Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Publishes "A Manifesto For the Truth"
wjcofkc writes "In the turbulent wake of the international uproar spurred by his leaked documents, Mr. Snowden published a letter over the weekend in Der Spiegel titled, "A Manifesto for the Truth". In the letter, Mr. Snowden reflects on the consequences of the information released so far, and their effect on exposing the extent and obscenity of international and domestic surveillance, while continuing to call out the NSA and GCHQ as the worst offenders. He further discusses how the debate should move forward, the intimidation of journalists, and the criminalization of the truth saying, 'Citizens have to fight suppression of information on matters of vital public importance. To tell the truth is not a crime.'"
...where we currently have a corporate/government cabal, it is, truth actually a crime, actually.
More like a minifesto.
"Yeah, well here's our manifesto of everyone STFU, IF YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR YOU!!"
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
He's going to be portrayed as a complete nutjob by the American corporations/government and their press lackeys no matter WTF he calls it.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Capitalism promotes selfishness.
Selfishness promotes control.
Control of information is a type of control.
Control of the government is another type of control.
So powerful people will control both.
And so the modern role of signals intelligence: to watch you, to separate the majority who are of no consequence, from the minority who run a serious risk of making a difference.
The solution is a scaling back of capitalism. And not a replacement with Soviet state capitalism, either, even though their surveillance had nothing on modern UKUSA.
that this will go to waste. No mainstream media in the US will report this, and if they do, it will be spun into a negative light. Now we got posters on here, the Guardian, and other sites that are obvious shills or just plain dumb.
To tell the truth is not a crime.
Yes, it is. You may have some moral justification, but it can still be a crime. In the US, telling the truth about intelligence techniques to real and potential enemies is a crime, even if you also tell the public. Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement, but he satisfied his own conscience.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I wonder if it will be written in German or Russian...or in prison English.
Perhaps a Truthfesteroo with Pussy Riot and Assange and (Ms.) Bradley Manning would be a fun......overseas, that is.
I'm glad they spoke out, but it sure sucks to be them right now. Its sucks for a lot of folks right now. So let's Truthfesteroo!
The Declaration of Independence is a manifesto. It just wasn't titled as such.
A manifesto simply explains the motivations and reasoning behind actions. It's a common trait of psychopaths and sociopaths, because they feel that their actions are completely logical, but the rest of society just needs a good explanation to wake up and rally to their cause.
Snowden doesn't need to explain his motivation to recruit followers, as the public outrage over surveillance is already quite significant. This seems to be less of a manifesto, and more of a reflection.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Or Kucinich. Only a radical like Paul or Kucinich would have the ideology and the stones to order the FBI to dismantle the DEA's special operations division and treat every employee of the same as a probable criminal conspirator who conspired to systematically perjure themselves to win cases in federal court. You won't get this from a "mainstream guy" because moderates are moderates almost invariably because they either stand for nothing or have the intestinal fortitude of a freshly butchered lamb. One of the best articles I've ever read on moderates and why moderates have such a pernicious history in American politics is "The Paranoid Center" by Reason.
wc tells me this 'manifesto' is 273 words.
That's at best an abstract, so using such words doesn't help and reflect poor usage (which surprises me - who added the word 'manifesto' anyway?). Snowden and his supporters should adopt the words that will do his cause the maximum benefit. Though I don't think we know enough to say for sure that he chose this word.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Cold Fjord, please go.
-- Ethanol-fueled
" even if you also tell the public"
Even to the voters? Even to the Congress? How can we have a democracy in that situation.
NSA comic interpretation of the law is not a protected thing, it's a matter of importance for the public and the lawmakers.
-- Jiddu Krishnamurthy
Check out on his writings.
How long? I want to know how long until Snowden is given a medal by congress. He deserves a Gold Medal, at least as much as a Walt Disney, or Roberto Clemente, or a Danny Thomas. Browse the list yourself - some of the people who have been awarded a Gold Medal may have sacrificed more, or done more than Snowden. But Edward stands head and shoulders over a mere sports figure, or a Hollywood icon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Congressional_Gold_Medal_recipients
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It's like posting something in favor of gun control on a site lousy with NRA members... you're automatically assumed to be Nancy Pelosi.
Since Edward Snowden is a martyr for the truth, he can continue the effort in Russia, at his new job.
I'm sure his Russian benefactors are entirely committed to transparency and will back him all the way as he dumps details of their espionage activities. After all they have a such a huge, world renowned tradition of enforcing human rights and openness.
NOT
Seriously, he worked for the NSA, one agency in one country. How the fuck would he know who the worst offenders of international and domestic surveillance are? There are hundreds of countries with multiple spy agencies. He had access to some of the information about one and maybe some information about a few more. And, he thinks this qualifies him to make judgments about the internal and external surveillance apparatus of EVERY OTHER COUNTRY HE HAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT, including Russia, China, and North Korea? Really?
Lack of information about the internal and external surveillance apparatus of a country doesn't mean that country doesn't have an extensive and intrusive surveillance apparatus. It just means Snowden doesn't have information about that country. He literally doesn't have enough information to make that claim.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Another case of someone who thinks "the US" is that mythical Columbia representation of perfection, forever right and true. There is no crime from reporting another crime. There's no catch-22 either, it's pretty straight-forward - first offender, i.e. the US government, is the only offender. And Snowden, by reporting the crime (s) could never be committing a crime himself, as any NDA, bureaucratic or religious oath he took with his employers was immediately moot after the employers failed to abide to the ruling laws under which such agreement was made.
The laws exist exists to protect the people. One is not protecting the people while completely disregarding these laws, just by acting under classified cover and using fast-triggered "defensive" basis. Unlike such methods, laws were cooked and amended for hundreds of years to prevent surreptitious institutions from corrupting the system.
This is a lot more than telling the truth - it's getting out of the closet of being a mastermind criminal puppet. He just decided (by himself because he has the right to do so) that the paradox and loophole his employers try to create was not strong enough to make him a criminal too.
No, "The Emperor's New Clothes" is not "a political story about a system of lies and a whistle-blower". It is a story about yes-men and making people afraid to tell the truth lead to bad decisions by leaders.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The unibomber's stuff was much more explosive ... than an NSA Snow(den) job.
Fractured Faerie Tales indeed.
Where are Boris and Natasha?
Might as well get all his thoughts published while he has a chance.
Of asylum he was supposed to stop with all of the publication of information.
A pledge not to publish more information that could harm the United States was the condition under which Putin said Snowden could receive safe harbor. "Edward assured me that he is not planning to publish any documents that blacken the American government," Anatoly Kucherena, Snowden's Russian lawyer said.
I guess we can all assume that Snowden is just a media whore looking for attention and to be honest, I think a good portion of the information being "leaked" is in fact made up. The last set of slides about the Google Data Center interception information was a sketch. Although we now know some of this information is valid, I'm starting to think that some of it is contrived. Certainly when dealing with espionage issues the notion of counter-espionage and disinformation campaigns come to into play. That way we all get confused as to actually what the US government is doing and how it's doing it. In the end we get confused about they said this and they said that and then we jump straight into the HealthCare.gov website fiasco and how Americans will lose medial insurance policies they've had and will have to get more expensive ones with higher deductibles starting in 2014. That and the government shutdown are great ways to spin this story to the back pages. Conspiracy Theorists in 10 years will look back and probably say that Snowden worked for the NSA all along and was actually spying on the Russians for the US.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Yet Another Snowden Story. Somebody call me when Slashdot returns. I'm exceedingly tired of the Snowden Network.
... until girlintraining starts ranting about Snowden?
As much as I may hold Edward Snowden in esteem - and that is a lot of esteem, actually - I tend to get all prickly and uncomfortable when the word "truth" is used in such a pontifical way as in the "manifesto". There is no such thing as absolute truth, although Mr. Snowden seems to tacitly imply and quietly assume so. There is your truth, your way of experiencing things - and there is mine. What we call "truth" is the sum vector of all these tiny vectors.
Mr. Snowden had better used a word such as "information" or "openness". I am reminded of 2 Russian words, whose meaning lies in this direction, that became rather famous: glasnost and perestrojka.
WDYT ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Turfer
Please look up the meaning of the word "manifesto". It's a public declaration of your own goals and intents. Nowhere there is the requirement of at least 1000 words or seven pages or whatever your threshold seems to be.
It's a common trait of psychopaths and sociopaths
While that may be true, it is more so a trait of organized groups of victims, disenfranchised & those who disagree with the status quo they live under. When power becomes usurped from all but the few, a manifesto will(should) soon follow.
There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the
grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public
culture.
Aaron Swartz July 2008
How long? Well, first we have to wait 'til we get a government by the people, for the people. Before something like that happens, no such chance.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, it was a terrible piece of writing that will not convince anyone of anything. He completely ignored the justifications that the government is giving for the surveillance programs, didn't even seek to address the concerns of those that believe that some espionage is appropriate under some circumstances. He's done this amazing revelation of these programs, and he has a global audience for his message... and he has nothing noteworthy to say...
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Hey mods, why is my post considered any more "flamebait" than those of Snowden supporters?
Because all you did is call him a nutjob. You've added nothing to the conversation, other than an insult.
Place nail here >+
I don't find the argument for truth particularly strong, since the same could be said about gathering intelligence. Surveillance just logs the truth, even though the methods may be illegal.
The difference, I think, is in intent. Is intelligence gathered for military advantage, political advantage, or for money? Is whistleblowing for the public good, to sabatoge or aid the enemy in war, or for some personal benefit?
I don't think many people disagree on which of these is a crime.
Please look up the meaning of the word "manifesto".
Why do people cite narrow dictionary definitions and ignore actual usage while treating any narrow reading of a dictionary entry as definitive? Here's a list of notable political manifestos - most of them are several pages, if not entire books.
"Statement of principles" or "mission statements" are the kinds of words used to describe short declarations of goals.
Then again, using "manifesto" has gotten Snowden a bunch of press today, so perhaps he is the wiser.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Out of an abundance of carefulness, our politicians still try staying away from it as far as possible. They did not get voted into office for saying the truth, and they won't change horses in mid-term.
You are the traitor, not Snowden.
To falsify my point, if Snowden really was what he wants us to think he was (an honest, aw shucks I just want to help whistleblower) then he would have used his precious Wikileaks to get the information out.
Wait... So only if you use Wikileaks as channel you get to be an honest whistleblower, in your opinion?
Obviously there are many other ways. And the Wikileaks way didn't end very well for Chelsea Manning. Finally, I agree that GWB deserves more shit than he's being served of late, but that doesn't magically absolve BHO from maintaining and in may cases drastically extending these programs.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Snowden's writing is a manifesto. It has all the required elements. So I'll continue calling it such.
It will be years, long after any current politicians are in office. If ever.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Did he call it a manifesto? Or was it called one, hoping to create exactly that reaction?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While not synonymous, I fail to see the difference in the current case. We're in a world of yes-men who don't dare to speak up or say or do anything that displeases the emperor because as long as they grin, nod and bear it they stay at the trough.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I knew everything he was saying before he said it.
A lot of people did. But he offered the first undeniable PROOF.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Other reply already has it covered so I'll just...
Pffffttttttt
Reflection?
OK, from a web dictionary, the definition of Reflection: serious thought or consideration. Perhaps that works. I see it, sort of. Snowden certainly did give serious thought or consideration in giving his assessment of NSA Spying on citizens. But reflection? It is like taking a bony, emaciated individual and calling them "fairly trim". Wouldn't it would be more accurate to go to slender. . . . or why not go to skinny. Really, if we are honest, just call it what it is and say "emaciated, bony, and starving to death." Isn't that better? It is obvious Snowden made decisions putting his future freedom, lifestyle, and possibly his physical life in jeapordy.
A stronger descriptive noun or adjective is in order.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well - the Doolittle Raiders are still waiting for consideration . . . . .
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/local-military/doolittle-tokyo-raiders-nominated-for-congressiona/nXgmS/
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
How long? I want to know how long until Snowden is given a medal by congress.
Probably 50 years. If he hadn't leaking information about US intelligence operations overseas it might have been 20 years.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The problem is that Snowden was autisticlly gauche enough to not just say it, but release documents proving it. Bad form, old chap...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
because of who commits the original crime.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Manifesto... thats the primary keyword for COMPLETE NUTJOB.
And there went his credibility... Just when he was starting to do some good.
Are you calling the founding fathers of the US nut jobs? They wrote a manifesto called the Declaration of Independence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
Well, Hitler won Man of the Year so anything's possible.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The problem in the US is that the debate is controlled by idiots... and calling them idiots is being nice.
This coming from a self-named idiot making public comments on the topic....
all the bad guys had manifestos.. ya know, terrorists, serial killers and psycho bombers. the feds will now stop at nothing to get his ass lit up for a guided missile, the sovereignty of russia be damned... didn't keep them out of pakistan, iraq or panama, did it.
I get why Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA and it's domestic spying programs. That needs to be addressed pronto. But can someone explain to me how revealing our normal espionage program against our allies and against rivals is supposed to convince our allies and rivals to open up about their own spying programs? How on earth is any of this going to convince the Russian and/or the Chinese electorate to demand transparency of their own governments' monitoring systems? Especially when said governments haven't even bothered to hide that they're doing so? Snowden keeps referring to spying and information control as a global problem, but how does he hope to convince the nations who always have engaged in blatant population control to stop doing so?
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it needs to be changed. You can want it to be changed, but expecting it to be changed to suit you is only your ego talking.
Why don't you run for office and try to make a difference instead of expecting other people to do it....
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Wait, so you're only a legitimate whistleblower if you're anonymous? I've heard many people say the opposite.
Hey mods, why is my post considered any more "flamebait" than those of Snowden supporters?
Both sides of any discussion aren't automatically equal. What gave you that idea?
Being out of control and disconnected to rational sense is a common trait of a psychopath or sociopath. Not manifestos.
I think Snowden as a tool is about the picture that I'm getting too.
He's a very foolish young man, and he's totally fucking ruined his life and now is trying to regain some credibility. But the sad fact is, he's also betraying his country. I do not see anything noble in what he's done: I knew everything he was saying before he said it.
And apparently you were fine with it, too. A happy little fascist.
This will only happen if WE win.
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
Wikileaks way didn't end very well for Chelsea Manning.
I'm really not feeling Wikileaks culpability in that clusterfuck.
No, he's betraying the corrupt portion of his government that is secretly breaking the spirit and the letter of enumerated rights in the Constitution. When this practice is exercised in other nations, like in China, the US government and her sycophants celebrates speaking truth to power.
Moral truths have a funny way of disappearing when it comes to criticizing your own nation, but that is the realm of pretend patriots who are more attached to the power of the hierarchy then they are to the claimed ideals written into our laws.
As soon as someone starts talking about "betraying the nation/country/flag" it's fair to assume they want to stop talking about whatever the claimed injustice is. That's for two reasons, usually: an irrational attachment to the symbology of their nation (instead of a rational attachment to it's stated values), or because they are beneficiaries of the current status quo and they want to keep things as they are out of puerile self interest. And, as so often is the case, the injustice is so obvious that ad hominem attacks and pro-establishment propaganda that could make a fascist blush become the standard points attempting to cover the empty rhetoric. Bonus points for including a folksy cover of patriarchal finger wagging for "young men" who have "ruined" their lives by daring to claim the government is wrong. What a lovely American ideal that is.
The sad fact is that if the American government does not value due process, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and the right to privacy, it has ceased to become worthy of patriotism. The best parts of American culture and the vast majority of people who still believe in those values are worthy of protection, not the cancerous, bought-and-paid-for, corrupted bureaucracy that is slowly depriving them of those rights. Irrational nationalism is a central pillar of fascism.
Like the building of the healthcare website, the management of the IRS non-profit review function, or lots of other government operations have great oversight either.
The politicians elected to run the government want to play politics, not actually run the government. So that is what they do.
When my alderman (probably councilman in your city) failed to deliver adequate city services, she was voted out of office. That does not happen higher than the city level.
You're a douche-bag.
I say that with complete objective certainty.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Blame Bush Blame Bush Blame Bush Blah Blah Fucking Neocon Blah.
The expansion of Executive power under GWB was considered radical at the time.
The consolidation of that Executive coup by the Obama Administration is even worse, because what was once considered radical, is now the new normal.
It seems it has become the job of the GOP to advance the authoritarian goal line, and the job of the Democrats to get everyone to accept it.
So yeah, Obama is a terrible odious fuckhead of president. Just like GWB.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I especially liked the part where they told him that he did it wrong, that telling the newspapers was bad.
The correct course of action was to call the people in power [...]
In a democracy, the people in power are supposed to be the general populace, and one informs them via newspapers. So he did follow the correct course of action for informing the people in power.
Either that, or the U.S.A. is a totalitarian regime only painting itself as a democracy.
Take your pick.
Manifesto... thats the primary keyword for COMPLETE NUTJOB.
And there went his credibility... Just when he was starting to do some good.
Are you calling the founding fathers of the US nut jobs? They wrote a manifesto called the Declaration of Independence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
They were also terrorists and traitors.
Mostly very fair points... But like the anonymous coward said above, Chelsea Manning's capture, detainment, and sentencing happened because of her actions after leaking the documents.
Could Wikileaks have handled things a little differently when releasing information? Sure.
Could Wikileaks have stopped Chelsea from talking with Lamo? Probably not.
Scuttling their chances for plausible deniability (*clutch the pearls* "THEY did what?") and The Powers That Be's ability to sweep it under the rug, as the work of some rogue faction that would be dealt with so that it would never happen again (snark), backed them into a corner where they couldn't hide.
Snowden backed some big, dangerous animals into a corner.
Agreed.
I wasn't trying to diss WL as much as I was trying to question globaljustin's assertion that by choosing not to use WL as middle man to the press, Edward Snowden somehow proved himself to be a dishonest whistleblower (by which I took him to mean, have an agenda other than informing the public of these government programs -- I don't think many people are denying the truth of the actual contents of the leaks).
And that the reason why he might have chosen so, but that is beside the point, might be that they surely haven't been able to prevent Manning's terrible fate. Which is a large part of what they should be good at, in my book. All the more so if, as seems to be the case, the events leading up to Manning's capture happened after her contacts with WL. Of course it's possible that they tried to give him sound advice but it was ignored.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Capitalism promotes selfishness.
No it does not, correlation != causation and all that. Human nature is to hoard, and any society that has an economic system without impartial regulation will allow for the hoarders to hoard. The more unfair the system, the more you will see economic disparity. To blame "Capitalism" ignores every other form of economics we see today which all have massive separation between the "have's" and "have not". Communism is just as bad as Capitalism with this, and if you have any doubts head on over to China and Russia and see how they are fairing. Just as bad or worse than the USA, and neither of them use the Capitalist system of Economics. Where they have allowed experimental Capitalism we hear about how "Chun" and "Vladimir" have become wealthy and the Government comes in at a certain point and takes it all over, moving that generated wealth into the same hands that are controlling the rest of the economy.
Selfishness promotes control.
Chicken and Egg scenario. Power in too few hands is the real problem. Few in history have ever used power to help the masses, most in history have used their power for self interests. Power comes in many forms, but the greatest by far is knowledge. Socrates stated correctly that for society to succeed the masses must be highly educated in Philosophy and Rhetoric. This is in addition to other knowledge that a person would need for their job or daily life. As countries like the US have removed those classes from public education, you also see the selfish excel. They can, because a person today has difficulty recognizing even basic appeals to emotion, let alone complex manipulations in rhetoric.
Control of information is a type of control.
Again, you are confusing power and the word "control".
Control of the government is another type of control.
Control == Control obviously. As with previously mentioned items you should be trying to relate things to "Power". If you have friends in Government then you have power. You can define laws, create exceptions, legalize abuses that you can afford, and legalize morality that you can afford or your buddies can do that for you.
So powerful people will control both.
Wrong again, people in power will use that power to gain more power. This has nothing to do with Capitalism, it has everything to do with human nature. Every form of Government and Economic system has seen the same exact challenge. Mercantilism failed for the same reason Capitalism is failing. Not because the system is bad, but because the systems are full of corruption.
And so the modern role of signals intelligence: to watch you, to separate the majority who are of no consequence, from the minority who run a serious risk of making a difference.
The solution is a scaling back of capitalism. And not a replacement with Soviet state capitalism, either, even though their surveillance had nothing on modern UKUSA.
If you are wrong about the problem being "Capitalism" your solution can not be correct. The problem is corruption, and the solution is to wake people up and clean up the corruption. This happened in Rome and gave them a couple hundred more years. This happened in France and we saw France become a prosperous place for nearly 2 centuries. Cleaning corruption was also the reason that the USA was founded. We did good to make it this long without having to wake people up to take out the trash, but the time is a bit overdue.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Wow. Some of your comments feel like they should be famous quotations.
Snowden, strieks YET AGAIN without retaliation on himself, and the propaganda mainstream media is all over it. Snowden has got to be a government plant.
I knew everything he was saying before he said it.
A lot of people did. But he offered the first undeniable PROOF.
Did he really? In the absence of independent confirmation, he didn't offer undeniable proof. Just a bunch of electronic documents of unknown provenance. I don't think it would be too hard to invent plausible-sounding documents, since people constantly claim they "knew" it all anyway. Without independent confirmation from, say, other whistleblowers independently producing the same or similar information (or even better video or audio showing government officials discussing the spying programs), it just seemed plausible. The real proof was provided by the reaction of those that recognized the documents and were too stupid to just shut up for awhile and see if it blows over.
Do i have to say the obvious? Well done Obama, instead of solving the problem as a normal person, on the table, and with respect, you just got in the history books.
Manifesto... thats the primary keyword for COMPLETE NUTJOB.
When you consider that the Federal government has taken to appointing "czars" to various positions, a manifesto seems appropriate...
There are still people out there who think regular folks can run for office and not be instantly destroyed/disqualified by the Establishment?
You can't run as part of one of the two parties in the US if the party doesn't want you (e.g. Stephen Colbert), and you don't get serious media attention unless you belong to one of the two parties (e.g. Jill Stein) -- and even if you do belong to one of the two major parties, you don't really get any serious attention if the handful of people who own the media don't like you (e.g. Ron Paul).
99% of Americans can't just "run" for political office even if they had the time and money to do so. The system has evolved prevent that sort of thing.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Fractured Faerie Tales indeed.
Where are Boris and Natasha?
Just an educated guess, most likely in Washington DC and London. After all, Snowden made them look like a bunch of sneeky, lying dirt bags, . . . because THEY ARE!
...how it went for the last guy who holed-up in a secure setting and released a manifesto...
Face the criminal consequences of telling the truth? Go USA!
Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it needs to be changed.
It's not just because I don't agree with it; it's also because the government is flagrantly violating the constitution.
And naturally, if someone disagrees with the government, of course they're going to think it needs to be changed.
Ignorance is a choice
So you are a constitutional scholar and are absolutely positive the government is in violation? The government has technically covered their collective asses with the FISA and other pertinent laws passed by Congress that were open to public scrutiny at the time they were proposed and signed into law. Just because no one was paying close attention to the fine print does not mean you can suddenly get up in arms about the government breaking the law. You can argue that FISA is ineffective or lacking in oversight but you need to present actual proof of illegality and not just endless rhetoric and hyperbole. Just like all those claiming Bush broke the law by ordering an attack on Iraq. That attack was already legally sound under the terms of the Iraqi surrender agreement in 1991. It falls under that mystical International Law people are always yelling about but never seem to want to enforce. All talk of WMD and other motivations were just political rhetoric for the masses.
Not quite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto#Notable_manifestos
How many, percentage-wise, of these manifestos were written by psychopaths and sociopaths? Certainly not the majority. You're skewing the meaning of manifesto.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he [sic] who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
- Commissioner Pravin Lal
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
wrong.
anyone can go online or to the local library and read the Patriot Act for themselves...
same for this article: "NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls" from **2006** http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
That's all the proof necessary. Snowden revealed **operational details** of programs everyone could have look at!!!
Knowing that it's called 'Prism' isn't functionally value-added information...it's just technical details...**we all knew since the fucking Patriot Act***
Thank you Dave Raggett
he didn't offer undeniable proof. Just a bunch of electronic documents of unknown provenance.
If that's the case, you had better let the U.S. Government know that they're falsely prosecuting for violation of the Espionage Act.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
The Tea Party is a successful anti-establishment movement, therefore you are wrong.
So you are a constitutional scholar and are absolutely positive the government is in violation?
I don't know about him, but in my opinion, the fact that they've violated the highest law of the land is absolutely clear to me, and you do not need to be a constitutional scholar to hold this opinion. The constitution was written in English, and anyone can read it and interpret it and form their own conclusions.
I think it's important that people not just mindlessly listen to whatever authority figures (constitutional scholars, in this case) tell them.
The government has technically covered their collective asses with the FISA
General warrants are unconstitutional, even if signed by a judge. Spying on just about people's communications en masse is, to me, a blatant violation of the constitution, and those general warrants aren't going to change my mind.
To me, if this isn't a violation of the constitution, then nothing is.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it needs to be changed. You can want it to be changed, but expecting it to be changed to suit you is only your ego talking.
Why don't you run for office and try to make a difference instead of expecting other people to do it....
Exactly, he should just stop complaining and just spend the million dollars and win an election. Shut up about your lack of power until you're already in power!
"To tell the truth is not a crime.'"
Sounds like a ultimatum, and we all know most things that said to be absolute are not quite absolute. Crimes are judged, that's social law of the modern world. He obviously disagrees and is opposes the system.
A lot of people did. But he offered the first undeniable PROOF.
BS. Where's the proof? I have no proof. A pdf of a Powerpoint presentation? That proof is just him talking to some journalists... the same ones that on any other day you think are harebrained idiots. It's just a slightly more informed version of gossip and paranoia.
That illusion only lasts for as long as it takes to look at the list of their biggest backers.
When he said that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time". Which is just a version of the the genus of crowds. Toss in Crowd Sourcing ... just because.
And what has the crowd, the American Public, said about Snowden's comments on the aggressiveness of the NSA? "Yawn. It's nice to know were getting our money's worth out of them."
I think Americans think of it this way: "You can have either a hunting dog, or a lap dog. You can't get a dog that's both. If you have a hunting dog, it's going to get out sometimes and chase stuff. I'm not going to be angry that the hunting dog is hunting. I'll think about a new leash, tomorrow. I'm too busy doing other stuff today. Oh, and by the way, telling the truth, sometimes, is a crime."
For me, I agree with the American people. As for his concerns that his supervisors would punish him for speaking out - they very well might have. There are two other branches of government. The NSA has critics in the Congress and the Courts. He should have exhausted his other options before this. Failing to do so is a crime and he should be punished for it. It is the same as refusing to report a crime because you're convinced the police are corrupt. Did you try the State Police? The FBI?
Next question, will I be modded down as flamebait because someone disagrees with me?
I'd say the real proof isn't in the actual leaks, but in the government's response to them.
And I hardly think it's paranoia to think that the government is doing what it's fully capable of doing, and doing so in relative secrecy.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
That was precisely his point:
The real proof was provided by the reaction of those that recognized the documents and were too stupid to just shut up for awhile and see if it blows over.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Manifesto... thats the primary keyword for COMPLETE NUTJOB.
And there went his credibility... Just when he was starting to do some good.
Are you calling the founding fathers of the US nut jobs? They wrote a manifesto called the Declaration of Independence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
They were also terrorists and traitors.
And they won, so they got to write the history books saying they were heroes and liberators.
Be seeing you...
Congrats, Snowden!
No, not Edward, I mean Snowden the father. Congrats for doing a great job in raising a decent, honest human being who could have chosen to act according to what was Right.
I'm proud and humbled, because I don't know if I would have the courage your son has shown.
Thank you both, father and son, for making such a costly decision for the benefit of humanity.
And, as a father myself of a little kid, it scares me just to think how it would affect me, were I in your place. Again, my deep respect and admiration for your son's attitude.
PS: Just for disclosure, I should remark I am a US national and was benefited by Mr. Snowden revelations.
How long? I want to know how long until Snowden is given a medal by congress. He deserves a Gold Medal, at least as much as a Walt Disney, or Roberto Clemente, or a Danny Thomas. Browse the list yourself - some of the people who have been awarded a Gold Medal may have sacrificed more, or done more than Snowden. But Edward stands head and shoulders over a mere sports figure, or a Hollywood icon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Congressional_Gold_Medal_recipients
How long until you people stop sucking Snowden's dick so that a serious debate about these issues can be held?
The Tea Party was hijacked by the Christian Coalition when the Christian Coalition went out of style with Bush. Now they bitch about not having the freedom to create a religious dictatorship. Sarah Palin suddenly going from the CC to the Tea Party wasn't enough of a clue?
Then the money got into it and now they just function as a whip to keep the party line.
"General warrants are unconstitutional"
Warrants are at the heart of the US justice system. Invalid warrants can be executed but they can and are challengeable in criminal proceedings. Just like evidence collected is always challengeable. Laws, such as the Patriot Act, can be challenged in court but you need a real case to be filed. The government has been going out of their way to make sure that does not happen. The most well known case was a college professor in Florida who was charged with violating certain provisions of the Patriot Act and the court dismissed all charges after ruling the PA provisions were unconstitutional and non-enforceable. To my knowledge I have not heard of the government using evidence collected by one of the NSA surveillance programs to prosecute a US citizen. If that were to happen the court would get the opportunity to examine the legality of the method used to collect the evidence. When the government passes laws such as the Patriot Act the law is vetted by in-house Executive and Legislative legal staffs to determine the big picture legality of the proposed law or amendment. But that process only produces a legal opinion that can be invalidated by the Judicial branch when the law or statute is applied. The charges of spying on peoples communications en masse has been widely exaggerated. Do you really think the NSA has the capability to intercept, store, and analyze everyone's e-mail or phone conversation? We are talking about billions of e-mails and phone conversations a day. The collection of call metadata by direct intercept may be ruled as potentially illegal but requesting the information from the service providers with a court order is currently not illegal. There are some active cases where this is issue is being litigated. The information published on the NSA SIGINT programs have resulted in some very inaccurate interpretations of the NSA programs and capabilities. The incorrect conclusions reached by some of those analyzing the information is starting to hide some of the legitimate complaints under review. It is becoming harder by the day to get to the actual truth on the many controversial subjects. Snowden himself injected some patently false information claiming he could tap any phone or e-mail account without going through any oversight. There have also been claims of the government compromising Yahoo and Google data centers that there is no supporting evidence to back up that claim. This claim has resulted in a few retractions from those who published that particular piece of information. Retractions that never seem to be noticed so the misinformation continues to increase. People then build and support arguments on the underlying misinformation.
Of course telling the truth is illegal in a society that depends on it's members telling themselves lies just to go through life without going ape-shit.
Here's a partial list:
The truth will set you free (as in death, unemployment, homelessness, divorce, etc...)
Hard work pays (minimum wage.)
Intelligence is respected (when it fits our designs.)
Honesty is the best policy (to espouse, just don't practice it.)
The little guy has a chance to make it (provided he has blackmail armor to take the blows.)
Heros are to be praised (to drown them out, then tossed in a closet until they are needed again, assuming they survive in the first place.)
It is better to do things the right way (just make sure it's the boss's "right way.")
We are all equals (unless you are in a position of power.)
The law applies to everyone (except those that make it.)
Justice is blind (to reason.)
True love is out there (just like Santa Claus!)
Love and marriage go together (if you love fights, pissing matches, resource paranoia, monotony, and abstinence.)
And, I really doubt this is limited to the US of A.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
To my knowledge I have not heard of the government using evidence collected by one of the NSA surveillance programs to prosecute a US citizen.
They probably know that that could prove detrimental to their causes. To keep everything secret, they'll probably try to harass people behind the scenes and try to keep their sources secret.
Do you really think the NSA has the capability to intercept, store, and analyze everyone's e-mail or phone conversation?
They can possibly intercept and store a significant amount of it and keep it around for whenever they want to abuse it. But whether they can or can't is irrelevant; even metadata can be used and abused, and most likely will be if this is allowed to go on.
The collection of call metadata by direct intercept may be ruled as potentially illegal but requesting the information from the service providers with a court order is currently not illegal.
To me, mass collection of metadata, even with a court order, should be considered unconstitutional.
Snowden himself injected some patently false information claiming he could tap any phone or e-mail account without going through any oversight.
The NSA, as an organization, basically has no oversight. Even if they did, I do not believe they should be able to do any of this.
I think there is a reason that people are willing to believe that the government is abusing its powers, even if the claims are sometimes untrue: History.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Obama extended the Patriot Act in both 2006 and 2011. The fact you still continue to try to assign blame to Bush some 5 years later is both sad and telling for the Obama shill that you must be.
"Statement of principles" or "mission statements" are the kinds of words used to describe short declarations of goals.
Yes, and "manifesto" is just another synonym of those.
If you don't mind me asking, why, exactly, are you concerned with aggressive intentions of al-Shabaab or Hezbollah? al-Shabaab operates in Somalia, and Hezbollah operates in Lebanon and Syria. Last I checked, those are not US states or dependent territories, nor do they border US. When US troops end up being shot at by al-Shabaab, that's because US troops are stationed somewhere outside of their country - i.e. they are on the offensive, rather than defending their homeland. Have you considered that, perhaps, a much cheaper way to deal with aggressive intentions of those organizations is to pull your troops out of the harm's way and focus on your own country? You might find that not only you don't need anywhere near as much paranoia to deal with teh terrorists, but also that your (insane by the standards of any other country) military expenses will also go down considerably... and last I checked, you have a bit of a budget problem?
But the sad fact is, he's also betraying his country.
Do not confuse "government" and "country." This is the propaganda that the powers that be like to spread.
The country is (among other things) the ideals the country stands for, and laws, including the constitution, that uphold those ideals.
The government is a bunch of people who may or may not support those ideals, and may or may not break laws upholding those ideals when it suits them.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
I do not see anything noble in what he's done
This means you operate at stage 4 in Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning:
"Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned. (...) In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force."
While Snowden is probably at stage 5:
"The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. (...) In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”. This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning."
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
What the hell...
Me wanting "By the people, for the people" is me disagreeing with the system we have? We're at that point already? Then I guess it's worse than even I thought, and I considered me a pessimist. If I need to change the system to get that, I guess we arrived at the fourth box already and I guess I should get off the soapy one. Standing up there only makes you a good target once the fourth box gets cracked open.
As for the second killer argument "don't like the government, run for office". Yeah. Nice one. It's actually kinda cute that you still believe that you could possibly change anything that way. Btw, and I hope I don't kill your inner child now: There's also no St. Nick.
To run for an office in the US (or pretty much anywhere) you need most of all two things, two things I do not have: Money and access to media outlets. The former is actually even optional, but usually a requirement to get the latter. You need people to know you, and the only way this can happen these days is with the media. At first the powers that are feared the internet might tilt that power since now even people without access to the mass media can publish, until they noticed that it doesn't mean jack. The internet is no push medium, unlike TV or newspapers. You have to come and get info, and most people simply don't want to go through that hassle and instead simply take the info that is slammed in their face, i.e. TV. Without, don't bother running for any kind of office.
And no, TV spots alone don't cut it. Simply buying TV time won't do you any good. For an in depth reasoning ask various third party millionaires that tried to run and failed for the simple reason that they were ignored by debates and other non-obvious propaganda means. Because they are the ones that influence voters most, not the "paid for by some idiot group" announcements.
So please, not the "don't like it, run for office" crap. If that worked, the election system would have been changed ages ago.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The tea party being anti-establishment. Now that's cute.
Get a clue. Just because something takes on a certain name doesn't make it so. Didn't the various "democratic republics" and "people's republics" that existed between the 1950 and the 1990 teach you anything?
Follow the money trail and tell me that they would come even CLOSE to being anything but corporate shills.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Unfortunately, the Tea Party is made up of insiders and people with money.
Would this work? >: Make it a criminal offence for a politician to speak untruth or withhold information on any subject [?or any which might relate to government?] when requested for it (?in open forum?) (?or in Congress or any public event?) - or in any letter(?). Would that fix it? [lying statements in Congress etc would not be free from prosecution, having the status of perjury].
You inject your opinion that the government is unable to intercept communications randomly and at will due to the volume of data transferred. Are you serious in your opinion? If so, I am certain you are a very naive person.
Yawn. No. The Tea Party has successfully upended the Republican establishment.
"To me, mass collection of metadata, even with a court order, should be considered unconstitutional."
You can't just pick and chose which court orders you would prefer. Your call metadata is already in the hands of your service provider for billing purposes. Metadata collected by the GPS navigation services provide even more information on a persons actions. The metadata is also used by contracted 3rd parties for creating analytics on the various communication and cell based systems to gauge how the overall system is performing and determine if anything needs to be done to make the system better. The constitutionality of upholding a persons right to remain silent does not apply in certain cases if the information has already been shared with a 3rd party.
" government is abusing its powers" That's just the thing nobody has provided any evidence of government misuse of the collected data. I am not saying they have not misused the data only that there is currently no proof. The legality of using the collected data is a separate issue from the legality of collecting data in the data in the first place. Whether you agree or not there are formal procedures required to actually access the data collected. Of course formal procedures will not stop a determined and knowledgeable individual from illegally circumventing the formal process. You can take issue with FISA methods and the decisions that are issued by FISA but it is currently a legal process.
"even if the claims are sometimes untrue: History"
Historical knowledge or lack of is being distorted or ignored by people who are more interested in winning an argument than getting to the actual truth.
You can't just pick and chose which court orders you would prefer.
Yes, I can. I believe certain court orders to be unconstitutional (from the 4th amendment) and immoral.
Your call metadata is already in the hands of your service provider for billing purposes.
And? I don't want it in the hands of the government, too. That excuse is, to me, absolutely nonsensical; it allows the government to outsource its spying to corporations, and that's not a world I want to live in.
That's just the thing nobody has provided any evidence of government misuse of the collected data.
Even possessing the data shows they've already abused their powers, or at least to me.
but it is currently a legal process.
Legal, but not constitutional. A secretive court rubberstamping general warrants is, I think, a recipe for disaster.
Historical knowledge or lack of is being distorted or ignored by people who are more interested in winning an argument than getting to the actual truth.
I can name off numerous acts of abuse and abusive governments. Historical knowledge is not being "distorted"; fools who blindly trust their governments are almost certainly going to find that their governments hardly more trustworthy than all the other ones that abused their powers throughout history. I believe "It can't happen here" is simply an absurd and naive statement; corruption can happen anywhere.
I believe history gives us a glimpse of the future.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I agree with ya, bud.
But the sad fact is, he's also betraying his country.
He had to betray his country to save it.
Can't wait for the USA to remake the movie 'Mister Smith Goes To Washington' as 'Mister Smith Is A Terrorist'.
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
I, for one, welcome our NSA overlord masters.
A Manifesto of Truth, written in Russia, am I the only one that finds the Irony in this?
> PS: Just for disclosure, I should remark I am a US national and was benefited by Mr. Snowden revelations.
Sorry, I was tired and a word went missing: "I should remark I am NOT a US national"
That is what I meant, as it's important to note that I'm not influenced by such worries as US nationals may have. In spite of that, I do think Snowden is being a good US citizen in exposing things which need to be corrected for the benefit of country. Seeing youths with that kind of moral strength really renews my faith in mankind.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion