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.'"
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."
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.
truth actually a crime, actually
Only if it's truth that embarrasses the government and corporations that rule this country. You're free to tell all the benign truth you wish, citizen. You may also debate the merits of which of the two allowed parties is more worthy of your vote, that of Kang or that of Kodos.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
The problem in the US is that the debate is controlled by idiots... and calling them idiots is being nice.
Every debate we have in the US right now becomes a false dilemma. "Scaling back" capitalism, or doing anything that falls in the middle ground between socialism and capitalism, simply gets a person labeled a "communist" or worse. So we can't have debates.
Our last two presidential cycles should have included debates about corporate power but they didn't. This is because we have a certain group of people controlling the agenda.
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 and let them know they're spying on the population.
No sig today...
"Capitalism" and "freedom" are not synonymous, no matter what Ayn tells you.
Capitalism is an ideal, some elements of which may promote freedom in any given society.
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.
It seems to me unfettered capitalism is pretty much a recipe to *reduce* freedom. Eventually you have a poor class that doesn't have the freedom to do anything at all and a rich class that can do anything. That ends up being a net loss.
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.
Illustrating how the opponent's argument is unsound is a real response.
Next time, should I write more than I need to?
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.
There are no debates in the US, at least not in public. A debate is by definition a battle of wits between two (or more) people where one presents a theory, the other(s) present counter arguments and during debate and discussion the parties approach each other with the goal that, in the end, a consensus can be achieved, or at least a modus vivendi, a formulation that both can somehow agree with or at least accept as a common ground.
That is exactly what is NOT wanted in a "debate" in the US, especially when it comes to political discussions. Quite the opposite, political debates are painstakingly looking for the minimal differences the two parties might have to uphold the illusion that they don't in fact agree on every halfway important topic, trying to shift the focus on point- and meaningless side topics that we "may" disagree at because, frankly, nobody gives a shit about them. A standard issue political "debate" in the US would be kinda dull since only the first one to speak gets to speak, with the second one not able to add anything but "well, I agree" to the fold.
That's no two party system, that's a one party system with two slightly diverging wings.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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)
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
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
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.
They day the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations had the same rights as Citizens yet not be held accountable (unless you are an officer of the Corporation) tells you everything you need to know about who holds the power in this country.
Corporations were once just legal entities. Now, they have the same rights as citizens. Keep in mind, many corporations are multi-national. And, you wonder why there there is no accountability and people don't trust the government?
We, as citizens, are merely subservient to our corporate overlords. This isn't about Obama or Bush - it's about greed and power. I, for one, do not welcome my new masters.
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.
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
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.