Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fact is that you didn't know about any of them until Snowden.
And while many of us figured they were listening to phone calls, few knew of the breadth and depth of what they were doing.
It turns out that it's way more invasive that anyone imagined.
I did know about them. We have a community radio station in our metro that has a lot of talk programs that discuss issues that are not highlighted in mainstream media outlets and even though I listen to them now more than I used to, I had heard of the 3 people I mentioned over 5 years ago. I also read other news outlets that mentioned the NSA warrantless wiretapping that was taking place. Liberals were up in arms about it due to W. Bush being into office and the Patriot Act and all that jazz.
Just because you or others don't like to broaden your media perspective doesn't mean that others don't.
I also sometimes listen to Democracy Now, another liberally slanted news hour program but they do feature a lot of issues that many conservatives would be surprised that liberals support. That program and another I listen to amongst other articles I have read are the only ones that have REALLY gone into detail about the killing of American citizens in the middle east by the Obama Administration. I'm sure sometime in the future, more evidence will come out about it but for right now, you hear very little about it as everyone is all interested in OJ's parole and other such nonsense.
ETA: And on this own forum which is supposed to be Politics oriented, people just want to start many threads about racial or social issues instead of exploring what is truly going on in our country and the world. It is a sad thing really, what people see as "news" or "politics" or "controversial" now-a-days. And how so many are duped into believing the biased rantings of media figures instead of figuring things out for themselves.
What I find to be true is that the American people desperately want facts that haven’t been defused through a partisan filter. Unfortunately that's not what the corporate media wants to give us and that's why I rarely ever watch CNN, Fox or MSNBC. BBC, RT and Democracy Now are much better alternatives.
Maybe if we as US citizens of conscience demand that the USA PATRIOT Act finally be repealed and put checks on the runaway Surveillance Industrial Complex (SIC) whistleblower Edward Snowden will someday return home.
What I find to be true is that the American people desperately want facts that haven’t been defused through a partisan filter. Unfortunately that's not what the corporate media wants to give us and that's why I rarely ever watch CNN, Fox or MSNBC. BBC, RT and Democracy Now are much better alternatives.
Maybe if we as US citizens of conscience demand that the USA PATRIOT Act finally be repealed and put checks on the runaway Surveillance Industrial Complex (SIC) whistleblower Edward Snowden will someday return home.
Demanding won't do it. You have to vote people into office that will actually represent the citizens.
You threw Ron Paul under the bus twice.
You will do the same with Warren.
You really think people like McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Baucus, Boehner listen to the citizens ?
Demanding won't do it. You have to vote people into office that will actually represent the citizens.
You threw Ron Paul under the bus twice.
You will do the same with Warren.
You really think people like McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Baucus, Boehner listen to the citizens ?
Obviously you were directing this at somebody other than me.
Obviously you were directing this at somebody other than me.
Yeah I was replying to your post but not directing it specifically to you.
I understand we need to demand true representation but the ones there today won't do it.
If Americans don't want to get involved in ME wars then Congress needs represent us and not go to war or fund any wars or partake in covert operations to aid and abet in these wars.
I will agree to disagree. I think there are too many tea partyers to hate Obama and who want to see him destroyed and who would have used this information to do just that. Also, there are VERY liberal liberals out there. Ones who would go through all sorts of hoops to scream about privacy rights.
But those two groups don't work together. The mainstream republicans are not criticizing Obama, because they know they will get in response. "How about the Patriot Act? Aren't Republicans just as bad?"
Also, they support the program, so for them it makes little sense to criticize Obama on NSA. Liberterians, some Tea Party people and the far left do criticize Obama on the NSA issue, but they are not strong enough.
Quote:
That is my point above. Snowden could have gained the support of a political party. He could have gone after both liberals and conservatives, but he chose not to do that.
This sounds contridictary. If you go after both liberals and conservatives, then you won't get the support from either party.
Quote:
Also, Nixon was not interested in the Pentagon Papers when they first released because they had nothing to do with him and focused more on Johnson and Kennedy. It wasn't until later that he became involved. In regards to laws being "different" they really aren't that much different.
This is true, that both parties would be humiliated. But this was also true in Ellsburg's case due to the Pentagon Papers covering a time people of the 1940s(Dems) through the 1960s(mostly Dems also were cited as perpetuators during Vietnam, primarily Johnson). Also, it is ironic that Ellsburg had the support of the Dems, when really Johnson was the primary focus of the Pentagon Papers, not Nixon. Nixon was brought in due to him being the sitting president. Many people associate him now with this point in history but he was not the player in Vietnam that Johnson was.
Well it was hypocritical, but the anti-war movement was lead by Democrats. That was the important difference. There is no anti-privacy movement among Democrats or Republicans. Only the fringe wants more privacy.
People will call out Republicans if they criticize Democrats on privacy, because people do remember the Patriot Act and how Republicans did exactly the same. Snowden would get both parties against him, hence he would have been screwed if he attempted to do what you said.
Quote:
For me, the bolded section above is what makes me suspicious of Snowden. I think he didn't follow Ellsburg's lead because he is selling the information he knows with China and Russia and other enemy countries of the US. There is no reason why he could not follow Ellsburg's lead.
And in regards to living in Russia or Hong Kong especially, despite what people have said on this thread, both Russia and China have very western style, comfortable cities. He could easily stay on the Black Sea in Russia and get a cute Russian girlfriend.
Sure, both places are okay. The main reason he went to Hong Kong was because it is a libertarian city, and Snowden is a libertarian.
But there is nothing like staying with your family and your girlfriend. Also, if he really wanted to sell his information, then he wouldn't need to travel to China or Russia at all. And giving information to the Guardian would be a huge blunder?
He could have just stayed in Hawaii. A Chinese agent would take a trip to the US and he would give them the information. And he would not release it. If he did that way, no one would have known.
But I bet China already knows about the program. This is a program known to many top politicians around the world. I highly doubt the Chinese spying program is that incompetent. No, the reason US politicans does not like Snowden is because it is released to the public. Before US could accuse China of spying and have credibility. Now China will just say, "you spy too, you hypocrite".
Quote:
There are other options. There is no guarantee that he would have gone to prison for life. As it stands now, I think he will be killed. I would rather be alive in prison than killed. Also, IMO it shows Snowden is a coward. He wants to take a stand but he doesn't want to acknowledge and accept the risks associated with the stand.
Why are you a coward, if you want to avoid unfair punishment? Are the Russians who left USSR to avoid political prosecution, cowards?
He may be killed, but right now he is not. And I would not choose life in prison over life. Some of us believe in life after death. Hence I rather die than live a life of torture.
YAY! I am so happy for him. Its sad that people must go to Russia to get freedom from tyranny but I am glad he is free to move about now...To hell with the regime in DC.
If the "regime in DC" were headed by a Republican, you'd be singing a different tune.
I'm laughing AT you Pubs as you continue the free fall.
You really think people like McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Baucus, Boehner listen to the citizens ?
Whether it be Dem or Repub they serve the same master...............Corp. American and Lobbyists. Those people pay 10-100k for sit down dinners to peddle influence. The two parties are fairly the same. Dems give more crumbs to poor Repub more cronyism kickbacks and no bid contracts on the Iraq War. Oh wait Cheney worked for Haliburton and they won they no bid contract see no conflict of interest at all. And yes the Dems have plenty of cronyism within the ranks look no farther than MI, specifically Detroit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
