If Edward Snowden really took his NSA contractor job in order to find details of the Obama administration’s illegal and unconstitutional espionage against the American people, then he is to be commended even more than if he had discovered the programs and then gotten disgusted by them. That would show that in the first place, he was intelligent enough not to willfully be part of the intelligence apparatus. Secondly, he would be behaving in the finest tradition of investigative journalism, going under cover to expose wrongdoing.
By the Way
Ted Rall
http://rall.comTed Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
Comments are closed.
9 Comments.
@Ted: I couldn’t agree more.
To that end, if you don’t pull the plug on Susan Stark’s guest posts — I’m outta here. Me AND my donations. She’s essentially running a “Snowden Truther” site here with her guest posts, and her latest is just disgusting. It’s one thing to allow a broad range of views, it’s another to allow someone who …
1. Edits other posters’ content.
2. Deletes other posters’ content.
3. Disseminates “Snowden Truther” diatribes.
4. Calls Snowden’s heroism into question.
She’s also totally unclear on what Snowden said, why he did what he did and the steps he’s taken.
Pull the plug on Susan Stark’s guest posts — now. She’s doing your name no favors, nor anyone else here. I won’t stick around for it — me or my money.
You are correct, Ex.
That woman is Stark raving mad.
To Susan Stark:
So there is room in your heart for only one whistleblower at a time.
It is obvious that you have never considered being a whistleblower by your evident lack of concern for Snowden and your inability to understand the personal consequences that must be taken into account.
How, in your estimation, would Snowden’s voluntarily submission to torture make his a more pure and worthy sacrifice? He’s not applying for sainthood via martyrdom.
What a problem for the likes of you if large numbers of American people ever begin to speak freely and fearlessly. Not that many in this mass of domesticated curs would ever really ever do that.
Feel free to delete this comment. I’ll feel free to put it back up until my login privileges are revoked.
@ex @Glenn
Yes, I question his heroism. I do it in the same way I smell my milk to make sure it’s not sour before pouring it on my cereal or in my coffee. The word for that is “caution”.
We are all desperate for a hero because so many people left-of-center have sold out by looking the other way in regards to Obama’s crimes, when they condemned Bush for the same thing. As a result, people who I once considered heroic or at least honorable; I’ve had to abandon support for. I’m not going to emotionally attach myself to Snowden only to find out he isn’t the person I thought he was.
Hence, the reason for my skepticism. If it turns out he’s a hero after all, I won’t have lost anything by applying the “smell test” in the first place. And neither would you.
@Ted: I will make a $1k donation to tedrall.com if you permanently revoke the Guest Post privileges for Susan Stark. No funny business either. Revoked means revoked. No giving her other logins or any other shenanegins. Gone for good. Good of the site too.
It’s time to bring a lobbying arm to tedrall.com. Block Susan Stark now.
@Ex,
I have known Ted personally for four years, and we have been corresponding by email for four years prior to that. If ever he tells me I’m not welcome to guest blog here anymore, I will honor that, and it won’t affect our friendship one bit. That said, I don’t take kindly to you browbeating him to get your way. Rather ungentlemanly behavior, on your part, right?
Hey exkiodexian,
If I agree with you, will you donate $1k to me?
Seriously, do you think Mr. Rall is going to start blocking ANYONE? He is a true purist when it comes to freedom of speech. He has proven this and you have pointed it out yourself. And I didn’t need Susan to spell out that she’s a friend of his. It was plainly obvious. I don’t really think anyone should be censored on the site (except Whimsical who offers nothing ever). Still if it’s Susan’s post, why can’t she censor comments she feels are nasty?
@Jack
Nasty is right. I did censor Ex, which I readily admit to doing. But it was not for disagreeing with me. It would be rather boring if everyone agreed with each other here.
Susan,
I have to admit even when I really hate what Exkiodeixian says, such as his attacks on my generation, I still enjoy the way he does it. I was getting tired of Whimsical dominating every conversation on here and am glad he hasn’t been around much lately. Everyone else seems to share the most basic premise that the system is illegitimate and irredeemable.
@Jack
The problem with Whimsical is that his politics are at least thirty years out of date. He seems to think that if we don’t vote for Mondale, the Christian Coalition will take over or something. I mean, the only reason he comes back here all the time is because Daily Kos and Democratic Underground won’t have him anymore.
Susan,
“If we don’t vote for Mondale, the Christian Coalition will take over.”
Perfect.
Here’s to hoping you check these comments again: I found a Manning mention from Snowden:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
“Snowden said that he admires both Ellsberg and Manning, but argues that there is one important distinction between himself and the army private, whose trial coincidentally began the week Snowden’s leaks began to make news.
“I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest,” he said. “There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn’t turn over, because harming people isn’t my goal. Transparency is.”
He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed.”
————
So he doesn’t mention the torture or trial but gives Manning a nod and goes on seemingly to imply he was reckless as official propaganda has told us for years…hardly fair. Good analysis here:
http://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/confronting-edward-snowdens-remarks-on-bradley-manning/