Ray McGovern and the Sam Adams party have presented the Sam Adams award to Edward Snowden. I am delighted. This from Ray’s account of the event:
In brief remarks from his visitors, Snowden was reassured — first and foremost — that he need no longer be worried that nothing significant would happen as a result of his decision to risk his future by revealing documentary proof that the U.S. government was playing fast and loose with the Constitutional rights of Americans.
Even amid the government shutdown, Establishment Washington and the normally docile “mainstream media” have not been able to deflect attention from the intrusive eavesdropping that makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. Even Congress is showing signs of awaking from its torpor.
In the somnolent Senate, a few hardy souls have gone so far as to express displeasure at having been lied to by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and NSA Director Keith Alexander — Clapper having formally apologized for telling the Senate Intelligence Committee eavesdropping-related things that were, in his words, “clearly erroneous” and Alexander having told now-discredited whoppers about the effectiveness of NSA’s intrusive and unconstitutional methods in combating terrorism.
Coleen Rowley, the first winner of the Sam Adams Award (2002), cited some little-known history to remind Snowden that he is in good company as a whistleblower — and not only because of previous Sam Adams honorees. She noted that in 1773, Benjamin Franklin leaked confidential information by releasing letters written by then-Lt. Governor of Massachusetts Thomas Hutchinson to Thomas Whatley, an assistant to the British Prime Minister.
The letters suggested that it was impossible for the colonists to enjoy the same rights as subjects living in England and that “an abridgement of what are called English liberties” might be necessary. The content of the letters was so damaging to the British government that Benjamin Franklin was dismissed as colonial Postmaster General and had to endure an hour-long censure from British Solicitor General Alexander Wedderburn.
There has been a determined attempt by government to justify the need to intercept everybody’s communications, all the time. We have, yet again, had MI5 claim there are many thousand violent Islamic terrorists running around the UK, (yet somehow not managing to kill anybody). The cry of “paedophiles” is raised, as always. I can imagine them suggesting the entire population be shot dead, and justifying it as making sure they get the paedophiles. The tabloids would go with that.
There still had not been a single credible claim by the mainstream media that any named individual has died, despite that contingency being trotted out all the time as the reason Snowden and Manning should not have revealed state crimes and abuse of power. I am hopeful that, with the internet still largely free to the dissemination of information, out next massive whistleblower is only weeks away.
Yeah, the guilt by (false) association is a well worn tactic here. Another way of looking at it is drawing a scatter graph line between someone and something generally regarded as heinous. Idiots join the dots thinking they’re being smart.
Oops! Again!
Typo Police, where are you? Take me away pleasebefore I upset anymore grownups!
“And don’t forget his girlfriend’s a stripper too!”
A rather more honest profession (and certainly a less harmful one) in my book than a lawyer who works for the KGB and Putin!
I fail to understand why Resident Dissident failing to answer what looks like a when did you stop beating your wife question has anything to do with anything – are you suggesting that Nott was guilty because he came from the same profession as some nurse who claimed (presumably falsely) that Saddam’s troops threw babies out of incubators? And you want to criticise me for implying guilt by association?
You really are not very good at this debating thing.
ELSO. 3 24pm
Good try!
“…are you suggesting that Nott was guilty because he came from the same profession…”
Maybe you should cast your eyes over those David Nott exchanges again.
The issue the issues that came up over again and again without receiving any answers concerned the the serial use of the BBC for warmongering propaganda lies, the known practice of the “intelligence services” of planting their agents in NGOs and the unwillingness of a diverse group of posters here to fall for that kind of thing again.
Why do you think they got rid of Ceausescu Habba my friend?
And who do you think was behind it?
Snowden? Who, I say, I say, who……is sitting next to Snowden?
National Enquirer minds have to know.
Like Jeremy Hammond he’s trying to reinvent himself in the image of his jailers. What is it, Stockholm syndrome?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/10/snowden-offers-to-fix-health-insurance-marketplace.html
There is now so much sneering and sarcasm here that I can’t work out who is allied with whom… Maybe I’m just not making enough effort.
John; While you ask a rhetorical (by the lack of answer, you know them) question, ask if hesheit has congratulated Snowden on his award. There was some disappointment that the thread had left the topic, and I just want to be sure that standards of behavior/etiquette is kept on a level playing field.
John
The reason they (i.e. the smarter members of the Romanian nomenklatura) got rid of Ceausecu was because the hoi-polloi were understandable a little bit restless on account of little things like being starved and they were not a little concerned about being displaced from their power, wealth and in extremis their lives is the unrest was allowed to go any further. A similar dynamic occurred in the Soviet Union – which is why the KGB thugs are still to all intents and purposes still in power.
Greetings Clark.
My reverse-osmosis membrane is clogged with effluent. How’s yours?
Are people criticising Snowden because Russia have given him a lawyer? I think Snowden’s choices may be a bit limited at present.
“The issue the issues that came up over again and again without receiving any answers concerned the the serial use of the BBC for warmongering propaganda lies, the known practice of the “intelligence services” of planting their agents in NGOs and the unwillingness of a diverse group of posters here to fall for that kind of thing again.”
And David Nott was linked to all that – just by appearing on the BBC? You really really are not very good at this – my advice is listen and learn from Dad.
Clark
Kucherena is on the record as saying he was contacted by Snowden asking him to be his lawyer and indeed that he was surprised to receive such a request.
” I think Snowden’s choices may be a bit limited at present.”
Surely he can at least stage-manage a photo session. Why is he sitting? What kind of chair is that?
Greetings Ben. Yep, my hovercraft is full of eels.
” my hovercraft is full of eels.”
You’re blessed with sashimi.
ESLO, does half of your comment at 2:07 pm say the opposite of what you really mean? Sorry, I’m having trouble telling when people are being serious.
And are you a new name for Resident Dissident? You seem to produce similar typos.
Grief…
“Edward Snowden is a traitor who has compromised our national security.
Having said that, if he knows why we keep getting those error messages, that could be a conversation.” Pres Obama
(From Ben’s link at 3 49pm.)
Wrong Mr President. Snowden is a whistle-blower who has put his life on the line to expose wrongdoing and restore his country’s adherence to its own laws.
But who is it that has really compromised US national security as well as trashing the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Convention?
Having said that, if you know why the US keeps bombing people all over the world, supplying fundamentalist jihadis with weapons and explosives, spying illegally on its own citizens as well as everybody else and waging economic war at the behest of known financial terrorists, then that could be a conversation.
@ John Goss
“Why do you think they got rid of Ceausescu Habba my friend?”
and
“And who do you think was behind it?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It would help if you had said who the “they” were, John, when putting your question (a question which I do not – unlike Ben Franklin – see as rhetorical).
But leaving that aside, I think that ESLO’s suggestion at 15h54 is rather more convincing than yours.
But as always, I’m open to persuasion and reasoned, sourced argument, so I’m all ears if you should want to flesh out your explanation a little.
*****************
Always look at the bright side of life! (Life brighter sans Ceausescu)
ESLO, they were not starving and they all had work. Lentils are good for you – full of protein. They were a lot better off than under the Tsar, sorry king. People I have spoken to over there, especially in the villages, tell me they were better off under Ceausescu. Today families are having to support their unemployed and there is a lot of begging in the streets. A bit like Birmingham. Nobody knows what might have happened once they got rid of the national debt. And for a supposedly Christian country to kill a man and his wife on Christmas Day after a kangaroo trial appals many who live there yet. Some have done well, businessmen in particular, but the oilfields of Romania are not the speculative venture that was once hoped for. You see the king had all the oil and used it to support and fund the Nazi war machine. Then it was gone. Soon it will be gone in the west, The the Middle East. Then the Yanks and its NATO allies will have to try and steal it from the Russians. I don’t want to be around when that altercation takes place.
@ Ben Franklin
“John; While you ask a rhetorical (by the lack of answer, you know them) question, ask if hesheit has congratulated Snowden on his award.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can you specify who that “he” is, Ben?
It’s rather discourteous to make readers have to guess when a simple appelation who have clarified immediately, wouldn’t you agree?
*****************
Always look on the bright side of life (and don’t be lazy)!
Sofia; I suspect the Grand Compromiser would shelve his principles of Authoritay, if some previously verklempt hacker could help him de-wrinkle his signature accomplishment.
“Can you specify who that “he” is, Ben”
I don’t like to state the obvious, but let me ask hesheit once again…..
Have you congratulated Snowden on his award?
John Goss
Do you know the slightest thing about Romanian history in the 20th Century?
****************
Always look on the bright side of life (difficult with you, however)!
I would agree that the 3rd sentence of the post demonstrates a certain sense of cynicism – but you can take it as an open question if you wish. Overall I wouldn’t be too critical of Snowden as in his original actions I think he was in the main doing the right thing and was well intentioned – my worry is that he has fallen in with some pretty bad people and appears to have been badly advised. I tend to see most spooks as a pretty bad thing – and the resources devoted to such activities are way more than is required for the purposes that most reasonable people would consider necessary. Just because western agencies have been edging in the direction of the type of control exercised by the KGB – I still don’t believe that the KGB have suddenly become the good boys.
And are you a new name for Resident Dissident? No
You seem to produce similar typos. Apologies
So using M$ Windose even makes the US Administration paranoid.
ELSO has some temperance in his approach, but it’s another iron hand in a velvet glove.
Many critics of Snowden harbor Cold War grudges and still see a Red under every bed.
RD. 3 58pm
“And David Nott was linked to all that – just by appearing on the BBC? You really really are not very good at this – my advice is listen and learn from Dad.
First point……Of course. That was the whole point.
Second point……Well, what do you expect? You know I’m a bit thick and only 14.
Third point……Aaargh!!!
Time for a soothing cup of chamomile tea!
Ben Franklin
It is possible that the person whom you are addressing might be more inclined to answer once you show him/her the courtesy of using his/her blog name.
And now a personal remark : a day or so ago you asked me to address you with respect. Can you give me just one good reason why I should respect someone like yourself,whose contributions to this blog consist, for 90%, in cracker-barrel aphorisms (or Christmas cracker mottoes, if you prefer), whose remaining 10% are about themes like missing asteroids and someone called Hunter Thompson and are usually written in impenetrable ‘English’, and who never contributes in any meaningful way to discussion and dialogue?
Why should anyone respect a squawk from far-off California?