Jimmy Carter Calls Snowden Leak Ultimately "Beneficial"

eldavojohn writes "According to RT, the 39th president of the United States made several statements worth noting at a meeting in Atlanta. Carter said that 'America has no functioning democracy at this moment' and 'the invasion of human rights and American privacy has gone too far.' The second comment sounded like Carter predicted the future would look favorably upon Snowden's leaks — at least those concerning domestic spying in the United States — as he said: 'I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial.' It may be worth noting that, stemming from Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, Jimmy Carter signed the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 into law and that Snowden has received at least one nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize."

Comments

+5 Insightful for

[NickDanger3rdEye]

Jimmy Carter.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[GeekWithAKnife]

Mod parent up.

We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[RoknrolZombie]

Unfortunately, I suspect the only reason he's spoken up about it is that he doesn't have anything left to lose. He's no longer in the public eye, and I can't even think of the last time that Carter may have been politically relevant. HOPEFULLY his opinion means enough to other people to effect positive change...but I doubt it.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ackthpt]

Mod parent up.
We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

Bear in mind, Carter was a one term president, widely despised by Republicans and effectively abandoned by his own party -- unable to get many of his programs through a congress controlled by the Democratic Party (which at the time still contained a lot of southern social conservatives.)

He has worn the mantle of elder statesman and sage well since his time in office. Quite possibly one of the best educated and most greatly concerned for the american people of US presidents of the past century.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[fustakrakich]

Carter was a complete disaster for the US.

Yes he was, but everybody after him has proven to be far worse.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ebno-10db]

As other have said, Carter was a complete disaster for the US.

Yes, many others have said that. It doesn't mean it's true. Why do you think Carter "was a complete disaster for the US"?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[SirGarlon]

To be fair, I don't think anyone who was president from 1976-1980 could have been re-elected. Those were hard years for the US: high inflation, unemployment, the OPEC oil embargo, the bitter and recent memory of Vietnam, and the Iranian hostage crisis. That's just off the top of my head. No one could have solved all those problems at once, and it's easier to blame the President than to propose a solution.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[the eric conspiracy]

Carter had this little problem. He told the truth. He didn't secretly swap arms for hostages.

These sorts of things don't make you popular as President.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

As other have said, Carter has a fictitious legacy as a complete disaster for the US. So since it takes one to know one, I trust his opinion on Snowden.

There weren't really any policies that Carter set out that were bad. The oil crisis did, in fact, make life really terrible, but that was long-coming foreign policy chickens coming home to roost. Every criticism of carter seems to end up centering around how bad those 4 years were economically, which is a really hard thing to control over that time span, especially with a maliciously induced energy shortage.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

Because Ronald Reagan created that myth when he ran for office, and perpetuating myths is absolutely an expertise of the American people.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Geste]

Whatever his tribulations, Carter is the last US president that I had any respect for, and my esteem has increased with time..

Re:+5 Insightful for

[fuzzybunny]

It should also be mentioned that most of those issues were caused by factors beyond the control of Carter and his administration (eg. the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis had their roots in the 1956 Iranian coup, stagflation was a global phenomenon which in the US was largely the result of the Nixon shock).

Then there's the whole October Surprise topic; even without going into wingnut conspiracy mode, there's some things in there to make anyone go "hmm".

Arguably, Carter ushered in a lot of improvements - Camp David, the departments of energy and education, a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviets despite massive cold war tensions.

And last but not least, I can't see anyone arguing about the fact that the guy has (and had) integrity - which is saying a lot in a President.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[plover]

Are you a troll, or just completely unaware of what takes place on this planet?

Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Price for his efforts at various hot spots around the world, including Palestine, Cuba, Korea, Egypt, Ireland, Haiti, Venezuela, and the Sudan (and I'm sure I'm missing some others.) He's poured himself into Habitat for Humanity. He created the Carter Center, which works for human rights around the world, peace, and is even fighting preventable diseases.

While he may have not accomplished much of note while in office, Carter has far and away been the most active, most influential, and best ex-president this country's ever seen.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[smooth wombat]

You missed the fact that Carter is the only President, next to Clinton, who didn't pay lip-service to peace in the Middle East. He is the only one to get Israel and a neighbor to sign a peace treaty and formal recognition which exists to this day without issue.

The Clinton issue was a failure by Arafat to pull the trigger and sign the deal for various reasons.

As an aside, Bush 1 did stick it to Israel by stopping the U.S. backing loan guarantees when Israel kept thumbing its nose at the U.S. by illegally confiscating Palestinian land and settling its own people there. He did eventually reinstate the U.S taxpayer being on the hook but only after Israel backed down (for a time. They're back it with a vengeance as we speak).

Re:+5 Insightful for

[mrex]

The original FISA was quite different than the modern FISA, as a result of the PATRIOT and the FISA Amendments Act passed in 2008 and re-authorized in 2012, as well as the morphing of the FISA court (FISC) from a body that simply said "yes" or "no" to warrant requests against spies and foreign operatives, into a Star Chamber-esque court where secret legal precedents are set in ex parte hearings that lack any element of adversarialism such as the presentation of opposing arguments.

Blaming Carter for this is a bit like blaming Mendeleev for the existence of nuclear weapons because he created the periodic table of elements.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Hatta]

There weren't really any policies that Carter set out that were bad.

Selling weapons to Indonesia while they were committing genocide in East Timor is bad.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[MightyMartian]

The economic problems predated Carter, and while he certainly was unable to fix them, he was, after all ultimately stymied by the energy crisis of the late 1970s. As to the Afghan invasion, what exactly could he have done? At no point during the Cold War did the US contemplate direct intervention against the Soviets, save as a final nightmare scenario like an all-out invasion of Western Europe. Neither Carter, nor any other President, would have directly involved the US in Afghanistan. As to Iran, yes, he misjudged the unpopularity of the Shah, but then again, so had several administrations before him, so I fail to see how you can put your focus solely on the Carter Administration's actions surrounding Iran, seeing as he was perpetuating a policy that his predecessors had maintained for well over two decades.

Carter was hardly a perfect president, but he is a classic example of how sometimes leaders get the job at the worst of all possible moments, and ultimately no matter what they do or don't do, the situation is far larger and chaotic than any leader, particularly of a democratic state, can hope to overcome.

Carter is a damned bright guy, a helluva brighter than his immediate successor, but he was as screwed as Herbert Hoover (another very bright guy)/

Re:+5 Insightful for

[cpotoso]

Indeed, mod parent up. I can see only one really bad thing Carter did: loosing to Reagan. That started the fast decline of US democracy, along with turning the US into a banana republic (where the top 1% get everything, pay for nothing and get the lower 40% to fight wars and die in the interest of the top 1%).

Re:+5 Insightful for

[ubrgeek]

> most influential

I don't know about that. After all, if it wasn't for Nixon the press wouldn't be able to append "gate" to every perceived transgression.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[i kan reed]

Horseshit. Carter was ineffective, bumbling idiot as a president, his economic policies where horible, inflation was rampant and interest rates were in the 20+ percentage area.

This is always everyone's top billing, and always the one with the least specificity. That's because it has absolutely nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with correcting runaway inflation caused by an oil embargo.

He was weak in foreign policy and our adversaries took advantage of that.

I'm glad you're specific about this, and I'll address the specific things below, but using "weak" in an discussion of foreign policy makes you seem like a neanderthal, man. It's really emotional, and in no way reflects a sensible view of the world.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and his response was to boycott the 80 Moscow games.

His replacement's plan of using military support to back the Taliban was a great idea that had no long term repercussions for the U.S.

His only shining foreign policy moment was getting Sadat and Begin to agree on peace of which I commend him. He and his cabinet failed to recognize the threat that Iran posed once the Shaw became ill and was thrown out of power.

Oh you mean how our direct support of the Shaw in his dictatorial games through the CIA prior to that in no way lead to the Islamic Republic Seizing power and creating the theocratic nightmare we face today, right?

Other than that he was a waste of 4 years for this country.

He and Dubya will always probably be in the bottom 5, Obama will be there soon enough, just keep watching.

Yeah, comparing Carter to the "let's invade a country for no reason" Bush is totally a false dilemma. For worse presidents than carter: Garfield(institutional corruption), Bush II(literally every criticism of Obama applies to him to a greater degree, and he killed hundreds of thousands for no reason), Reagan(you're going to disagree, but come on: savings and loan + Iran Contra + deficit explosion), Nixon(literally betrayed the country for first election, secretly spied on opponents with the CIA for re-election), Jackson(trail of tears), and Buchanan(essentially caused the civil war with all his moderately pro-slavery not-caring) all easily make the list.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[Mabhatter]

He had to "restore faith" that the President was a good person after Nixon totally trashed the office. In THAT he succeeded. The situation with hostages was a sycophant military to Republicans that couldn't do their jobs. while at the same time Iranians were working with Reagan's people secretly and illegally to give him the election.

Knowing what we know now, both Nixon and Reagan committed Capital crimes before they were even sworn into office. Yet somehow Carter was a bad one?

Re:+5 Insightful for

[cpotoso]

Excepting his fawning over various dictators. There's an insightful saying about him: "Jimmy Carter never met a dictator that he didn't like."

You are saying complete BS. For example, Carter was one of the few US presidents who put pressure on latin America's dictatorships to try to alleviate the human rights abuses. He put an arms embargo on Argentina's dictatorship (later rescinded by Reagan, a factor that eventually lead to the Argentina-UK war in 1982).

Re:+5 Insightful for

[jeffmflanagan]

I'd say the greater problem with Reagan is how he courted religious extremists, that combined with the bigots brought in by Nixon's southern strategy, led to the devolution of the Republican party into the far-right-wing circus it is today. I'd like to get back to having 2 sane parties to choose from, but I don't think the Republicans can recover since they're unwilling to show the bigots and crazies the door, and modernize their views so they can appeal to reasonable people.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[phrostie]

I have always said that Carter was the best man we’ve had in the white house in my life time.
I’m more convinced than ever.
we would be lucky to have someone of his caliber today.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[catmistake]

He screwed up the ability of the nuclear industry to move to safer, clean technologies, effectively trapping the US into 1950's light water reactors.

Your facts are in error. You are aware that President Carter is a nuclear engineer? He knew what he was doing. In actuality, whether by greed, negligence, or incompetence, it was the nuclear/energy industry itself that shit its own bed. President Carter merely delivered them the news of this.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[sqrt(2)]

[America] has a very small productive economy and thrives exclusively on plunder.

We are still the number one manufacturer in the world, representing a full 1/5 of all production output on the planet. It's just that the things we produce are not typical consumer goods, and so the picture you're average American gets is that we don't make anything. Your typical American doesn't use Caterpillar heavy construction equipment, Boeing or Lockheed aircraft (other than maybe flying in them), GE turbines, oil rigs, mining drills, spacecraft, or the bulk of the free world's military equipment.

Yeah, all our clothes and cheap plastic stuff is made in China, and our consumer electronics are made in Japan and Taiwan; but heavy industry, military hardware, construction equipment, resource extraction tools all over the world are stamped MADE IN USA.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dywolf]

Carter was not a disaster. Too many people speak too much about how little they know.

Carter was a Naval Academy grad who went on to serve in submarines, particuarly in the nuclear service under Rickover himself, and during his stint he was in charge of a special rescue crew that was responsible for cleaning up a failed experiemntal reactor, by actually climbing into the radioactive chamber, which they did, including himself. He went home and became a farmer, and later Governor of GA, and fairly successful and popular at that.

When he was President he didnt' just preach conservation during the energy crisis, but led by example (and when you know how rarely Prseident's do THAT!) and had solar heaters isntalled at the White House, and wore sweaters if the building were cold. You like beer? He deregulated the beer industry. Prior to that, it was illegal to run a home brewery. He also was behind the airline deregulation (which at the time was a reasonable thing...that fact that it's now swung to the opposite side of the too much/too little regulation spectrum not withstanding)

Overall, his presidency was rather uneventful. It is a tankless job that always results in at least one half the country calling you an idiot and playing armchair quarterback. on top of that, Carter was a transitionary president, the country having just gotten out of Vietnam, and the focus moving inward. Presidents in such situations especially tend to be negatively viewed, and lucky if they make it out alive with nothing major happening. Carter's only really big fumble was the botched rescue of the hostages, and that owed more to planning problems (oversights and mistakes, overly complex, too many moving parts, as well as mechanical and maintenance failuers, etc) than to the adminstration.

Carters biggest problem was a seeming lack of confidence in his own position. But since then he's continued to act as a diplomat and representive for our nation,a nd been highly successful at that as well.

He may not have been a shining star of the likes of Jefferson or Lincoln, but neither that does not make him a disaster. He was far from it, and political ideology aside, he continues to be a good example of a good American citizen who loves and serves his country.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[plover]

And what was wrong with the committee awarding Peace Prizes to Kissinger and Arafat? Kissinger negotiated the ceasefire in Vietnam, and pulled our troops out. Vietnam is a far more peaceful place now than it was before Kissinger signed the agreement. It maybe didn't work out so well for the "American interests" in the region, but when you look at those interests, we were only there because of the fear of the commies and the "domino effect". Those were really crappy reasons to enter someone else's civil war. Arafat had to do some serious wheeling and dealing within his own organizations and gave up a lot just to get permission to go to Oslo with Rabin, and the resultant accords were a huge step toward peace.

Maybe none of these efforts has ever created a permanent lasting land of happy peace-loving unicorns full of good will hugs, but the world isn't that kind of place. But we do know it was made better for many people due to their efforts.

However I completely agree with you that Obama was awarded it merely for being elected, kind of like a kid getting a trophy for attending baseball practice. I agree that giving it to him did nothing to hold up the reputation of the award. But it still shouldn't diminish Carter's accomplishments any.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[dywolf]

as for losing to Reagan, while I admire both Presidents, the contest of the 1980 election was very much the shy smart kid vs the popular jock. Not that Carter was really that shy, but he got bogged down in details, and seemed afraid to use his position as The President at times but rather approached things "as a regular person". When you are President, and trying to get things done, that makes it rather harder to win any political conflicts.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Oil prices relative to historic norm is a quite good predictor of both economic growth in the following year and people's assessment of presidential performance, much more so than the paritcular politics, policies, brain power, or charisma of the man in the White House. As single factor analysis goes, it is vastly better than one would expect. Strangely enough, most political analysts largely ignore it.

Carter was left holding the bag when oil prices hit historic highs. His policies were not fundamentally different from Nixon/Ford, who also suffered in the public's eyes.

Reagan was liked...after the oil prices came down. Perceptions of his competence were not particularly good before oil finally dropped below 50 a barrel.

HBush was actually rather well liked but oil trended upwards during his term, then trended down for Clinton's term.

WBush and Obama are presidents after the rise of China -- we are never going to see the kind of low oil prices we enjoyed in the 90s or 60s again. Never. Thus it would not be surprising if 2-3% growth is the new norm for the good years, into the foreseeable future; as a consequence, Obama and whoever takes office in 2016 are not likely to be greatly popular, even if they walk on water or raise the dead.

Things can change. If China's economy craters, oil price might drift downwards for a while. Whoever is in the White House in 2016 or 2020 might get a free bump there. Also fracking might put some significant downward pressure on energy prices. We shall see.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[faffod]

Unless you have a perfect distribution of wealth there will always be a top 1%. What has happened to the top 1% in the country since the '80's is what the parent was talking about. http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/25-graphics-showing-upward-redistribution-of-income-and-wealth-in-usa-since-1979/

Re:+5 Insightful for

[benzapp]

Actually, I study all of this in rather significant detail. Your 1/5 estimate, by any reasonable measure, is completely false.

I would encourage you to look at the GDP breakdown by industry sector, conveniently summarized in this wikipedia entry:

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

As you can see, the aggregate manufacturing output is 12% of the GDP, less than that attributed to real estate. The aggregate value of industrial production in the US is $1.7 trillion dollars. If you honestly believe the aggregate value of all manufacturing in the world is $8.5 trillion, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

The US does have some industry, but it is not relevant to the employment and purchasing power of the average citizen. Back in 1960, a substantial portion of the populace earned a solid living employed in these sectors.

The question becomes how do we have a country when so little of our economy involves the actual basics of economics - production of the necessities of life? How do we import so much crap from China and simply trade rice, wheat, and trash in return?

The answer is financialization, summarized in my previous post. I would recommend Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism: Origins and Fundamentals of US World Dominance to understand the exact mechanics of how this works.

PS: Your 1/5 number was probably true in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm not going to lookup that data however.

Re: +5 Insightful for

[microbox]

In office, Nixon used the power of government to suppress his rivals. Reagan committed treason by selling arms to the enemy (Iran).

I remember the Reagan era quite well. He was very popular, and in many ways a great guy. But "mistakes were made" (to use his words), and they were not minor peccadilloes. Could you imagine that hard-on that Rush Limbaugh would get if Obama was caught selling arms to Iran in order to fund a war that congress told him he couldn't have? And then imagine a dozen top Obama official being indicted, and being given a presidential pardon. Just because breaking the law isn't breaking th law if you're colluding with the president. That would cause Rush, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly, and everyone right-wingnut to blow their wad.

It amazes me that smart people sometimes choose the GOP, because they really live by the maximum "tell a lie enough and it become the truth". And they don't know how to keep the budget under control either.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[sjames]

Actually, he's probably been one of our best ex-presidents. Rather than making commercials or getting back into under the table business deals, he has worked with Habitat for Humanity and has overseen democratic elections around the world. When he says we have no functioning democracy, he says it from a professional viewpoint.

Re:+5 Insightful for

[mwehle]

Reagan's team negotiating with Tehran to delay release of the hostages certainly contributed to Carter's loss also.

Nobel Peace Prize

[PPH]

Give Snowden Obama's prize. He's not using it.

Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[eldavojohn]

Mod parent up. We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of politicians speaking their minds about Snowden -- but I don't know if I'd call them "brave." Looking at just the previous administration, George W. Bush:

I think he damaged the security of the country

And Dick Cheney:

I think he's a traitor

Of course, as another poster mentioned, they've got nothing to lose same as Carter.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[gl4ss]

cheny & gwb got nothing to lose from their legacies being labeled as illegal and as herding the country towards "non-functioning democracy". sure as fuck they got plenty of points to lose. if either of them said that what the programs are doing is wrong they would be saying that they were wrong and not just wrong but unconstitutional and as extension actual traitors to the country, so what are they gonna do? label snowden as traitor, of course... just like they didn't like a lot the leaks which effectively tell that they're war criminals.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[istartedi]

From the article you cited:

"I think he has committed crimes in effect by violating agreements given the position he had," he continued. "I think it's one of the worst occasions in my memory of somebody with access to classified information doing enormous damage to the national security interests of the United States."

The best thing to do with the Cheney quote is forget Cheney said it about Snowden. Re-read the quote, and imagine somebody else said it about Cheney. Which version rings more true?

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[ebno-10db]

Reminds me of an old Cold War joke.

Russian: You think your country is so great. Why?

American: In my country I can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

Russian: So what, in my country I too can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

P.S. At the time that was true in the United States. It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[i kan reed]

To Cheney, "National Security Interests of the United States" means bandwidth of channels for money to Halliburton. I'm sure they provide some sort of "consulting" to the NSA.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians

[ackthpt]

Reminds me of an old Cold War joke.

Russian: You think your country is so great. Why?

American: In my country I can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

Russian: So what, in my country I too can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

P.S. At the time that was true in the United States. It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.

One of the things I appreciate about Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert, keep us laughing at our own foibles, don't ignore those foibles, but recognize the idiocy of how we behave as parties, people and country. Under the Bush administration I felt we were approaching something vaguely Stalinist, where laughing at our mistakes was felt to be unpatriotic - when France challenged our information and motives for going into Iraq we had people re-naming French Fries as Freedom Fries - I think that was a very worrying thing and showed an extreme depth of stupidity. Turned out France was right to do so. Questioning government is the most patriotic thing we can do, not call ourselves pretend PATRIOTS and wrap ourselves up in the flag.

I do agree with Carter, the exposure of this sort of thing is healthy. Perhaps the government needs to do some of these things, but not under a cloak of double secrecy.

He is not The One Who Is

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been said a few times by other people, but there goes: Jimmy Carter is pretty much the best former president the U.S.A. have ever had. Come to think of it, just like Obama might be remembered as the best future president the U.S.A. ever had.

Too bad we are living in the present.

Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily

[schneidafunk]

I had not heard of these before and had to look it up. The privacy act ONLY applies to newspaper reporters, stemming from this incident:

"Respondents, a student newspaper that had published articles and photographs of a clash between demonstrators and police at a hospital, and staff members, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against, among others, petitioners, law enforcement and district attorney personnel, claiming that a search pursuant to a warrant issued on a judge's finding of probable cause that the newspaper (which was not involved in the unlawful acts) possessed photographs and negatives revealing the identities of demonstrators who had assaulted police officers at the hospital had deprived respondents of their constitutional rights." source

On a side note, when explaining the Privacy Act to the general public, Jimmy Carter is probably the only president ever to make this statement: "We have reduced the size of these Government files by more than 10 percent."

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate agreeing with Carter.

Why?

Looking back on history, I never got the dislike towards him. He was handed a bad deck into his presidency (inflation from Viet Nam, Oil embargo, stagflation, Iran hostages, military incompetence, and a couple of other things he was blamed for).

One of the most ballsy things he did was Tip O'Neil was elated that "one of them" was in the White House and Carter wouldn't play ball. And as we have seen many times, when one party controls both the Whitehouse and Congress, the pork flies and the budget sinks!

He was also one of our smartest presidents and one of the few who had some sort of science training - he was a nuclear engineer (BS, US Naval Academy).

So, why the dislike?

Re:Why?

[Antipater]

It's because he was an engineer. He was interested in facts and solutions, not maneuvering. He assumed that when he had the right answer, he could implement it, because other people would see that it was right and would agree with it.

To put it a different way: "Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and Jimmy Carter were good men, honorable men. But they disdained the game, and those who play it." - Varys

Senator Gordon Humphrey

[PraiseBob]

Here is the relevant message from a former Senator:

Mr. Snowden,

Provided you have not leaked information that would put in harms way any intelligence agent, I believe you have done the right thing in exposing what I regard as massive violation of the United States Constitution.

Having served in the United States Senate for twelve years as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee, I think I have a good grounding to reach my conclusion.

I wish you well in your efforts to secure asylum and encourage you to persevere.

Kindly acknowledge this message, so that I will know it reached you.

Regards,
Gordon J. Humphrey
Former United States Senator
New Hampshire


Here is another of his messages:

Mr. Greenwald,

Yes. It was I who sent the email message to Edward Snowden, thanking him for exposing astonishing violations of the US Constitution and encouraging him to persevere in the search for asylum.

To my knowledge, Mr. Snowden has disclosed only the existence of a program and not details that would place any person in harm's way. I regard him as a courageous whistle-blower.

I object to the monumentally disproportionate campaign being waged by the U.S. Government against Edward Snowden, while no effort is being made to identify, remove from office and bring to justice those officials who have abused power, seriously and repeatedly violating the Constitution of the United States and the rights of millions of unsuspecting citizens.

Americans concerned about the growing arrogance of our government and its increasingly menacing nature should be working to help Mr. Snowden find asylum. Former Members of Congress, especially, should step forward and speak out.

Regards,
Gordon Humphrey

Re:Damn it!

[CanHasDIY]

Why?

Conditioning.

Same reason why so many people still think they only get to choose between Democrats and Republicans in elections.

Carter's legacy

[sjbe]

Carter was a complete disaster for the US.

Only by people who think Reagan was the second coming of George Washington. If you were dumb enough to vote for Bush the Lesser you might actually believe that Carter was a bad president. Carter was a mediocre president who served during a period of rather bad economic problems that were not his fault. His record is mixed but isn't especially bad overall. I'm old enough to actually remember when he was in office and there hasn't been a president since who I feel was substantially better and one who was considerably worse.

Re:JC

[wcrowe]

I've always felt that he was too honest and intelligent to be president.
 

Yes.

[whitroth]

As a President, I really disliked him, as he ramped up the military, when it really wasn't necessary, and played into the hands of the Republicans....

On the other hand, he's the greatest ex-President this country has had in my lifetime, standing for, well, what the US is *supposed* to stand for, and *claims* to stand for.

                          mark

Solar Panels on the Whitehouse

[Sir_Eptishous]

Carter put solar panels on the Whitehouse.
Reagan took them down
Here we are 30-some years later still jacking off over renewable energy...
If anything, Carter was way ahead of his time.
Every president since has been under heel of the carbon extraction industrial complex.

Don't whitewash Nixon here.

[Valdrax]

Wow, there's a lot to go through here.

How is the Watergate break-in worse than bugging the campaign office of Mitch McConnell?

Unlike with Nixon, there's no evidence that Obama had anything to do with that. The Watergate scandal, in comparison, involved people from Nixon's presidential campaign (Liddy), the US Attorney General, and Nixon's personal Presidential Council. It's most likely that Curtis Morrison acted independently. He was a member of Kentucky liberal advocacy group that had no connections (that I'm aware of at least) to Obama or his Presidential Campaign. If you have evidence that says otherwise, I'd love to read it.

Just because Obama is a Democratic President doesn't mean that he's actually directly in charge of every Democrat or other liberal.

How is creating an "enemies list" worse than targeting your enemies through the IRS, the EPA, and other federal agencies, and have the NSA spy on them and on reporters?

Well, first of all, the IRS scandal was mischaracterized in its early stages by the media. The IRS looked at a broad spectrum of 501(c) groups. Conservative groups were targeted (groups that mentioned "Tea party," "9/12", "patriots," etc.). So were liberal groups (ones that mentioned "occupy," "progress," "equality," etc.). So were groups interested in Israel, constitutional issues, the integrity of elections, and several other nonpartisan issues. Of those groups, the only one that was denied 501(c) status was Emerge America, a liberal advocacy group. No conservative groups were denied.

Now it wasn't completely non-partisan. Conservative groups were delayed in receiving their approval. There's indication that the National Organization for Marriage had its 2008 tax return deliberately leaked. Some chicanery was going on there.

But did Obama know? Signs indicate that he learned of it about the same time the public did. (He was aware of an ongoing investigation but not the contents of it.) No evidence has arisen that he did know ahead of time.

As for the EPA FOIA fee thing, I'll admit that's kind of shady. I don't believe it comes from the top, but it's a black mark on his administration, I think based on the facts I currently have. I think the effects of being on Nixon's enemies list was a bit more harsh: tax audits, denial of federal grants and contracts, etc.

For the last, I hate the NSA spying programs, but is there any evidence they've specifically went after reporters? I'd love to hear it. (More fuel for the fire on that subject, as far as I'm concerned.)

Nixon never orchestrated a false flag kidnapping at a consulate, and then tried to cover it up when it went south.

Neither did Obama. That's full-on crank territory if you want to claim that's what Benghazi was. Nixon did however orchestrate a burglary at the Chilean embassy, which is far closer to what you're accusing Obama of than what actually happened.

He never sold weapons to drug cartels.

True, you'd have to wait for Reagan for that. Of course, he was straight up selling arms to terrorists and using the money fund drug trafficking contras to fight communists. (Yet another episode in a long, terrible history of covert US actions to support terrible people just because they are the enemies of our enemies.)

Obama's ATF, at least, was selling the guns to try to track down criminals with an intent to disrupt and arrest them -- not to deliberately support them. Still, a pretty colossal screw up considering how many arms weren't recovered.

He didn't target children with drones, either.

Only because he didn't have them. The carpet bombing of Cambodia, which killed tens of thousands of civilians was a far greater atrocity than Obama's drone program (which I think is unconscionable too; just on a far different scale of "collateral damage," aka negligent mass murder).