Opinion of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden

[Oakvale]

I'm not saying that this is a clear left/right issue. However, what I fail to see is how a genuine progressive could possibly disapprove of actions which did nothing except to expose a manifest and unacceptable abuse of power. Or alternatively, how a progressive with a conscience could possibly argue that spying on millions of everyday conversations is not a a manifest and unacceptable abuse of power. Have we really come to the point where the idea that there is a level of basic individual privacy that shouldn't be forsaken in the name of the "war on terror" isn't even defended by the left anymore?

Oakvale, I don't really give a crap about the personal worth of these people (well, unless they are Assange-level scumbags, which, AFAIK, they aren't). The only thing that matter is their actions, and in this case their actions were just and courageous.

I don't accept the premise that a "manifest and unacceptable abuse of power" took place. It's - as far as anyone can tell - perfectly legal and seems to me to be an appropriate use of resources. The NSA isn't reading our Atlas PMs, guys. Even if you believe that it's some kind of shadowy masonic organisation bent on destroying "individual privacy" just in terms of labour and computing power it's not possible.

I've never had a problem with state surveillance and intelligence gathering. Not under Bush, not under Blair, not under Obama, and if that's not a 'progressive' position then so be it. The questionable statements of the leaker in this situation are important - he's made several implausible and grandiose claims - did anyone else notice he casually mentioned that the CIA would "use the Triads" to "silence" him? Life is not a Tom Clancy technothriller.

Unless you have a problem with the NSA existing in principle - and you might, and that's a valid position that I happen not to agree with - I'm really not sure what there is to get worked up about here. The right to privacy is great but it's quite a leap to suggest that this is the coming of the fascist Orwellian police state - modern countries run intelligence operations that include data gathering. News at 11.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Are we talking about the same thing? If listening to private phone conversations of people who aren't in any way suspected does not infringe on individual privacy, then what privacy is left exactly? I fail to see how "reading our Atlas PMs" would be much worse than that.

And please, cut it out with the strawmen. Nobody's talking about a "massive government conspiracy" or anything like that. You don't need to be a conspiracy nut to think there is something a bit wrong with what western governments have started doing since 9/11. Suddenly, the end justifies any means, even the most pointlessly intrusive and the most disregarding of rule of law. I don't care if the ultimate goal is the establishment of a fascist regime or if (as likely), it is just the fruit of stupid mind bent exclusively on appeasing the populace's irrational fears. Regardless of the goal, this is not a healthy path to follow if we want to live in a vibrant, modern democracy.

[Oakvale]

They're not listening in on private phone conversations of people who aren't suspected. What the NSA has is phone records - allow me to quote from the Guardian article -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd argue that this is a crucially different form of surveillance than indiscriminately listening to the content of private conservations. Which, as I said before, even if the NSA wanted to wouldn't be technologically feasible.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm not saying that this is a clear left/right issue. However, what I fail to see is how a genuine progressive could possibly disapprove of actions which did nothing except to expose a manifest and unacceptable abuse of power. Or alternatively, how a progressive with a conscience could possibly argue that spying on millions of everyday conversations is not a a manifest and unacceptable abuse of power. Have we really come to the point where the idea that there is a level of basic individual privacy that shouldn't be forsaken in the name of the "war on terror" isn't even defended by the left anymore?

Oakvale, I don't really give a crap about the personal worth of these people (well, unless they are Assange-level scumbags, which, AFAIK, they aren't). The only thing that matter is their actions, and in this case their actions were just and courageous.

I don't accept the premise that a "manifest and unacceptable abuse of power" took place. It's - as far as anyone can tell - perfectly legal and seems to me to be an appropriate use of resources. The NSA isn't reading our Atlas PMs, guys. Even if you believe that it's some kind of shadowy masonic organisation bent on destroying "individual privacy" just in terms of labour and computing power it's not possible.

I've never had a problem with state surveillance and intelligence gathering. Not under Bush, not under Blair, not under Obama, and if that's not a 'progressive' position then so be it. The questionable statements of the leaker in this situation are important - he's made several implausible and grandiose claims - did anyone else notice he casually mentioned that the CIA would "use the Triads" to "silence" him? Life is not a Tom Clancy technothriller.

Unless you have a problem with the NSA existing in principle - and you might, and that's a valid position that I happen not to agree with - I'm really not sure what there is to get worked up about here. The right to privacy is great but it's quite a leap to suggest that this is the coming of the fascist Orwellian police state - modern countries run intelligence operations that include data gathering. News at 11.

So why does that mean the guy who released all this is a dangerous traitor who deserves to go to jail for years? He released basically a non-story yes, but in doing so he also didn't do anything wrong, and hurt no one. And the only people Manning hurt are murderous war criminals.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The thing that shocks me about both the Manning and Snowden cases is o/c they were members of the US Army and the NSA respectively. They joined those organization and are now shocked - shocked! I tells you - that they occasionally involve themselves in the abuse of power and are not warm and fuzzy inside. This isn't heroism, this is bad career choices.

[Insula Dei]

The thing that shocks me about both the Manning and Snowden cases is o/c they were members of the US Army and the NSA respectively. They joined those organization and are now shocked - shocked! I tells you - that they occasionally involve themselves in the abuse of power and are not warm and fuzzy inside. This isn't heroism, this is bad career choices.

I blame the media.

[7,052,770]

Again,  whether or not PRISM is a good program is beside the point. Maybe it is appropriate.   But America deserves to know if it exists, and thanks to Snowden, we do.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think Harry is making the best point here, there's a fine line between believing all of this makes the US some fascist police state and believing that the guy who unveiled it isn't a traitor or did anything wrong.

[Link]

Again,  whether or not PRISM is a good program is beside the point. Maybe it is appropriate.   But America deserves to know if it exists, and thanks to Snowden, we do.

Why don't we just tell "America" the nuclear launch codes while we are at it.  "America" as you put it has an opinion on Benghazi and a large chunk of them can't find it on a map.  This outing will not end PRISM.  The only thing it has done is leaked even more information to terrorists.  Good job "heroes."  Time to stop playing games with our safety.

[traininthedistance]

Like bballrox, I voted HP/FF; though I consider both opinions to be mixed rather than strong.

Manning's leak was more indiscriminate, appears to have been motivated by serious emotional/mental problems, and involved what I'd consider a more serious breach of the more serious oaths he took when joining the armed forces.  Snowden's kind of a puffed-up kook, but I do think he did us all a service by bringing this stuff to light, and it seems he didn't bring forth the firehose-like sort of things that actually could endanger Americans abroad.  (Also, partnering with Glenn Greenwald is a heck of a lot better than partnering with Assange.)

Here's a perspective worth reading, whether you agree with it or not (I happen to mostly agree with it):

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/like_the_oj_simpson_trial.php?ref=fpblg

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

(Also, partnering with Glenn Greenwald is a heck of a lot better than partnering with Assange.)

Assange's douchebaggery wasn't obvious at the time though, very few people even knew who he was, though Wikileaks was still fairly well known.

[Old Man Svensson]

Again,  whether or not PRISM is a good program is beside the point. Maybe it is appropriate.   But America deserves to know if it exists, and thanks to Snowden, we do.

Why don't we just tell "America" the nuclear launch codes while we are at it.  "America" as you put it has an opinion on Benghazi and a large chunk of them can't find it on a map.  This outing will not end PRISM.  The only thing it has done is leaked even more information to terrorists.  Good job "heroes."  Time to stop playing games with our safety.

The people still deserve to know. The government still needs to be held accountable, no matter the administration in charge - and oh, I just bet the "leftists" on this site would be calling for public beheadings(and rightly so) if it were a Republican president administering this.

Stop giving my ideology a bad name.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Link's love of the gummit is a bit surprising.  I thought he sported a yellow avatar his whole life.

[7,052,770]

Again,  whether or not PRISM is a good program is beside the point. Maybe it is appropriate.   But America deserves to know if it exists, and thanks to Snowden, we do.

Why don't we just tell "America" the nuclear launch codes while we are at it.  "America" as you put it has an opinion on Benghazi and a large chunk of them can't find it on a map.  This outing will not end PRISM.  The only thing it has done is leaked even more information to terrorists.  Good job "heroes."  Time to stop playing games with our safety.

The proper analogy is that the government should tell the people that the nuclear launch codes exist. Which it does.  Just like the government should tell the people that PRISM exists.

[Link]

Link's love of the gummit is a bit surprising.  I thought he sported a yellow avatar his whole life.

I don't "love the gummit."  I have a number of big issues with the government like the manner in which the disastrous war on drugs has been waged.  It is just dumb to me to have this much of a freak out over something that literally has never hurt anyone.  How can people skip over the war on drugs, executions of innocent people, the military industrial complex, an illegal war in Iraq and have a bipartisan meltdown over something that has never hurt anyone?

The government is basically making a backup of what is already held by hundreds of private corporation.  They can't even legally look at the backup without a specific warrant.  That is my understanding of the situation despite the grandiose claims of Snowden.  And Manning?!  The guy could have easily taken whatever damning stuff he had and gone to talk to the NY Times.  He didn't have to do a data dump and hand it to a white haired lunatic.  I absolutely want so of the stuff in the data dump to be exposed, but the reckless stupid manner in which everything else was dumped is insane.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I absolutely want so of the stuff in the data dump to be exposed, but the reckless stupid manner in which everything else was dumped is insane.

Ok, I can agree with that.

[Link]

I absolutely want so of the stuff in the data dump to be exposed, but the reckless stupid manner in which everything else was dumped is insane.

Ok, I can agree with that.

Yeah I'm not cool will a helicopter using a Gatling gun to mow down a reporter who is walking around calmly with a camera in broad daylight.    But you don't dump innocuous field reports with the names of Afghans who are risking their lives to help us.

[TNF]

Maybe I recognize that there's a lot of gray area between North Korean police state and lawless maximum freedom anarchy, that the government needs to constantly balance privacy and security, and finally that the government knowing you called your friend is not really a big deal and doesn't really infringe on anyone's liberty/privacy.

But no, the correct answer must be that I just love sucking Obama's cock.

fair enough. but there's an awful lot of 'what ifs' here.like say, what if your friends happen to all be known homosexuals? or you know people with a criminal record? what if you made calls to something like alcoholics anonymous? or a suicide hotline? or phone sex hotline for that matter? how do you know the above won't be used as blackmail or to otherwise discredit you if you step out of line? and what about protecting confidentiality for press sources?

now obviously i'm pretty far from a libertarian. but it doesn't exactly take a genius to see how this sort of program could be massively abused. not to mention the government's position is basically a classic 'heads i win, tails you lose type' kind of fallacious argument. they don't have to actually prove they've foiled any terror plots, they can just say they have but that's classified. but if there is a successful terror attack then obviously they need more power to stop future ones from occurring.

that said on some level i feel the typical civil libertarian position on this is somewhat naive. i keep asking myself all kinds of questions on this honestly. like, what exactly is a warrant other than the government asking itself permission to invade people's privacy after all? do people really expect the government to stop doing this even if the courts do say spying is unconstitutional? and if it wasn't the government doing this, what about your boss or companies data mining your information? would that be okay (a lot of libertarians would say yes...)? is this sort of thing even preventible given that video surveillance technology and spyware and all of that keeps getting more advanced every year? it just feels like anyone that cares about these things is in a losing position by default.

[Oakvale]

Again,  whether or not PRISM is a good program is beside the point. Maybe it is appropriate.   But America deserves to know if it exists, and thanks to Snowden, we do.

Why don't we just tell "America" the nuclear launch codes while we are at it.  "America" as you put it has an opinion on Benghazi and a large chunk of them can't find it on a map.  This outing will not end PRISM.  The only thing it has done is leaked even more information to terrorists.  Good job "heroes."  Time to stop playing games with our safety.

The people still deserve to know. The government still needs to be held accountable, no matter the administration in charge - and oh, I just bet the "leftists" on this site would be calling for public beheadings(and rightly so) if it were a Republican president administering this.

No, but by all means feel free to continue telling me what I think and how I'd react.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

They're not listening in on private phone conversations of people who aren't suspected. What the NSA has is phone records - allow me to quote from the Guardian article -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd argue that this is a crucially different form of surveillance than indiscriminately listening to the content of private conservations. Which, as I said before, even if the NSA wanted to wouldn't be technologically feasible.

Mr oakvale, have you ever heard of the False Positive Paradox?
Any algorithm they are going to get from these phone records will identify far more innocents than terrorists. (although certainly they would get much better results from the actual conversations)

So either the NSA is actually doing quite a bit more than just gathering the records, or this is a massive waste of time and taxpayer money. Both of which deserve to be uncovered.

[Insula Dei]

Has noone bothered to post a link to Deleuzes Postscript on the societies of control?

https://files.nyu.edu/dnm232/public/deleuze_postcript.pdf

'Individuals have become dividuals and the masses, samples, data, markets, or banks.'

[Mr. Morden]

I think Jack Shafer largely gets it right here:

http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/06/11/edward-snowden-and-the-selective-targeting-of-leaks

Yes, Snowden broke his oath by revealing classified information that he'd sworn to keep secret.  But so have numerous people at the upper echelons of the Bush and Obama administrations (and many administrations before them).  High ranking officials leak classified material, in clear violation of their promises not to do so, all the time.  So why aren't they subject to the same law that Snowden is subject to?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

They're both awful, and should go on trial for treason.

[opebo]

Assange's douchebaggery wasn't obvious at the time

I've still not noticed any 'douchebaggery' from the man.  Just because there are a lot of groupies for this type of individual doesn't mean we should assume anything in particular about him.

[opebo]

...the government needs to constantly balance privacy and security, and finally that the government knowing you called your friend is not really a big deal and doesn't really infringe on anyone's liberty/privacy.

But what's the problem with people knowing about it?  These whistle blowers merely reveal that the State is spying on citizens and slaughtering civilians in Afghanistan/Iraq.  Just because you support spying on civilians and slaughtering civilians doesn't mean you should object to knowing about it.  Heck, it is probably half the fun of supporting things like that to know about it.