7 ms·

Demonizing Edward Snowden

86 points by nqureshi 13y ago

quchen 13y ago
> Snowden Snowden Snowden There should be a prize for ad hominem journalism. Whether Snowden is evil or not is as important as the president's hair color.
- sageikosa 13y ago
  Malkovich!
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  Small nitpick: I don't agree with media focusing exclusively on the man and not the story. That being said - it's not ad hominem to open debate about credibility based on a person's history, intelligence, knowledge or expertise. For example, questioning if Snowden understood the documents he leaked because he does not have a high school diploma or certifiable, checkable expertise (aside from landing the access) in mass surveillance is not ad hominem. It's a reasonable way to express doubt and question someone's ability to be capable as a whistleblower. It's also reasonable because whistleblowers should be both accountable and rigorous. Character defamation on the other hand is bad. I'm not against Snowden, I just wanted to make it clear that it's not unreasonable to question him.
mgkimsal 13y ago
"His failure to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the U.S., not to advance Internet freedom and free speech." Perhaps the only way you can advance free speech necessarily involves injuring the US national security?
- pekk 13y ago
  Or - to be the devil's advocate - perhaps the only way to advance free speech is to defect to North Korea (like Joe Dresnok)? Or give secrets to Israel (like Jonathan Pollard) or China (like Peter Lee) or Russia (like Robert Hanssen)? I mean, who really knows what could turn out to be the only possible way to advance free speech? With the US as the "biggest villain," perhaps absolutely anything done to oppose the US is the only possible way to advance free speech?
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  His failure to criticize these regimes suggests that he is not a citizen of them. He actually cares about what he personally is responsible for, what is done in his name, rather than what is easy to bash and a useful distraction from one's own crimes. Hah, that was easy...
el_fuser 13y ago
Media observers will note that snowden has become the story... Very little is being reported on the actual whistle blowing (or gutless treason, if you listen to the media). As i watch this massive PR engine start to tear apart Snowden,,,, I'm finding it very hard to post anything critical of the government. It's just a little too easy to flip a binary switch somewhere. I wonder if this is how it started with those countries we consider repressive?
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  I studied psychology in school, so I know I read this but sorry for not being able to cite it: If you tell someone the same message over and over, they begin to believe it. I don't mean that in a cliche way, I mean literally and clinically. IIRC, the average you had to pad a message was 60 repetitions before it "sunk in" to someone. If anyone has a citation or the study, please, supplement this comment :) I'm not being so brazen as to say the media intends this effect. But I think humans know it exists on some level and have always exploited it.
twoodfin 13y ago
After all, you're either with us, or you're with those who want to destroy our freedoms. That big wheel just keeps on rolling...
- pekk 13y ago
  Both the pro-Snowden and pro-NSA sides seem to have this attitude (you're either with us, or you're with those who want to destroy our freedoms). Apparently it isn't a valid option to not particularly be a fan of either one.
brown9-2 13y ago
The idea that one needs to choose sides reduces every part of this debate to a binary decision which I think is foolish. It's completely possible to question or dislike some of this guy's decisions and/or motives, and also be thankful of some of the things that he has revealed and the other disclosures that have followed (via government leaks) due to it. It's also not a contradiction to think that some of his leaks were useful to the American public and some were harmful. You can be glad at the outcome some of his actions have brought about (such as the increased knowledge we now have) without having to label him "a hero" and reserve your skepticism or judgement for other things he might do or will do.
- supercanuck 13y ago
  It may be possible, and it may be childish.... But it resonates. I work for a giant oil and gas comp in Houston and we did this awkward dance of trying to figure out where each stands before i blurted out, "I'm rooting for Snowden." That simple statement communicated a lot into my co-workers mind of what my values are especially deep in the heart of Texas.
- agravier 13y ago
  (Beware, I never visited the US, all I write is based on my distant perception) It seems like Americans like to black-and-white every decision, binarize every election (leading to two political parties; any alternative is disregarded). That mentality is taught since generations and cultivated by those press articles and many cultural products. It eases the herding of mass opinion, and by denying immediate access to intellectual subtlety, it makes philosophical though more alien and generates anti-intellectualism in scientific and cultural areas where subtlety and self-criticism are key. Maybe my indirect reading is biased by the most prominent cultural exports of the US, or their the most vocal representatives. I would welcome the opinions of insiders.
  - windexh8er 13y ago
    The majority (at least in the Midwest) vote a straight ticket. That's not to say there are those that don't vote on position or agenda, but most are positioned to vote party lines. I find it crazy that people will watch 10s of hours a week watching junk TV but when asked if they've researched who they're voting for they have a blank stare.
quaunaut 13y ago
I genuinely don't care about Snowden. I want him to force Greenwald to give us some more fucking information instead of this pussyfooting, because at this point all I'm seeing is those two skewing a lot of facts and getting a lot of this horrifically wrong. Except they've completely clammed up, so now we get no clarifications or additions to the story. If his stuff turns out to be completely 100% true, awesome. If it's mostly true, but somewhat skewed, then whatever, okay. If it's mostly false, a giant pile of hyperbole, and it turns out they don't have our SSL cert keys, they're not gathering all possible social network data(or even most of it), etc etc? Then I'm just gonna shake my head.
- pekk 13y ago
  The point is simply to get the message out there, not to verify anything. Once it's out, it can't be undone.
  - quaunaut 13y ago
    Then what reason do we have to believe anything Snowden/Greenwald say?
Qantourisc 13y ago
"...and significant damage to our country and to our allies." You mean the kind where the "terrorist" now know this too ? Or the PR kind ??? If your laundry wasn't dirty it wouldn't be a problem if it hung out in public !
lifeformed 13y ago
What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be bad? The legality and morality of the spying program shouldn't even have to be an issue when one is determining whether to support Snowden or not. If an American supports the spying program, how is it any better or worse now that he knows of its existence? It's not like Snowden destroyed the program. All he did was tell us that it exists. The program still operates freely and "protects us" as much as it did before. Why would a citizen now be unhappy that he's burdened with the knowledge of such things? Terrorists aren't now saying, "oh crap, I better be more careful with my communications now." I'm sure they were already taking proper precautions. The existence of the program was probably already safely implied by the people it's targeting the most.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  This is an idealist approach to thinking about American reactions, not a realistic one. In the real world, people get angry at things even if they don't cause lasting change. It doesn't matter if Snowden dismantled a program they like - people get angry just because you criticize their favorite candidate, and he did so much more than that. It's naive to try and argue nothing is different or impacted because of Snowden just because he didn't dismantle the spying program. Snowden is antagonistic to the program itself and is publicly standing against it. As such, he is didactically opposed to Americans who support the program and vice versa. In politics, being opposed in such a way fuels anger and resentment. You don't need to change anything - its your existence as a player on the other team and your potential to rally against something other people agree with that makes you a target.
- jzelinskie 13y ago
  I think most people opposed to Snowden are using the argument that he has "crossed the line" by releasing information on the NSA hacking Chinese infrastructure. What they fail to realize is that this is public infrastructure (hospitals, etc...) and the attacks are basically human rights violations on the Chinese; which is a country we aren't even at war with.
  - embolism 13y ago
bedhead 13y ago
While it's not a popular view on HN (to say the least), I am hugely looking forward to Snowden spending the rest of his life rotting in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
- efdee 13y ago
  Care to elaborate on exactly why you are looking forward to it?
- Intermernet 13y ago
  What's not popular is single line (slightly homophobic) statements of implied gratification from the punishment of others, without even a sentence (or word) of justification for your opinion. Maybe if you actually stated why you were "hugely looking forward" to someone being imprisoned for a crime that hasn't yet been proven in any way, according to any legal body or representative (charged yes, convicted no.), they'd be more inclined to debate the point, and your view wouldn't be quite so unpopular (to say the least).
  - bedhead 13y ago
    The opinions on HN regarding Snowden are so lamentably one-note in unconditional support that I really dont have the strength to articulate my counterargument. What's the point? I probably agree with many others who feel the same so I'll just point you towards other people, lazy as that may be. As for my "homophobic" joke, I'm merely quoting Office Space.
    - knowtheory 13y ago
      Right, but you can be lazy and link to others. The absence of argument or links makes it hard to evaluate the substance of your POV. :)
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    How is it not obvious that Snowden has committed several serious Federal crimes? I mean, he's more or less admitted to them on camera. Is there no classified information on the laptops he took with him to Hong Kong?
ianstallings 13y ago
I'm on the side of good, justice, and the American way. I just can't decide which side that is. (Joking) The truth is Snowden committed a crime and those guys are never going to let it slide or else their whole secret community falls apart. Am I glad that this information came to light? Definitely. Would I ever do the same thing he did? Never. I would never take an oath to keep something a secret and then expose it to the world, knowing full well I was going to do it from the beginning. That's deceitful and I think that explains the caution around Snowden. We need to see the whole story come out over time before making judgements. But I can dislike the NSA programs and also dislike Snowden's maneuvers. They are separate issues. In other words, simply claiming it's black and white doesn't make it so.
- sopooneo 13y ago
  An undercover cop, who swears allegiance to a gang he is infiltrating, only to testify against them later, is he deceitful? Wrongly so? It may be that Snowden did an immoral thing. But I think it is possible to hold allegiance first to a higher ideal, and break later promises to uphold it.
  - ianstallings 13y ago
    Damn, good point. But I could counter that the cop has been appointed by society to uphold certain laws. Now that dives down into the whole philosophical question regarding authority where I'd rather not go, but I think the minimum we ask of people acting on behalf of society is to inform us first that you will be acting on our behalf. Otherwise we get vigilantes acting outside of our justice system and doing what they feel is just. Let's at least agree on it first. I think that's what really ticks me off about this whole thing. That there was no mechanism in place to voice concerns about the system and our representatives completely failed us by writing a blank check to the watchers. So we get vigilantes.
smutticus 13y ago
I'm on the side that doesn't turn every controversy into ad hominem nonsense.
alexvr 13y ago
Can an unbiased person explain to me how this revelation is a threat to national security? Are terrorists going to stop saying, "Ok we blow up white house tonight!" over Skype or something? Are people just afraid of the bad publicity that goes along with spying on citizens and other nations? If that's the case, it's really sad: It's like a mother yelling at her children for speaking up about her once-secret abusive nature. I fail to see the danger or wrongdoing in this.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  You're combatting an argument that the people supporting surveillance aren't making. They don't care that the program hadn't been dismantled as a result of Snowden's actions. Their reaction is out of principle, and it's actually very reasonable and consistent with their side. If surveillance is a good thing and they are right for supporting it, they are also right in being opposed to Snowden because he can potentially dismantle the program or discredit it. He can weaken public perception of the government. He literally prompted the whole NSA conversation. He is a lightning rod spearheading all public discussion of this topic. Saying people shouldn't demonize him is like saying you shouldn't demonize a presidential candidate before he's had a chance to impact you in office. Sure, okay, but that's not how human beings operate.
ecto 13y ago
As noted, this is a false dichotomy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma. Human actions are a complex and spectral subject and cannot be binarized. We are completely eating out of the hands of media on this issue (not commenting on the integrity of the New Yorker - just in general). Though I agree that Snowden's affairs are an issue warranting discussion, media outlets are rapidly (and perhaps vapidly) distancing themselves from the core issue of the huge fucking datacenter in Utah SLURPING UP EVERY BIT OF DATA IT CAN TOUCH. There are so many other facets of this conversation that can generate pageviews for journalists that don't have to do with following some dude's plane flights across the planet and obvious bureaucratic troubles. Where is the discourse on the history of similar surveillance states? Where are the people working to decipher the architecture of PRISM, the datacenter, and its complete capabilities (I'm assuming they're waiting on Snowden to tell them)? Where are the journalists that went to the ends of the earth to speculate on the political connections and underpinnings of our previous, numerous, dubious national actions? I hope this doesn't become another oil spill and drop out of peoples' minds. It's too important. I'm afraid most people don't care though, and will eat up the latest gossip rather than meaningful commentary. We should aspire to more. [PHOTOS] Snowden orders ungarnished tuna sandwich, Gordon Ramsay comments
kunai 13y ago
I don't have a "side." I don't care about Snowden, although I wish him the best in his country-hopping endeavours. What I care about is that these leaks are analyzed and outrage pours in from the public. That hasn't happened, and the media is concentrated on Snowden's activities rather than the leaks themselves. It's shameful, disgusting, and the only one doing anything about it is Greenwald. Unfortunately, not many others are.
19y4iA84hxnW 13y ago
Question: Why does it matter whether his actions are "noble" or what his "motives" are? Have you read the relevant sections of the US Criminal Code that spell out his crimes? They make little mention of "nobility" or "motives". He's guilty. He's confessed. Move on. Now can we focus on what the NSA has been doing? Someone said, "I welcome a debate..." He said this standing at a podium addressing the free press. OK, so let's have it. I don't think he meant a debate focused on Snowden along the lines of "traitor vs. hero". The press is in a sorry state. Keep those Snowden articles coming.

86 points by nqureshi 13y ago

> Snowden Snowden Snowden There should be a prize for ad hominem journalism. Whether Snowden is evil or not is as important as the president's hair color.

sageikosa 13y ago
Malkovich!
dylangs1030 13y ago
Small nitpick: I don't agree with media focusing exclusively on the man and not the story. That being said - it's not ad hominem to open debate about credibility based on a person's history, intelligence, knowledge or expertise. For example, questioning if Snowden understood the documents he leaked because he does not have a high school diploma or certifiable, checkable expertise (aside from landing the access) in mass surveillance is not ad hominem. It's a reasonable way to express doubt and question someone's ability to be capable as a whistleblower. It's also reasonable because whistleblowers should be both accountable and rigorous. Character defamation on the other hand is bad. I'm not against Snowden, I just wanted to make it clear that it's not unreasonable to question him.

mgkimsal 13y ago

"His failure to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the U.S., not to advance Internet freedom and free speech." Perhaps the only way you can advance free speech necessarily involves injuring the US national security?

pekk 13y ago
Or - to be the devil's advocate - perhaps the only way to advance free speech is to defect to North Korea (like Joe Dresnok)? Or give secrets to Israel (like Jonathan Pollard) or China (like Peter Lee) or Russia (like Robert Hanssen)? I mean, who really knows what could turn out to be the only possible way to advance free speech? With the US as the "biggest villain," perhaps absolutely anything done to oppose the US is the only possible way to advance free speech?
PavlovsCat 13y ago
His failure to criticize these regimes suggests that he is not a citizen of them. He actually cares about what he personally is responsible for, what is done in his name, rather than what is easy to bash and a useful distraction from one's own crimes. Hah, that was easy...

el_fuser 13y ago

Media observers will note that snowden has become the story... Very little is being reported on the actual whistle blowing (or gutless treason, if you listen to the media). As i watch this massive PR engine start to tear apart Snowden,,,, I'm finding it very hard to post anything critical of the government. It's just a little too easy to flip a binary switch somewhere. I wonder if this is how it started with those countries we consider repressive?

dylangs1030 13y ago
I studied psychology in school, so I know I read this but sorry for not being able to cite it: If you tell someone the same message over and over, they begin to believe it. I don't mean that in a cliche way, I mean literally and clinically. IIRC, the average you had to pad a message was 60 repetitions before it "sunk in" to someone. If anyone has a citation or the study, please, supplement this comment :) I'm not being so brazen as to say the media intends this effect. But I think humans know it exists on some level and have always exploited it.

twoodfin 13y ago

After all, you're either with us, or you're with those who want to destroy our freedoms. That big wheel just keeps on rolling...

pekk 13y ago
Both the pro-Snowden and pro-NSA sides seem to have this attitude (you're either with us, or you're with those who want to destroy our freedoms). Apparently it isn't a valid option to not particularly be a fan of either one.

brown9-2 13y ago

The idea that one needs to choose sides reduces every part of this debate to a binary decision which I think is foolish. It's completely possible to question or dislike some of this guy's decisions and/or motives, and also be thankful of some of the things that he has revealed and the other disclosures that have followed (via government leaks) due to it. It's also not a contradiction to think that some of his leaks were useful to the American public and some were harmful. You can be glad at the outcome some of his actions have brought about (such as the increased knowledge we now have) without having to label him "a hero" and reserve your skepticism or judgement for other things he might do or will do.

supercanuck 13y ago
It may be possible, and it may be childish.... But it resonates. I work for a giant oil and gas comp in Houston and we did this awkward dance of trying to figure out where each stands before i blurted out, "I'm rooting for Snowden." That simple statement communicated a lot into my co-workers mind of what my values are especially deep in the heart of Texas.
agravier 13y ago
(Beware, I never visited the US, all I write is based on my distant perception) It seems like Americans like to black-and-white every decision, binarize every election (leading to two political parties; any alternative is disregarded). That mentality is taught since generations and cultivated by those press articles and many cultural products. It eases the herding of mass opinion, and by denying immediate access to intellectual subtlety, it makes philosophical though more alien and generates anti-intellectualism in scientific and cultural areas where subtlety and self-criticism are key. Maybe my indirect reading is biased by the most prominent cultural exports of the US, or their the most vocal representatives. I would welcome the opinions of insiders.
- windexh8er 13y ago
  The majority (at least in the Midwest) vote a straight ticket. That's not to say there are those that don't vote on position or agenda, but most are positioned to vote party lines. I find it crazy that people will watch 10s of hours a week watching junk TV but when asked if they've researched who they're voting for they have a blank stare.

quaunaut 13y ago

I genuinely don't care about Snowden. I want him to force Greenwald to give us some more fucking information instead of this pussyfooting, because at this point all I'm seeing is those two skewing a lot of facts and getting a lot of this horrifically wrong. Except they've completely clammed up, so now we get no clarifications or additions to the story. If his stuff turns out to be completely 100% true, awesome. If it's mostly true, but somewhat skewed, then whatever, okay. If it's mostly false, a giant pile of hyperbole, and it turns out they don't have our SSL cert keys, they're not gathering all possible social network data(or even most of it), etc etc? Then I'm just gonna shake my head.

pekk 13y ago
The point is simply to get the message out there, not to verify anything. Once it's out, it can't be undone.
- quaunaut 13y ago
  Then what reason do we have to believe anything Snowden/Greenwald say?

Qantourisc 13y ago

"...and significant damage to our country and to our allies." You mean the kind where the "terrorist" now know this too ? Or the PR kind ??? If your laundry wasn't dirty it wouldn't be a problem if it hung out in public !

lifeformed 13y ago

What is it exactly that Snowden did that so many Americans consider to be bad? The legality and morality of the spying program shouldn't even have to be an issue when one is determining whether to support Snowden or not. If an American supports the spying program, how is it any better or worse now that he knows of its existence? It's not like Snowden destroyed the program. All he did was tell us that it exists. The program still operates freely and "protects us" as much as it did before. Why would a citizen now be unhappy that he's burdened with the knowledge of such things? Terrorists aren't now saying, "oh crap, I better be more careful with my communications now." I'm sure they were already taking proper precautions. The existence of the program was probably already safely implied by the people it's targeting the most.

dylangs1030 13y ago
This is an idealist approach to thinking about American reactions, not a realistic one. In the real world, people get angry at things even if they don't cause lasting change. It doesn't matter if Snowden dismantled a program they like - people get angry just because you criticize their favorite candidate, and he did so much more than that. It's naive to try and argue nothing is different or impacted because of Snowden just because he didn't dismantle the spying program. Snowden is antagonistic to the program itself and is publicly standing against it. As such, he is didactically opposed to Americans who support the program and vice versa. In politics, being opposed in such a way fuels anger and resentment. You don't need to change anything - its your existence as a player on the other team and your potential to rally against something other people agree with that makes you a target.
jzelinskie 13y ago
I think most people opposed to Snowden are using the argument that he has "crossed the line" by releasing information on the NSA hacking Chinese infrastructure. What they fail to realize is that this is public infrastructure (hospitals, etc...) and the attacks are basically human rights violations on the Chinese; which is a country we aren't even at war with.
- embolism 13y ago

bedhead 13y ago

While it's not a popular view on HN (to say the least), I am hugely looking forward to Snowden spending the rest of his life rotting in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

efdee 13y ago
Care to elaborate on exactly why you are looking forward to it?
Intermernet 13y ago
What's not popular is single line (slightly homophobic) statements of implied gratification from the punishment of others, without even a sentence (or word) of justification for your opinion. Maybe if you actually stated why you were "hugely looking forward" to someone being imprisoned for a crime that hasn't yet been proven in any way, according to any legal body or representative (charged yes, convicted no.), they'd be more inclined to debate the point, and your view wouldn't be quite so unpopular (to say the least).
- bedhead 13y ago
  The opinions on HN regarding Snowden are so lamentably one-note in unconditional support that I really dont have the strength to articulate my counterargument. What's the point? I probably agree with many others who feel the same so I'll just point you towards other people, lazy as that may be. As for my "homophobic" joke, I'm merely quoting Office Space.
  - knowtheory 13y ago
    Right, but you can be lazy and link to others. The absence of argument or links makes it hard to evaluate the substance of your POV. :)
- twoodfin 13y ago
  How is it not obvious that Snowden has committed several serious Federal crimes? I mean, he's more or less admitted to them on camera. Is there no classified information on the laptops he took with him to Hong Kong?

ianstallings 13y ago

I'm on the side of good, justice, and the American way. I just can't decide which side that is. (Joking) The truth is Snowden committed a crime and those guys are never going to let it slide or else their whole secret community falls apart. Am I glad that this information came to light? Definitely. Would I ever do the same thing he did? Never. I would never take an oath to keep something a secret and then expose it to the world, knowing full well I was going to do it from the beginning. That's deceitful and I think that explains the caution around Snowden. We need to see the whole story come out over time before making judgements. But I can dislike the NSA programs and also dislike Snowden's maneuvers. They are separate issues. In other words, simply claiming it's black and white doesn't make it so.

sopooneo 13y ago
An undercover cop, who swears allegiance to a gang he is infiltrating, only to testify against them later, is he deceitful? Wrongly so? It may be that Snowden did an immoral thing. But I think it is possible to hold allegiance first to a higher ideal, and break later promises to uphold it.
- ianstallings 13y ago
  Damn, good point. But I could counter that the cop has been appointed by society to uphold certain laws. Now that dives down into the whole philosophical question regarding authority where I'd rather not go, but I think the minimum we ask of people acting on behalf of society is to inform us first that you will be acting on our behalf. Otherwise we get vigilantes acting outside of our justice system and doing what they feel is just. Let's at least agree on it first. I think that's what really ticks me off about this whole thing. That there was no mechanism in place to voice concerns about the system and our representatives completely failed us by writing a blank check to the watchers. So we get vigilantes.

smutticus 13y ago

I'm on the side that doesn't turn every controversy into ad hominem nonsense.

alexvr 13y ago

Can an unbiased person explain to me how this revelation is a threat to national security? Are terrorists going to stop saying, "Ok we blow up white house tonight!" over Skype or something? Are people just afraid of the bad publicity that goes along with spying on citizens and other nations? If that's the case, it's really sad: It's like a mother yelling at her children for speaking up about her once-secret abusive nature. I fail to see the danger or wrongdoing in this.

dylangs1030 13y ago
You're combatting an argument that the people supporting surveillance aren't making. They don't care that the program hadn't been dismantled as a result of Snowden's actions. Their reaction is out of principle, and it's actually very reasonable and consistent with their side. If surveillance is a good thing and they are right for supporting it, they are also right in being opposed to Snowden because he can potentially dismantle the program or discredit it. He can weaken public perception of the government. He literally prompted the whole NSA conversation. He is a lightning rod spearheading all public discussion of this topic. Saying people shouldn't demonize him is like saying you shouldn't demonize a presidential candidate before he's had a chance to impact you in office. Sure, okay, but that's not how human beings operate.

ecto 13y ago

As noted, this is a false dichotomy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma. Human actions are a complex and spectral subject and cannot be binarized. We are completely eating out of the hands of media on this issue (not commenting on the integrity of the New Yorker - just in general). Though I agree that Snowden's affairs are an issue warranting discussion, media outlets are rapidly (and perhaps vapidly) distancing themselves from the core issue of the huge fucking datacenter in Utah SLURPING UP EVERY BIT OF DATA IT CAN TOUCH. There are so many other facets of this conversation that can generate pageviews for journalists that don't have to do with following some dude's plane flights across the planet and obvious bureaucratic troubles. Where is the discourse on the history of similar surveillance states? Where are the people working to decipher the architecture of PRISM, the datacenter, and its complete capabilities (I'm assuming they're waiting on Snowden to tell them)? Where are the journalists that went to the ends of the earth to speculate on the political connections and underpinnings of our previous, numerous, dubious national actions? I hope this doesn't become another oil spill and drop out of peoples' minds. It's too important. I'm afraid most people don't care though, and will eat up the latest gossip rather than meaningful commentary. We should aspire to more. [PHOTOS] Snowden orders ungarnished tuna sandwich, Gordon Ramsay comments

kunai 13y ago

I don't have a "side." I don't care about Snowden, although I wish him the best in his country-hopping endeavours. What I care about is that these leaks are analyzed and outrage pours in from the public. That hasn't happened, and the media is concentrated on Snowden's activities rather than the leaks themselves. It's shameful, disgusting, and the only one doing anything about it is Greenwald. Unfortunately, not many others are.

19y4iA84hxnW 13y ago

Question: Why does it matter whether his actions are "noble" or what his "motives" are? Have you read the relevant sections of the US Criminal Code that spell out his crimes? They make little mention of "nobility" or "motives". He's guilty. He's confessed. Move on. Now can we focus on what the NSA has been doing? Someone said, "I welcome a debate..." He said this standing at a podium addressing the free press. OK, so let's have it. I don't think he meant a debate focused on Snowden along the lines of "traitor vs. hero". The press is in a sorry state. Keep those Snowden articles coming.