5 ms·

> "I don't think Mr. Snowden is a patriot," Obama said, adding that Snowden had legal means to bring his concerns to light. > Even without the leaks, he added,

> "I don't think Mr. Snowden is a patriot," Obama said, adding that Snowden had legal means to bring his concerns to light. > Even without the leaks, he added, the U.S. government would have made the reforms he was proposing, except it would have done so without sacrificing national security. Complete and utter bullshit.

loceng 13y ago
Yeah. It would have been valid if this was said publicly, that this was being done - that they knew reforms were needed and were in the process of the change.
- temphn 13y ago
  Re: "Reforms" and "change"...it might be time to become a bit more cynical about what Obama means by these things. He was never going to reduce his power, or the government's power, voluntarily.
msvan 13y ago
Obama has to say this stuff. Does he even believe it himself? Most people don't care as much as the HN crowd. Taking this stance is probably the best way to avoid a PR scandal with the masses. Which doesn't make it right, of course.
- ihsw 13y ago
  He can blow it out of his ass. Nothing they say has a grain of truth anymore, and nothing of value will be accomplished by his latest chest-thumping. Data mining and data manipulation are the air superiority of the 21st century -- it's going to the form the bottom line of every major power in the world. They're going to bare their largest fangs and growl with impudence at anybody that gets in their way. He says there are safeguards, but the most important -- whistleblowing and accountability -- are getting a backseat. The NSA has vast swaths of information on everything and on everybody, and the related Federal agencies (Department of Treasury (IRS), Department of Justice (DEA)) can smell blood. Unless he puts very large walls and many beartraps around the NSA's data, we will be slaughtered. They're recording everything passing through their part of the internet, and now they're in charge of guarding their recordings. They're doing a piss-poor job so far.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Following your own analogy, shouldn't the rise in air power have resulted in us all being bombed from the sky? ISTM that you're making a teleological argument which depends on the government having a fundamentally antagonistic stance towards the people, a position for which I feel proof is severely lacking.
    - ohazi 13y ago
      You're not going to see proof of this position anytime soon, since explicit antagonism would be unpalatable to many people and would compromise the government's stance. But I think you can make a convincing argument that the U.S. government has indeed taken an implicit antagonistic stance towards many underclasses (drug users, the mentally ill, poor people, etc.) after convincing the rest of us that such specific antagonism should be tolerable. This is the real problem. If it happens gradually enough, the bastards can sell us anything.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - SmokyBorbon 13y ago
    - beedogs 13y ago
      Your account appears to have been hellbanned for whatever this comment was, which has also apparently been deleted.
rayiner 13y ago
The fact that he's saying the word patriot is really significant.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I don't understand what you're getting at, here. Could you elaborate?
  - ianstormtaylor 13y ago
    Pretty sure he's talking about how Republicans are always getting shafted for talking about things be "un-American" or "un-patriotic" to the point of insanity, coming up with things like the Patriot Act. And here's Obama, supposedly the candidate in favor of "change" using the exact same rhetoric.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Well sure, and I disagree with the President's statement, but I think him using the word patriot is mostly indicative of the fact that a reporter asked him if he thought Snowden was a patriot...
mpyne 13y ago
What's funny is that I think he's right in the first case and wrong in the second. I don't seriously believe that these reforms would have been proposed without external pressure, and Snowden provided that pressure in a forum unlike Drake, who had done the right thing. With that said I don't think Snowden is a "patriot". He may be anti-surveillance, which may extend benefit to the American people, but his actions are not consistent with someone who is focused more-or-less solely on benefit to the American people, but rather someone who is opposed to government in general and the NSA in particular. For instance, leaking details of Chinese hacking does not help the American people. It hurts the NSA and makes the American government look bad, but it doesn't help the American people. Likewise with all the drama about asylum with regard to Russia. He put Obama in the position of being forced to cancel a summit with Putin to avoid looking politically weak at home. But Russia and the U.S. have real issues they need to work together on, which will have an impact on the world at large. That drama didn't help the American people either (and we'll see what happens with the crisis in Syria as well). But it did help make the American government look bad, along with Snowden personally.
- drewblaisdell 13y ago
  > For instance, leaking details of Chinese hacking does not help the American people. It hurts the NSA and makes the American government look bad, but it doesn't help the American people. Assuming that this is true, the net effect of Snowden's leaks (including revealing the extent to which we live in a surveillance state) is way in the positive. > Likewise with all the drama about asylum with regard to Russia. He put Obama in the position of being forced to cancel a summit with Putin to avoid looking politically weak at home. Well, a) he can't just avoid seeking asylum because it is inconvenient for the figurehead of the state pursuing him (what?), and b) the "drama" is a product of the United State's sensationalist news.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Assuming that this is true, the net effect of Snowden's leaks (including revealing the extent to which we live in a surveillance state) is way in the positive. Perhaps, but only by the same logic under which supply-side and 'trickle-down' economics is expected to succeed. > a) he can't just avoid seeking asylum because it is inconvenient for the figurehead of the state pursuing him (what?) Sure he could. Many "patriots" did things at risk to their liberty because they believed it was the right thing for their country. He chooses not to because asylum is better for him personally. That's certainly his choice to make, but it's not the 'patriotic' choice. > b) the "drama" is a product of the United State's sensationalist news. When did the Guardian become a U.S. news outlet?
unclebucknasty 13y ago
No kidding. First he comes out defending it. Now it needs reform. Which is it? because if he is asking us to believe that they happened to be juuuusst about to reform it when Snowden leaked, then we're now entering the self-parody zone.

loceng 13y ago

Yeah. It would have been valid if this was said publicly, that this was being done - that they knew reforms were needed and were in the process of the change.

temphn 13y ago
Re: "Reforms" and "change"...it might be time to become a bit more cynical about what Obama means by these things. He was never going to reduce his power, or the government's power, voluntarily.

msvan 13y ago

Obama has to say this stuff. Does he even believe it himself? Most people don't care as much as the HN crowd. Taking this stance is probably the best way to avoid a PR scandal with the masses. Which doesn't make it right, of course.

ihsw 13y ago
He can blow it out of his ass. Nothing they say has a grain of truth anymore, and nothing of value will be accomplished by his latest chest-thumping. Data mining and data manipulation are the air superiority of the 21st century -- it's going to the form the bottom line of every major power in the world. They're going to bare their largest fangs and growl with impudence at anybody that gets in their way. He says there are safeguards, but the most important -- whistleblowing and accountability -- are getting a backseat. The NSA has vast swaths of information on everything and on everybody, and the related Federal agencies (Department of Treasury (IRS), Department of Justice (DEA)) can smell blood. Unless he puts very large walls and many beartraps around the NSA's data, we will be slaughtered. They're recording everything passing through their part of the internet, and now they're in charge of guarding their recordings. They're doing a piss-poor job so far.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Following your own analogy, shouldn't the rise in air power have resulted in us all being bombed from the sky? ISTM that you're making a teleological argument which depends on the government having a fundamentally antagonistic stance towards the people, a position for which I feel proof is severely lacking.
  - ohazi 13y ago
    You're not going to see proof of this position anytime soon, since explicit antagonism would be unpalatable to many people and would compromise the government's stance. But I think you can make a convincing argument that the U.S. government has indeed taken an implicit antagonistic stance towards many underclasses (drug users, the mentally ill, poor people, etc.) after convincing the rest of us that such specific antagonism should be tolerable. This is the real problem. If it happens gradually enough, the bastards can sell us anything.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- SmokyBorbon 13y ago
  - beedogs 13y ago
    Your account appears to have been hellbanned for whatever this comment was, which has also apparently been deleted.

rayiner 13y ago

The fact that he's saying the word patriot is really significant.

dllthomas 13y ago
I don't understand what you're getting at, here. Could you elaborate?
- ianstormtaylor 13y ago
  Pretty sure he's talking about how Republicans are always getting shafted for talking about things be "un-American" or "un-patriotic" to the point of insanity, coming up with things like the Patriot Act. And here's Obama, supposedly the candidate in favor of "change" using the exact same rhetoric.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Well sure, and I disagree with the President's statement, but I think him using the word patriot is mostly indicative of the fact that a reporter asked him if he thought Snowden was a patriot...

mpyne 13y ago

What's funny is that I think he's right in the first case and wrong in the second. I don't seriously believe that these reforms would have been proposed without external pressure, and Snowden provided that pressure in a forum unlike Drake, who had done the right thing. With that said I don't think Snowden is a "patriot". He may be anti-surveillance, which may extend benefit to the American people, but his actions are not consistent with someone who is focused more-or-less solely on benefit to the American people, but rather someone who is opposed to government in general and the NSA in particular. For instance, leaking details of Chinese hacking does not help the American people. It hurts the NSA and makes the American government look bad, but it doesn't help the American people. Likewise with all the drama about asylum with regard to Russia. He put Obama in the position of being forced to cancel a summit with Putin to avoid looking politically weak at home. But Russia and the U.S. have real issues they need to work together on, which will have an impact on the world at large. That drama didn't help the American people either (and we'll see what happens with the crisis in Syria as well). But it did help make the American government look bad, along with Snowden personally.

drewblaisdell 13y ago
> For instance, leaking details of Chinese hacking does not help the American people. It hurts the NSA and makes the American government look bad, but it doesn't help the American people. Assuming that this is true, the net effect of Snowden's leaks (including revealing the extent to which we live in a surveillance state) is way in the positive. > Likewise with all the drama about asylum with regard to Russia. He put Obama in the position of being forced to cancel a summit with Putin to avoid looking politically weak at home. Well, a) he can't just avoid seeking asylum because it is inconvenient for the figurehead of the state pursuing him (what?), and b) the "drama" is a product of the United State's sensationalist news.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Assuming that this is true, the net effect of Snowden's leaks (including revealing the extent to which we live in a surveillance state) is way in the positive. Perhaps, but only by the same logic under which supply-side and 'trickle-down' economics is expected to succeed. > a) he can't just avoid seeking asylum because it is inconvenient for the figurehead of the state pursuing him (what?) Sure he could. Many "patriots" did things at risk to their liberty because they believed it was the right thing for their country. He chooses not to because asylum is better for him personally. That's certainly his choice to make, but it's not the 'patriotic' choice. > b) the "drama" is a product of the United State's sensationalist news. When did the Guardian become a U.S. news outlet?

unclebucknasty 13y ago

No kidding. First he comes out defending it. Now it needs reform. Which is it? because if he is asking us to believe that they happened to be juuuusst about to reform it when Snowden leaked, then we're now entering the self-parody zone.