a lot to this story than hasn't been divulged and some of it has to do with Snowden himself. My opinion.

I do take personally the dismissal out of hand of the opinons of those who don't agree with you (generic "you&quot as being unpatriotic. You know, I lived in Iran during the Revolution and part of the Iran/Iraq War. As a foreign wife of an Iranian, I had few rights during the Shah's time and even less afer the Revolution. It took me years to get out of that situation and to bring my children to safety and to my nation where there were rights and freedom available. I'm sick of the infighting here because the fight doesn't need to be happening on DU but out there. And I think we generally all agree on that. I have seen well reasoned and nuanced posts outlining why people are careful on this issue. I want people to be careful because we need to be certain of where we are going and that we are on the same page. I don't see that at any level on the left. On the right, there has been a general agreement to be on the page titled "Crazy." Sometimes it doesn't hurt to hear what people are trying to say to you. This is how we identify weaknesses all around and arrive at solutions. Why seek to make enemies of people who have likely always been your allies? I'm at a loss and would appreciate some explanation of this.

Bush's policies back then, I have learned that some of our leaders were not opposed to them, but in general, most Democrats, ordinary people, were FRIGHTENED by the way they were using 9/11 to chip away at our rights and definitely opposed them.

I know we have more freedom and rights than countries like Iran eg, but our leaders have a habit of supporting some of the most oppressive regimes in the world, the Shah being just one example.

Our foreign policies seem to making us MORE enemies than friends and more Americans are asking questions about the justification of these policies which have often caused incredible suffering to millions of people in other countries.

We seem to believe that bombs and other WMDs can enforce 'democracy' on other nations. That doesn't seem to have been very successful.

As for Bush/Cheney policies and the concerns of almost all Civil Liberties organizations about them, I don't for one minute believe that those people, Bush et al, care one bit about this country, other than as a means to use its military power to enrich themselves and their Corporate friends. I have nothing to dissuade me from this. Bush himself was fairly honest about it when he stated he wished he was a 'dictator' as that would make his 'work' easier.

I believe there are factions in this country who hate that the people have the rights they have and I also believe that because of that, 'the enemy within perhaps' the people have to constantly FIGHT to preserve those rights.

To relent even a little on the question of Constitutional rights is to allow those who would be more than happy to take them away, have a free hand to do so. Not holding war criminals accountable eg, or Iran Contra criminals etc, has only presented more of a threat from them.

I don't believe I have ever accused anyone of not being a patriot. But I vehemently disagree with those who make excuses for the destruction of our rights.

I think there was a post about that earlier today.

I don't generally join fan clubs myself (except for obscure bands on occasion).

Bryant

And your description doesn't fit. They defend Comrade Eddie no matter what he does. Crowned him hero on day one.

We could resent the idea that we have to approve of Eddie or we don't care about civil liberties.

"Comrade Eddie"? Your slip is showing.

and my comment was about the curious adoption of old RW cold war jargon.

With all the name calling going on around here (NSA apologists, Third Wayers, BOG), this OP strikes me as another attempt to discredit anyone who criticizes Snowden.

In fact, you don't seem to have a problem with calling out other DUers. From a thread that does just that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025016241
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025016241#post33

You're the LAST person who should complain about disingenuousness

They are whistling at shit that mostly became SOP before Obama became president, so if we could stop focusing on it as if it is an OBAMA VS EVERYBODY deal, we may get somewhere...

Not saying everybody is doing this, just seems to be prevalent...in some places

the potential damage that Snowden has done. When you have family members losing lives and livelihoods in
protecting our safety and security the picture looks different.

You need to consider the hostile environment the government has created for whistleblowers when evaluating their methods. Potential damage doesn't trump truth.

FIFY

than anything Snowden may have done.

It prevents discussion of the real issue: illegal NSA spying on Americans.

By "we" I mean We the People. The only thing we really have left is the truth. If we keep spreading it, democracy still has a chance. Which is why they're doing all they can to monetize the net. Like SCROTUS says for speech, truth becomes pay to play.

It's yelling LA LA LA.

Which serves to drown out truth. The crapola, once it gets into someone's head, often cannot be driven out. Look at this or most any thread that merely questions the national security state for evidence.

and any questioning of his means you are a totalitarian. The NSA did not do anything illegal and did not spy on Americans. Apparently, that's a violation of your company line. It's like people are upset to have to debate this issue. They want to state the way they want it to be and no arguments. You are the cool kids merely for being against the government. One apparently can't ever for in favor of or neutral towards it or that makes us authoritarian. Black and white thinking at its worst.

Especially when they're operating the levers of secret government.

Remember the Safari Club, the shadow CIA made up of CIA agents fired by Jimmy Carter and James Schlesinger, yet loyal to George H.W. Bush and Ted Shackley, financed off-the-books by Saudi Arabia and other petrodollar states?

According to the secret memos created by admin lawyers and the secret court handpicked by John Roberts, it's all legal.

Roberts helped Bush steal Florida, so he jumped over Scalia.

Thinking it over, it really is just like in the Godfather, where Mikey got promoted over Fredo.

Difference in criminal class, though. The Mafia are men of honor in that they respect civilian human life. The SCROTUS 5 are traitors and make money from war.

"Snoden fan club" is a reflection that DUers here can't even openly support the President without being demonized and called derogatory names. It's a reflection that DUers have to go to moderated group to discuss the President instead of doing it openly in GD. It's a reflection that unless you disagree with Obama on every policy, you are called names for it. It's a reflection of the hypocrisy of people like yourself who demonstrate outrage when someone doesn't agree with you.

I'm sorry I wasn't more obvious in my original post, so here is a very explicit reminder:

Defend the mass surveillance of US citizens without a warrant based on legal, rational authority. Start with the Fourth Amendment.

The BOG can't, so they rely on non-rational nonsense to support the indefensible.

I've got the President's back!

Yeah that one always defends the indefensible... (rimshot)

oh wait... .... nevermind.

You're wasting your time attempting to point out the obvious to those who have been openly demonstrating such blatant hypocrisy here for YEARS.

You're dealing with many of the same folks who buy into the Alex Jones-style batshit lunacy, and are the first to embrace the latest anti-government conspiracy theory.

There is no hope for any reasonable discussion with these "members," much less expect them to develop a sudden burst of self-awareness.

When they start throwing Orwell quotes at you, reason has left the building.....

To foreign governments protecting your civil rights? Snowden did that too.

Better we're all in the dark?

he COULD have disclosed those aspects that involve the data collection on the American people, without disclosing to China, Germany, the UK, Argentina and other nations.

It was those disclosures that have many/most questioning his motives and branding him a traitor.

Secret government is undemocratic, "repugnant" as President Kennedy said.

We have MORE than enough civil liberties: the President has a secret list of them, I'm told that it's more than a page long (not including qualifiers).

Why don't you go cavort with your fellow Libertarians and get back to us when you're no longer a racist paid-shill ratfucker?

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

has these noble interests, such as you describe them, at heart.

Others may think that Snowden truly was appalled by what he saw, and felt a need to react, somehow. The same people may also think that his team may not have Snowden's, or even the U.S.' best interests at heart.

Others may actually be afraid to have their beliefs challenged, as many here suggest, or may have even more nefarious motives. I could go on an on with various variables here.

But the former two *do* exist, although many here seem to want to convince themselves that they don't. Maybe those folks are equally afraid of having their beliefs challenged?




I saw a weird, and I guess at some level funny comment the other day: "How can you trust Snowden? He used to work for the NSA!!!"

It's not clever, it's pathetic.

And That is what is pathetic

As has been stated a million times, you wouldn't stand for this shit from a republican president. Or hell, maybe you would.

and I will continue believing Snowdon and Greenwald are scammer liars and it's sad so many are taken in. It's like a modern version of the old PTL club.

....if you know what I mean.

He did not even read all of them. You may be impressed with Glenn Greenwald, but no one in this country voted for him to be the arbiter of what "people need to see".

and he's one of the least trustworthy people out there zero principles. and a Tea Party Patriot won't go near him

Now, do you really think that Snowden should have entrusted several people - not in the government and without clearance or need to know - with over a million documents?

added 'not'

the massive damage done by the dump, it did more good than harm IMO.

First of all, Snowden and Greenwald themselves have referred to the fact that there are things that could damage the country if put out. I have to take their words - because I, a law abiding citizen - have not seen what they have NOT released.

As to what they have released, I only can point to various articles that spoke of the "coolness" that Kerry or Obama had to face in various meetings as they met with countries that were impacted. (It seemed to me that some revelations seemed to somehow come out days before Kerry (or Obama) had a meeting scheduled.

Because I have followed the work that Kerry has done, I pretty consistently read the media accounts. To me, it seemed that after a few months of extremely successful meetings where countries were happy to see him -- and people charmed that he knew a lot about their culture and often had at least some ability to speak their language, there was a sudden freeze and reactions were colder. The event that defined that line? Nothing Kerry or Obama did -- just the Snowden leaks.

Now, I can't say that this amounted to anything other than things being a little less enjoyable for Kerry, but I can say that it did seem to dampen any possibility that he might have been able to use his long times, reputation and history to improve relations in a few places where that would be good.

I have seen no credible account that suggests any good came of that document dump. Even supporters speak only of the NSA domestic spying -- which that wasn't.

I don't see how hard this is to get.

I don't need to be impressed by him. I don't see how hard this is to get.

As far as I can tell it's all by the book under Ted Kennedy's and President Carter's FISA. If there is no meaningful reform then what is the impact?

NYC is about to roll out a mass tracking system. The UK has one already, hell, the last 250 car trips every single car in the UK makes is stored. It just shows the complacency of people in the developed world.

I don't have to.

The effective route to reform is unfortunately closed now. The American public don't care. Consent has been manufactured by the very people who purport to inform.