I thought I was done, but...

I can't get this Snowden thing off my mind lately.  Now, granted... it isn't Snowden so much as it is our own government willingly pushing aside our individual and collective rights to better "protect" us from real or imagined harm... but I'll continue to call it the "Snowden thing" for my own personal convenience.

In one of F Ryan's previous posts, he wrote:

" I can not separate the man into EITHER a genuine whistle blower OR a traitor. He is absolutely both. The former for revealing domestic abuses, the latter for revealing legitimate foreign operations. So again I ask this point blank - why did he collect and leak the details of the NSA's legitimate foreign operations? The people targeted in Pakistan (or even Merkel for that matter, if you want to be technical), are not protected by the 4th Amendment. The NSA committed no abuse and certainly no crime in going after those intercepts. So why'd he leak it?"

When I said I didn't know the answer to questions like this, and that I frankly didn't care, either... it was a legitimate response and not simply a lazy answer or an attempt to piss off F Ryan (which it did...).

The long version is that the details of "why" don't matter to me because I am more and more convinced that far too much has been sacrificed in this country to the altar of "security".  If something has to be lost in our continuing national quest for a world without fear, violence or hatred... I'll keep the personal freedoms and liberties that made us what we are today and risk losing the "edge" in our trade war with China, or Germany, or Israel, or (even) a perceived threat from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Africa, et al.  If the fundamental principals that made this nation great don't matter anymore, then what do I care about possible threats from Islamabad or Tehran?  Our own government says that I am 7 times more likely to be killed by a local policeman than I am a terrorist, and tens of thousands of times more likely to die in an accidental plane crash than in a terrorist-caused plane crash... but it is an absolute FACT that every text, email, phone call, internet search, video download, et al, is being monitored and stored for future reference to help keep me even safer than I am now.

Even my short answer... the "pat" answer that F Ryan seemed to have wanted... is valid, I think:  I am forced to assume that the "whistle-blower" info that should have been leaked was inseparably wrapped up with the "legitimately secret" info that should not have been leaked.  That actually being the case, I still think it was the right thing to do.  If the left hand is stealing flour so the right hand can make bread for the hungry, is the bread not still ill-gotten?  Is the baker not still a thief?

And yes, of course I see the parallel here.  Snowden broke the law.  He did it with intent and full knowledge that what he was doing was illegal.  My point all along is that what he did was illegal, but not wrong.  What he did does not fix what was wrong, and it might very well make things worse in the short term... I do not argue that possibility at all.

My question now becomes:

Is this nation, as the bastion of freedom and personal liberty in the world, better today because of what he did, or is it not?  I'm not asking if there was another alternative path that could have been followed... there always is, when looking back through hindsight.  I'm asking if the country (and, frankly, the world) is better off NOW than it was BEFORE Snowden released what he did.

I contend that it is better off now than it was.  He did the right thing.

The perks of a northern Wisconsin childhood...

So, it's Wednesday.  I'm off.  I'd like to sleep in, but that simply doesn't happen here at the Chateau de Lieteau, so it was up and at 'em at 6 AM.  One of the Wednesday chores is garbage, so I bundle up and drag the near unimaginable amount of trash to the street.

Now, its cold.  Damn cold.  I mean... damn cold.  Snot-freezing cold (clue)... squeeky-snow-cold (clue)... and after about four minutes outside, eyelash-freezing-because-your-eyes-want-to-tear cold.  As I walk in and take off my jacket, my son asks "How cold is it outside?"

"I'd guess about seven below." I answer confidently.

Jake, being Jake, runs to go check the digital thermometer to see if my "guess" was close.  The result?
-6.7 degrees F

"How did you know how cold it was if you didn't go in the kitchen?" Jake asks.

I then tell him about what it was like waiting for the bus as a child and hearing the snow "squeek" beneath my boots.  And about stepping onto the ice to check tip-ups and feeling your snot freeze solid with the first breath as opposed to the twentieth breath.  Or about scraping the melt off a windshield and feeling your eyelashes sticking together due to my tears freezing them together.  THAT is the almost inherent knowledge gained from an upbringing that included frigid winds of the lake, 40 inch snowfalls in a single night of snow, double-digit wind chill factors that could turn "uncomfortable" into "dangerous" in minutes.

My explanation may not have been as impressive as I had hoped, but it's good to know I can still see a bit of the "hunyock" youth showing in me, even now.

On bitterness...

I'd add this to my last:

I'm more than disgusted with the direction that the government of these United States has taken since... I'm not even sure when.  At least since 1990 when the USSR was no longer the greatest threat to our existence.  I'm damn near numb to the news that another piece of the Constitution has been sacrificed to the "greater good" of society.  I'm so utterly sick of the idea that government is the solution to all the problems facing this society I could puke.

And I do mean all the problems.  I'm not limiting this rant to social security, or unemployment, or social welfare... I'm including foreign affairs in this too.  We cannot continue to think we are the sole holders of all that is good and ideal in the realm of politics and ideology and work to force that same mind-set on the rest of the world.  Not if we hope to survive ourselves, that is.

We have seen the process by which the powers that be worked to eliminate the threat of a terrorist attack similar to or great than Sept. 11... and the results are all around us.  We are no more safe now than we were then... literally.  Our threats now might not be the same men (since most are dead and gone now) or the same countries, but the threats are just as real, just as present and just as deadly... as F Ryan pointed out in his last.

F Ryan's arguments against the New Deal mindset keep ringing in my ear: government doesn't fix the problem, it creates it.  Why doesn't that apply here?  Why is it not the case that our very involvement in every single overseas crisis is feeding the beast that is threatening our society?  If the threat of anti-American terrorism exists at all... it is because of American foreign policy in years gone by or the here and now.

Honestly, I'm more and more convinced that the isolationists had it right all along.  We do whatever it takes to protect our borders and our civilian population abroad... and leave the rest to themselves.  Get our own house in order, then let that house stand as a living breathing example of how a system of government based on the guaranteed rights of the individual citizen over the power of a central authority is the best system of national government that exists.  It will be the most prosperous, the most generous, and the most secure nation on the face of the earth... not because of its ability to project power globally, but because of its fundamental makeup.

So yes, I am bitter... but the argument in my eyes is far beyond the "hero-traitor" status of Ed Snowden.  He just acted in a manner that sparked a conversation that I think is long, LONG over due.

I'll say this...

Bund debates are a finite skill.

I can only assume that I have been away from a good debate long enough to have let my questionable abilities fall to unquestionable depths.  You pointed this out in a gentlemanly manner, and both apologize for the lapse and thank you for the consideration.

The Guardian estimated the document count for the Snowden leaks was 200,000... and some recent estimates put it at over a million.  No one knows what's on those documents yet, not even Snowden.  If the time comes where irrefutable proof can be presented that he did, indeed, KNOW what he was leaking in each and every one of those documents... then I'll believe what he did was "wrong".  Treason, well... you'll have to prove to me (and a judge) that he aided and conspired with our enemies mens rea, to go alongside the actus reus that the leak itself represents.  As I have said, the leak was illegal.  No question there.  So was taking up arms against the King in 1775 for all 30,000+ "patriots" that fought for their liberties and freedoms from Britain.  I don't know what his "intentions" were in collecting and then releasing these documents.  I don't know how the information is formatted or bundled up... perhaps the foreign stuff was mixed in with the domestic... I don't know.  Neither does anyone else, that I am aware of... except Snowden perhaps.

I keep trying to imagine what I would have done, if I were in his position.  There is no material gain for him in the leak... and nothing about what he knew would happen could equal anything but fear and turmoil as every single agency of law enforcement in the United States was about to start hunting him.  He lost his livelihood, nearly all contact with his family, any and all freedoms and liberties left to us as US citizens... so where are the upsides?

Now, I imagine that I know about the domestic info grab, and that I have no legitimate avenue to bring my obvious concerns to higher authorities, since it is the higher authorities that are responsible for the domestic info grab.  By releasing the info to the press as a "whistleblower", I am subjecting myself to life "on the lamb".  Not fun and exciting like in the movies... just miserable existence with no possibility of parole.  Do I release the info?  Do I release the info if there is a certainty that some amount of classified foreign intelligence capabilities will also be compromised?  Not stopped.  Not ended.  Just compromised... hindered.  Perhaps seriously, but certainly not completely.

I'd like to think I would.  I think it is the right thing to do.  After all, isn't that the sort of "compromise" that the Patriot Act was all about?  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

Admittedly, I don't KNOW that this is what Snowden did at all.  Perhaps he had visions of making millions and millions of dollars by selling the "made-for-TV-movie" rights to his story... even getting someone like Hugh Jackman to portray him in the movie.  Chicks dig millions of dollars and Hugh Jackman... so perhaps that was his motivation.  I simply don't know.

If our foreign intelligence services can be so completely crippled by the illegal release of information, even on this scale... then perhaps THAT is another facet of "failure" in government that needs to be addressed.  However, I really don't think our abilities and capabilities have been as compromised as we are being led to believe.  If they were, then the fallout would have been far more immediate and far reaching than it was.  I can't quantify that statement any better... call it a "gut reaction" and let it go.

Finally, I am inclined to admit that F Ryan is right... I am bitter.  I seem to have reached a point where I don't care who the political figure in question is... Democrat or Republican... they are simply different faces on the same coin: worthless.  In fact, to give real light to just where I am in my "political" life, I am studying quite diligently the "pros and cons" of not exercising my franchise rights at all.  But that's for a different post.

Unit 61398

I've never seen you quite so emotionally blind to obvious points Titus. I say "emotionally" because you are so exercised about the domestic abuses (which are very real and vast) that you have simply chosen to disregard the foreign Intel leaks with phrases like, "I have no friggin idea", or "maybe" this, or "maybe" that, not to mention my personal favorite (regarding why Snowden leaked foreign operational information), "I don't know and I don't care."

Oh. Ok. Good answer. A pleasure doing business with you.

Perhaps if I read on I'll get a more rationale approach:

"Lest we forget... the only people that had an issue with the foreign intel portions of the leak were those directly responsible for the domestic info grab, and I don't care what F Ryan says to the contrary... I don't trust anything those sons of bitches have to say on the matter."

No. No luck there. By the way, the statement, " the only people that had an issue with the foreign intel portions of the leak were those directly responsible for the domestic info grab.." is patently false. For one, I care and I am not at all responsible for the domestic info grab. Two, many a Tea Party Senator, like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, care about the foreign Intel leaks and they are livid about the domestic abuses. Lastly, the confirmation about how bad and vast the foreign Intel leaks are have not exclusively come from the NSA hierarchy, nor even exclusively the NSA. You're just wrong here buddy.

This is not the cold, calculated caliber of argument I am used to from you. I'm the last one to admonish an emotional post, but you don't get to do this - simply say "pass" when it's your turn to discuss the foreign Intel leaks, and still pretend we're having a legitimate discussion on the subject of domestic leaks. He did both. Leaving out half the conversation isn't a conversation at all.

In my opinion you are giving Snowden a complete pass on a grave betrayal regarding the foreign Intel. Your writing smacks of "well they had it coming", or "it was worth it to get the information on domestic abuses." Fine. Be pissed about the domestic stuff, I am as well, that's all good and well, but how do you just "not care" why he leaked the foreign Intel and then chalk any damage up to "oh well, we'll get by"? Do you realize that there are now entire catalogs being printed and passed out within the Red Chinese Army, and Iran, based exclusively on Snowden's leaks? And believe me, the material in those catalogs aren't focused on US domestic abuses. Surely the Iranians and Chinese already knew or suspected portions of what he leaked, but he laid out foreign Intel operations in such stunning detail it takes one's breath away. And your cavalier approach to those leaks makes me think you haven't thoroughly investigated what he let out of the black bag. I don't expect you to peruse all 200,000 documents, but buddy there is more in there than meta-data and back doors into Google.

I'll give you an example (and this is just one of many out there)...

I think we would agree that the NY Times is Snoweden friendly. I mean they did write an editorial insisting the President grant him clemency under whistle blower status. This story: NSA Devises Radio Pathway Into Computers, by the Times, lays out in detail our efforts to combat the ongoing cyber attacks from China (among others), on both civilian and military targets. This is a current story (in fact it's front page on Drudge right now). Every bit of this story is based on the Snowden leaks and the subsequent catalogs printed around the world. The leaked details include code names, specific operational tactics, specific Red Chinese Army units targeted (see my post title), and details on specific hardware all that the Times admits has not been used domestically. Do you see the gravity of that? His defenders, his champions, had to admit that there is no evidence that these programs and/or hardware is being used domestically. None. So why did he leak that? How does leaking that enhance the civil liberties of F. Ryan? You were right on one thing though, it doesn't really matter why he leaked that, it's an academic discussion because no matter his reason those kind of leaks are traitorous. Surely you are aware of the ongoing cyber war between the US and China, right? The attacks they launched at US targets, you know of this, don't you? Snowden has aided our enemies in a material way. You read that article and tell me that's not a true statement.

I've said this from my first post in response to your exaltation of Moscow resident Edward Snowed - people arguing the pros and cons of his leaks are typically talking right past each other, only focusing on either the domestic or foreign document leaks. The problem is you don't get to be a cafeteria Snowden defender (or prosecutor for that matter). You can't choose what you like about his actions and just ignore the rest. The stakes are too high, the subject matter too serious. From the Chinese to the Iranians he released foreign Intel specificity that even included maps - yes maps - of those specific hot spots where we are actively conducting operations - country, city, name of location and outfit being targeted (which includes major drug cartels). And when his leaks are that specific you can't pretend they don't count when determining the man's character or status. Remember, our argument isn't over whether or not the NSA needs to be reigned in domestically (and their supporters of these domestic programs in Washington voted out of office), on that we agree. Where we part ways is in calling Edward Snowden a "patriot", or even worse, a "hero." That's where the third segment (as listed by me) of those leaks comes into play. I sincerely appreciate his waking us up to the doemstic abuses and Orwellian, even thuggish, behaivor towards our Constitution being perpetrated by our own government. But in terms of describing Snowden's place in history, you don't get to give our enemies (and they are enemies for those are real cyber attacks coming from China and real bullets being shipped out of Iran into Iraq) a heads up on our Intelligence gathering capabilities, maps, program code names, hardware specifics (including diagrams for goodness sakes), limitations, and technological stage of development and still get to wear a red cape in my book. Although, given his new digs, maybe "red" is his preferred color... hehe.

I can't be more clear than this...

I don't know, and frankly, I don't care.

As I've said now (numerous times) I am not convinced that the manner in which the NSA is doing its "job" is either legitimate or right.  Since my original statement (that caused you to be so floored) was my own, personal opinion on a topic I am so utterly disgusted by and frustrated with, I may have stretched how far up a list I'd put Mr. Snowden... but he is a patriot in my opinion, if nothing else.  I'm not going to call him a traitor since I can't see how he waged war on the US, or consciously and purposely aided our enemies.  What he did was hamper the government's efforts... that is certainly true... but directly aiding and supporting?  No.

The NSA was collecting data on 350 million American citizens without cause and with all but no legitimate oversight.  Were they also collecting data on 350 million suspected terrorists at the same time?  Did the release of the information hamper the NSA's abilities as a whole, or did it specifically hamper their ability to collect ONLY foreign intel?  If it was the former, then it was all good in my eyes.  You'll have to prove to me it was only the latter.

Why did he NOT separate the intel release?  No friggin' idea.  Perhaps he couldn't.  Perhaps he didn't want to.  Perhaps he had a principled reason to release it all, and you only have a problem with a portion of his leaks.  I DON'T see the need to separate the two sides of his leaks... his showing the public what was happening domestically more than makes up for what I feel we "might" have lost in terms of foreign intel-gathering capabilities.  Lest we forget... the only people that had an issue with the foreign intel portions of the leak were those directly responsible for the domestic info grab, and I don't care what F Ryan says to the contrary... I don't trust anything those sons of bitches have to say on the matter.  Anything else, including F Ryan's concerns about our foreign intelligence gathering efforts being hampered or compromised is pure conjecture.  Nothing about the domestic surveillance is conjecture.  It has all been proven fact, it has all been corroborated by the highest authorities and it is now undeniably and irrevocably a piece of our national legacy.  Every President since Bush Sr. has known about it in one way or another, and all have signed off on it as part and parcel of their respective administrative policies.

We can still spy on Taliban phone calls or emails.  We can still listen to the German Chancellor as she orders pizza deliveries for her staff.  We can even watch the same porn that the Italian Prime Minister is watching real-time... nothing there has changed, other than the fact that we now know that they were spending 35 thousand times the money, time and effort collecting data on people like F Ryan as they were on cold-blooded killers in Islamabad. 

I'm running out of ways to ask this...

Please, for the love of Pete, address this specifically. If Snowden wanted to expose Constitutional abuses why not expose the domestic grab and nothing else? Foreign nationals, allied or enemy, are not protected by the US Constitution, period. The NSA mandate since Truman established it in 1952 was to intercept foreign "signal intelligence" in the safeguarding of the US and her interests.

Quite frankly I was floored at your "greatest hero of the last 100 years statement." Snowden could have released those documents that adequately revealed the domestic abuses without getting into the legitimate operations. In fact, why did he even go out of his way to collect and abscond with details of our foreign signal collection? Why go after that in the first place, let alone leak it?

Look, we are in lock step about what the 20th Century+ has wrought on our nation in terms of unchecked, raw government expansion on levels clearly unconstitutional if not downright immoral. But among them is not the NSA collection of foreign communications. Domestic, YES. Foreign, NO. You seem to be disusing his leaks as if he couldn't do one without the other? I mean, did he store all 200,000 plus documents on one USB stick? And even if it were somehow impossible to divorce the Intel on domestic abuses with legitimate foreign targeting, why even go after our international efforts at all? I mean, why did he target the legitimate operations along with the domestic abuses in his three months of secret data collection at the NSA facility in Hawaii? I join the chorus of those screaming aout the NSA's civil abuses. I waited on hold for 45 minutes to voice those objections to three million people. But the majority of those in the chorus with me seem to simply ignore what else he leaked - vital, legitimate, foreign operations. This makes Snowden a simultaneous sinner and saint.

The problem we're having at the moment is exactly the problem I addressed in my first post. Whomever is making an argument about Snowden they seem to champion his actions regarding what they value most - be it civil liberties or foreign Intel - and dismiss the other. I happen to be equally passionate about both. I can not separate the man into EITHER  a genuine whistle blower OR a traitor. He is absolutely both. The former for revealing domestic abuses, the latter for revealing legitimate foreign operations. So again I ask this point blank - why did he collect and leak the details of the NSA's legitimate foreign operations? The people targeted in Pakistan (or even Merkel for that matter, if you want to be technical), are not protected by the 4th Amendment. The NSA committed no abuse and certainly no crime in going after those intercepts. So why'd he leak it?

In those instances they were doing their job, a job I want them to continue doing. I would argue that the answer here is to swiftly and definitely end the domestic abuses, not close down the NSA in its' entirety.  If you do not feel the same then I submit this is a rather extreme example of throwing the baby out with the bath water as you intend to completely do away with the tub.