4 ms·

> Holder said “we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures” and that “his actions spurred a necessary debate” that prompted President Oba

> Holder said “we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures” and that “his actions spurred a necessary debate” that prompted President Obama and Congress to change policies on the bulk collection of phone records of American citizens. Hmm. "We stepped up and fixed all the problems, so there is no need to continue the debate." I guess at face value it's kind of nice to say, but it doesn't carry a lot of weight since it's not an official statement. The current AG spokesperson is quoted, "I can say our position regarding bringing Edward Snowden back to the United States to face charges has not changed." It doesn't exactly contradict striking a deal, but it doesn't sound very open to doing so. > informal discussions of... a plea bargain in which Snowden returns to the United States, pleads guilty to one felony count and receives a prison sentence of three to five years in exchange for full cooperation with the government. Seems problematic. What is "full cooperation" -- enumerating all docs? What if they say they don't believe him and the deal is off? Does he have to agree to discrediting himself in order to get people to put less stock in anything attributed to the "Snowden disclosures"? Publicly thank them for the aforementioned policy changes and shed tears saying it's exactly what he set out to do -- we can stop pushing for more change?

icanhackit 11y ago
What is "full cooperation" -- enumerating all docs? Gag order I imagine. As it stands, the masses don't really understand what's happening. Put him on Colbert's Late Show and make jokes about what's really happening in front of millions of viewers - you've got a platform for converting people. The court jesters [1] like Stephen Colbert and John Oliver can make deep cuts while avoiding reprimand. Oliver knows this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jester#Fool_in_literature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jester#Fool_in_literature
ChrisAntaki 11y ago
> "We stepped up and fixed all the problems, so there is no need to continue the debate." Interesting take. When I read Holder's quotes, “we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures” and “his actions spurred a necessary debate”, I got the sense he was acknowledging progress we'd made as a society. He didn't seem to imply the debates or reforms were over though.
- scintill76 11y ago
  Well, it's a cynical take, influenced by my cynical (and, admittedly, kind of ignorant) view of the USA FREEDOM Act, which I presume is a major part of the "different place" Holder is referring to. In many ways its purpose is by definition to bring us back to the same place by restoring expired laws. People like natsec whistleblowers, ACLU, and EFF don't seem to think the passed version does much -- a small symbolic victory at best. Personally I worry the gov't and media's labeling it as "reform" will contribute to fading interest in the public. Holder could be nudging that propaganda here. So yeah, I am reading too much into what he said, but that's sort of my reasoning for it. To be fair, I am not sure how I would define meaningful reform, but I think it needs to do more than USA FREEDOM. I could be missing some other progress, too?
  - ChrisAntaki 11y ago
    Holder's actual quote was so short in the article, it's hard to know exactly what he was referring to. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

icanhackit 11y ago

What is "full cooperation" -- enumerating all docs? Gag order I imagine. As it stands, the masses don't really understand what's happening. Put him on Colbert's Late Show and make jokes about what's really happening in front of millions of viewers - you've got a platform for converting people. The court jesters [1] like Stephen Colbert and John Oliver can make deep cuts while avoiding reprimand. Oliver knows this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jester#Fool_in_literature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jester#Fool_in_literature

ChrisAntaki 11y ago

> "We stepped up and fixed all the problems, so there is no need to continue the debate." Interesting take. When I read Holder's quotes, “we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures” and “his actions spurred a necessary debate”, I got the sense he was acknowledging progress we'd made as a society. He didn't seem to imply the debates or reforms were over though.

scintill76 11y ago
Well, it's a cynical take, influenced by my cynical (and, admittedly, kind of ignorant) view of the USA FREEDOM Act, which I presume is a major part of the "different place" Holder is referring to. In many ways its purpose is by definition to bring us back to the same place by restoring expired laws. People like natsec whistleblowers, ACLU, and EFF don't seem to think the passed version does much -- a small symbolic victory at best. Personally I worry the gov't and media's labeling it as "reform" will contribute to fading interest in the public. Holder could be nudging that propaganda here. So yeah, I am reading too much into what he said, but that's sort of my reasoning for it. To be fair, I am not sure how I would define meaningful reform, but I think it needs to do more than USA FREEDOM. I could be missing some other progress, too?
- ChrisAntaki 11y ago
  Holder's actual quote was so short in the article, it's hard to know exactly what he was referring to. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯