4 ms·

Obama to reporters: 'I don't see Snowden as a patriot' [video]

32 points by rdudekul 13y ago

bungle 13y ago
I don't see Obama worth a Nobel price. Maybe they will give one to Snowden next time.
duaneb 13y ago
I don't see the government as very patriotic either.
olaf 13y ago
I see Obama as a false hope.
vehementi 13y ago
Wow.
Zariel 13y ago
Of course he has to say this, how else is he to response? But In reality what defines being "patriot" doing what you believe is right for your country? Then Snowdown is a patriot.
- eshvk 13y ago
  > But In reality what defines being "patriot" doing what you believe is right for your country? That is a very loose definition. By that definition, every soldier including William Calley [1] is a patriot. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Labeling somebody as a patriot should not be seen necessarily as signalling approval. I would not hesitate to label anyone in the military who enlisted[1] for non-selfish reasons[2] a patriot. I think it would be inaccurate to claim otherwise. [1] Somebody who was drafted may or may not be a patriot. [2] Reasons that I would consider 'selfish' for these purposes include "I wanted to see the world" or "GI Bill".
jlgreco 13y ago
Presidents seem to generally be rather piss-poor judges of character.
- jmduke 13y ago
  I'd say presidents are generally better judges of character than the vast majority of the populace, given their position. It's fun and often therapeutic to assume that government officials and politicians aren't as smart as us programmers, but an overwhelming amount of evidence generally points to the fact that U.S. Presidents are, if nothing else, incredibly intelligent. I'd also generally say that my (and likely your) first-hand knowledge is incredibly lacking, as I have never actually met any Presidents.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I'd say the general population is not the bar we should be holding people to, particularly not high-ranking politicians. Not by a hell of a long shot. I mean congratulation, they are better than a group of people in which racism, sexism, and various other forms of bigotry are still massively prevalent.... You don't need to meet a president to hear what he has to say about people. Presidents are often quoted you see...
mark_l_watson 13y ago
I donated money to Obama's 2008 campaign and voted for him twice. Now, my honest opinion is that some of his statements are outright lies. Saying he called for an orderly examination of privacy issues seems flat out wrong given that his administration has been trying to keep things hushed up. He comes off as trying to deliberately confuse and mislead the public. Open government - ha! I am so disappointed with Obama. I think that history will be very harsh in judging him.
if_by_whisky 13y ago
"I called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before Mr. Snowden made these leaks. My preference, and I think, the American people's preference would have been for a lawful, orderly, examination of these laws. A... lawful, fact-based debate." How could we possibly have a fact-based debate without knowing any of the facts?
- malandrew 13y ago
  Nope. My preference is for whatever discussion and debate proves most truthful and transparent. Having all these documents in the hands of Greenwald and Snowden means that the have no choice but to participate honestly or risk being outed as liars. If they really wanted an orderly, lawful examination they should already be in the process of indicting James Clapper for perjury.
Sven7 13y ago
That line wasn't an accident and that's the most disgusting bit about it. Come on Mr. Obama. I expect better from you. Gandhi and Mandela were charged for all kinds of things. Lets not start making that the bar. I wouldn't want to start calling all those classy dudes on Wall Street patroits now.
Scryptonite 13y ago
Shocking. </sarcasm> I saw this a mile away. Anyone who didn't call this should work on improving their judge of character. Snowden is a patriot.
dsadasd 13y ago
what a Bush.
nfoz 13y ago
My transcription of an interesting part of his talk: ""I don't have an interest, and the people of the NSA don't have an interest, in doing anything other than making sure that where we can prevent a terrorist attack; where we can get information ahead of time, that we're able to carry out that critical task. We do not have an interest in doing anything other than that. And we've tried to set up a system that is as failsafe as far as we've been able to think of, to make sure that these programs are not abused. But people may have better ideas. And people may wanna jigger slightly sort of the balance between uh, the information that we can get, vs. the incremental encroachments on privacy that if haven't already taken place might take place in a future administration (or as technologies develop further). And the other thing that's happening is that as technology develops further, technology itself may provide us some additional safeguards. So for example if people don't have confidence that the law, the checks and balances of the court, and congress, are sufficient to give us confidence that government's not snooping. Well, maybe we can embed technologies in there that prevent the snooping regardless of what government wants to do. I mean there may be some technological fixes that provide another layer of assurance. And so those are the kinds of things that I'm looking forward to having a conversation about." -- Obama
anon292929 13y ago
So we were supposed to have conversations about things we didn't know anything about?
samstave 13y ago
One of the things you'll notice in everything that Obama says, is how he ties everything to an emotional response. His rhetoric is that of one who is using suggestive language to sway the public - and he is a master of it - but once you recognize it, it just makes you ill with simply how often he invokes the tactic. Emotions can affect behaviour, especially in those who don't have a good filter, which is a majority of any human who is poorly educated, especially about themselves. Obama is a true political propagandist and absolutely nothing he says should be believed - and it should be listened to with caution. It is better to read his words than to hear them as you can more easily filter out his suggestive emotional tone, and spot his key phrasings. This is several years old... but there are many people who have stated what I stated above. This is a 67 page writeup on his method of suggestive language. http://exopolitics.blogs.com/files/obamas_use_of_hidden_hypnosis_techniques_in_his_speeches.pdf http://exopolitics.blogs.com/files/obamas_use_of_hidden_hypn...

32 points by rdudekul 13y ago

bungle 13y ago

I don't see Obama worth a Nobel price. Maybe they will give one to Snowden next time.

duaneb 13y ago

I don't see the government as very patriotic either.

olaf 13y ago

I see Obama as a false hope.

vehementi 13y ago

Wow.

Zariel 13y ago

Of course he has to say this, how else is he to response? But In reality what defines being "patriot" doing what you believe is right for your country? Then Snowdown is a patriot.

eshvk 13y ago
> But In reality what defines being "patriot" doing what you believe is right for your country? That is a very loose definition. By that definition, every soldier including William Calley [1] is a patriot. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Labeling somebody as a patriot should not be seen necessarily as signalling approval. I would not hesitate to label anyone in the military who enlisted[1] for non-selfish reasons[2] a patriot. I think it would be inaccurate to claim otherwise. [1] Somebody who was drafted may or may not be a patriot. [2] Reasons that I would consider 'selfish' for these purposes include "I wanted to see the world" or "GI Bill".

jlgreco 13y ago

Presidents seem to generally be rather piss-poor judges of character.

jmduke 13y ago
I'd say presidents are generally better judges of character than the vast majority of the populace, given their position. It's fun and often therapeutic to assume that government officials and politicians aren't as smart as us programmers, but an overwhelming amount of evidence generally points to the fact that U.S. Presidents are, if nothing else, incredibly intelligent. I'd also generally say that my (and likely your) first-hand knowledge is incredibly lacking, as I have never actually met any Presidents.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I'd say the general population is not the bar we should be holding people to, particularly not high-ranking politicians. Not by a hell of a long shot. I mean congratulation, they are better than a group of people in which racism, sexism, and various other forms of bigotry are still massively prevalent.... You don't need to meet a president to hear what he has to say about people. Presidents are often quoted you see...

mark_l_watson 13y ago

I donated money to Obama's 2008 campaign and voted for him twice. Now, my honest opinion is that some of his statements are outright lies. Saying he called for an orderly examination of privacy issues seems flat out wrong given that his administration has been trying to keep things hushed up. He comes off as trying to deliberately confuse and mislead the public. Open government - ha! I am so disappointed with Obama. I think that history will be very harsh in judging him.

if_by_whisky 13y ago

"I called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before Mr. Snowden made these leaks. My preference, and I think, the American people's preference would have been for a lawful, orderly, examination of these laws. A... lawful, fact-based debate." How could we possibly have a fact-based debate without knowing any of the facts?

malandrew 13y ago
Nope. My preference is for whatever discussion and debate proves most truthful and transparent. Having all these documents in the hands of Greenwald and Snowden means that the have no choice but to participate honestly or risk being outed as liars. If they really wanted an orderly, lawful examination they should already be in the process of indicting James Clapper for perjury.

Sven7 13y ago

That line wasn't an accident and that's the most disgusting bit about it. Come on Mr. Obama. I expect better from you. Gandhi and Mandela were charged for all kinds of things. Lets not start making that the bar. I wouldn't want to start calling all those classy dudes on Wall Street patroits now.

Scryptonite 13y ago

Shocking. </sarcasm> I saw this a mile away. Anyone who didn't call this should work on improving their judge of character. Snowden is a patriot.

dsadasd 13y ago

what a Bush.

nfoz 13y ago

My transcription of an interesting part of his talk: ""I don't have an interest, and the people of the NSA don't have an interest, in doing anything other than making sure that where we can prevent a terrorist attack; where we can get information ahead of time, that we're able to carry out that critical task. We do not have an interest in doing anything other than that. And we've tried to set up a system that is as failsafe as far as we've been able to think of, to make sure that these programs are not abused. But people may have better ideas. And people may wanna jigger slightly sort of the balance between uh, the information that we can get, vs. the incremental encroachments on privacy that if haven't already taken place might take place in a future administration (or as technologies develop further). And the other thing that's happening is that as technology develops further, technology itself may provide us some additional safeguards. So for example if people don't have confidence that the law, the checks and balances of the court, and congress, are sufficient to give us confidence that government's not snooping. Well, maybe we can embed technologies in there that prevent the snooping regardless of what government wants to do. I mean there may be some technological fixes that provide another layer of assurance. And so those are the kinds of things that I'm looking forward to having a conversation about." -- Obama

anon292929 13y ago

So we were supposed to have conversations about things we didn't know anything about?

samstave 13y ago

One of the things you'll notice in everything that Obama says, is how he ties everything to an emotional response. His rhetoric is that of one who is using suggestive language to sway the public - and he is a master of it - but once you recognize it, it just makes you ill with simply how often he invokes the tactic. Emotions can affect behaviour, especially in those who don't have a good filter, which is a majority of any human who is poorly educated, especially about themselves. Obama is a true political propagandist and absolutely nothing he says should be believed - and it should be listened to with caution. It is better to read his words than to hear them as you can more easily filter out his suggestive emotional tone, and spot his key phrasings. This is several years old... but there are many people who have stated what I stated above. This is a 67 page writeup on his method of suggestive language. http://exopolitics.blogs.com/files/obamas_use_of_hidden_hypnosis_techniques_in_his_speeches.pdf http://exopolitics.blogs.com/files/obamas_use_of_hidden_hypn...