NSA

George W. Bush on NSA Surveillance: Civil Liberties Guaranteed

Says Edward Snowden damaged the country

|

"balance"
White House

Former President George W. Bush defended President Obama from criticism levied against him and the NSA surveillance operation Bush acknowledges he began. Via Yahoo! News:

"I put the program in place to protect the country, and one of the certainties is civil liberties were guaranteed," Bush said… "I think there needs to be a balance [between security and privacy] and as the president described, there is a proper balance."

Bush also said Edward Snowden, who leaked the information, "damaged the country" and declined to criticize Obama, saying he didn't "need to make it harder" for Obama to do "a hard job." Bush's ownership of the NSA program flies in the face of liberal attempts to differentiate between Obama era and Bush era spying. Writing in the Daily Beast, Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago argues:

There is a crucial difference between the Obama administration's phone call data-mining program, which is constitutional under current law, and the Bush administration's NSA surveillance program, which was clearly unconstitutional. Unlike the Obama program, which is limited to obtaining information about phone calls made and received from telephone companies, the Bush program authorized the government to wiretap private phone conversations. From a constitutional perspective, the difference is critical, and it is unfortunate that President Obama has not done a better job of explaining the distinction, and why his administration's program does not violate the constitutional "right of privacy."

Bush will be happy to hear it.

Related:  a recent psychology study tried to use Bush and Obama supporters to explore "cognitive dissonance" by asking them to write essays in support of the other president. I think I see a flaw.

Advertisement

NEXT: Man Acquitted of 'Vandalizing' Banks with Chalk Messages

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bush?

    1. Blame him, do I

    2. Alt alt-text: “Best buds”.

      1. Pics like this reveal the truth behind the rhetoric. They’re all on the same side. It’s just a game where we lose no matter who wins.

  2. Fucking nanny staters will defend each other’s abuses of power.

    1. Nothing quite like bipartisan tyranny.

      1. Tyranny. Nanny. Tyrnanny. Ohmygod get me the copyright office.

        1. Tyrananny! (Please remit 25? codevelopment fee.)

          1. Tyranannysaurus: A very short, reptilian face creature that ruled over NYC during the mid nannyaceous period.

  3. “I think there needs to be a balance [between security and privacy] and as the president described, there is a proper balance.”

    Jumpin’ Jesus, what fuckwits these guys are, or they think we are. Even if we could trust these fuckers with this in place, we can be certain that eventually someone will be in charge of it that will abuse it. Having said that, I dont actually believe for a second that both of these scumbags have not abused it.

    1. Another aspect to this is Bush’s telling phrase “a proper balance”, which implies that more than one, perhaps *many*, “proper balances” are possible.

      Time for yet another National Conversation?

      1. Time for yet another National Conversation?

        Let’s see . . .

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        Nope. It’s pretty clear to me.

        1. Where did you dig that antiquated concept up? Don’t you know the Constitution means whatever the SCOTUS says it means. Progs have repeatedly told me so.

    2. I think there needs to be a balance [between security and privacy]

      And of course it’s up to the government to make that determination. We’ll tell you how much freedom you will choose to give up, so that we can keep you safe.

  4. So, TEAM BLUE morons: your guy is the same as the other TEAM’s guy, who you purport to hate. How’s that feel, morons? Does it feel good?

    1. Team Blue Puppet: No it isn’t the same, this cock is much tastier.

      1. And it clears out the polyps!

        1. The MSM claims it ejaculates a soothing ointment…

    2. You stupid fuck.

      There is a crucial difference between the Obama administration’s phone call data-mining program, which is constitutional under current law, and the Bush administration’s NSA surveillance program, which was clearly unconstitutional.

      Read the goddamn article.

      Fucking game-boy addict.

      1. Fuck off cunt. I see no exception in 4A for metadata. You are a mendacious fuck. God you are a fucking retard. Keep sucking that dick.

  5. There is a crucial difference between the Obama administration’s phone call data-mining program, which is constitutional under current law, and the Bush administration’s NSA surveillance program, which was clearly unconstitutional.

    I like that leftists are making the argument ‘it’s okay because it’s legal.’

    If I recall, there was a time when separate but equal was considered ‘constitutional’ as well. If you can’t make an argument for why this is morally okay, then all your legal arguments are bullshit.

    1. You make a good point, but I disagree that it is even legal. Pronouncements from legal experts that up is down does not nullify the constitution. All they have really done is say’ fuck it’ to the fourth amendment.

      1. You make a good point, but I disagree that it is even legal. Pronouncements from legal experts that up is down does not nullify the constitution. All they have really done is say’ fuck it’ to the fourth amendment.

        This is exactly right. Just because some government lawyers say it’s legal, doesn’t make it legal. It may well be law, but that doesn’t make it legal.

        You’d think a fancy lawyer who went to an Ivy can split that hair without much issue.

        1. It may well be law, but that doesn’t make it legal constitutional.

          Perhaps a better way of saying it.

    2. like that leftists are making the argument ‘it’s okay because it’s legal.’

      That which is legal is moral. The argument of slavers and tyrants across time.

    3. I’m not a fan of either program, but I do think it’s an important difference between an administration acting outside of the Constitution, even the-Constitution-as-currently-interpreted, and one acting clearly outside of it. It’s long been held that while wiretaps are searches needing particularized warrants, ‘pen register’ searches do not.

      Me listening to your phone calls and me getting a list of all the numbers you call are not equivalent.

      Of course I think one can still hold Obama as, if not more blameless, because Bush always defended what he was doing while Obama denounced such activity and then proceeded to engage in similar activity himself.

      Also, would Stone deny the incredible potential for abuse from a massive and randomized pen register search such as this? Nixon would have had an orgasm if such fell in his lap.

      1. Me listening to your phone calls and me getting a list of all the numbers you call are not equivalent

        If there is no warrant obtained, then they are exactly equivalent in their unconstituitionality. Thats a “1” on the 0 to 1 scale.

        1. IANAL but apparently there is a lot of case law that says you are wrong. The existence of your calls (number X called number Y for 10 minutes on date Z) are business records, which can be obtained with a subpoena. The content of those calls requires a warrant.

          However, there is also the issue of scale. It’s one thing for the government to go to Verizon and say “Here’s a piece of paper that allows us to look at Achmed’s phone records, because we think he might be a terrorist.” It is absolutely something else to say “Just give us everybody’s records, because we are looking for terrorists.” I think that falls under the category of a “general warrant,” which the 4th Amendment forbids.

      2. Of course I think one can still hold Obama as, if not more blameless, because Bush always defended what he was doing while Obama denounced such activity and then proceeded to engage in similar activity himself.

        So, you think Obama is “more blameless” because he squawked the right words and then proceeded to violate them (and lie about it and cover it up) than is Bush who was forthright about his grab for power? The makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.

        You demonstrate just what a libertarian you are not with every post.

      3. It’s long been held that while wiretaps are searches needing particularized warrants, ‘pen register’ searches do not.

        Smith is a bullshit ruling.

        The company owns that data. If they do not care to give it voluntarily, a warrant is required. PERIOD!

      4. I get what you’re saying, but, and I say this with all due respect, it boils down to claiming that something loses its illegality if you do it on a large enough scale, which is an argument Stalin probably would have agreed with. It’s the difference between saying that slavery is illegal except in the case of Chip Stuart, but it’s perfectly legal to put the state of Ohio in a pen just in case there might be a Chip in there, because he’s totally enslaveable and we don’t want to have to go running around looking for him all day.

    4. Sending 100,000+ Japanese Americans to concentration camps was legal too (actually it still is) so they must think that was a great idea too.

      1. It would be if Obama does it.

        1. FDR did it so they love it.

          1. Over 3500 Italians (3000 in the USA) were interned as well and many more put under strict curfew by FDR and PM William Mackenzie King in Canada. Of course, we Canadians started it:

            http://www.dehavelle.com/2011/…..h-america/

            http://www.italianhistorical.org/page19a.html

      2. Are you kidding? Universal health care, fitness programs, drama clubs, and planned housing with a low carbon footprint. They were livin’ the dream, man!

  6. “Doin’ a heckuva job, Obama!” – G.W.

    1. Why not just go with the original line? Oh, right. Racist.

  7. “”I put the program in place to protect the country, and one of the certainties is civil liberties were guaranteed,” Bush said…”

    So it turns out that Bush is almost as bad as Obozo. Is anyone surprised?

    1. Considering that Obozo has continued most of Bushitler’s policies, I’d be surprised at anyone being surprised.

      1. *continued if not expanded

      2. fried wylie| 7.1.13 @ 9:32PM |#
        “Considering that Obozo has continued most of Bushitler’s policies, I’d be surprised at anyone being surprised.”

        fw, perhaps you’ve missed shreek?

    2. I’m more surprised at Bush’s defense after being continually thrown under the bus by Obama’s supporters and administration.

      1. Maybe he finally had enough.

        1. Defending his legacy, claiming credit for Obama’s policies, not-so-subtly reminding Obama that “we are not so different, you and I” – yes, there are benefits for him speaking up.

          1. “we are not so different, you and I”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

            1. “Yeeeaaaah, I don’t need another “We’re not so different” speech, I get those a lot.”

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w97qGaYfzq8

          2. Defending his legacy, claiming credit for Obama’s policies, not-so-subtly reminding Obama that “we are not so different, you and I” – yes, there are benefits for him speaking up.

            Agreed. One can only imagine that Obama was not pleased that W came out in open support of Obama.

            1. I’m not sure. Bush has been quite cordial to Obama despite the fact that Obama and his minions have been shamelessly blaming Bush for everything for five years now. True, Bush’s defense is a double-edged sword for Obama, and maybe Bush knows that: maybe this is, in part, a subtle bit of payback.

              1. Regardless if Bush and Obama are best friends, mortal enemies, or anywhere in between – the current president is going to throw the previous administration of the other team under the bus every chance he gets – it’s SOP. It’s all for show to appease the little people.

      2. Desperate attempt to win some love from the left. Ex-presidents are such sad creatures.

      3. Bush coming out to agree with Obama might have done him more harm than good among the progtards more dedicated to the Cause than Obama’s personality cult.

        1. QWB is probably just jealous that his little bro got to present the medal of freedom to Hillary, instead of him.

  8. Regarding the cognitive dissonance study, I would be curious to see some pro-Bush essays by liberals.

    “As an evil womyn-enslaving Kochtopus minion…”

    1. None of the 28 GWB supporters wanted to write a pro-Obama essay. Of the 71 Obama supporters, 20 were willing to write a pro-Bush essay.

      All sorts of possibilities here. For one thing, Obama is still Pres, while Bush is a retired guy who only pops out to make nice remarks about Obama. Then there is the liberal love for praising retired/dead Republicans as a contrast to the current crop of alleged extremists.

      There’s more of a sense of safety for an Obamabot saying nice stuff re Bush (“Oh, yeah, he’s OK for an old retired guy who isn’t really as bad the the extremists the Reps have now!”), vs. a Bush guy praising choco-Jesus.

      1. What about a study asking Republicans to write something nice about Obama, and for Dems to write something nice about a *current* Republican politician, someone influential who publicly stands against Obama in the here and now. Maybe Boehner.

        Or ask a Republican to say nice stuff about George Soros, vs. asking a Dem to say something nice about the Kochs.

        1. Soros could carry a lot of Jew loot as a teenager. Boy worked hard cleaning out those vacant homes 😉

        2. “for Dems to write something nice about a “current” Republican politician”

          That’s true, probably fewer of them would do it with a current politician.

          But I still want to see the actual samples of the essays. I think accuracy of depicting the other side is more important than willingness. In my experience, liberals think they understand opposing viewpoints much better than they actually do.

        3. The major problem with any exercise of this sort is that most people are truly low information voters, and don’t really know anything at all about any of their political targets, even high profile ones.

          Ask a liberal to explain Rand Paul policy prescriptions and you won’t get something that’s even remotely close.

      2. Nah. Bush isn’t really that far removed yet. Obama’s entire justification for being in office is that his name wasn’t George W. Bush. To turn around now and praise Bush would risk undermining the entire foundation on which the proglodyte resurgence is based.

        1. So Jeb could really fuck up 2016 for the Repubs since that would give them another Bush to bash.

          1. So Jeb could really fuck up 2016 for the Repubs since that would give them another Bush to bash.

            Though he isn’t the same as W, Jeb can NEVER run for office because of negative association. It would surely be a repeat campaign of Obama over McCain.

            And though I’m not a collectivist and realize that Jeb is not his older brother, I’m comfortable saying no more Bushes in the WH.

      3. So as time passes their stance on Bush will soften? I see that a lot of progressive (I refuse to call them liberals) writers, journalists and even the President himself often cite Reagan as a moderate voices ‘compared’ to the extremists in power.

        1. As soon as it’s useful, it will. The Reagan thing isn’t real, it’s just to show how he would supposedly be far too moderate for today’s “extremist” GOP. Which is pretty laughable, considering the Republican nominees since. The “extremist!” shrieking started with Goldwater and has never stopped, presumably because it works. It doesn’t matter who the candidate is. They don’t come more moderate and milquetoast than Romney, and they still acted as if he was to the right of Hitler. Who would be far too moderate for today’s extremist GOP.

          1. Yeah, you can see Obama’s nose grow longer whenever he invokes Reagan – which is often enough. “See Reagan would do it you idiots!”

            What a bunch of cynical boobs.

  9. No, there is never a balance to be struck between security and liberty. The very premise proposed by such a statement is the thing which allows past and ongoing abuses to occur.

    9/11, while tragic, was a statistical blip on the radar as far as loss of life was concerned. Newtown, while tragic, was a statistical blip on the radar as far as loss of life was concerned. Boston, while tragic, was a statistical blip on the radar as far as loss of life was concerned.

    By all means, find, prosecute / fuck up the aggressors who perpetrate heinous acts, but to whittle away at the rights of the citizenry because of a statistical outlier is abhorrent.

    I am completely willing, as an individual, to accept the risk associated with leaving my house on a daily basis; no matter where it may take me or what ills may befall me. That is the price of liberty, and one that I am more than willing to take for the guarantee of said liberty.

    1. You aren’t a soccer mom, are you?

      1. Does it sound like I’m a soccer mom?

        1. I had to read that post 5 times and then think about it for a long time before I could decide.

          But no, it’s quite apparent to me now that you’re one of those damn anarchist Libertarians who hates the children, and wants the terrorists to win.

          1. Indeed.

            Come to think of it, I should turn in my “think of the children” and “gun control, hurr!” cards immediately.

            1. Why do you hate America, Luddite?

    2. I bet you have noticed how illogical most people are and how little prepared they are to evaluate risk. My own favorite observation is that more people die in traffic accidents every single year than have died in the entire “war” on terror. We have wasted so much time and money on this “war” that the economy and the people are suffering.

      1. What’s astounding to me is that people can look around, somehow evaluate risk (whether consciously or through some sort of black-magic process in their subconscious), and from there, determine that the State can somehow protect them from evil actions.

        Does not compute.

  10. NSA could have caught this earlier

    1. On the website, the Clueless actress explains that she thought of the idea when her vegan friend, who had just had breast reduction surgery, had a hard time producing milk for her newborn.

      1. Because we are a community of beautiful souls who recognize the importance of food as health

        No, I don’t think you do.

        1. “Because we are a community of beautiful souls who recognize the importance of food as health.”

          No, darling, you’re not. You’re a second rate actress who sticks around because you’re moderately fuckable. You’re not goddamned Albert Schweitzer.

        2. Bear Blu?

    2. It takes a village.

    3. Goddamnit. I felt brain cells withering after just reading the headline. Thanks Archduke.

      1. As soon as you see dailymail you have to disengage.

  11. This is red meat for Palin’s Buttplug. Has anyone seen it around recently? Should we hide our women and children?

    1. The trolls seem to be scarce these days. I suspect they have low moral.

      When the holy man repeatedly fails to levitate believers lose faith.

      1. Well of course they have low moral, and their morale isn’t so great either.

    2. Red meat? I would think this would send him into a Blue Screen of Death combined with a Three Red Rings of Doom. The idea that his holy and perfect one is in bed with the Great Shaitan known as BOOOOOOSSSSHHHHH!!! the Busherian.

      1. Yeah. Soon as we see him again, we should ask him how his favorite persons new bud, dubyah, is doing.

    3. No trolls all day. No Screech, no Tony.

      1. Further evidence they are all the product of reason-editors.

        Figure out who’s on hiatus and you have your man.

  12. Didn’t Snowden take his leaks to the Chinese? He proved that the NSA spies on foreign countries that the US has shaky relationships with (when he was feeling he probably proved the sky was blue by looking out the plane window) and gave stolen information to said country. Sorry for not going with the crowd and all, but after looking over all the facts I could can’t defend him. I can’t stand to think we have a new Assange and a new cult of personality around him.

    And what is with these people and their selective targeting while they “leak”? Maybe they might steal information from the Chinese government and bring it back to the US instead of vice versa for once. Seems like it’s less about leaking and more about continually kicking the US in the balls and supporting all its enemies.

    I await your less than friendly replies.

    1. Didn’t Snowden take his leaks to the Chinese?

      No, he took his own person to China (Hong Kong to be specific). He took the information to Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian.

      He proved that the NSA spies on foreign countries that the US has shaky relationships with (when he was feeling he probably proved the sky was blue by looking out the plane window) and gave stolen information to said country.

      Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew that America was spying on China, just like China spies on America. The problem is, Snowden exposed Barry for a hypocrite (for the how-many-ith time in five years?) for wagging his finger at the Chinese’s cyberattacks and corporate espionage while the NSA hoovers up information at home and abroad.

      Sorry for not going with the crowd and all, but after looking over all the facts I could can’t defend him.

      I’m sure Snowden is terribly disappointed by this revelation.

      I can’t stand to think we have a new Assange and a new cult of personality around him.

      Your personal discomfort is duly noted.

      And what is with these people and their selective targeting while they “leak”? Maybe they might steal information from the Chinese government and bring it back to the US instead of vice versa for once. Seems like it’s less about leaking and more about continually kicking the US in the balls and supporting all its enemies.

      Mmmm. Tasty, tasty speculation.

      1. Nice to see that you had to respond to every part of my comment, even if that meant responding with juvenile insults. I’m shocked.

        “The problem is, Snowden exposed Barry for a hypocrite (for the how-many-ith time in five years?) for wagging his finger at the Chinese’s cyberattacks and corporate espionage while the NSA hoovers up information at home and abroad.”

        And as for hypocrisy when it comes to international espionage how many Bitcoins do you want to bet that every Western European country spies on the US behind the scenes? Europe is just oh so outraged now at the shocking revelation that the US spies on them. Come on, do you think it’s not the same both ways?

        And I’m pretty sure Snowden took some info (like the i.p. addresses that the NSA hacked into in China) straight to Chinese media outlets. I’m not quite sure how the people in the US benefited from that.

        Another person’s views:

        http://jesterscourt.cc/2013/06…..en-affair/

        Interesting read. The Joker can speak some sense at times.

        1. If you ask for responses around here, you might get some. There is no assurance you will like them.

          The problem here is that the US government is spying on ALL American citizens, not that they are spying on China.

          Are you really ok with that considering all the shit our government has been pulling over the last 10-15 years?

          Especially now that they have been caught using the IRS to attack their political enemies?

          If we are lucky, there will be more Snowdens. We really can’t have too many.

          1. Dood, yer talking to a guy that will sell you into tax-slavery and build a prison out of this nation so that he can live under the illusion of security, and you’ll be called juvenile for disagreeing with him. Leave it alone man, there’s no talking to bed wetters.

            If Daddy Obama spying on all of us prevents this guy from shitting the bed every night, why would you take that away from him?

            1. Wise words from “General Butt Naked.” Not sure I understood a single word of it, but that just proves my lack of wisdom. And yeah, I’m sure you’re so important that every last letter of your e-mails have been read.

              1. Anyone else smell pee?

                I definitely smell pee.

          2. Can’t have enough people taking laptops filled with sensitive information to the Chinese can we?

            Are you sincerely ignorant of facts like this or do you purposely block them out because they kind of tarnish the image of the person who’s supposed to be a hero?

            The NSA spies, big fucking surprise, that’s their job. If you really believe they’re spying on you I’ve got three words for you: get over yourself.

            The information they were pulling from that Chinese university is way more important than your e-mails that they’ll never read, and now the operation is fucked.

            1. You would fit in great over at HuffPo.

              They’ve all turned into mini tyrants too now that their messiah is doing Booshes evil work.

              Where is your proof that Snowden is working with China?

              I agree with the poster who said that the US government is a much greater threat to the citizens of this country than what China is.

              1. Reading some history on Ancient Greece and how it descended from a bastion of liberty into tyranny after the Peloponnesian Wars. Also brushing up on how Rome went from republic to empire.

                All I can say is the profile of a tyrant then is the same as now. They masquerade their rhetoric in all sorts of compassionate tongue. They speak of being democrats, for example, offering “goodies” to the commoners but in practice are nothing but tyrants.

                Defending stuff like NSA as pragmatic realities of government is not liberty at work, any great ancient mind would agree, but the usual advancement of tyranny.

                Sigh. Yawn. We know how this will play out.

            2. If you really believe they’re spying on you I’ve got three words for you: get over yourself.

              Hey, look at that. It’s another fucking pant wetting chickenshit rewording the “if you have nothing to hide” argument to make himself seem like he’s superior to the person he’s addressing. Holy shit, how completely original.

              P.S.: Kindly go fuck yourself.

            3. “Can’t have enough people taking laptops filled with sensitive information to the Chinese can we?…”

              You’re not asking the right question… The question is, why would he run to the Chinese, then the Russians with this administrations (as well as the last) dirty laundry? All the rest is so much kabuki theater…

        2. Nice to see that you had to respond to every part of my comment, even if that meant responding with juvenile insults. I’m shocked.

          I strive to be thorough. And juvenile? I didn’t even say anything about your mother, didn’t imply that you may or may not be inclined to fuck sheep, or worst of all, accuse you of loving deep dish pizza.

          And as for hypocrisy when it comes to international espionage how many Bitcoins do you want to bet that every Western European country spies on the US behind the scenes?

          Whether Europe is outraged is no concern of mine, however it smacks of peculiarity that the biggest targets of the NSA outside of the obvious hotspots happen to be America’s closest rivals in technology and industry under the auspices of “terrorism.”

          And I’m pretty sure Snowden took some info (like the i.p. addresses that the NSA hacked into in China) straight to Chinese media outlets.

          Tits?

          And we in the states do get Chinese TV here too. I watched a ton of it when I wasn’t admiring Perianne Boring’s body…of economic knowledge on RT.

          I’m not quite sure how the people in the US benefited from that.

          Aside from discovering that your favorite phone companies and internet companies have been working hand-in-glove with the government to track you by phone and internet?

          Now how could that possibly inform any of your voting or financial decisions in the future, I wonder?

          And who is joker and why would I buy a t-shirt from him/her/it?

          1. Phone companies and internet companies are coerced into giving the 100s of years of audio and petabytes of data that flow through their networks everyday to the government. Are you honestly telling me you couldn’t already guessed that?

            And do you honestly think that the NSA cares about your calls or e-mails? They couldn’t read all the e-mails and listen to all the phone calls if they wanted to. The ego of people who say “the government is spying on me!” just makes me laugh. You’re not important enough to be spied on, live with it.

            1. Are you honestly telling me you couldn’t already guessed that?

              Little legal phrase that kind of undergirds the entire system, at least it’s supposed to: What you know doesn’t matter; What you can prove does matter. I can guess all sorts of strange and fanciful things. Hell, I kind of like the theory that JFK or RFK had Marilyn Monroe killed when she became an inconvenience. Problem is, it’s a nice theory, it fits neatly, but there’s no evidence of it. Unlike this case, there is evidence that the US government has spied on American citizens in secret, using third-parties as a means of doing an end-run around the Fourth Amendment.

              And do you honestly think that the NSA cares about your calls or e-mails?

              What they care about is not the point. What they have the legal and moral power to collect is.

              They couldn’t read all the e-mails and listen to all the phone calls if they wanted to.

              Which is why they save it for future reference.

              The ego of people who say “the government is spying on me!” just makes me laugh. You’re not important enough to be spied on, live with it.

              Oh look! It’s an appeal to ridicule! How witty! How clever! I am cut! Cut to the quick!

              In seriousness, fuck off and wash the taste of authoritarian boot off your tongue.

            2. The ego of people who say “the government is spying on me!” just makes me laugh. You’re not important enough to be spied on, live with it.

              I don’t think they’re spying on me, moron. I think they could spy on political opponents a little more important than a random internet commenter.

              I don’t care if they’re spying on me. If they use this to harm political opponents, which they will, if they IRS is any indication, then we have ceased living in a free society.

              Not all of us are narcissistic or selfish enough to only care if we’re the ones getting spied on. I care if anyone is getting spied on.

              1. Not all of us are narcissistic or selfish enough to only care if we’re the ones getting spied on. I care if anyone is getting spied on

                I’ve always thought of that being the main distinction between Libertarians and the blue and red team. Teams blue and red fanboys only care when they are the ones getting their rights violated. Libertarians care about any persons rights being violated.

                1. Yep. Too bad there aren’t many of us. We are doomed I tell ya’.

            3. So you’re OK with giving the government tools that would have made Nixon giddy because you’re counting on the fact that it will find most of us too insignificant to violate our privacy further?

              And, if we are so insignificant then why trawl so broadly?

              1. Sooo. Defending privacy rights is narcissistic?

              2. So you’re OK with giving the government tools that would have made Nixon giddy because you’re counting on the fact that it will find most of us too insignificant to violate our privacy further?

                Holy shit, finally!! A libertarian comment.

        3. Nice to see that you had to respond to every part of my comment, even if that meant responding with juvenile insults.

          Your name is Derpy Hooves and you’re calling someone else juvenile?

          1. You obviously don’t know who Derpy Hooves is. Google it.

            1. I like how smug you sound about the fact that I didn’t know that you named yourself after an animated pony.

              1. I lol’d!

          2. Well, it DOES sum him up pretty well: http://mlp.wikia.com/wiki/Derpy

      2. Snowden the great admits he accepted a pay cut to work for Booze, he admits he only joined to steal information and admits it to the South China Morning Post, not the Guardian:

        http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-…..rveillance

        1. I’m confused as to why his reason for joining matters. At issue here is the information he released. He released information that is important to have out there, and I personally don’t give a shit about his personal life.

          Why do the people who are trying to argue that it’s terrible that this stuff was released always go for cheap insults to Snowden? They never explain why it’s so bad this stuff was released, instead preferring to insult the messenger personally.

          1. “Why do the people who are trying to argue that it’s terrible that this stuff was released always go for cheap insults to Snowden? They never explain why it’s so bad this stuff was released, instead preferring to insult the messenger personally.”

            First you smear them… Then you discredit them… Then you kill them… Then you win… By that time, nobody cares enough to ask why.

        2. Here it comes in 3…2…1…

          Booze is the new Haliburton!

        3. And, yet again, you fucking moron, he did not admit it to the SCMP, but to the WaPo on June 12.

          Reading comprehension, what the fuck is it?

    2. Seems like it’s less about leaking and more about continually kicking the US in the balls and supporting all its enemies.

      Who cares? Fuck the U.S. government. They’re a far bigger threat to my life and liberty than the PRC.

      1. The US is far from perfect, but I won’t be on the side of a person who has to use China, Russia and Cuba as shields to protect himself. And don’t use that pathetic cop out that he has to be in any of those places or else he’ll be brought back to face the music – that’s my point. As I said the US isn’t perfect but give me the US over any of those countries any day of the week.

        1. And don’t use that pathetic cop out that he has to be in any of those places or else he’ll be brought back to face the music

          That’s not a cop out of any sort, it’s the absolute truth.

          Just because the US is a better place to live right now than Russia or China is not the point. If the current trend continues, it won’t be for long. That also does not excuse any wrong doings on the part of our government. Better is not good enough.

          1. It’s the absolute truth yeah, but it’s like saying a child molester can’t leave a cave he’s hauled himself away in because he’ll find himself in prison. well, true dat. You’re saying it’s ok for him to keep hiding away?

            And no I’m not saying Snowden is a child molester, but it pisses me off that we have to be on the side of China, Russia and Cuba here. If those countries are protecting a person you can be pretty sure they are not heroes of liberty and free speech or enemies of government oppression, but you can be pretty sure the person doesn’t care much for the US.

            1. If those countries are protecting a person you can be pretty sure they are not heroes of liberty and free speech or enemies of government oppression, but you can be pretty sure the person doesn’t care much for the US.

              False. Snowden could be a hero for liberty and free speech and an enemy of oppression while at the same time China and Russia are only helping him to thumb their noses at the U.S.

              Just because they find accord on one thing does not mean their motives are the same.

              1. This is why I agree with 80% of this website (about 95% of it which relates to economics) but will never call myself a libertarian. I can imagine you standing eyes closed with your fingers in your ears screaming “nah nah nah nah nah!” whil I try to give you the details of this story.

                Snowden took four laptops to China where they where collected by Wikileak’s staff including Assange’s girlfriend, Snowden spoke with the Chinese media and gave them information that harmed the US and served no useful purpose to it or its people and no, those 3 aforementioned countries would never support freedom loving people just to metaphorically flip off America.

                Truth hurts. It especially hurts ideology, but the truth is the truth.

                1. but will never call myself a libertarian

                  You certainly don’t come off like one. Neocon would be my first guess. Or Obama supporter who can’t get over the fact that Snowden may be tarnishing the rep of the emperor.

                  1. “You certainly don’t come off like one. Neocon would be my first guess. Or Obama supporter who can’t get over the fact that Snowden may be tarnishing the rep of the emperor.”

                    And THAT is why I don’t call myself a libertarian. It seems that political ideology turns adults into name calling infants. I’ll stay politically neutral so I don’t have to call everybody I disagree with a “neocon”.

                    1. You aren’t denying that you are either a neocon or Obama supporter.

                      Those are real things you know. And you either are, or are not, either of those things.

                      I said you sound like a Neocon, that is not name calling. If I called you stupid, that would be name calling. I didn’t do that. Your point is quite silly.

                      You say that you are politically neutral, but what does that mean? To me, your stance on Snowden sounds very statist. We don’t know anything at all about you, except that you think Edward Snowden is a bad guy.

                      The very fact that you come here and immediately post something that you think most of us will disagree with, and get very contentious about it, it seems to me, like you might just be trolling.

                2. How did you arrive at 80% and say, 83.4?

                  I’m serious.

                  I can never seem to properly dissect my life in percentages. I’m pretty sure I’m 100% irrelevant but to who and why?

                  I must know!

              2. Derpy apparently sees in only black and white.

                You’re either the bad guys or the good guys. It’s sophomoric type reasoning, on the level of Bush saying that the terrorists want to get us because they hate our freedoms. Sure you can believe that, if you are simple minded enough.

                1. BUT HE HARMED THE U.S.!!

                  THE GREATEST COUNTRY EVAH AS PER ROCKY IV!!

                  *sharts*

                2. Nice to know that nobody here sees in black and white! And what a stupid phrase that is anyway. Are you saying that I should have a wishy washy belief system that changes every other day?

                  And I don’t care what Bush says and was never talking about Bush – he’s a douche, I was talking about how Snowden has done no good to anybody and is a coward for running away. Whistleblowers of the past didn’t run away after blowing the whistles.

                  1. I was talking about how Snowden has done no good to anybody and is a coward for running away. Whistleblowers of the past didn’t run away after blowing the whistles.

                    If he were a coward he wouldn’t have blown the whistle in the first place. You want to know what a coward would have done? Not said anything and continued to placidly do his job. You want to know what someone who isn’t a coward would do? Put himself in the cross hairs of the most powerful nation on the planet.

                    I am staggered that anyone could call Snowden a coward. If you disagree with what he did, then we can argue about that. But calling someone a coward for leaking information that he knows will get him charged with serious crimes is insane.

                    1. Snowden admitted he took the job, and a pay cut, just to steal information (not the same as whistleblowing); listen to his own words (to the Chinese media):

                      http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-…..rveillance

                      And yeah, people who run away instead of facing the consequences of their actions are generally considered cowards. And if he’s committing a serious crime it’s no bing deal if he just runs away abroad, is it? What a fucking hero.

                    2. I’ll bite.

                      That article you linked from the SCMP has statements made by Snowden on June 12 to the WaPo, so they’re rehashing data already known (for almost a month now), big deal.

                      He also said prior to the scmp article that Booz was not the most high-paid position he had. So what? I’ve changed positions several times in my life, and have gone up/down in salary, etc. – how is that relevant?

                      I assume that your statement on stealing information comes from this: “Asked if he specifically went to Booz Allen Hamilton to gather evidence of surveillance, he replied: “Correct on Booz.””

                      Stealing? I have to disagree with you there. A whistleblower, e.g. “a person who informs on another or makes public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing” is precisely what Snowden did. He believes (rightly, imo) that what has transpired is unconstitutional. As such, said data he gathered would be considered evidence.

                      Even the article calls him a “whistle-blower”. The article clearly states “gather evidence of surveillance”. Are you purposely trying to imply theft when the article itself makes absolutely no reference to same?

                      If you would like to have an honest debate, then at least be honest with regard to your sources and the content therein.

                    3. damn character limit:

                      Concerning “running away”: he is currently doing what is prudent at this time. He has stated in the past (and Greenwald has confirmed) that there is more information to come. He is merely maintaining an advantageous position from which to release more documents which damn the lies which the administration and bureaucrats have spouted (which he then counters with another document). That’s not running away, that’s being smart about his position.

                  2. HE’S A COWR’D ‘CAUSE HE AIN’T LET THE STATE CRUSH ‘IM INNO ‘LIL PEICES11!

                    IZZA BIG STRONG MAN YOU KNOW BY MY CALLING HIM A COWR’D!!

                  3. You are saying that because Snowden took flight and landed in China and then Russia, that he is necessarily a bad person who only wants to hurt the USA, and that he is not doing anything to try to expose some of the vile practices of our own government to the people.

                    By some strange coincidence, it just happens that China or Russia where the only places on earth that Snowden could have went and escaped the US government goons.

                    Sure, he’s a coward. Now you, you would have just submitted yourself to be tortured and or killed. Being that you are so brave. I laugh.

                3. You’re either with us or with them!

            2. And no I’m not saying Snowden is a child molester, but it pisses me off that we have to be on the side of China, Russia and Cuba here.

              When did Cuba come into play? Or are we just playing guilt by association, like the entire D.C. chattering class that has unanimously declared Snowden worthy of imprisonment and/or death?

              If those countries are protecting a person you can be pretty sure they are not heroes of liberty and free speech or enemies of government oppression

              Not everyone is prepared to die a martyr’s death in the name of liberty. Saying that a man flees, therefore he is guilty is not only ahistorical, it is an assumption that the state is without error. I suppose Thomas Paine should have sailed back to England and meekly submitted to prison when convicted in absentia for seditious libel.

              but you can be pretty sure the person doesn’t care much for the US.

              An assumption entirely without evidence.

              1. “Not everyone is prepared to die a martyr’s death in the name of liberty.”

                Oh give me a fucking break. He’s not going to be killed just like (real) Russian whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky was killed if he comes home.

                1. He could be if he’s charged with treason, which many people have been trying to argue is the charge that should be leveled against him.

                  Look here:

                  Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

                  Best case scenario if they charged him with this is 5 years. He could get the death penalty. This is United States’ law, so saying he definitely won’t be killed isn’t accurate when the statute some people want him charged under lists death as a potential punishment.

                  1. I doubt he’ll be punished by death; polticians in a free country have to worry about political backlash in the same way that polticians in countries like Russia don’t.

                    And so he has to face five years in prison. If you can’t do the time don’t do the crime. Sorry if nobody here believes in personal responsibility and believes that any criminal has the right to run away and can use the excuse “but I can’t go home, I’ll go to prison if I do!”

                    But just like with leaking you’re all very selective with which criminals can do that of course.

                    1. Five year MINIMUM.

                      Minimum. They might not give him death, but they could easily give him 20 years.

                      Sorry if nobody here believes in personal responsibility and believes that any criminal has the right to run away and can use the excuse “but I can’t go home, I’ll go to prison if I do!”

                      Wow. You sure have a totalitarian mindset. I do believe in personal responsibility, personal responsibility being one of the main tenets of libertarianism, but I don’t think someone should submit to punishment just because something is against the law.

                      Do you think political dissidents in China should just allow themselves to be tortured because they’ve ‘broken the law?’ An unjust law should not be followed, and you have no requirement to submit to such a law.

                    2. I doubt he’ll be punished by death;

                      Well, I’m sure he’ll head right home based on your expert analysis of the Constitution and the Espionage Act.

                      polticians in a free country have to worry about political backlash in the same way that polticians in countries like Russia don’t.

                      Tell me, what backlash does a politician have to fear when the voters do not know what the politician is up to?

                      And so he has to face five years in prison.

                      And possibly being executed.

                      you can’t do the time don’t do the crime.

                      Dunphy! You have an admirer! A Derpy admirer!

                      Sorry if nobody here believes in personal responsibility and believes that any criminal has the right to run away and can use the excuse “but I can’t go home, I’ll go to prison if I do!”

                      Again, the assumption that the state is morally right, the alleged criminal is morally wrong.

                      The supporters of the Fugitive Slave Act would have loved you.

                      But just like with leaking you’re all very selective with which criminals can do that of course.

                      Citation?

                    3. “The supporters of the Fugitive Slave Act would have loved you.”

                      Well you may have won the award for most juvenile slight to date. Yeah they’d love me sure, and Baby Eaters for Kicking Puppies also love me.

                      I’d pick apart your entire comment as you seem to love doing with mine, but this is the comment’s section of an online magazine not a degree paper.

                    4. Oooooh! Burn.

                      You hear that Anonymous Coward? If this were a degree paper, or something, he’d totally pick apart your comment!

                      DEGREE PAPER PWND

                    5. I know, right? PWND.

                      Meanwhile, I sit here, blazing one and listening to Sheer Heart Attack, still not giving a fuck.

                    6. Well you may have won the award for most juvenile slight to date. Yeah they’d love me sure, and Baby Eaters for Kicking Puppies also love me.

                      Why? Because I’m less than persuaded by your subpar appeals to authority?

                      I’d pick apart your entire comment as you seem to love doing with mine,

                      Who was the one who asked for replies? Oh wait! That was you! Be more careful where you leave your petards.

                    7. Well you may have won the award for most juvenile slight to date. Yeah they’d love me sure, and Baby Eaters for Kicking Puppies also love me.

                      Shorter Derpy Hooves: “God, why couldn’t you guys be less juvenile? You should be more mature, like us bronies.”

                      I’d pick apart your entire comment as you seem to love doing with mine,

                      “I totally could win an argument against you, but I don’t feel like it.”

                      Honestly, your entire argument is a ridiculous appeal to authority.

                      Snowden should turn himself in because the government says so! Not doing what the government says makes you a coward and a narcissist!

                    8. So let’s start insulting bronies now too. Enjoying a TV program has got nothing to do with maturity, calling somebody a “neocon” the second they disagree with you does.

                      And the whole Snowden turning himself in is a moot point anyway, we know he never will so what’s the point in even discussing it?

                    9. You’re calling someone a coward because he doesn’t want to go to prison for 20 years and possibly face the death penalty.

                      I think taking your lumps when I make fun of bronies is the least you deserve.

                    10. I’m not appealing to authority, but I do believe in personal responsibility. But mainly I don’t like the fact that he took a job just for the sake of stealing information, took that information abroad to a semi-hostile country and then had everyone back home labeling as some kind of hero protecting them by publishing such astonishing revelations like “the NSA spies on people.”

                      Yeah so now you know what you didn’t know before: the NSA collects information. The Chinese know what they didn’t know before: exactly where they are doing so. I’m not “appealing to authority” by pointing out that he has done no good to the US but a lot of harm to it and a lot of good to China by publishing that information. Excuse my sneaky suspicions that that was his intention from the beginning (or is it just a fluke coincidence that Team Wikileak was waiting for him when he arrived in Hong Kong?)

                      People ignore what he’s actually done, but support him like some sort of heroic rebel fighting against the system. It’s really kind of pathetic, juvenile and dangerous when you realize which system he’s supporting now.

                    11. I’m not appealing to authority, but I do believe in personal responsibility.

                      Of course you do. Personal responsibility for Edward Snowden, no responsibility for James Clapper who lied to the Senate and admitted to doing so.

                      don’t like the fact that he took a job just for the sake of stealing information”

                      How dare the American people be uncomfortable with the government monitoring their phone records and internet activity! Don’t they know that TERRAHISTS are hiding under every rock and behind every tree? Especially those TERRAHISTS in the US, Germany, China, and India!

                      Yeah so now you know what you didn’t know before: the NSA collects information.

                      Based upon what reasoning does it collect that information? Is it justifiable to collect the information? What is the limit of its collection power? What does it do with the information it does collect? Who has access to the information once it has been collected?

                      done no good to the US but a lot of harm to it and a lot of good to China by publishing that information.

                      It’s done quite a bit of good for the US in that the citizenry is better informed as to what its “servants” in government are up to. And what, if any, harm has it done to the citizens of the United States?

                      People ignore what he’s actually done, but support him like some sort of heroic rebel fighting against the system.

                      What has he done, besides expose government activity that may be unlawful and/or unjustifiable?

                    12. “What does it do with the information it does collect?”

                      Again if you sincerely believe that they give a crap about you, your e-mails or your phone calls all I can say is that you need an ego downgrade.

                      “It’s done quite a bit of good for the US in that the citizenry is better informed as to what its “servants” in government are up to. And what, if any, harm has it done to the citizens of the United States?”

                      So you know what you allegedly didn’t know before. You’d have to be pretty fucking stupid to not know it before, but fine. You know. How has your life been changed by this? By dick much more, that’s how.

                      And how has it harmed the US? Well now that it has had to pull the plug on real information gathering projects abroad there’s no telling how much harm. The NSA was spying on Chinese targets for a reason. What that reason was is impossible to say, but they weren’t doing it to test if their equipment was working.

                      And for this whole “teh guvmunt is spyin on mez!” how many more times to I have to say it: they don’t give a shit about you. There’s 300,000,000+ people in the US alone and you think they’ve read a single word of a single e-mail you’ve sent?

                      I’m not excusing all this but all I can say is that the US would most likely be better off if it could still be spying on China than if it had another false idol to worship.

                    13. Again if you sincerely believe that they give a crap about you, your e-mails or your phone calls all I can say is that you need an ego downgrade.

                      Oh look! It mistakes principled arguments for self-interest! How precious!

                      So you know what you allegedly didn’t know before. You’d have to be pretty fucking stupid to not know it before, but fine. You know. How has your life been changed by this? By dick much more, that’s how.

                      Explain how a citizen is supposed to “know”, for a concrete fact, that their phone company is handing over their call records to the NSA, when the government places a gag order on the companies, chucklehead? Osmosis? Telepathy? What is your expert legal opinion for getting around a secret court order?

                      Well now that it has had to pull the plug on real information gathering projects abroad there’s no telling how much harm.

                      Quantify the damages then get back to me. Save the fearmongering for someone else.

                      The NSA was spying on Chinese targets for a reason.

                      The stated reason for the program was to monitor terrorist activity. Where are all of the Chinese terrorists waiting to blow up Americans?

                      how many more times to I have to say it: they don’t give a shit about you. There’s 300,000,000+ people in the US alone and you think they’ve read a single word of a single e-mail you’ve sent?

                      Aw look, it doesn’t understand principles! How precious!

                    14. He has done an enormous amount of good for the US. Namely, as a citizen, I’m ecstatic that he released this information, which prompted investigation into this sorry state of affairs, the result being that we, the people, are aware of the travesty of justice currently occurring in this country.

                    15. Yeah, you’ve said a billion times you finally know the truth – that the NSA collects information. Tomorrow you will learn a shocking new truth: the sky is blue! Stop pretending that you didn’t know all this already. You’re ecstatic that you now have a mini-Assange to worship, not because you finally found out the NSA spies on people, within and without the US.

                      All this NSA bullshit is common knowledge anyway; heard of Echelon? This information harvesting has been going on for years. You believe the government really wants your information then encrypt it. Heard of PGP? It’s free and even the NSA can’t break it. Problem is that the government really doesn’t care. Maybe now they’ve had their operations in China fucked up in such a spectacular fashion they might have more time to spy on people at home, but I’ve got a feeling they use their resources more sensibly than that.

                    16. Yes, you pandering twat, I have heard of Echelon and any number of data collection regimes which have been instituted since the abhorrently retarded FISA was established in 1979. Just because you’re comfortable with having all manner of communications (whether yours or others) sucked up, neither makes it right nor constitutional.

                      This recent episode is rather large in scope, and collides nicely with other governmental abuses, which makes it all the more pertinent to the US’ present state – and thus – is quite important.

                    17. All this NSA bullshit is common knowledge anyway; heard of Echelon?

                      So you approve of the government running industrial espionage operations on behalf of American companies?

                      How delightfully fascist of you.

                    18. Derpy, if you’re government is doing wrong and is outed by a private citizen who happens to come across such evidence, don’t you want to know how your government is using its power on your behalf?

                      Your job as a citizen is to hold your government accountable. Here’s a person who handed you devastating evidence that the state is up to suspicious behavior and all you seem to do is focus on Snowden the strawman?

                      The issue is what has been revealed. THAT’S the key.

                      Skin Snowden like a live squirrel and ye feel all better, but it won’t detract from the fact that the ‘most transparent administration ever’ is behaving unethically, and possibly illegally and immorally.

                      Just my take.

                    19. your.

                    20. Grammar Nazis aren’t supposed to execute themselves.

                    21. “happens to come across such evidence”

                      *facepalm*

                      How many times do I have to link to this article:

                      http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-…..rveillance

                      He did not “come upon” his awesome revelation that the NSA spies on people, he contracted to the NSA just for the sake of stealing the information and publishing it. If you don’t believe me ask the South China Morning Post.

                      This is what I mean when I say that people make their own image of Snowden and ignore the truth. he was not a heroic whistleblower who “came upon” anything, he was a self confessed information thief who knew exactly what he was stealing and who he was going to give his loot to.

                      It makes me laugh that he admits all the facts about himself and still people here ignore it because it conflicts with their ideology. It’s like pushing evidence in the face of a creationist.

                    22. “It makes me laugh that he admits all the facts about himself and still people here ignore it because it conflicts with their ideology. It’s like pushing evidence in the face of a creationist.”

                      Why are you so obviously desperate to make sure this begins and ends with Snowden’s character, anyway?

                    23. I wasn’t referring to Snowden in particular. And you didn’t answer the question.

                2. Oh, well, now that you’ve assured him of that, I think he’ll be on the next plane back home.

                  1. Yeah, people like him always feel they need to face the actions of there consequences.

                    Many people have asked where have we come from and why are we here. It is my own pet theory that The Earth (TM) is actually a dark comedy show made by an alien race with a deep appreciation of irony. Since I don’t play along with the comedy I’m either a broken model or people like me just make the comedy funnier. Until I meet the aliens I’ll never know for sure.

                    1. Many people have asked where have we come from and why are we here. It is my own pet theory that The Earth (TM) is actually a dark comedy show made by an alien race with a deep appreciation of irony. Since I don’t play along with the comedy I’m either a broken model or people like me just make the comedy funnier. Until I meet the aliens I’ll never know for sure.

                      That’ll do, pig. That’ll do.

                    2. As I say I don’t know if I’m a broke model or not. I certainly don’t appreciate the irony of a man who supports internet openness traveling to a country with one of the most closed accesses to the internet in the world, and then the heroic freedom loving whistleblower moving on to an unfree country in which whistleblowers die.

                      Maybe an actor who doesn’t play along makes the whole comedy even funnier than it already is. Who knows. I can’t watch the show from the outside, I can only watch it from within.

                    3. I can reasonably safely assure you that you are a broken model. You do not acknowledge what the definition of a whistleblower is, and seem to want to imbue your sense of thievery and stealing on an article which DOESN’T EVEN SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

                      So yes you are broken. Perhaps filing a complaint with your creator would be appropriate at this time?

                    4. The definition of a whistleblower is a person who takes a position at a job just for the sake of stealing information and then passes that information on to a second party considered hostile by the first?

                      Well fuck my dictionary! Whistleblower is certainly a sexy word, but whistleblowers find secrets, they don’t go looking for them and they certainly don’t steal them using fake digital keys.

                    5. And for a little bit of fun the Jester mentioned earlier, annoyingly computer savvy, has a habit of pwning every living being that crosses him and not a big admirer of Wikileaks has a possible present for Assange:

                      https://twitter.com/th3j35t3r

                      Triggering the embassy’s fire alarm from without to trigger a drill and force Assange (PBUH) onto the street. It may be a bluff, but looking back through the guy’s history it’s clear he’s no bluffer.

                      The time he pwned every not quite so anonymous Anonymous douchebag using a humble QR code made my day. If he pulls this off it will make my year.

                    6. Let’s clear up whistleblower, shall we (which I did previously, but apparently you’ve devolved into being a child, instead of an adult having a conversation):

                      “whis?tle-blow?er [hwis-uhl-bloh-er, wis-] Show IPA
                      noun
                      a person who informs on another or makes public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing.”

                      That clear enough for you?

                      Journalists are hostile to the US? Indeed I suppose they should be, if they’re attempting to do unconstitutional things.

                    7. And the part where he admits he entered the job just to steal information? He never said anything about “exposing wrongdoing”, he created fake digital keys, stole massive amounts of sensitive information and ran off to China with it. Why can’t you just accept that simple fact? Because it scratches away at the surface of your precious ideology? This is why I always remain political neutral: reasonable politics is an oxymoron.

                      So in short he didn’t give a flying fuck about “wrongdoing” (if NSA operations against China can be considered as wrongdoings in the first place.)

                    8. Again, since your reading comprehension seems to fail: there is no reference anywhere in _your_ referenced article where theft / “stealing” is either explicit or implied.

                      The article, _your_ article, clearly states that it was to gather evidence. Ex. “obtain evidence”, “collect proof”, etc. Your asserting theft does not make it so. The difference between theft and evidence is the function with which that data is applied. In this case, it’s being used as evidence. Why can’t you just accept that simple fact?

                      Precious ideology? What precious ideology? You mean the Constitution? Yes, that is a precious ideology of myself and around 300 Million other Americans.

                      He has clearly stated, numerous times, that he was, and is, concerned about wrongdoing within the US – in multiple articles, referenced by the WaPo and the Guardian.

                    9. He entered the job (at the expense of a pay cut) to steal the information by using fake digital keys to access areas he shouldn’t have. Whistleblowers don’t operate that way.

                      I think he was a bit more honest in the Chinese media that he was in the Western media. “Wrongdoing” is never mentioned there, it seems more like gloating.

                      And the selective leaking of information is not the sign of a whistleblower, but the sign of a man trained in the way of Wikileaks. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he wasn’t groomed by Assange before going ahead with the plot; it would certainly explain how his girlfriend was in Hong Kong so quickly.

                      Anyway you stay here and continue to bleat on about how your life has been improved now you know that the NSA reads you e-mails telling your spouse what groceries you need, I’m off to see what the Jester’s up to.

                      Good day.

                3. Oh give me a fucking break. He’s not going to be killed

                  If he isn’t, it won’t be for lack of talking heads howling for his head.

                  1. Or the commenters at FluffPo. They want him burned at the stake.

        2. It seems to me he only uses those countries as shields because they are some of the few able/willing to do so from the country coming at him with a big sword.

        3. “The US is far from perfect, but I won’t be on the side of a person who has to use China, Russia and Cuba as shields to protect himself….”

          I remember a time when people from those places ran to the U.S. for protection, and you cannot see the problem here?

          /You might be part of the problem

    1. Yeah, not one person wished me Happy Canada Day around here. Sniff, sniff.

  13. Awww, look at that. Two little tyrants in a pea pod. It’s almost as cute as Christie and Obama hugging and kissing.

    There is an article about this over at HuffPo and the commentariat there have done jumped the shark.

    Can anyone read the letter that Snowden ‘allegedly’ wrote, and tell me what the fuck about it is bizarre? That was the original link title for the article, something like ‘Snowden writes bizarre letter’, but it looks like they changed it now, so that it’s not bizarre, just ‘suspicious’. Maybe that evil Assange wrote it. WTF? I thought that the liberals love Assange? These people truly have no shame at all.

    Did Snowden write this?

    The comments are insane level stupid. Basically, the tolerant libbies want Snowden executed and are willing for the government to resort to any level of witch hunt to get this guy who has blasphemed against their great messiah.

    NSA spying was bad when Bush did it, but now it’s good, because Obama.

    1. In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised ? and it should be.

      If only.

    2. Can anyone read the letter that Snowden ‘allegedly’ wrote

      ———

      I don’t know, is it written in cursive?

    3. I banned HuffPo in this house.

      Did they call him a racist?

  14. “. . .and declined to criticize Obama”

    Damn near every day of the current administration makes this fucktard look more and more like a gentleman.

  15. And what’s with all the new people all of a sudden? Some of them are not even trolls. Augh! The patterns of my life are changing! I don’t know if I can take the stress.

    1. At least one of them, I am saying it’s 99% probability, turns out to be a troll. Scroll up for evidence…

      1. Not a troll, just a lurker (me, I mean, not Derpy whatever).

  16. How bad off is the Obama Administration if an endorsement from Bush somehow helps?

    Has Darth Cheney weighed in yet?

    We are so screwed.

    1. Ken Shultz| 7.1.13 @ 11:15PM |#
      “How bad off is the Obama Administration if an endorsement from Bush somehow helps?”

      Dunno, but I’m dying to see shreek square the circle here.

      1. The whole charade had to collapse in on itself eventually.

        What will the Shrikes of the world do now?

        I hear Granny Cheekbones is writing her autobiography. “The Woman from Hope” or “The Audacity of Hope”? Nah, those are already taken. Anyway, it’ll have something to do with hope; and then she’ll be on all the talk shows; and then the Shrikes of the world can jump on her bandwagon.

        It’s hard to get excited about Hillary. But Lizzy the Learjet Liberal would be right up Shrike’s alley. She said most of the shit Obama’s said before he did.

    2. Cheney weighed in with praise for the use of the program a week ago.

      1. I can’t say I’m surprised.

  17. I think that Derpy might be Tulpa. We’ll know soon if he goes off on a hate filled rant against one of us. He could never control that for very long at a time.

    1. I was thinking the same exact thing.

      Weird.

    2. Tulpa was back yesterday. I doubt this is Tulpa.

      1. Tulpas evil clone?

        1. Nah. He’s just a weird authoritarian who believes that refusing to be imprisoned for 20 years for an unjust law makes you a coward.

          I wonder what super brave things Derpy Hooves has done in his life. Has he ever left his homeland and put himself at odds with the world’s most powerful nation in order to tell his fellow citizens about a spy program? Because if not, Edward Snowden seems a hell of a lot braver than good old Derpy.

          1. What does he think of draft dodgers? We have a few up here – some even became bad sports writers.

          2. He’s just a weird authoritarian who believes that refusing to be imprisoned for 20 years for an unjust law makes you a coward.

            So…. potentially Lyle, then?

          3. He doesn’t even pose valid arguments. He’s utilizing his referenced article as proof of “theft” somehow, when the article makes no mention of him either being a thief or having stolen anything.

            Yet somehow he construes the fact that a whistleblower – you know – gathers evidence of the crime prior to blowing the whistle, with theft.

            Whatever, he’s strange and tires me.

      2. I dunno, Irish. Maybe he is changing his tactics for converting us all into war mongering statists.

      3. I almost was about to agree with you there, Irish, but then he laid this dog turd on the thread:

        And so he has to face five years in prison. If you can’t do the time don’t do the crime. Sorry if nobody here believes in personal responsibility and believes that any criminal has the right to run away and can use the excuse “but I can’t go home, I’ll go to prison if I do!”

        That is some classic tulpaesque bootlicking there. No doubt about it.

        I’m not convinced either way, but it’s leaning toward being tulpa.

        1. Would Tulpa have named himself after an animated pony? Tulpa is too proud for that.

          1. He just did that to trick us. Damnit, you fell for the Pony act?

            1. You give him too much credit.

              1. Agreed.

  18. “… and one of the certainties is civil liberties were guaranteed,”

    Have we gotten a solid explanation yet on how this is a certainty? How civil liberties are guaranteed? The only thing I have heard so far is ‘trust us’, which is laughable.

    1. Two presidents say so, isn’t that good enough for you? What are you, some kind of commie?

      1. If both Obama and Bush about something that thing is not just good, but doubleplusgood. Get onboard, these boots don’t lick themselves!

  19. Dave Weigel’s been up to his usual DC press lackey form on the Snowden issue: http://bit.ly/11Vi40r

    1. I’m so glad he’s there to explain libertarians to the rest of the world. How would they ever understand us without him?

      We’re a bunch of rat-fuckers, you know.

  20. Pretty crazy stuff man, Wow.

    http://www.World-Privacy.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.