Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations | World news | The Guardian
Edition: UK
Mobile
About us
Today's paper
Subscribe
UK and
andWorld
Worldnews
news
UK
Search
News Sport Comment Culture Business Money Life & style Travel Environment Tech TV Video Dating Offers Jobs
News
World news
The NSA files
Series: Glenn Greenwald on security and liberty
Edward Snowden: the whistleblower

behind the NSA surveillance revelations
The 29-year-old source behind the biggest intelligence leak in
the NSA's history explains his motives, his uncertain future and
why he never intended on hiding in the shadows
Previous | Index
Today's best video
Share
Email
Q&A with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I do not

expect to see home again'
Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Laura Poitras in Hong Kong

The Guardian, Sunday 9 June 2013
Jump to comments (5512)
Article history
Edward Snowden: experts divided over

extradition of NSA whistleblower
Hong Kong's former security secretary Regina Ip
and academic Simon Young give their views
Flying tray delivers
burgers at restaurant
Diners at Yo! Sushi in
Soho, London, see their
burgers delivered on a
flying tray
World news
The NSA files NSA
Obama administration
United States US
military US national
security CIA Privacy
Edward Snowden
How to section an
octopus
Find out how to turn the
head inside-out and
remove entrails, beak
and eyes
Series
Glenn Greenwald on
security and liberty
Lion and puppy 'kiss'

each other
A male lion and small
puppy at an Oklahoma
zoo share what looks
like a kiss
More from Glenn

Greenwald on security
and liberty on
World news
The NSA files NSA
Obama administration
United States US
military US national
security CIA Privacy
Edward Snowden
GuardianWitness
More news
Link to video: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society
that does these sort of things'
The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US

political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical
assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor
Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National
Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various
outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.
The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at
his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous topsecret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the
protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I
know I have done nothing wrong," he said.
More features
More on this story
US in damage control
mode after Edward
Snowden's explosive
NSA leaks
White House refers
Snowden's case to
Justice Department
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]
Avocado recipes
We want to know your favourite ways to eat these
jade-coloured lovelies. Send us your recipes by text,
show us the results in pictures or even upload us a
video making your dish.
Bad subtitles
Ofcom have recently
said it would crack
Snowden will go down in history as one of America's most consequential

whistleblowers, alongside Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning. He is
responsible for handing over material from one of the world's most
secretive organisations the NSA.
In a note accompanying the first set of documents he provided, he wrote:
"I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be
satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible
executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an
instant."
Despite his determination to be publicly unveiled, he repeatedly insisted
that he wants to avoid the media spotlight. "I don't want public attention
because I don't want the story to be about me. I want it to be about what
the US government is doing."
He does not fear the consequences of going public, he said, only that
doing so will distract attention from the issues raised by his disclosures.
"I know the media likes to personalise political debates, and I know the
government will demonise me."
Despite these fears, he remained hopeful his outing will not divert
attention from the substance of his disclosures. "I really want the focus to
be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger
among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to
live in." He added: "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that
which is done in their name and that which is done against them."
He has had "a very comfortable life" that included a salary of roughly
$200,000, a girlfriend with whom he shared a home in Hawaii, a stable
career, and a family he loves. "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I
can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy,
internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this
massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."
'I am not afraid, because this is the choice I've made'
Three weeks ago, Snowden made final preparations that resulted in last
week's series of blockbuster news stories. At the NSA office in Hawaii
where he was working, he copied the last set of documents he intended
to disclose.
He then advised his NSA supervisor that he needed to be away from
work for "a couple of weeks" in order to receive treatment for epilepsy, a
condition he learned he suffers from after a series of seizures last year.
As he packed his bags, he told his girlfriend that he had to be away for a
few weeks, though he said he was vague about the reason. "That is not
an uncommon occurrence for someone who has spent the last decade
working in the intelligence world."
while Republicans in
Congress call for
whistleblower's
extradition
LIVE Edward Snowden
revealed as NSA
whistleblower reaction
NSA spying scandal:

what we have learned
David Blunkett calls for
tighter scrutiny of British
secret services
European commission
to seek privacy
guarantees from US
More on Snowden
Snowden failed in
attempt to join elite
special forces unit
Patriotism vs paranoia
Beyond Hong Kong:
best options for asylum
Send us your assignment ideas

Do you have an idea for an assignment you think
should run on GuardianWitness? Let us know.
Guardian Audio Edition
The hypocrisy at the heart of the Bradley

Manning trial
Whilst soldiers who kill innocent people remain free,
the man who exposed them is accused of 'aiding
the enemy'; The UK government is terrified of
appearing to allow the EU to undermine British
'interests' - in this week's Guardian Audio Edition.
Listen now
Snowden: what might

China do?
Republicans call for
Snowden to be
extradited
Booz Allen Hamilton:
Snowden's US
contracting firm
Guardian US on Twitter
The latest news and comment from our team of
reporters, writers and editors in the US
Auto update every minute On | Off
3 new tweets
Snowden: 'I do not

expect to see home
again'
More news
He is deeply worried about being spied on. He lines the door of his hotel
room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping. He puts a large red hood
over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any
hidden cameras from detecting them.
How fast is your pet?

Can your cat zoom up
and down a tree in the
blink of an eye? Is your
dog a serious speedeater? Or is your
hamster a whizz in its wheel? Share your videos.
Whistleblowers: 'The
truth
sets you free'
What drives loyal
employees to reveal the
truth? And how do they
live with the backlash?
On May 20, he boarded a flight to Hong Kong, where he has remained

ever since. He chose the city because "they have a spirited commitment
to free speech and the right of political dissent", and because he
believed that it was one of the few places in the world that both could
and would resist the dictates of the US government.
In the three weeks since he arrived, he has been ensconced in a hotel
room. "I've left the room maybe a total of three times during my entire
stay," he said. It is a plush hotel and, what with eating meals in his room
too, he has run up big bills.
down on bad subtitling,

after people were
asked for "a moment's
violence" during the Queen Mother's funeral. Add
your own on GuardianWitness.
MartinPengelly: Bell's Hague looks like

my brother. #Chortle Steve Bell on
William Hague, GCHQ & the secret NSA
operation cartoon http://t.co/sj4knmsnnq
about 5 minutes ago
TeeMcSee: .@20committee as a skeptic
on #Snowden, what do you make of him
saying IC 'selects' people for constant
surveil? http://t.co/0JPb99ahh0
about 7 minutes ago
Internet's big names in

battle to salvage
reputations after NSA
revelations
Microsoft, Yahoo,
Google, Facebook,
PalTalk, AOL, Skype,
YouTube and Apple
have been floundering
for a response
katierogers: Things i did not know

existed: Working Mother magazine
http://t.co/OtZVcc9aa9
about 9 minutes ago
Follow our US team on a Twitter list
Though that may sound like paranoia to some, Snowden has good
reason for such fears. He worked in the US intelligence world for almost
a decade. He knows that the biggest and most secretive surveillance
organisation in America, the NSA, along with the most powerful
government on the planet, is looking for him.
Since the disclosures began to emerge, he has watched television and
monitored the internet, hearing all the threats and vows of prosecution
emanating from Washington.
And he knows only too well the sophisticated technology available to
them and how easy it will be for them to find him. The NSA police and
other law enforcement officers have twice visited his home in Hawaii and
already contacted his girlfriend, though he believes that may have been
prompted by his absence from work, and not because of suspicions of
any connection to the leaks.
"All my options are bad," he said. The US could begin extradition
proceedings against him, a potentially problematic, lengthy and
unpredictable course for Washington. Or the Chinese government might
whisk him away for questioning, viewing him as a useful source of
information. Or he might end up being grabbed and bundled into a plane
bound for US territory.
US surveillance has
'expanded' under
Obama, says Bush's
NSA director
Having watched the Obama administration prosecute whistleblowers at a

historically unprecedented rate, he fully expects the US government to
attempt to use all its weight to punish him. "I am not afraid," he said
calmly, "because this is the choice I've made."
He predicts the government will launch an investigation and "say I have
broken the Espionage Act and helped our enemies, but that can be used
against anyone who points out how massive and invasive the system
has become".
The only time he became emotional during the many hours of interviews
was when he pondered the impact his choices would have on his family,
many of whom work for the US government. "The only thing I fear is the
harmful effects on my family, who I won't be able to help any more.
That's what keeps me up at night," he said, his eyes welling up with
tears.
'You can't wait around for someone else to act'
Snowden did not always believe the US government posed a threat to
his political values. He was brought up originally in Elizabeth City, North
Carolina. His family moved later to Maryland, near the NSA
headquarters in Fort Meade.
Most viewed
Law abiding citizens

have 'nothing to fear',
says Hague video
Boundless Informant:
the NSA's secret tool to
track global surveillance
data
Latest
Last 24 hours
1.Edward Snowden:
the whistleblower
behind the NSA
surveillance
revelations
GCHQ 'broke law if it

accepted NSA
intelligence on UK
citizens'
2. Edward Snowden's explosive NSA leaks have

US in damage control mode
3. Edward Snowden, NSA files source: 'If they
want to get you, in time they will'
4. Ron Paul: 'We should be thankful' for Edward
Snowden's NSA leaks live
Obama defends
internet surveillance
programmes - video
5. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't

want to live in a society that does these sort of
things' video
NSA taps in to internet

giants' systems to mine
user data, secret files
reveal
More most viewed
Comment & analysis
"Yes, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after
me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number
of other nations. Or they could pay off the Triads. Any of their agents or
assets," he said.
"We have got a CIA station just up the road the consulate here in Hong
Kong and I am sure they are going to be busy for the next week. And
that is a concern I will live with for the rest of my life, however long that
happens to be."
On World news
This week's bestsellers

1.Hook, Line and Singer
by Cerys Matthews
16.00
William Hague on
spying scandal: what he
said and what he
didn't say
Nick Hopkins analyses
the foreign secretary's
statement to the
Commons on Britain's
links with the secret
NSA operation
Henry Porter: the west
is moving towards
China in its quest for
mass surveillance
Glenn Greenwald: on
whistleblowers and
government threats of
investigation
John Naughton:
should Google serve
the state or its
customers?
2. Burning Question
by Mike Berners-Lee 7.99
3. Racing Hard
by William Fotheringham 8.99
4. Sweet Tooth
by Ian McEwan 4.79
5. This Boy
by Alan Johnson 12.99
Search the Guardian bookshop
Search
Bestsellers from our Guardian stores
The NSA: surveillance

giant with eyes on
America
Q&A: what data is being
monitored and how
does it work?
By his own admission, he was not a stellar student. In order to get the
credits necessary to obtain a high school diploma, he attended a
community college in Maryland, studying computing, but never
completed the coursework. (He later obtained his GED.)
In 2003, he enlisted in the US army and began a training program to join
the Special Forces. Invoking the same principles that he now cites to
justify his leaks, he said: "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt
Sun parasols
Sturdy garden parasols
provide plenty of shade
thanks to the generous
canopy.
More from Guardian
Homewares
Garden recliner
Relax in comfort, save
on the price: just 59.99
each, or buy two
recliners for 99.99.
More from Guardian
Essentials
Subscribe to the paper and get digital

access
like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from

oppression".
He recounted how his beliefs about the war's purpose were quickly
dispelled. "Most of the people training us seemed pumped up about
killing Arabs, not helping anyone," he said. After he broke both his legs
in a training accident, he was discharged.
After that, he got his first job in an NSA facility, working as a security
guard for one of the agency's covert facilities at the University of
Maryland. From there, he went to the CIA, where he worked on IT
security. His understanding of the internet and his talent for computer
programming enabled him to rise fairly quickly for someone who lacked
even a high school diploma.
Choose from one of our four subscription packages

and save up to 32%. From just 4.99 a week, you'll
receive your papers plus iPhone and iPad access.
Learn more
By 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover in Geneva,

Switzerland. His responsibility for maintaining computer network security
meant he had clearance to access a wide array of classified documents.
That access, along with the almost three years he spent around CIA
officers, led him to begin seriously questioning the rightness of what he
saw.
He described as formative an incident in which he claimed CIA
operatives were attempting to recruit a Swiss banker to obtain secret
banking information. Snowden said they achieved this by purposely
getting the banker drunk and encouraging him to drive home in his car.
When the banker was arrested for drunk driving, the undercover agent
seeking to befriend him offered to help, and a bond was formed that led
to successful recruitment.
"Much of what I saw in Geneva really disillusioned me about how my
government functions and what its impact is in the world," he says. "I
realised that I was part of something that was doing far more harm than
good."
He said it was during his CIA stint in Geneva that he thought for the first
time about exposing government secrets. But, at the time, he chose not
to for two reasons.
First, he said: "Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not
machines and systems, so I didn't feel comfortable with disclosures that I
thought could endanger anyone". Secondly, the election of Barack
Obama in 2008 gave him hope that there would be real reforms,
rendering disclosures unnecessary.
He left the CIA in 2009 in order to take his first job working for a private
contractor that assigned him to a functioning NSA facility, stationed on a
military base in Japan. It was then, he said, that he "watched as Obama
advanced the very policies that I thought would be reined in", and as a
result, "I got hardened."
The primary lesson from this experience was that "you can't wait around
for someone else to act. I had been looking for leaders, but I realised
that leadership is about being the first to act."
Over the next three years, he learned just how all-consuming the NSA's
surveillance activities were, claiming "they are intent on making every
conversation and every form of behaviour in the world known to them".
He described how he once viewed the internet as "the most important
invention in all of human history". As an adolescent, he spent days at a
time "speaking to people with all sorts of views that I would never have
encountered on my own".
But he believed that the value of the internet, along with basic privacy, is
being rapidly destroyed by ubiquitous surveillance. "I don't see myself as
a hero," he said, "because what I'm doing is self-interested: I don't want
Find the latest jobs in your sector:

Arts & heritage
Health
Charities
Marketing & PR
Education
Media
Environment
Sales
Government
Senior executive
Graduate
Social care
Browse all jobs

international
Search
Department for
International
Development Programming and
Relationship
Manager (UK Office)
London | 35k - 38k
p.a. including ILW
BRITISH RED
CROSS
to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for

intellectual exploration and creativity."
Once he reached the conclusion that the NSA's surveillance net would
soon be irrevocable, he said it was just a matter of time before he chose
to act. "What they're doing" poses "an existential threat to democracy",
he said.
A matter of principle
As strong as those beliefs are, there still remains the question: why did
he do it? Giving up his freedom and a privileged lifestyle? "There are
more important things than money. If I were motivated by money, I could
have sold these documents to any number of countries and gotten very
rich."
For him, it is a matter of principle. "The government has granted itself
power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is
people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed
to," he said.
His allegiance to internet freedom is reflected in the stickers on his
laptop: "I support Online Rights: Electronic Frontier Foundation," reads
one. Another hails the online organisation offering anonymity, the Tor
Project.
Asked by reporters to establish his authenticity to ensure he is not some
fantasist, he laid bare, without hesitation, his personal details, from his
social security number to his CIA ID and his expired diplomatic passport.
There is no shiftiness. Ask him about anything in his personal life and he
will answer.
He is quiet, smart, easy-going and self-effacing. A master on computers,
he seemed happiest when talking about the technical side of
surveillance, at a level of detail comprehensible probably only to fellow
communication specialists. But he showed intense passion when talking
about the value of privacy and how he felt it was being steadily eroded
by the behaviour of the intelligence services.
His manner was calm and relaxed but he has been understandably
twitchy since he went into hiding, waiting for the knock on the hotel door.
A fire alarm goes off. "That has not happened before," he said, betraying
anxiety wondering if was real, a test or a CIA ploy to get him out onto the
street.
Strewn about the side of his bed are his suitcase, a plate with the
remains of room-service breakfast, and a copy of Angler, the biography
of former vice-president Dick Cheney.
Ever since last week's news stories began to appear in the Guardian,
Snowden has vigilantly watched TV and read the internet to see the
effects of his choices. He seemed satisfied that the debate he longed to
provoke was finally taking place.
He lay, propped up against pillows, watching CNN's Wolf Blitzer ask a
discussion panel about government intrusion if they had any idea who
the leaker was. From 8,000 miles away, the leaker looked on
impassively, not even indulging in a wry smile.
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.
As for his future, he is vague. He hoped the publicity the leaks have
generated will offer him some protection, making it "harder for them to
get dirty".
He views his best hope as the possibility of asylum, with Iceland with
its reputation of a champion of internet freedom at the top of his list. He
knows that may prove a wish unfulfilled.
But after the intense political controversy he has already created with just
the first week's haul of stories, "I feel satisfied that this was all worth it. I
have no regrets."
Share
Email
More from Glenn Greenwald on security and liberty

A critical, campaigning column on vital issues of civil
rights, freedom of information and justice and their
enemies, from the award-winning journalist, former
constitutional litigator and author of three New York
Times bestsellers.
Previous:
Video (12min 35sec), 9 Jun 2013: NSA
whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a
society that does these sort of things' video
Follow @ggreenwald on Twitter or email him at

glenn.greenwald@
guardiannews.com
Glenn Greenwald on security and liberty index
Hot topics
Eurozone crisis Libya Syria Gaza US elections 2012
License/buy our content | Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Advertising guide | Accessibility | A-Z index | Inside the Guardian blog | About us | Work for us | Join our dating site today
2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
5584 comments. Showing
50
conversations, sorted
Prev
oldest first
Go
Go
1 2 3 48
whyohwhy1
09 June 2013 7:32pm
Next
5962
Thank you!
DogAlmightyM
09 June 2013 7:54pm
4720
Whether you agree or not with this man exposing the

NSA's secrets, one thing you can't argue is the American
deserved to know about all the data being collected on
them.
What this man has done is very courageous and the
American people should be grateful to him.
BonkIfYouHonk
09 June 2013 8:04pm
216
@whyohwhy1 - thank you indeed, but I wonder how long

the guardian will keep flogging this story? Three days and
counting...
Yosserian
09 June 2013 8:09pm
2191
@BonkIfYouHonk thank you indeed, but I wonder how long the

guardian will keep flogging this story? Three
days and counting...
Wow! Three whole days, you say! And the say people
have short attention spans...
geo423
09 June 2013 8:14pm
1065
@BonkIfYouHonk - Is there anything of larger

consequence that happened this weekend to replace it?
RadicalLivre
09 June 2013 8:15pm
1807
@BonkIfYouHonk 09 June 2013 8:04pm. Get cifFix for

Firefox.
thank you indeed, but I wonder how long the
Please tell me you were paid by the NSA to write that.
Otherwise the renewed faith in humanity Edward
Snowden has instilled in me will be shattered.
GRSmith300
09 June 2013 8:25pm
1572
@BonkIfYouHonk - I'd rather they 'flogged' this story than

Thatcher's funeral.
Respect and thanks to Edward Snowden.
DeleteThisPost
09 June 2013 8:33pm
1405
@DogAlmightyM 09 June 2013 7:54pm.

I don't see this as a contradiction, but I am grateful for
Snowden, appreciate what he has done, and even
consider him to be a hero, while at the same time I am
not grateful for Manning, I don't appreciate what he has
done and I don't see him as anything even remotely
resembling a hero.
I am glad that Snowden took up residence (if even in a
hotel) in Hong Kong before coming out as the NSA
whistleblower. I absolutely don't want to see him in jail, but
also (as Snowden states himself), this issue is important
enough on its own without the Fed having Snowden on
trial here in the States, which would serve as an
unwanted distraction from one of the most important
political and social issues in the world today.
Mr. Snowden;
As an American and a former US Marine, I applaud you
sir.
SeaOfAsh
896
09 June 2013 8:35pm
@BonkIfYouHonk - Well, considering that Greenwald said

today that there are still more documents coming,
hopefully for a while. This. Cannot. Die. If it does, I will
literally lose all hope for democracy in the US
anagama
09 June 2013 8:42pm
1044
@whyohwhy1 Hero, and bravest person in the world.
BeastNeedsMoreTorque
09 June 2013 8:42pm
334
@whyohwhy1 - But like the Bankers, was any of what the

NSA did illegal? All the laws have been set up so that
governments can do this legally, just like they did with the
banking laws. It's an inside coup. A concentration and
consolidation of power.
Jawja100
97
09 June 2013 9:09pm
@DogAlmightyM - Now, if only someone will do something

to get the commercial spies off our tails.
aymoony
09 June 2013 9:13pm
737
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque 09 June 2013 8:42pm. Get

cifFix for Chrome.
was any of what the NSA did illegal?
It depends... do you consider the US Constitution and the
Bill of Rights to be legal documents? If so, then yes.
epinoa
09 June 2013 9:13pm
285
It was very eloquent. I don't think that I could have talked

at such great length so well.
koRuLa
09 June 2013 9:14pm
68
@DogAlmightyM - You say Americans deserved to know
but remember those that mean us harm also got this

heads up.
HelenGerhardt
146
09 June 2013 9:16pm
@RadicalLivre - Oh, lord, Snowden's mammoth courage

totally overshadows that gnat-sized silliness.
dikwiki
09 June 2013 9:19pm
This comment was removed by a moderator because it

didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may
also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
FluffytheObeseCat
844
09 June 2013 9:20pm
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque - All the laws have been set up

so that governments can do this legally
Weeeelllllll.................. now. Not exactly. One little thing
that keeps getting forgotten during this unrolling event is:
Congressional oversight has been stymied in ways that
are NOT truly legal. Not if you sit back and look at the
balance of power designated by our Constitution.
The senate as whole should have more say in the
governance of our security apparatus. The Select
Committee on Intelligence should not be castrated by antiDemocratic constraints on discussion of vital matters. They
should get better from the security folks than occasional
info-deficient, glib, bullshit presentations. They should be
able to demanding details, and they should get them
promptly.
At present, we American taxpayers fund a security state
the workings of which are better known to 29-year old
contractors than our elected representatives. That is not
only fucking insane, it is in direct conflict with the highest
law of our land.
This is still, nominally, a democracy. However
inconvenient that might seem, however tatty (and corrupt)
many of our senators are, they are at least minimally
dependent on the will of the people they represent.
Booz Allen by contrast, is only dependent on us the way
a tapeworm in my gut is dependent on my diet. Since I
can't or won't stop eating, it gets a slice of every pizza I
consume, whether I will it or no.
StrawBear
09 June 2013 9:24pm
1308
When a nation takes this kind of action it's clearly terrified,

terrified of foreigners and terrified of its own citizens.
I think nearly a dozen years after the event, it's become
clear that the terrorists won hands down.
I hope Mr Snowden's left alone to live out his exile in
peace and quiet. The guy has more balls than the rest of
us put together.
DharmasWay
36
09 June 2013 9:24pm
@whyohwhy1 Don't worry this man will help him. Alex jones, today he
took over the BBC. Do watch, it's hilarious
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832994
hairycamel
09 June 2013 9:25pm
129
@BonkIfYouHonk - I'm not saying you are real or you are

not real, but it can't harm to maintain a critical eye.
Especially since your reaction seems somewhat
perversed, given the scale of the implications of this
breaking news.
So I will continue to spread the word
It is a matter of public record (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spyoperation-social-networks ) there are government people
paid to shape the debate online.
Phineus
09 June 2013 9:26pm
282
@DeleteThisPost - well said.

"As an American and a former US Marine, I applaud you
sir."
ID7031076
09 June 2013 9:33pm

RedCat21
09 June 2013 9:36pm
108
Thanks Ed. Legend.
09 June 2013 9:38pm
316
@aymoony - Obama's a constitutional lawyer by trade.

The point I was trying to make in my original comment is
that all this spying has been made legal. Bush authorized
illegal wiretapping but Obama is more crafty than that.
The Patriot Act circumvents the Constitution. The US
public no longer has the protection of the Constitution,
because it is defacto made null and void by the Patriot
Act. And guess who all too willingly extended the life of
the Patriot Act? "Meet the new boss, same as the old
boss".
And how many of those Congressmen/women who are

concerned about Privacy voted in favour of the Patriot
Act? The naivety of people, no matter their station in life,
never ceases to blow me away. If you grant people
absolute power they're going to use it. If you grant the
government the legal power to spy on you, they're going
to spy on you.
PleaseTurnLeft
09 June 2013 9:41pm
56
@koRuLa - Or perhaps; Those to whom the US means

harm got this heads up.
ShrekII
09 June 2013 9:46pm
57
@Yosserian - AAD, the disease younger Americans and

now the world, suffer from. Three days of truth-telling is
obviously too much for the young man. He's ready to go
back to the more fun-filled fiction, I imagine...
Jawja100
09 June 2013 9:46pm
46
@FluffytheObeseCat - Repubs contracted out our

government to save $. Really, it was a way to let their
lobbyists make a killing.
cw gf
09 June 2013 9:47pm
253
@DogAlmightyM - The man is a hero and deserves a

medal.
john gotti
09 June 2013 9:52pm
360
@koRuLa - How is intercepting my phone calls and

emails going to stop terrorism? It didn't stop the Boston
bombers
Thomas Griffith
09 June 2013 9:59pm
43
@DogAlmightyM - If everyone knew what information was

collected, the enemy would be able to circumvent the
NSA.. not a good thing at all, this is the fundamental
reason why stuff like this is kept secret, not because
people in the intelligence services want to know want to
know your internet/phone activities - far from it , they'd
want to cut that unnecessary stuff out!
bamage
94
09 June 2013 9:59pm
@whyohwhy1 - Seconded. Very much.

Mr. Snowden is probably "safer" "out" at this point in
time... I hope he remains so.
TheLibrarianApe
09 June 2013 10:00pm
347
@BonkIfYouHonk - If you don't think this is one of the

most important stories of the Internet era - then you have
a screw loose my friend.
john gotti
09 June 2013 10:02pm
65
@whyohwhy1 - Now the MSNBC balloon heads start

accusing him of being a paranoid racist
Tiger184
09 June 2013 10:03pm
172
@BonkIfYouHonk - You are exactly the kind of person

Snowden was talking about when expressing concern that
people will simply move on from this and do nothing.
Roman78
09 June 2013 10:06pm
60
@BonkIfYouHonk
thank you indeed, but I wonder how long the
Check out the BGT live blog if you want something more
to your taste.
kingfelix
09 June 2013 10:12pm
115
@BonkIfYouHonk - Haha, this story is about the very

fabric of our daily lives, from here until eternity. What a
dimwit thou arest.
BonkIfYouHonk
09 June 2013 10:13pm

Saultxyca
09 June 2013 10:13pm
@Jawja100 - Really creepy, nest-ce pas?
BonkIfYouHonk
09 June 2013 10:16pm

Saultxyca
09 June 2013 10:18pm
10
@Saultxyca - R-e-a-l-l-y creepy, n'est-ce pas? Especially

those morphed 'pitch-caricatures' that look suspiciously
like oneself ... (their sheer creepiness makes them selfdefeating). Once again, an overreach by the Big Eye and
its deeply vested interests.
eowyn1
09 June 2013 10:18pm
42
@DogAlmightyM - I don't understand why he would seek

asylum in China. The Chinese government is bound to be
more intrusive than ours. We have protests, too, but are
not murdered in the street for it like protesters are there. It
makes me wonder if he did something wrong and leaked
this information as a cover and to receive asylum more
easly or from a government he had been helping. I mean
no disrespect to him, unless it is something like this. I just
don't get it. China?
eowyn1
09 June 2013 10:20pm
21
@DeleteThisPost - I don't understand why he would seek

asylum in China. The Chinese government is bound to be
more intrusive than ours. We have protests, too, but are
not murdered in the street for it like protesters are there. It
makes me wonder if he did something wrong and leaked
this information as a cover and to receive asylum more
easly or from a government he had been helping. I mean
no disrespect to him, unless it is something like this. I just
don't get it. China?
shakercoola
09 June 2013 10:21pm
26
@whyohwhy1 - "How sweet it is to hate one's native land,

to desire its ruin, and in its ruin to discern the dawn of
universal rebirth."
Vladimir Pecherin
tmbttd
09 June 2013 10:21pm
63
@DogAlmightyM - I think peoples around the globe who

are "controlled" by the few in various governments can
sigh a sigh of some relief.
The next time someone from the Obama administration
tells me that it was Bush's "fault" or whomever's "fault" I
will direct them to this article. Also, the next person that
tells me government is "transparent" just might find
themselves with a black eye and a fist full of knuckles.
cantpleaseall
09 June 2013 10:23pm
156
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque - Sorry, it's not legal. The NSA

was chartered to spy on other nations, not the US. The
FBI is the only agency that can spy on the US.
section 2.3, Collection of Information included in
Executive Order 12333-United States Intelligence
activities, specifically limits the NSAs collection of data to
foreign intelligence or counterintelligence sources, further
stipulating that data collection within the United States
"shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant
foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized
agencies of the Intelligence Community, provided that no
foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be
undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information
concerning the domestic activities of United States
persons."
It is ILLEGAL!
Jonathan Mailer
09 June 2013 10:25pm
118
@koRuLa - "but remember those that mean us harm also

got this heads up."
They wouldn't mean us harm if we weren't an empire
supporting dictators who grind them into poverty and
oppression (the Shah, Musharraf, Mubarak, Saleh) or
bombing, invading, or occupying their countries.
jopestron
09 June 2013 10:29pm
159
@BonkIfYouHonk - Don't worry. I'm sure there is some

vital Hollywood gossip happening right now. Maybe your
favorite actress bought a new dress, or maybe your
favorite sports star had an affair! We'll keep you posted.
garand555
09 June 2013 10:31pm
@Thomas Griffith - Then may they should have cut that

unnecessary stuff out. Oops.
DeleteThisPost
09 June 2013 10:34pm
79
@eowyn1 09 June 2013 10:20pm.

Hong Kong actually makes a lot of sense, considering the
circumstances. I am not under any Guardianista, ultra leftwing, batshit-crazy notion that China is a more free, open
or democratic society than the US. Hell, I even hope that
Manning goes to jail for at least a decent bit of time.
But in this case I do believe that Snowden has more to
fear from the US's DOJ than he does from China.
moralreef
09 June 2013 10:57pm
171
@DeleteThisPost - The Hong Kong SAR is still not the

PRC. It has similar democratic and free speech than most
Western nations, which mainland still respects, and the
very fact that a security systems expert has chosen it as a
suitable location is extremely telling how much America's
culture of freedom has eroded over the years.
So perhaps it is pertinent to say Hong Kong is a 'freer'
society than the U.S. nowadays
onefeather
09 June 2013 11:14pm
@DogAlmightyM - Well said..
aubreyfarmer
09 June 2013 11:16pm

TheClave
09 June 2013 11:18pm
@RadicalLivre - What? A new found understanding that

when someone gives their word, they will not keep it?
JRTomlin
09 June 2013 11:22pm
11
@koRuLa - Oh, they had no idea before that they were

being spied upon? Give me a break.
toosinbeymen
09 June 2013 11:23pm
21
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque - The "patriot" act has never

been tested by SCOTUS to see if it's legal or not. Further,
the Obama admin's interpretation of it has not either.
Why? Because no one could legitimately claim standing.
Now that's changed because all Verizon's business
clients' records being seized.
ID3921519
09 June 2013 11:24pm
33
@StrawBear - I have to agree. The terrorists won. Osama

bin Laden is probably laughing in his grave.
David Conner
09 June 2013 11:24pm
27
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque - There may be laws

supporting what the NSA is doing, It is unconstitutional as
are the laws. Please read the Constitution and the fourth
amendment. Again?
AbsolutelyBarmy
09 June 2013 11:28pm
@DogAlmightyM - Tell that to the people who died in

9/11.
Hadsnuff
09 June 2013 11:28pm
@BonkIfYouHonk - I am sure Nelson Mandela would be

truly delighted to see your comment.
Clara Eagle
09 June 2013 11:29pm
29
@whyohwhy1 - Hussein Obama the worse real

ULTIMATE BRAZEN HYPOCRITE in your face and he
does't care , he say in his govt website change.org , he
applaud whistleblower but when they actually their whistle
he want them DEAD and bury . ,He is Tyranny corrupt liar
intimidation gangster that's how he learn from ghetto south
side Chicago dirty machine ....now go to national/global
level help by corrupt US media
ersatzian
09 June 2013 11:31pm
73
@moralreef ...the very fact that a security systems expert

has chosen it [Hong Kong] as a suitable location
is extremely telling how much America's culture
of freedom has eroded over the years.
So perhaps it is pertinent to say Hong Kong is a
'freer' society than the U.S. nowadays[.]
I'm sorry if you aren't American, but do you realize how
pompous this sounds? That you can go around a place
and decide how free it is based on the number of statutes
in a book? It's like whenever someone (usually American)
describes Americans as a freedom-loving people. Well,
what the fuck, who isn't? It is not news that governments
say one thing and then do another. What are

governments but more people? The only reason we love
to give the US shit for this is because the distance
between what the state practices and what it preaches is
amusingly large. The CCP is infamous for lying most of
the time to the point where hardly anyone ever believes
what the people in charge say, which is fine because
we're not expecting anything better. But it is different with
the US because it likes to trumpet on and on about how
free it is and how brave its people. If more Americans
went abroad and took more than three, four hours outside
their hotel rooms and tourist traps, they'd know that most
people are too busy living their lives to bother with feeling
free. I mean, let's be sensible. Is there oppression? Yes.
Are there bad things that happen in life? Yes. Are there
bad people? Also yes. Now, will those things go away just
because we put another poor sod in office or resort to
anarchy? No, they won't. I'm not saying that people
shouldn't actively try to improve their lives or that they
should accept totalitarianism, but must we whine so while
doing it? Take Singapore. It is a benevolent dictatorship.
Americans don't like talking about it other than to criticize
its bizarre policy on chewing gum because it's the
antithesis to the American political experiment and it also
works. Surprise surprise, there's more than one way to
skin a cat. You can try go asking how oppressed the
average Singaporean feels and I'm sure you'll get
complaints, but on the whole, I daresay I'd feel every inch
as free walking down Orchard Road than I would Fifth
Avenue. Of course there's oppression; it's government, it's
compromisemeaning at some point we won't get what
we want. The task, then, is to reform human character
and genetics via education and the wonders of science so
thoroughly that we'll all be happy vegans on the barter
system, but until then what we're doing is damage control:
How much oppression is acceptable in a system of
diverse and differing interests?
Mike C. Ward
09 June 2013 11:37pm
32
@Jawja100 - They also contracted it out because

contractors are less accountable to the public than
government employees.
rewiredhogdog
09 June 2013 11:40pm
49
@BonkIfYouHonk - Hey, this is the biggest story since

Daniel Ellsberg leaked The Pentagon Papers.
addywisbef
09 June 2013 11:40pm
91
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque - The 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated.."
09 June 2013 11:41pm
30
@cantpleaseall - I'm certainly not condoning it by stating

that its legal. Slavery in certain states in the US was once
legal, but it didn't make it right.
Leading up to 9/11 the CIA (or some other spy agency of
the US gov/Military) were tracking two terrorist suspects
overseas. When they entered the United States the Spy
agency could not continue to track them for reasons that
you point out. However, because of the legal obligation to
turn matters over to the FBI the whereabouts of these two
suspects got lost. Post 9/11 Politicians sought to remedy
that by making the laws much more vague regarding
surveillance.
A judge has granted legal permission for the collection of
the data. Perhaps that Judge made a legal error in
granting that permission that could be challenged in court.
However, the point is the Obama government did not
have to do a "Nixon" or a "Bush", that is knowingly break
the law, because the laws have been altered in such a
way that they don't have to.
The legal "cover my ass" clause for the govt is that the
NSA is collecting this data for foreign intelligence
purposes. Terrorism is seen as a foreign threat.
Foreigners are "seen to be" operating within the US,
hence the legal justification for scooping up the data
within the USA. The NSA is using a trawl net to catch a
couple of "minnows". The bonus for the NSA and the govt
is all this "extra" data they get on US citizens too. Data
that is longer protected by law.
Perhaps I'm wrong in my legal interpretations. People
were outraged about what the Banks did, but thanks to
Bill Clinton, Phil Gramm and others, what the banks did
wasn't illegal. It's a gray area, they're called loopholes. I
think what the NSA is doing is exploiting a loophole.
roof
09 June 2013 11:47pm
84
@BonkIfYouHonk - You have got to be kidding. Every one

of us is spied upon by another country and you don't think
it's a big deal?
We should thank this guy for what he did.
Peter Carter
09 June 2013 11:47pm
@geo423 - Syria?
Evereste
09 June 2013 11:51pm
18
@whyohwhy1 - A hero to millions in moments!
Roosterbooster198
09 June 2013 11:52pm
74
@BonkIfYouHonk - Yeah... it's kind of worth flogging. The

massive, blanket surveillance of everyone in the USA and
Britain is kind of a big deal.
09 June 2013 11:56pm
53
@David Conner - I have no argument with the constitution

or with you. All I'm trying to point out is that the laws have
been altered as to become so vague that they can easily
be circumvented via loopholes or Byzantine legal
interpretations. Things like the Patriot Act when it was first
proposed should have provoked at least the outrage that
the PRSM revelations have today. Did you know that the
Soviet Union had a constitution? One that protected the
rights of its citizens? A lot of good that did the people.
Few protested the Patriot Act at the time. 9/11 effectively
gave US govts unprecedented power over its citizens,
largely by consent. Now the people are only waking up to
the consequences of that consent, that naive trust.
09 June 2013 11:58pm
13
@addywisbef - As I stated elsewhere, the Soviet Union

had a constitution protecting the rights of its citizens. How
did that turn out?
yongtaufooboy
09 June 2013 11:59pm
@RadicalLivre - your faith in the whole humanity is based

on the actions of 1 brave man? Wow. Next week some
chap will shoot a few people and there goes your "faith in
humanity" yeah? Awful, awful internet-popularised phrase
and i hope you didnt mean it literally.
DaveUK1977
10 June 2013 12:02am
@Tiger184 - But it's been THREE DAYS man! Lol. wtf.
somebodysomewhere
10 June 2013 12:15am
16
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque - point of information

'Slavery in certain states in the US was once legal, but it
didn't make it right.'
slavery was legal throughout the entire country until 1865
and codified in the constitution. re-read the various
provisions for representation, etc. in the body of that
document. (Africans were counted as 3/5 of a EuroAmerican in each census, foe example.)
and historically, they have been quite adept at creating
laws and provisos to protect property rights ('pursuit of
happiness') over all else. the supreme court ruling
regarding corporate 'political rights' being a recent
example.
AhBrightWings
10 June 2013 12:28am
146
@BonkIfYouHonk but I wonder how long the guardian will keep

flogging this story? Three days and counting...
I hope the story is covered until it moves us to collective
action. What has crippled us is our inertia. We (as a
collective nation) have the attention span of gnats. This
story was a decade in the making. Allow space for it to
unfold.
eowyn1
10 June 2013 12:32am
13
@eowyn1 - I just read about the relationship between

China and Hong Kong, and because of British rule of
Hong Kong until 1997, there are alot of differences
between China and Hong Kong. I understand a little more
now.
eowyn1
10 June 2013 12:45am
11
@ersatzian - If our government wasn't so out of control, it

would follow the framework of the constitution. Then, the
federal government would have to get out of our lives. The
purpose of the Federal gov. is enumerated in this
document but progressives keep expanding it. Each state
should be an experiment of different programs and efforts
and government. At smaller scale mistakes can be made
and more easily corrected. Comparing the USA with
Singapore isn't so useful because of size and population
differences.
electrotectic
10 June 2013 12:53am
10
@koRuLa @DogAlmightyM - You say Americans deserved to know

but remember those that mean us harm also got this
heads up.
Possibly they may have guessed, and were already wary.
Kent Marsh
10 June 2013 1:11am
25
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque - Obama IS NOT a

"constitutional lawyer by trade."
He taught a Constitutional Law class at the University of
Chicago. They refer to him as a senior lecturer". It is
interesting to note that in the famous photo of him
teaching "constitutional law" shows a white board in the
back ground where he is teaching on "Rules For
Radicals". No doubt, he adheres to the teaching of Saul
D. Alinsky rather than the U.S Founding Fathers.
Looking at Obama's mentors, you see a long list of
Radical Leftists, Communists and Socialists. His closest
advisor, Valarie Jarett's father in-law was a renowned
Communist in the Black circles of Chicago and an

associate of the Communist mentor Obama had as a
teen-ager in Hawaii.
This administration does not revere the U.S. Constitution.
Baaboo
10 June 2013 1:18am
@DogAlmightyM - I agree with you 100%, I add, he is in

extreme danger !!!!
BobSoper
10 June 2013 1:28am
26
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque - These programs have been

shielded from proper judicial review (and no, the FISA
Court doesn't count) by spurious claims of "state secrets."
One of the most significant aspects of this document
release is that finally the ACLU, EFF, CCR and those
affected by this surveillance (i.e. all of us) should be able
to challenge these dreadful practices on 4th Amendment
grounds.
BobSoper
10 June 2013 1:30am
64
@Kent Marsh - this president does not have a communist

bone in his body (unfortunately). He is a creature of Wall
Street.
StopGMO
10 June 2013 2:00am
26
@AhBrightWings "You can't wait around for someone else to act" Moving to
action is in every choice we make. The exposure of
privacy shredding and the brave acts of this man, and for
that matter GG and the Guardian should be recognized.
We have not paid attention to what matters but have been
sideline by diversions. There is this great exposure of
privacy invasion, there is the TPP 'trade' agmt threatening
the US and amnesty, it must All have our attention. It's
time to stop being diverted by nonsense like 'benghazi'.
It's time to emulate strength like this man, not wait for
some bogus 'leader', they are all sold out. We can pay
attention to the Big things, and don't just say thanks, but
help inform others. Send this link and the others from last
week to other people. We can each do that much.
Knowledge is power, we have been given an important
article to share, we can start to take action by sharing this
article with others-
swiftysmith
10 June 2013 2:04am
24
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque
"The law perverted! And the police powers of the state
perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned
from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely
contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every

kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself
guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires
me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it."
The Law
Frdric Bastiat (1850)
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G002
44
10 June 2013 2:05am
@eowyn1 - HK is not really China,yes the city is part of

China yet it has its own government and law system, the
Chinese policemen cannot cross the border and enter HK
too detain anyone, and vice versa. HK has a much higher
degree of freedom of speech,free press and even now a
big proportion of the local population were actually the
victims of the red China terror, millions of them escaped to
HK,hence HK had a sentiment of being responsible
protecting political refugees.
Actually this is a very smart move, considering the postcold-war cold war between China and the US,if the
Chinese government does not want to send this guy to
the US,the American government can't really do much in
addition to protesting,on the other hand,whereas the vast
majority of the rest of the world probably has to bend
down to the pressure from the US,on the other hand, the
Chinese policemen cannot touch him in HK due to the
"one country,two system" policy.
reneefulghum
10 June 2013 2:07am
11
@DeleteThisPost - You sir made me cry, Thank you for

showing respect for this young man. That gives me hope.
LloydBonafide
10 June 2013 2:07am
10
@BonkIfYouHonk It's a real issue... Here's the thing... EVERY COMPANY

HAS DENIED IT PUBLICLY EXCEPT MICROSOFT.
Not to toot my own horn though, but they started hiring
Booz Allen Hamilton employees in 2005 and 2006.
melrose1
10 June 2013 2:12am
21
@DogAlmightyM - But the Obama robots will go into high

spin mode, discredit this brave young man, protect the
Dictator at any cost! Obama's robots will destroy this
young man and his family. The media already have their
knives out for him. Watch. OBama's crime machine will
destroy this brave young man. Obama is a thug dictator
and he will stop at nothing to achieve his cushy million
dollar retirement in Hawaii.
Connie Cromar
10 June 2013 2:36am
50
@DeleteThisPost - I don't think it would be jail time had

he stayed in the USA. I think he would be looking at an
accident or an unpredicted "suicide"... If you look up
history, you will find people such as this end up dead for
some odd reason. Far too many to name.
Amy Sterling Casil
10 June 2013 2:47am
@RadicalLivre - exactly.
VisceralRebellion
10 June 2013 2:56am
12
@electrotectic - It's obvious they knew a long time ago,

hence OBL going dark and sending messages via courier.
Terrorists are evil, not stupid.
Americans, on the other hand, thought that the mass data
scooping was illegal and had, until three days ago, no
reason to suspect that our government was collecting,
storing and analyzing each and every piece of our digital
lives.
Significant difference IMO.
indie45
10 June 2013 3:08am
@BonkIfYouHonk - hopefully till we know the full extent of

this government unnecessary invasion of privacy.
Lord knows we will not hear one little utterance from the
obama media outlets ie CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, HLN,
CBS.....except maybe to perpetuate the untrue rumor that
the man has "defected" to China...utter nonsense....and
that he didn't graduate from high school....
This government needs to do what it is paid to do and that
is GOVERN.....!!!!!
CATCH SOME TERRORISTS ALREADY!
ersatzian
10 June 2013 3:19am
15
@eowyn1 If our government wasn't so out of control, it

would follow the framework of the constitution.
Then...the federal government would have to
get out of our lives. The purpose of the Federal
gov. is enumerated in this document but
progressives keep expanding it.
I'm confused. This isn't a conservatives versus liberals
issue. The same sort of surveillance was done under
Bush, only his administration didn't even bother with a
court order. I think I have said this elsewhere, but the socalled debate between Republicans and Democrats over
size of government is make believe. The government is

going to be big whether it is red or blue. The only
difference is whether it's going to be big-big or moderately
big. There's arguably been too much social welfare
embedded into the federal mandate since Lyndon B to go
back now.
As for comparing the US with Singapore, we can try
comparing Minnesota (population 5.3 million) instead.
Singapore's median household income in 2012 was
around $72,000, Minnesota's $55,802. Singapore's adult
obesity is below 10 per cent, Minnesota's 25.4 and it's
already in the top six nationwide. 14 per cent of nonstudent Singaporeans above 15 hold at least a Bachelor's;
Minnesota has at least double that. Average life
expectancy for males in Singapore is 79 years, for
females 83; in Minnesota it's 78.3 for men and 83.3 for
women. In Singapore you can't chew gum unless it's
medicinal (though punishment is a fine and not caning), in
Minnesota you can chew what you want. Can't tell much
other than it's probably quite nice to live in either
Singapore or Minnesota.
Connie Cromar
10 June 2013 3:36am
16
@eowyn1 no actually, if you'll do your research, you'll find

100's have had accidents or suicides who were to be
witnesses AGAINST our government or government
coverup... to start... Oswald. or check out White Water
with the Clintons. Or better yet, those men who were
behind the "death" of Binladen, or the resent FBI agents
who had the accident AFTER having interrogated the
supposedly Boston attackers, or those involved in
Benghazi.... there's just too many coincidences.
Connie Cromar
10 June 2013 3:39am
11
@ersatzian - I am NOT a Bush fan what so ever.

However, he did NOT have the level of spying on citizens
as that of Obama. The building was JUST completed in
Lehi, Utah. It didn't exist during the Bush administration.
But don't get me started on 911 World Trade Centers and
Bush's involvement.
Dennis Boylon
10 June 2013 3:57am

Adam Bauer
10 June 2013 4:04am
@koRuLa - So you think what the NSA was doing was a

good and necessary thing?
terrybones
10 June 2013 4:16am
@Thomas Griffith - true dat my north korean comrade, we

should catch up sometime so we can swap stories about
the good old days of Stalin, yeehaw!
Bba Hunter
10 June 2013 4:18am
18
@FluffytheObeseCat - CORRECTION The USA is NOT

and has NEVER been a democracy. It was designbed so
that a simple majority CANNOT rule. It was designed to
protect the rights of all, even when 99% vote to take those
rights away.
Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch.
JackJay
10 June 2013 4:33am
@BonkIfYouHonk - Flog it forever. Hold NSA's feet to the

fire until they cry uncle.
Richmondecology
10 June 2013 4:39am
@DharmasWay - Osbourne is 6th time counting

Watford at these Bilderberg meetings- which to all
sane folks are not healthy -so with Tories toffs like Hague/
Osborne /& others too, far to close to big businesswhether it is Gas Shale MiningArming the killers in Syria,
who are hired from Qatar etc &
now games in Pakistan & region& beyond- we are in
Bush's Senior THIRD chapter of his 'New World Order'
started in 1991
we had 2001now this is mixed up stages in 2013 Ed Snowden is a hero but what is BOOZ & other
supposed questionable consultants& their emplyees really
& truly are up toall sheep as long as they get paid?
too many guilty lawyers & folks,
with these questionable many Consultants---who give us ENRON LEHMAN & many corporate Scams !
and run run run with the loot!
IndianmanAbroad
10 June 2013 4:53am
58
@DeleteThisPost - with all due respect for the US and

other professional armed forces everywhere who daily put
their lives on the line, I must tell you that outside of the
US we are very disturbed by the US invasions of Iraq and
Afghanistan for many reasons. One of them is that these
wars appear to be being waged both ineffectively - against
their stated targets - and indiscriminately against civilian
populations. From the outside looking in I see both
Manning and Snowden as individuals who were in love
with the principles and ideals their country promised them
- and who feel obliged to point out the grim reality that is
harming the interests primarily of Americans, but also of
everyone else involved. They are both trying to rectify

wrongs they saw in the only way they best know how. I
can understand how as a former Marine Manning's leaks
do not sit right with you, but I see no difference between
him and Snowden.
DeleteThisPost
10 June 2013 5:19am
39
@IndianmanAbroad 10 June 2013 4:53am.

I appreciate your post. It was both considered and lacking
in hyperbole.
And I agree with you that the Iraq and Afghan wars were
disastrous.
Invading Iraq was not only unjustified, it was just plain
stupid. Hussein may have been a despot, but the country
was stable. Furthermore, it was one of the least
radicalized countries in the region. Now, after the war,
Iraq is a more dangerous place for its own citizens and its
a more dangerous entity to all nations.
My take on Afghanistan is a bit more complicated, as I do
think that sending troops there was justified, morally right
and (at least it had the the potential to be) even a good
thing for the average Afghani. The problem is what we did
there. Instead of running around the country killing
everyone that needed killing, we should have been going
around building roads, irrigating farms, building schools,
handing out food, putting up cell phone towers, putting up
satellite dishes for TV and internet access, etc.
In short, we should have been building infrastructure and
helping the locals. After that, if anyone over there needed
killing, then the Afghans would have taken care of that for
us.
___________
Regarding Manning:
My take on Manning is certainly colored by my military
service. I applaud Snowden, but Snowden was a civilian.
But when you're in the military you don't just get to
disobey orders when you feel like it. Of course the "I was
just following orders" line doesn't always have the moral
high ground. But there's a big difference between refusing
to bayonette an infant or refusing to shove someone into a
gas chamber, and what Manning did.
I will say that the government is acting much more heavy
handed with Manning then they need to be. He's already
admitted guilt to certain crimes, but I don't see that he
committed treason by knowingly aiding and abetting the
enemy. They should take his current guilty plea, sentence
him to a few years in jail, dishonorably discharge him, and
call it a day.
I don't like what Manning did, but the idea that he may
serve life in prison does make me a bit sick to my
stomach.
Gotham Knight
10 June 2013 5:23am
18
@koRuLa - People like you would rather live as slaves

rather than feel a moments fear from the boogeyman. You
would give up your freedoms for security. In the end you'll
get neither. Pathetic.
Gunny G Alz
10 June 2013 5:40am
@DeleteThisPost - I agree. Manning is a gutless snivling

coward who put OTHER PEOPLE'S lives in danger.
susangate1
10 June 2013 6:15am
@BonkIfYouHonk -we just learned today who the whistle

blower is.. .. it's a big deal
Pindi
10 June 2013 6:18am
22
@BonkIfYouHonk - The gap between the profundity of

this story and the banality of your comment could
accommodate an entire galaxy.
One day a new Mt Rushmore will be created with the
images of Manning, Assange, Snowden, Sybel Edmonds
etc, whereas Obama, Bush, Blair etc will be consigned to
the same category as Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, etc.
windycitygal
10 June 2013 7:44am
13
@melrose1 Um, it's Obama's long-time supporters who are the most
disappointed and outraged by this. As a long-time Obama
supporter, I applaud this young man and his family.
Republicans, on the other hand, should be delighted by
what Obama's doing and find this whistle-blower a
menace to American security. For conservatives to
condemn Obama for maintaining and even strengthening
policies they supported under the Bush era would be
immensely hypocritical.
muscleguy
10 June 2013 7:49am
@FluffytheObeseCat - Very well said. More power to your

obese and fluffy elbow.
aryhian
10 June 2013 7:51am
@DogAlmightyM - They have got everybody on the

Internets info not just the Americans.
scoobydoo123
10 June 2013 7:54am
@BonkIfYouHonk - nothing else to report in the UK....
JonKnox
10 June 2013 8:10am
@BonkIfYouHonk - You don't think it's all that

important...? This must run and run. If it's dropped, the
government-controllers will simply rub their hands, keep
schtum and carry-on regardless, coldly undermining every
last vestige of free expression...!
Thomas Bee
10 June 2013 8:14am
13
@BonkIfYouHonk - In my opinion (and hopefully many

others) they will 'Flog it' for as long as it takes for people
to realise how corrupt the system we live in has become.
We should all do what we can to make more people
aware because it is only a matter of time before the
government spins it's tail on the mainstream news and
convinces the majority that Edward is an 'American hating
liar' and that they are innocent. Change is desperately
needed but for that to happen we must all take action and
do our part to spread the word!
jes245
10 June 2013 8:17am
20
@BonkIfYouHonk - I'd rather read about this brave man

than a lot of the other rubbish that is written about. Also if
the story disappears, won't he?
JonKnox
10 June 2013 8:24am
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque All the more reason why every whistle we can find should
be blown and it's high time this kind of privileged 'legality' like MPs expenses, but even more important! - were
exposed.
Satrodniki
10 June 2013 9:02am
@eowyn1 - well, Hong Kong, not China China: Hong

Kong enjoys 'a high degree of autonomy'. But that said,
having lived and worked in Hong Kong for many years in
the past, this city is more riddled with 'intelligence
operatives', (take your pick: CIA, MI6, FSB, Chinese,
North Koreans etc etc) than almost any other. The biggest
danger might be that a rival agency (eg. the Koreans) may
wish to manufacture 'an accident' to discredit the US.
RobDingwall
10 June 2013 9:35am
@FluffytheObeseCat - Everything you say, I agree with how come it's on the Guardian you can express your
feelings, an not the LA times, etc,
MonkEMan
10 June 2013 9:45am
14
@BonkIfYouHonk - I know, it's a boring little story. Get the

Express instead to find out if Diana is still dead.
fugaziraff
10 June 2013 9:50am
18
@DeleteThisPost - Not true; if the command given to you

from an officer is questionable on moral grounds, you are
expected to refuse such orders; when Manning saw the
wonton murder of innocent people he released the
footage.... Try to put your self in the shoes of one of those
victims and tell me you wouldn't want the truth out? or are
you just too racist to care about arabs and their children...
Ps. I served for the French army and it was well-known
that Yanks had a habit of shoot first and then deny
everything!
JBPriestly
10 June 2013 9:52am
@DeleteThisPost Coukld that be anything at all to do with Party politics?

Manning's releases could be construed as anti-Bush and
Snowden's Anti- Obama?
baobab09
10 June 2013 9:54am
29
@DeleteThisPost - No need for Manning-bashing... This is

not a contest. Both men are heroes because they did
what was right at great personal cost.
WalkTheLine
10 June 2013 10:14am
13
@BonkIfYouHonk - Considering it's one of the biggest

stories of our lifetime and concrete proof that the state is
in fact spying on every single citizen, every facet of their
lives, surely you don't mind?
NomNomme
10 June 2013 10:24am
@DeleteThisPost while at the same time I am not grateful for

Manning, I don't appreciate what he has done
and I don't see him as anything even remotely
resembling a hero.
As an American and a former US Marine, I
applaud you sir.
Because Manning exposed things closer to home, huh?
blackfirscharlie
10 June 2013 10:37am
@BonkIfYouHonk - you pathetic troll
Quinton Young
10 June 2013 11:06am
@koRuLa - May I ask what "Heads UP" you are referring

to ? Like these Terrorists didn't think they might get
listened to on the Phone, or that the CI was NOT tracking
them ? Did you just graduate elementary school ? What
No ONE and I mean Absolutely NO ONE is talking about
is, "what about 10--50 Years down the road? Anyone with
half a brain will agree that our USA Government will have
even MORE Power against us, If and ONLY If we take
some of it back RIGHT NOW !
Schizoidmann
10 June 2013 11:13am
15
@windycitygal - You are misinformed (and making this

apolitical issue about liberty and privacy political).
Conservatives were at the forefront of keeping the internet
free from regulation and prying eyes during Clinton's
administration. You are misconstruing (intentionally?) the
facts. Under Bush the earlier practice of monitoring meta
data of foreign nationals communicating with Americans
was in the press constantly and labeled 'warrant-less
wiretapping'. It was not only all over the press but also
discussed in congress where Obama as a senator
condemned it and pledged to stop the practice. Instead,
what did he do? He expanded it beyond belief, beyond
what Ray Bradbury or George Orwell ever could imagine:
a completely surveilled society.
This young man, who voted for Obama, as did I, were
misled as well. Obama claimed his administration would
be the most transparent in history. He was right. it's just
that the transparency is on our side, not his. Under
Obama this same policy of monitoring foreign nationals
communicating with Americans has been transformed into
monitoring the activity of ALL Americans (as well as the
citizens of other nations). This must be stopped. This
young man is pioneer who will definitely be taking arrows,
but hopefully his action will inspire others and dramatic
change, otherwise all is lost. Hopefully, it's not too late.
This isn't political. It's about freedom, not party. If you
wish to be strangled by the yoke of government
surveillance, then continue to make it political and blame
one party or another. That way, you'll do the government's
job for them and keep citizens divided and fighting
amongst themselves. Don't fall prey to that. These policies
actually started well before Bush. Look up 'Echelon' for
example.
mjhunbeliever
10 June 2013 11:29am
@BonkIfYouHonk 09 June 2013 8:04pm. Get cifFix for

Firefox.
You clearly have an agenda !!!!
Dencal26
10 June 2013 11:36am
@Schizoidmann - You are 100% correct. Obama bashed

Bush then expanded the program.
78comments
10 June 2013 11:41am
15
@DeleteThisPost - Mannings a f'ing hero. We dont care

what you military hacks think of him. He exposed the
murderous illegal nature of your organisation and we ALL
applaud him from that!
A military career is a paid one and a choice - you chose
to do this not to serve your country but to increase the
wealth of your wealthy masters! Both the wars your
country has taken part in are illgal under international law.
And now you think you can start and fan the flames of a
3rd.
I would rather beg on the streets than to join the military
and make money from people being killed in a poorer
country to make money for the rich!
AnaGram2
10 June 2013 11:42am
@Jonathan Mailer - Thank you. If the US were a less

aggressive, poisonous presence on this planet, then it
would not be the object of worldwide loathing that it is.
DharmasWay
10 June 2013 11:45am
@Richmondecology What, for goodness sake are you on about? how much
had you drank before scattering this on your screen?
foolisholdman
10 June 2013 11:46am
@koRuLa @DogAlmightyM - You say Americans deserved

to know but remember those that mean us harm
also got this heads up.
Who wishes the US harm? Only the victims of the US

government's aggression and its anti-human policies.
BobStrebs
10 June 2013 11:50am
10
Freedom loving America stands with you, Snowden! Well

done, and thank you for your courage!
SDU1969
10 June 2013 11:52am
@Yosserian - Americans can barely sit through a 2 hour

movie!
behihoo
10 June 2013 12:03pm
@koRuLa - people like you do more harm to our

freedoms than a bunch of goat-molesting extremists.
BobStrebs
10 June 2013 12:03pm
15
@DeleteThisPost - Manning had the courage to reveal our

wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the globalist imperialist
exploits they are. Many military personnel should have
spoke out sooner. As a veteran I applaud Manning, and
work to see
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle/Obama/Kissinger/
Brzezinski, etc. et al, serve the rest of their unnatural days
behind bars as the war criminal psychopaths each has
proven to be.
lyndaloowhoo
10 June 2013 12:13pm
@geo423 - Well, Obama is hoping a hurricane/tornado or

some catastrophe will occur. If not, he will cause one.
Remember Obama has control of the earth; remember he
said he "would heal the Earth" and "recede the oceans".
How can anyone still believe this administration? What are
you NUTS??
We need to protect the "leaker" so that we can remain
free.
Under liberals/democrats we have been losing our
freedoms every day/24/7. We just didn't know all of it but
hopefully now we do!
Obama the smartest man in the world stated this
weekend: "We can't be 100% security; we can't have
100% privacy". Does that sound like "smarter
government"? GOD help our nation & the world from
liberalism which destroys everything it touches; and it
touches everything now that they are in power.
BobStrebs
10 June 2013 12:16pm
@foolisholdman - Those who react violently to US

aggression and violence are called "terrorists." Those who
terrorize nations with us are called allies. And now we
have Insane McCain offering heavy weapons to our al
Qaeda "allies" in their war against Syria.
At home, the Fedcoats are weeding out free Americans
from the slaves while pointing their guns at US. The war is
on, folks, and you just haven't woken up to the reality that
freedom, and those who stand for it, is the Fedcoat's new
enemy.
lyndaloowhoo
10 June 2013 12:18pm
@BobStrebs - Manning was risking getting our military

killed by the enemy. These are two completely different
cases. You are an idiot for supporting Manning. He is
going to prison for treason and should ! You obviously
hate the military; liberals always have. Liberals now are
trying to destroy the military yet again with the
accusations of sexual harassment by military personnel.
Their aim from the get-go was to get females into the
military; then have them claim sex abuse. Some of it may
be true but believe me the libs hate military will do
whatever it takes to bring it down.
IndianmanAbroad
10 June 2013 12:24pm
10
@DeleteThisPost - We seem to agree on most points,

which brings us to a dead end:-)
However, I'd like to differ with you regarding the invasion
of Afghanistan. Granted that providing infrastructure
would've done them a world of good, three questions
arise:
1. Would such an effort have been successful without the
engagement of at least a few local warlords? I don't think
so.
2. Are US troop losses and the expense of the war waged
in Afghanistan worth whatever 'strategic gains' have been
made since the invasion? Again, I don't think so. Do you
agree?
3. Were there not other means available to achieve the
same ends - in fact, do even better than the situation as it
exists in Afghanistan today? I'd like to believe so.
The military is a sharp tool that needs to be used in a
timely and limited manner, to cut Gordian knots. Without
advance thought as to what the most desirable long-term
goals are in Iraq and Afghanistan - in terms of US and
regional interests - even the efforts of a highly
professional military are bound to end in failure, especially
when used indiscriminately and left to linger in
deteriorating situations.
earlgray
10 June 2013 12:37pm
@whyohwhy1 - Its odd I was thinking about GCHQ and

how quiet reporting had become on our intelligence
services. In the papers in the late 80s and 90s (probably
the last time I regularly read a paper) the Guardian had
lots of articles on GCHQ, antennae picking up foreign
mobile telephone comms etc and then it all went quiet.
Intelligence agencies have always worked outside the

reaches of the law its what they do and they come under
little scrutiny. Its a shame that this chap has felt strong
enough to divulge a small part of what they do to a largely
uninterested public. Only to have have ruined his career.
epunkt
10 June 2013 12:46pm
First of all let me say, that you correct my view of US

Marine in a good way...
However I can not see a real difference between
Snowden and Manning. The cases are different, ok.
Snowden shows the illegal doing of the US administration
and services and Manning the mistake of two pilots. The
pilots? The system in witch they are trained! You said it is
a difference between to push people into a gas camber
and to kill people by mistake. You are right! As a German
(born after war) I discussed the exactly point between a
war crime and just following orders a thousand times. I
think there is no exactly point. When you listen to the
sound of the radio between the pilots. There were young
and believe to do the right for their country. But also if its
hard for you, they see their enemies as insects and not
worth to live. That's what they have told them. In a other
time in a other land they could be the soldiers who push
"insects" in a train to the gas camber.
For Manning the killing without need - no direct danger was a red line. For Snowden the spying of everybody was
the red line. So what is the difference between them?
esully63
10 June 2013 1:12pm
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque - In our current political areana

there is no such thing as legal and illegal. We pass laws
very frequently that will not stand up to constitutional
muster and they know it but pass it anyway stating let
them take it to court. I am so sick of hearing it wasnt
illegal, what they did was legal, whats wrong they are
allowed by law. Wake up! America was once interested in
right and wrong but now its all about legal or not. The
question we should be asking is "Is it right, is it just?". Isnt
that how organized crime runs, find the areas of weakness
in the laws or areas not yet addressed by law to exploite
the system. I hate to compare our political machine with
organized crime but Hey, if the shoe fits.....
Twoaddtwomakesfive
10 June 2013 1:14pm
@BonkIfYouHonk That attitude is dangerous, and probably what the

governments and the big corporations involved are hoping
for - that the public will get bored of the story and forget
about it so they can go on gathering information with
impunity. They hope that the status quo will be allowed to
endure after a short burst of impotent outrage.
This story is too important to be dropped. I hope
journalists, pressure groups and what good politicians
there are don't let this go.
Paulhalsall
10 June 2013 1:20pm
@whyohwhy1 - Hero
U0I0Oi0
10 June 2013 1:27pm
@BonkIfYouHonk "...but I wonder how long the guardian will keep

flogging this story? Three days and counting..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spyoperation-social-networks
You're rumbled sunbeam.
dedalus77uk
10 June 2013 1:34pm
11
@DeleteThisPost - Yes there is a difference between him

and Bradley Manning, but I think the main difference is
one of savvy. I think Bradley Manning was motivated by
much the same concerns about what is being done in our
name and the secretive ruthlessness behind what goes
on. He just went about it in a somewhat naive and
blundering way which didn't sufficiently distinguish
between what the public should have a right to know
about and what is in fact either trivial or genuinely
sensitive without being alarming. The way he has been
treated, however, is deplorable, and smacks of retribution.
Retribution is not what governments should be about,
especially governments which go to great lengths to
secretly spy on everyone, like this one.
Ariannis
10 June 2013 1:35pm
@Yosserian - I am shocked by that man's opinion... this

man has given up his life for a cause so worthy and all he
can think about is how long the guardian runs it... OMG!
JHCinDub
10 June 2013 1:45pm
@BonkIfYouHonk - whereas with Jose Mourinho it's about

three weeks and counting and of the two I know which I'd
prefer to be tomorrows chip wrapper
DeleteThisPost
10 June 2013 1:47pm
@IndianmanAbroad 10 June 2013 12:24pm.

Interesting questions:
To make things easier, I'll mainly use the word "we" to

refer to both the US military and, more generally, coalition
forces and the nations involved, in toto.
Would such an effort have been successful
without the engagement of at least a few local
warlords? I don't think so.
In a lot of ways, Afghanistan is less of a country than a
collection of local tribes. I don't mean that disparagingly.
But it does mean that any change there would have to
take place, indeed would have to start, at the local level.
I'm hesitant to say we should have engaged with local
warlords, if only because of the negative connotations of
the term warlord. What was needed was engagement with
all of the many and varied local tribal elders.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban isn't really analogous to the
type of warlord that we see in Somalia.
Are US troop losses and the expense of the
war waged in Afghanistan worth whatever
'strategic gains' have been made since the
invasion? Again, I don't think so. Do you agree?
I don't think that any appreciable strategic gains were
made in Afghanistan. We could have not invaded or we
could have gone there and killed every single human
being in the country, the outcome, in terms of our
strategic goals, would have been the same.
However, sometimes strategic gains are hard to codify.
Practically nothing about invading Afghanistan helps us in
terms of financial gain or domestic security. Nor does
invading Afghanistan offer any help to our allies in the
region.
But I do still believe the invasion was justified (just very
badly done) because sometimes powerful nations owe it
to the world to use their power to help people.
Were there not other means available to
achieve the same ends - in fact, do even better
than the situation as it exists in Afghanistan
today? I'd like to believe so.
The answer to the first part of that question exists in my
other post. But yes, there certainly was another way to go
about improving life for the Afghanis.
In truth, I have a hard time figuring out if things are
somewhat better for some Afghans now than before. But
even if some women started going to school, even if some
people were happy to see the Taliban get off of their
backs, in the long run nothing has changed. Because
we're leaving, the government that we set up will fail and
the Taliban isn't going anywhere.
The military is a sharp tool that needs to be
used in a timely and limited manner, to cut
Gordian knots. Without advance thought as to
what the most desirable long-term goals are in
Iraq and Afghanistan - in terms of US and
regional interests - even the efforts of a highly
professional military are bound to end in failure,
especially when used indiscriminately and left to
linger in deteriorating situations.
As a short answer to that paragraph:
Every once in awhile, when it pops into my mind, I find
myself shocked that apparently not one of our politicians,
or even our generals, have ever read The Art of War.
To win without fighting is always best.
Jason Tan
10 June 2013 1:57pm
@Thomas Griffith - You don't think that anyone with half a

brain who intends to do something nefarious does not
assume their comms (especially public services such as
face book and the like) are not compromised?
One of the things you're s'posed to do when you make an
intelligence appreciation is talk about the enemy
capability, not their intent.
Since most of the Internet infrastructure is in the US or
owner by US company's it would be very naive to believe
that the US did not have this capability. In other words,
every one with half a clue knows that anything you send
on the Internet can be interrupted. That is not revealing a
new capability.
What has been revealed is the scale of the operation
(which people have been hinting at for a while) and the
willingness of US govt agencies to act in illegal or at least
a very gray manner.
Jason Tan
10 June 2013 2:01pm
Have a look at this story if you have not seen it already, it

hints at this capability:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/tele
phone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston
polyzois
10 June 2013 2:02pm
@DogAlmightyM - Quoting
What this man has done is very courageous
and the American people should be grateful to
him.
Snowden has enormous balls and deserves respect and
protection from all of us. Definetely worth fighting for him
and for what he stands.
Freedom of speech, human decency and democracy
should prevail
Hail Edward
kattw
10 June 2013 2:04pm
@DeleteThisPost - I feel quite similar. This guy chose

some documents that actually revealed a specific
'wrongdoing' (albeit one that *I* see as entirely legal, if
also reprehensibly unethical). Manning just dumped nearly
everything he could get his hands on, much of which
could never have been estimated to do more than harm
the US when it got out, or at best to have no impact at all.
I'm glad he did what he did. It makes me sad that he had
to evacuate the country to do so safely. I happen to feel
he SHOULD face trial for what he did, since he did break
the law, even while another law protected him, but I still
have more faith in the judicial system than it probably
deserves, and would prefer for him to go through it and,
hopefully, come out the other side out of hiding, and in
the free and clear, as they say. And I feel bad for his
family, which I'm sure are undergoing less than pleasant
treatment just now, if only through constant intrusion by
government and media operatives.
Do find myself wondering why he chose the guardian,
though. Fine outlet though it is, I'd think he would have
chosen an American paper, like NYT, just so he wasn't
handing classified information directly to a foreign
national. Or if he was going foreign, perhaps Al Jazeera
just for the laugh factor when the right started complaining
that the muslims were lying about the US.
DeleteThisPost
10 June 2013 2:09pm
@epunkt 10 June 2013 12:46pm.

I discussed the exactly point between a war
crime and just following orders a thousand
times. I think there is no exactly point. When
you listen to the sound of the radio between the
pilots. There were young and believe to do the
right for their country. But also if its hard for
you, they see their enemies as insects and not
worth to live.
One of the problems I have with peoples' criticism of the
"Collateral Murder" helicopter pilots is that they read too
much into the jokes and the apparently flippant tone of
voice used by the pilots.
I've never met the pilots, but based solely on common
sense and the law of averages, I'm guessing that those
guys didn't go to war as mad killers, happy to blow away
journalists and children. Having to kill people, especially
when you're doing so from the relatively safety of an
armored helicopter, is a terrible thing.
While warfare can certainly turn good people into
monsters, I don't see that that happened in this case.
Instead these were regular guys who needed to use levity
to distract themselves from the awful things they had to
do.
When you're on the ground, and bullets are flying around,
it can be difficult to deal with having to kill people. So I
can only imagine that, divorced from immediate physical
danger, you need to mentally protect yourself from the
horror of what you are doing.
And so the problem I have with the "Collateral Murder"
video is that anyone sitting at home watching it simply
doesn't have the context to understand why those guys
were cracking jokes.
Which is a shame, because I suppose that everyone, at
some point in their life, when faced with a tragedy, has
laughed if simply to keep from crying.
____________________
I did skip your points about Manning v Snowden, but I
found the above part of your post, and your insight, to be
interesting, and I ended up blowing a lot of ink on that
topic. If you are still curious why I think Manning's and
Snowden's actions are completely different then please
ask again and I'll get back to you.
p.s. I also just realized that I accidentally skipped this part
of your post:
...the mistake of two pilots. The pilots? The
system in witch they are trained!
Sorry, because I also find that aspect to be interesting.
drawlr
10 June 2013 2:20pm
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque - Of course it was legal, just

like it was legal to gas the Jews in Nazi Germany. Legal,
but not constitutional. Two different things.
novaflare
10 June 2013 2:21pm
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque Under bush they only gathered information on calls

coming from a small list of countries in to the us to us
phone numbers. These countries were known hot beds
for terrorism. with obama they are not targeting phones
calls to the us (maybe they gather that as well) but those
that we make from our phones to any and all phone
numbers. This is a huge difference. Where as the gov
would not know who you called unless maybe it was a
known phone number of a known terrorist under the bush
administration the obama administration knows who you
call how long you talk etc etc
steady2
10 June 2013 2:22pm
@moralreef The Hong Kong SAR is still not the PRC.

However in the event of an extradition order, the final court of
appeal would be...the Supreme People's Court in Beijing.
However there is absolutely no guarantee that Beijing
would look kindly on a US whistleblower and the potential
damage to Sino-US relations by assisting him in any way.
Perhaps somewhere like...Ecuador would have been
safer.
I guess we are now awaiting the inevitable character
assassination claims, I wonder what it will be, drugs,
alcohol abuse, sexual misconduct, rape, dark family
secrets, a nasty friend from the past, financial
mismanagement, emotional or mental disorder, religious
obsession, because...as sure as night follows day...the US
government and associated authorities will attack this man
in the dirtiest, lowest most ruthless fashion possible.
Brave man Mr Snowden, I hope the world will rally to
support him in any way we can.
chinaT
10 June 2013 2:26pm
@eowyn1 The Chinese government is bound to be more

intrusive than ours.
Sorry, but am I the only one who sees the irony in that
sentence?
tiordalam
10 June 2013 2:35pm
@anagama - Perhaps not the bravest, but fully deserving

of a medal and a Presidential pardon, along with Mr
Manning.
steady2
10 June 2013 2:38pm
@DeleteThisPost Which is a shame, because I suppose that

everyone, at some point in their life, when faced
with a tragedy, has laughed if simply to keep
from crying.
Do you think Nazi prison guards at Auschwitz were
cracking jokes with each other before gassing to death
women and children? I think you are right, and they were.
It may be understandable but it doesn't excuse the war
crime.
LaHaieDuPuits
10 June 2013 2:47pm
@Jawja100 - An important point, in my view. NSA

appears to be getting second-hand access to data already
available to and collected by the "commercial spies".
MABUSyoung
10 June 2013 2:52pm
@whyohwhy1 - has Americans forgotten that the only way

the C.I.A could find a lead on osama bin laden was true a
phone call? yes the intercepted a . which gave them a
path to killing the was most wanted man in the world
OSAMA BIN LADEN. " US intelligence intercepted satellite
phone calls made by Osama bin Laden's bodyguard,
which helped lead US forces to his hiding place."
Enodoc
10 June 2013 2:59pm
@aymoony - I'm a liberal NYC Democrat but can't get

upset about this. There is all this talk about the Bill of
Rights and the Constitution. People should read those
documents. They protect us and give us our rights, but
there isn't the level of talk there about privacy that people
today seem to think there is.
largejack
10 June 2013 3:33pm
@DeleteThisPost - That's a little arbitrary isn't it? I'm sure

Manning would also validly claim he was shedding light for
the greater good as well? I don't care what dark, corrupt
secrets or laws they break or reveal as long as it's for the
greater good of humanity? They're both heroes in my

eyes!
Pattie Kettle
10 June 2013 3:34pm
@eowyn1 - Maybe China is paying him. That's a very real

possibility.
columban
10 June 2013 3:36pm
@BonkIfYouHonk - So this guy, the journalist and the

newspaper have taken huge risks, especially the
whistleblower, on a phenomenally important story which
the US and UK government are just dying to get off the
front pages because it is causing them to squirm in
political agony. And you, with your Attention Deficit
Disorder, blythly say, 'enough already, more
entertainment, please (but make sure it's no more than 1
day long or I'll get bored, no matter how important the
story).' Do you think this is all fun and games or that TG
is some sort of comic strip? These are very real and
important issues - few more so than this.
s1nnah
10 June 2013 3:36pm
@BonkIfYouHonk - wow three days. For possibly the

biggest scandal this millennium.
Never mind X-factor will be in the news again shortly.
largejack
10 June 2013 3:37pm
@DeleteThisPost - But don't the military have an

obligation to the citizenry as well? I have a simple moto if
the government is acting criminally I don't care who
exposes them, military or civilian, or citizen as we should
be known?
Ladyfingers
10 June 2013 3:40pm
@whyohwhy1 - I hope they take away Obama's Nobel

and give it to Snowden.
MABUSyoung
10 June 2013 3:52pm
@Pattie Kettle - I support your theory
schlimes
10 June 2013 3:59pm
@Connie Cromar - I dont see the point it comparing Bush

and Obama. They are clearly both just figureheads for
what has been going on for some time, the dismantling of
US democracy.
gitticus
10 June 2013 4:13pm
@LaHaieDuPuits - This is a good point. If you had asked

me(before this matter came up) if i thought my texts,
phone calls and emails were accessible to to others than
myself or the recipients (by whom-ever and for whatever
reason), i would have answered in the affirmative. I am
not saying i think it right that this is so, or i like the fact;
on the contrary; but it definitely is not surprising to me. I
think this kind of thing has been going on for a very long
time and much more (and worse) besides that we are not
aware of. I cannot understand why so many other people
are seemingly unknowing of and shocked by all this and i
am just a simple citizen with no contact with security,
government or military organisations. I am a UK citizen
and i am sure similar goes on in my country. As i say, i
don't like it; but i cannot see how any amount of current
outrage will alter anything fundamentally. It will still go on,
albeit perhaps under as different guise. Sad; but the
ordinary man has no power at all.
kattw
10 June 2013 4:22pm
@Enodoc - Very true. The most obvious violation is the

fourth amendment... except it very clearly only make
search and siezure of physical things illegal, and then only
without probable cause. Not only does the patriot act
define probable cause as 'whatever you think it is' (more
or less). Similarly, people complain that congressional
oversight is bypassed by the law... but they WROTE the
law and agreed that this was the level of oversight they
desired. Which is all the oversight the constitution gives
them - whatever they decide is right, effectively.
Roe v. Wade, in particular, helped to establish that the
constitution (presumably via the 9th amendment) that we
have a right to privacy. But then, it only went so far, didn't
it? The government had the right/power to KNOW you
were talking about X with your doctor, and could stop you
under conditions Y. So it fell under a right to privacy, but
a very limited one with exceptions.
They're collecting metadata from all calls. I find this to be
morally reprehensible, and am using this in addition to
other arguments when I ask congress critters to overturn
the Patriot Act. But a very strong argument can be made
that the data collection is legal, and constitutional. Those
arguing against it on constitutional grouns seem to mostly
be those that think the constitution says whatever they
think it says (ie: it clearly supports the way of life they
think is optimal, regardless of what words are actually
written there). More's the pity. If more people knew what
the document ACTUALLY said, maybe there'd be more
interest in, say, formalizing a right to privacy, rather than
leaving it to exist primarily because of common law
practices.
Nobul
10 June 2013 4:27pm
@eowyn1 - " I just don't get it. China?"

No, you will never get it.
Eber Lambert
10 June 2013 4:37pm
@aymoony - But we only get to have an opinion which

can vary wildly across people. Only the courts determine
what is actually illegal and unconstitutional, not you, me or
Mr. Snowden individually. If we want to make laws
neutering or arguably over-restricting the intelligence
world (another subjective line to be laid) in the name of
sound ideals, we should be openly prepared to accept the
loss of any defense/counter offensive they provide.
Nobul
10 June 2013 4:39pm
@moralreef - "So perhaps it is pertinent to say Hong

Kong is a 'freer' society than the U.S. nowadays"
Yes, HK is still free, but people have been wasting their
freedom on pointless issues. Now is the time for the good
Hong Kong people to hit the streets to demonstrate in
numbers, this time to the world that we care for our
freedom of speech, of our privacy and our support for Mr
Snowden!
Mr Snowden is the "Tank Man of Tianmen Square" - a
true hero of our times, deserving the respect and
protection of the freedom loving people worldwide. I for
one would demand Hong Kong government to provide
asylum to Mr Snowden if he asks, I would be on the
street protesting if the Hong Kong government buckles
under pressure from Washington or Beijing!
scoobydoo123
10 June 2013 4:40pm
@DogAlmightyM - unless he revealed something that put

people in harms way. I can't imagine they will be grateful.
IndianmanAbroad
10 June 2013 4:41pm
@DeleteThisPost - Wow, that is an elaborate and

nuanced response, thank you for that. I did mean to say
tribal elders instead of warlords. The point of the almost
complete lack of local engagement stands, then. Also, I'm
glad you agree no gains were made in terms of Afghani
or US domestic security, because it sure doesn't seem
like anything has changed in that respect. We'll have to
agree to disagree in terms of it being a justified invasion,
because if nothing has changed but lives and human
dignity have been lost on both sides, what was the point?
I was thinking about The Art of War indeed. I'm currently
re-reading Musashi's Book of Five Rings, also excellent.
Nobul
10 June 2013 4:50pm
@eowyn1 - "I just read about the relationship between

China and Hong Kong...... I understand a little more now."
Good, congratulations and if you do little bit more reading,
you will understand little more, even about china.
Randy Coots
10 June 2013 4:57pm
@PleaseTurnLeft - Those who wish to do us harm have

had a heads up every time a drone strike takes our their
co conspirators. This isn't and hasn't been a secret to
them unless they are total idiots.
I'm considering opening a TOR Relay to assist people
who want to keep their internet activities private. Not so I
can help those who might be against us, but to simply
preserve privacy that we all should have.
We are not living in a police state, there should be no
reason for our government to monitor every citizen, and all
activity as they are doing.
stopthewars
10 June 2013 5:19pm
@whyohwhy1 - A statement for Wikileaks on Edward

Snowden.
"Snowden is in a dangerous position. China
was the first country to ban WikiLeaks (in 2007);
without pressure expect arrest for US goodwill.
China has no face on the table. Nothing to lose,
everything to gain by arresting Snowden on US
request. Deportation after pressure only hope.
Hong Kong authorities raided Kim Dotcom,
sized assets on US request. Helped UK render
alleged militants to Libya for torture. Snowden
out of date on Iceland; new conservative
government elected a month ago. Countries
must step forward to offer Snowden asylum
now."
stopthewars
10 June 2013 5:24pm
@stopthewars - Should statement from Wikileaks for

Edward Snowden.
epunkt
10 June 2013 5:48pm
@DeleteThisPost - Thank you for your open words.

I don't call the pilots murderer, I also don't think that this
guys are mad killers. I never was in a war, so I can not
judge how hart it is to do the right thing at the right
moment. Perhaps is the way the pilots make jokes is their
way to get out of this hell. I don't know it.
I also think like you, that it can be difficult to deal with

having to kill people and I am agree that people who
simply sitting at home will not have the context.
Yes, I am very interested, why yourself think this aspect is
interesting. So I am open for your answer!
lyndaloowhoo
10 June 2013 5:55pm
@DeleteThisPost - China will use this man as some kind

of leverage w/Obama and they will strike a deal behind
closed doors. Obama will get his way; his
minions/puppetmasters will die trying to save this worst
POTUS in our history.
BTW: Low info voters for Obama still don't know the news
on Snowden. You could do street interviews & many
Americans won't have a clue what you are talking about.
Idiots dumbed down thru public schools/univ run by
liberals; liberal media, liberal community
agitators/organizers, Jesse Jackson/Al Sharptons & public
social programs who go into black communities to spread
the lies. Dunces.
Richard Anderson
10 June 2013 5:58pm
@cantpleaseall - THEY DON'T CARE !!!
Randy Coots
10 June 2013 6:01pm
@Enodoc - So you don't have a problem with the NSA

being able to track your every movement, what you say
online, as well as who you associate with?
Its not that capability that really bothers me, to be honest.
But where it leads. Look to history about governments
who want to police their citizens, and how they start.
We have a paranoid government, and I don't see this
government protecting citizens, but rather protecting
themselves. Maybe I'm being too critical, but if they had
the capability of monitoring the activities of the Boston
Marathon bombers, and these guys were on their radar,
why didn't they stop the bombing from occurring?
Was it to reinforce the need for their security measures?
Do they allow a few of these 'attacks' occur just to justify
their existence? I'm not sure, but it sure raises questions,
and makes me wonder.
I think Snowden did a very brave thing, and unfortunately
I think his life is going to be very difficult in the future. And
to be honest I think the current administration is going to
pursue him mainly because he embarrassed them.
DeleteThisPost
10 June 2013 6:29pm
@IndianmanAbroad 10 June 2013 4:41pm.

Thanks for the discussion. I actually had never heard of
Musashi and his Book of Five Rings, but I looked it up
and it seems pretty interesting. I'm going to buy an e-copy

and give it a read.
If you find a book of Zen-style swordplay that can be
transposed to modern day life to be interesting then I have
a book recommendation of my own (accompanied by a
quick bit of backstory).
I used to play semi-professional poker in Las Vegas for a
few years. I say "semi-professional" because I had a real
job, but poker was an actual second job for me, and I did
well.
Of course I read a handful of poker books when I was just
starting out, but by far the most interesting one was a
book called Killer Poker... by a guy named John Vorhaus.
The reason I mention it to you is that Vorhaus essentially
wrote a poker book that is half Art of War and half Book of
Five Rings (at least, based on what I've read about Book
of Five Rings in the last half hour), but...you know, for
poker.
The only real negatives about The Art of War are that it's
really old, has been translated by countless different
people, and isn't terribly funny. Killer Poker, like The Art of
War, has countless little nuggets of useful truth...but it's
modern and it's funny.
And just like you don't have to lead an army to appreciate
The Art of War and just like (I would guess) you don't
have to own a sword to appreciate Book of Five Rings,
you don't need to play poker to appreciate Killer Poker.
(Though a word of warning: Just like you wouldn't get into
a sword fight just because you've read Book of Five
Rings, I wouldn't recommend getting deep into a poker
game just because you've read Killer Poker!)
DeleteThisPost
10 June 2013 7:16pm
@epunkt 10 June 2013 5:48pm.

Though my opinion on the "Collateral Murder" incident is
based on supposition, I have been in combat. (It was after
the Gulf War but before 9/11..but I don't really want to say
where, not on this forum.)
To make this easy, here's the part of your earlier post that
I thought was interesting:
...the mistake of two pilots. The pilots? The
system in witch they are trained!
In warfare there simply is no way to avoid accidents,
there's no way to keep civilians from getting killed.
I don't really know what training Apache pilots and
gunners receive, but unlike infantry soldiers, who regularly
practice against other real life soldiers, I doubt that
Apache pilots practice by dry-firing their gun at real life
opponents on the ground.
I would guess that most of their training goes into
operating their machine, navigating, communicating and
firing at inanimate objects.
But even if I'm wrong, even if Apache pilots fly around in
training pretending to fire on real people on the ground, it
has got to be easier as a soldier on the ground to see,
from 100 or 200 yards away, who you are shooting at,
then it is for an Apache pilot looking at a 10" monochrome
TV screen while doing ten other things at one time.
I don't know if there is something wrong with the way
pilots train. The fog of war is a real thing. Even on the

ground you sometimes have trouble even figuring out
where the bullets landing near you are coming from!
In short, I found your comment interesting because it
seems as though there should be something that can be
done to train soldiers in a way that helps prevent these
things from happening. There should be a way for a
modern army (especially for highly sophisticated attack
helicopters, piloted by intelligent and educated men) to
avoid things like the so-called Collateral Murder incident
from happening.
But in the end, I don't think there is. The only way to
prevent such incidents is to prevent war. And after all,
some wise man once said that all war is a crime.
p.s. In the interest of simplicity I kept using the term
"soldier," and for a Marine that is a hard damn thing to
do!
epunkt
10 June 2013 7:20pm

mattlove1
10 June 2013 7:31pm
@DeleteThisPost - I half agree with you. This American is

grateful Bradley Manning, and appreciates his courage
and principles, too. Furthermore, I hope the +1000 people
that approved of your post just didn't read what you wrote
very carefully.
DeleteThisPost
10 June 2013 7:38pm
@mattlove1 10 June 2013 7:31pm.

I hope the +1000 people that approved of your
post just didn't read what you wrote very
carefully.
Funny you should say that. I am rather surprised that the
comment got that many recommends, and I have since
concluded that many, many of those were from people
who read part of the first line, or more likely the last line
(since it stood out quite a bit from the rest of my post).
Oh well, I don't mind when a post of mine gets no
recommends so I don't put too much value on getting a
bunch of them.
nuthermerican4u
10 June 2013 7:57pm
@koRuLa - Like they didn't know already!
kattw
10 June 2013 8:24pm
@DeleteThisPost - I look at it this way. Driving down the

highway, at the speed limit... I don't always have time to
digest what the giant billboard signs, meant to be seen by
drivers, say. I'm going too fast to do more than glimpse at
these things that were specifically designed to be noticed
and understood. And I'm not under fire. Or making life and
death choices. I'm just driving.
I can't imagine what it's like for a soldier who has to
essentially digest the info off the sign, but with a sign that
WASN'T specifically designed to be understood, and in
many cases is hiding what it says. As you say, the fog of
war exists. And of course, hindsight is always 20/20. I
rather suspect that if those chopper pilots could have seen
the outcome of their actions in advance, they would have
chosen to just fly away elsewhere.
epunkt
10 June 2013 9:18pm

7tonineteen
10 June 2013 10:44pm
@FluffytheObeseCat - Spot on!
JHCinDub
10 June 2013 11:49pm
@MABUSyoung - a total posting history of five posts

between you
just sayin'
JohnBroggio
09 June 2013 7:32pm
1384
Hero.
Gelion
09 June 2013 8:18pm
51
@JohnBroggio Sure, but you know Google and Facebook were already
selling this information to other corporations so it's not like
it is a massive step forward to the government shifting the
information.
And it's not like they can do anything with it anyway ... the
Boston bombings, Newtown, the shooting in the US the
other day, the government seem to be completely unable
to act on it.
SeaOfAsh
09 June 2013 8:36pm
130
@Gelion - Wrong! Google would not go about "selling" the

contents of every single e-mail and chat message you and
I send and receive. They would have their asses handed
to them in no time. Only the government is allowed to do
all that (apparently)
DeleteThisPost
46
09 June 2013 8:40pm
@Gelion 09 June 2013 8:18pm.

Google makes 95% of its profits from AdWords...you
know, those few ads that pop up at the top of many
search requests. I don't know where the other 5% of their
money comes from, but Google can't possibly get enough
out of that 5% from selling your information to make it
worth it to them to sell your information.
I don't know about Facebook, but unless you have some
sort of evidence that Google actually sells our personal
data I will continue to believe that that is nonsense.
Sean9812
09 June 2013 8:44pm
194
@Gelion - Sure, but there is a key difference, Google,

Facebook et all don't have the power to toss you in a
prison. With that said, I don't think it is ethically right what
these corporations are doing, but in the end they just want
to sell me a product. Governments however have many
different ways of abusing such information, and there end
goal isn't selling me something, but ultimately controlling
me.
jakebrother
09 June 2013 8:54pm
27
@Gelion Really; I rather suspect that it is more a case of a

government(s) unwilling to act on it because it helps to
further their agenda(s)........
ibeeducky
09 June 2013 8:55pm
85
@Gelion - geezzz...corporations use the information they

"buy" to try to "sell" products. The government is "forcing"
phone companies and internet providers to provide same
government with very private information. There is a huge
difference between the two actions.
Some of the provisions in the Patriotic Act were supposed
to sunset, but congress and obama extended them. I do
not have anything to hide, but I really question that the
government should have access to everything that I do
because of 9/11. What is real disturbing is that if this data
mining is effective, why wasn't the Boston bombings
stopped??
mrtnjms
21
09 June 2013 8:57pm
@SeaOfAsh - By reading your email and matching you

with ads, they are selling the content if not the object of
your email.
Malkatrinho
09 June 2013 9:03pm
428
@JohnBroggio Hero
I'd give him a Nobel Peace Prize, if it hadn't been grossly
devalued by previous recipients.
Sachaflashman
09 June 2013 9:13pm
38
@JohnBroggio Yes, he is a hero but don't be fooled into thinking this

type of thing cannot happen in Europe:
www.telegraph.co.uk/.../EU-funding-Orwellian-artificialintelligence-plan-to-monitor-public-for-abnormalbehaviour.html
Jawja100
09 June 2013 9:13pm
18
@SeaOfAsh - You ever hear of "cookies"?
epinoa
09 June 2013 9:17pm
90
@JohnBroggio - Before long the US is going to have

prisons full of political prisoners if it goes on like this.
robm2001
09 June 2013 9:19pm
44
@DeleteThisPost - Google are paying little taxes AND

spying on you.
Easy to swap to a different search engine - duckduckgo then at least google gets no ad words.
waterfall12
09 June 2013 9:22pm
@Malkatrinho - Why ?
momabird
09 June 2013 9:22pm
46
@SeaOfAsh - It was Google remember that tried to copy

ALL books in EVERY Library everywhere to put on the
web, IN VIOLATION OF AUTHORS' COPYRIGHTS. For
more info see the Author's Guild, which sued them and
lawsuits are still going on. So I do not trust Google not to
sell its mother down the drain.
Malkatrinho
09 June 2013 9:25pm
@waterfall12 - Why what?
Phineus
09 June 2013 9:27pm
@Gelion - stop being so passive.
Sachaflashman
09 June 2013 9:30pm
33
@Sachaflashman Shami Chakrabarti, the director of human rights group

Liberty, described the introduction of such mass
surveillance techniques as a "sinister step" for any
country, adding that it was "positively chilling" on a
European scale.
DeleteThisPost
09 June 2013 9:41pm
11
@robm2001 09 June 2013 9:19pm.

Google are paying little taxes AND spying on
you. Easy to swap to a different search engine duckduckgo - then at least google gets no ad
words.
Aside from the fact that your reply has almost nothing to
do with my post...
I don't want to switch to a different search engine because
there isn't anything as good as Google. And there isn't any
company that makes my online/computing/smartphone life
as easy as Google does. Google gives me a ton of free
software and apps that all blend seamlessly together (and
neither duckduckgo nor even Bing can say that).
If the government legally tells them to hand over data then
I'm going to blame the government, not Google. And if
Google isn't paying what the Guardian thinks is their fair
share of tax (especially when they don't break any tax
laws) then I really don't care.
LeDingue
09 June 2013 9:48pm
24
@epinoa 09 June 2013 9:17pm. Get cifFix for Firefox.

Before long the US is going to have prisons full of political
prisoners if it goes on like this.
Handily enough FEMA has them already set up and
awaiting 'guests'.
Just nearby are the concrete-lined mass graves and
stockpiles of muti-corpse pastic grave liners.
john gotti
09 June 2013 9:54pm
55
@DeleteThisPost - You have a choice of whether to use

google and facebook or not. You can avoid them. How
can you avoid a government that intercepts everything?
DeleteThisPost
09 June 2013 10:17pm
@john gotti 09 June 2013 9:54pm.

Exactly.
MrGoldenSilence
09 June 2013 10:18pm
82
@Malkatrinho I'd give him a Nobel Peace Prize, if it hadn't been grossly
devalued by previous recipients.
Very well said, it has now got to the point where everything
that comes out of Washington is empty, meaningless dribble
or diabolical deceit at best!
It makes me really angry to see Obama talking about his
concerns regarding cyber security What a TOSSER.
They say well you only should worry if you have
something to hide
Well lets reverse that then they do have lots to hide
and they have not even begun with their main plans in
the Middle East and beyond.
We need to act before its too late.
09 June 2013 10:19pm
@DeleteThisPost - Have a look at this, says it better than

I can:
http://www.
09 June 2013 10:21pm
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque - well that didn't pan out. lets

try that again
http://donttrack.us/
Saultxyca
09 June 2013 10:22pm
30
@Sachaflashman - A police state masquerading as a

democracy.
Beware of the military-industrial-congressional complex,
so said Ike upon taking his leave from the Oval Orifice.
DeleteThisPost
09 June 2013 10:28pm
87
@BeastNeedsMoreTorque 09 June 2013 10:19pm.

That link is like Google Basics for Dummies: A reference
for the rest of us.
I don't know if there is anything in there that you found
surprising, I hope not. That's how Google is able to
provide the services that it does.
But if the government wants your data they will probalby
ask Google. If you don't use Google then they will just ask
someone else, like the search provider that you do use, or
more likely they'll just ask your ISP.
The problem isn't that Google is good at what they do, the
problem is that the government has the (self given) right
and capability to force Google (or any other company) to
turn over that data.
Do you actually believe that Google is happy about such
government requests for user data? Hell no they're not!
jopestron
09 June 2013 10:36pm
@robm2001 - here here! Consumers have the power to

bankrupt Google. If the advertisers leave Google alone,
Google go bye-bye.
Jonathan Mailer
09 June 2013 10:37pm
23
@Gelion - "Sure, but you know Google and Facebook

were already selling this information to other corporations
so it's not like it is a massive step forward to the
government shifting the information."
Absolute bullsh*t. There's a helluva difference between,
say, buying and app from Google and app maker getting
your name and address. Don't buy apps from the Google
App Store. This is the government getting e-mails from
everywhere.
Nice try, Mr. NSA troll.
eowyn1
09 June 2013 10:47pm
@robm2001 - I thought they were known for avoiding

taxes.
Malkatrinho
09 June 2013 11:04pm
63
@MrGoldenSilence you only should worry if you have something to

hide
The scary thing is it doesn't mater if you've got nothing to
hide, it'll all be recorded and stored away in a server in
Utah anyway.
If they want to come after you, or create a reason to come
after you, whether you've attended a protest, or registered
you displeasure about something via an online poll, you
will be on file, they can track your phone, your position,
who you shared your displeasure with, what you talked
about, the pictures you took on holiday, everything.
Shall we retreat to a pre-internet age? Sending letters,
photocopies and floppy disks in the mail?
09 June 2013 11:13pm
@DeleteThisPost - Yes the government has the power to

force Google to turn over that data. The rest cannot force
Google they can only entice with money, which Google
has the power to turn down, or not.
I don't know if there is anything in there that you
found surprising, I hope not.
Rest assured, I was already informed. Google is probably
the best search engine out there.
but Google can't possibly get enough out of that
5% from selling your information to make it
worth it to them to sell your information.
It was merely this comment that prompted me to post the
link. I hadn't seen the subsequent posts about
DuckDuckGo. A lot of people really are naive about
Google and search terms.
sayiloveuoften
09 June 2013 11:18pm
@epinoa - yeah..kind of ironic...
JRTomlin
09 June 2013 11:23pm
@Sachaflashman - It already is happening in Europe. You

think the communications NSA is monitoring don't come in
part for Europe? And how sure are you that MI5 isn't
involved?
aubreyfarmer
09 June 2013 11:25pm
12
@ibeeducky - Congress too wants to know how much we

know and what we are thinking. That is what tyrants do
when they become paranoid.
Roman78
09 June 2013 11:26pm
@JohnBroggio Bradley Manning's future cellmate.

No irony or joke intended.
DaveUK1977
10 June 2013 12:05am
@robm2001 - Thanks for this info about the alternate

search engines (make one your default homepage!).
Looks great.
ersatzian
10 June 2013 12:07am
@Malkatrinho Shall we retreat to a pre-internet age? Sending

letters, photocopies and floppy disks in the
mail?
Through a mail service run by who? Oh. But I'm with the
pre-Internet idea. It'd be nice: a slower pace of life, more
boredom, fewer people being uncivil on online forums.
SoAmerican
10 June 2013 12:20am
@mrtnjms - They don't have to read your emails to find

out what you like. Simply noting what websites you go to,
links you follow and search terms you use will tell them
plenty. I mean, do you write emails looking for things to
buy or do you actually look (go to websites, follow links,
use searches, etc) for things to buy?
StopGMO
10 June 2013 2:02am
@SeaOfAsh - "Wrong! Google would not go about

"selling" the contents of every single e-mail and chat
message you and I send and receive. They would have
their asses handed to them in no time. Only the
government is allowed to do all that (apparently)'
Absolute nonsense. You sound like you work for them.
They park their jet at the NSA airstrip. They have their
own drone. They were caught gathering wifi and
pretended it was accidental. They are one and the same
as the govt. Wake up.
LloydBonafide
10 June 2013 2:08am
@Malkatrinho - I agree.
reneefulghum
10 June 2013 2:11am
@LeDingue That my friend is a fact.
LloydBonafide
10 June 2013 2:12am
@SoAmerican - Many of those systems didn't exist in the

past.
But it seems Booz Allen Hamilton made a business of
caputring infomration whereever they could.
melrose1
10 June 2013 2:13am
@Gelion - Google and Facebook can't put you in jail. See

the difference?
Aseoria
10 June 2013 2:40am
@epinoa - It already does.

Sue S
Connie Cromar
10 June 2013 3:57am
@ibeeducky - because they were Patsy's...
justanotherone
10 June 2013 4:14am
40
@DeleteThisPost - T
The problem isn't that Google is good at what
they do, the problem is that the government has
the (self given) right and capability to force
Google (or any other company) to turn over that
data.
On the au edition of the Guardian using firefox , Ghostery

shows 16 trackers, on this page
8. Google+1
Widget
Google +1 Button
Recommend on Search, Share on Google+ +1
gets conversations going. Click the +1 button to
give something your public stamp of approval.
www.google.com/+1
Google+1 definition of Google+1 in the Free
Online Encyclopedia.
Google +1. A social component in Google
search. If you like a Web site that has the +1
button, clicking it will share your endorsement
with your friends and contacts ...
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Google%2b
1
9. GoogleAdsense
Advertising
Google AdSense Maximize revenue from your
online content
Google AdSense is an easy way to earn money
from your online content. Simply display
relevant and engaging ads on your website,
mobile sites, videos, site search ...
www.google.com/adsense - Cached
Plusone-Button
Sign up Now
Help
Program Policies
Can't Access Your Account
Success Stories
Forum
Get The Badge
AdSense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Overview|
History|
Types|
How AdSense works
Google AdSense is a program run by Google
Inc. that allows publishers in the Google
Network of content sites to serve automatic text,
image, video, or interactive media adverts that
are targeted to site content and audience....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdSense
justanotherone
10 June 2013 4:19am
67
@justanotherone On the au edition of the Guardian using firefox ,

Ghostery shows 16 trackers, on this page
1. 24-7media
Advertising
2. Audience Science
Tracker
3. ChartBeat
Analytics
4. Criteo
Advertising
5. Facebook Connect
Widget
6. Facebook Social graph
Widget
7. ForeSee
Analylitics
8. Google+1
Widget
9. GoogleAdsense
Advertising
10. Linkedin Widgets
Widget
11. NetRatingsSiteCensus
Anaalylitics
12. Omniture(AdobeAnalylitics)
Tracker
13. Optimizely
Tracker
14. Outbrain
Widget
15. Quantcast
Advertising
16.TwitterButton
Widget
I would think that the trackers vary from browser to
browser and whether
you are viewing the US UK or AU editions of the
Guardian.
It may change as well, depending on geography.
justanotherone
10 June 2013 4:21am
38
@justanotherone - 5. Facebook Connect

Widget
Announcing Facebook Connect- Facebook Developers
Dave Morin
Announcing Facebook Connect
By Dave Morin - Friday, May 9, 2008 at 12:32pm
Today we are announcing Facebook Connect. Facebook
Connect is the next iteration of Facebook Platform that
allows users to "connect" their Facebook identity, friends
and privacy to any site. This will now enable third party
websites to implement and offer even more features of
Facebook Platform off of Facebook similar to features
available to third party applications today on Facebook
developers.facebook.com/.../2008/05/09/announcingfacebook-connect
Facebook Connect
Facebook Platform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History|
High-level Platform components|
Reception|
See also
The Open Graph protocol enables developers to integrate
their pages into the social graph. These pages gain the
functionality of other graph objects including profile links
and stream updates for connected users.[23]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Connect
Facebook Connect is a set of APIs from Facebook that

enable Facebook members to log onto third-party
websites, applications, mobile devices and gaming
systems with their Facebook identity. While logged in,
users can connect with friends via these media and post
information and updates to their Facebook profile.
Developers can use these services to help their users
connect and share with their Facebook friends on and off
of Facebook and increase engagement for their website
or application.
developers.facebook.com/.../2008/05/09/announcingfacebook-connect
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Connect
6. Facebook Social graph
Widget
Social graph | Facebook
This Page is automatically generated based on what
Facebook users are interested in, and not affiliated with or
endorsed by anyone associated with the topic.
www.facebook.com/pages/Social-graph/110926068932488
Social graph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Issues|
Open Graph|
See also|
References
The social graph in the Internet context is a sociogram, a
graph that depicts personal relations of internet users. It
has been referred to as "the global mapping of everybody
and how they're related".[1] The term was...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_graph
justanotherone
10 June 2013 4:25am
37
@justanotherone - 14. Outbrain

Widget
Outbrain
Top brands and publishers have benefitted from Outbrain.
Now it's your turn. Offer a more personalized reader
experience; Power cross-platform content discovery with
...
www.outbrain.com
Outbrain recommends your article, mobile and video
content on your site and on premium publisher
sites to expose it to highly engaged audiences
Outbrain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Outbrain is a content recommendation service whose
widget offers to help internet publishers increase web
traffic at their websites. It does so by presenting them with
links to articles and other content.[1]
The company was founded by Yaron Galai, who had sold
his company Quigo to AOL in 2007 for $363m,[2] and Ori
Lahav, who had previously been with Shopping.com
before their purchase by eBay.[3]
Outbrain uses behavioral targeting to recommend
interesting articles, blog posts, photos or videos to a
reader, rather than relying on a more basic 'related items'
widget.[citation needed]
Outbrain uses the cost-per-click charging model.[4] The
service is free to install onto websites, but only offers
revenue sharing to content creators with greater than 10
million US page views per month.[5]
Internet content publishers whose websites have used or
are using Outbrain include USA Today, Boston Globe,
Washington Post, Daily Beast, New York Observer, Slate,

The Street, Elle, Hollywood Reporter,[6] CNN, Fox News,
Hachette Filipacchi Media, Mashable, MSNBC[7] and the
Guardian.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbrain
JackJay
10 June 2013 4:36am
@Malkatrinho - Yes! I want to see him on the cover of

Time magazine.
RobspierreRules
10 June 2013 5:09am
@LeDingue 09 June 2013 9:48pm. Get cifFix for Firefox.

Aluminum foil stock just went up a cent.
justanotherone
10 June 2013 7:52am
60
The analytical part of me wishes to supply the others.

1. 24-7media
Advertising
http://www.24-7mediatechnology.com/home.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24/7_Media
2. Audience Science
Tracker
www.audiencescience.com
www.audiencescience.com/about
3. ChartBeat
Analytics
chartbeat.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betaworks
chartbeat.pbworks.com
4. Criteo
Advertising
www.criteo.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteo
10. Linkedin Widgets
Widget
www.linkedin.com/company/widgets
www.widgetbox.com/tag/linkedin
http://www.mediawikiwidgets.org/LinkedIn_Profile
11. NetRatingsSiteCensus
Analytics
www.nielsen-online.com/login/sl_scs.htm
www.ghostery.com/apps/netratings_sitecensus
www.netratings.com/products.jsp
12. Omniture(AdobeAnalylitics)
Tracker
www.adobe.com/solutions/digital-analytics/dataconnectors.html
www.adobe.com/solutions/digital-marketing.html
savedwebhistory.com/k/why-use-omniture
13. Optimizely
Tracker
www.optimizely.com
www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vMukB-rRg
15. Quantcast
Advertising
www.quantcast.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantcast
16.TwitterButton
Widget
www.twitterbutton.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter
muscleguy
10 June 2013 7:52am
18
@ibeeducky What is real disturbing is that if this data mining

is effective, why wasn't the Boston bombings
stopped??
This is the operative point. The story is full of the number
of intelligence reports based on all that data but where
are the arrests? let alone the convictions?
You would think the spooks would come out swinging with
those data if they exist to justify this. That they have not
is, I think, telling.
Thomas Bee
10 June 2013 8:41am
@ibeeducky - Exactly! why were so many tragedies such

as the Boston bombings not prevented and left to play
out?... Because despite what they may say, our leaders,
the people we elect to look out for our interest, don't give
a rat's ass (for want of a better phrase) about us! Sure
they go on T.V and make statements AFTER these
events, expressing how devastating it was and that we are
all grieving as a nation but the truth is we are the only
ones grieving. Where were the attempts to stop these acts
of terror, because according to them that is what PRISM
is for, to detect potential threats to national security, but i
guess the worlds leading intelligence gathering agency
dropped the ball on the Boston bombing attack right? The
truth is that 'the powers that be' only care about acquiring
and maintaining power over us and It's clear to see where
their interests lie when they spend more time worrying
about whistle-blowers such as Bradley Manning, who
exposed major violations of human rights, than the deaths
of countless innocent people.
Satrodniki
10 June 2013 9:07am
@Thomas Bee - In the 1930s the phrase was 'the

bomber will always get through'. To make your point, you
really need to be sure that hundreds of other potential
terrorist attacks haven't been stopped by surveillance. 'So
many tragedies'? One attack on the US Mainland, by a
maverick rather than an organised group, in 12 years

hardly suggests that the system is ineffective.
kent_dorfman
10 June 2013 9:19am
@DeleteThisPost This is true. The US is in the process of

forcing/blackmailing financial institutions overseas to hand
over the banking details of US customers. Failure to
comply means stiff penalties for these banks/insurance
companies etc... Same intimidation and penalties would
apply to companies like Google and Facebook if they
refused to cooperate.
foolisholdman
10 June 2013 11:49am
@Gelion And it's not like they can do anything with it

anyway ... the Boston bombings, Newtown, the
shooting in the US the other day, the
government seem to be completely unable to
act on it.
The chances are that the Boston Bombings and all the
rest were CIA inspired anyway.
dedalus77uk
10 June 2013 1:37pm
@Gelion - Yet another reason why the government - any

government - should not be spying on people or collecting
personal information indiscriminately, and particularly in
such an unfettered manner. It smacks of power-hunger
rather than anything else.
CathexesInc
10 June 2013 2:01pm
@justanotherone - Abine's DoNotTrackMe on my system

shows 13 sites trying to track me through the Guardian's
site, using Firefox. Privacy has never really existed on the
internet. Which is no excuse for what the gov't is doing,
and I condemn it categorically.
steady2
10 June 2013 2:29pm
@john gotti How can you avoid a government that

intercepts everything?
Write a letter, they will only open it and read it if they suspect
you of something, electronic communication is automatic.
LaHaieDuPuits
10 June 2013 3:09pm
@DeleteThisPost - Think about it... Google has a profit

motive, as do the other Internet companies whose
shoulder the NSA is looking over. The more they (Google)
know about what makes you tic, and what you are thinking
about at the moment, the easier it is to sell you
something. Google makes money when you click on a
sponsored ad. The AdWord, algorithm decides when to
return a sponsored ad based on your querry.....thus has
Google not already sold your privacy. Google, Apple,
Microsoft, Facebook, Verizon, etc collect as much
personal data as they can and keep it as long as they
can; with the idea of analyzing this data in order to turn a
profit. This is the root problem. NSA could not justify the
infrastructure required to collect all this data to begin with.
Unless the collection of this data is stopped, governments
world-wide will continue to be drawn to it.
Pattie Kettle
10 June 2013 3:39pm
@SeaOfAsh - Do you really think Google would not 'sell'

its data? That seems like giving Google a little too much
credit - I'm not sure the government is competent enough
- techwise - to do so without help. I don't think Google
gets their asses handed to them at all - I see little criticism
of Google or exposure of their megalomonopolic practices.
I don't think it's an either/or - it's a both Google (and other
tech companies) and the US government have many
data-mining practices which invade our privacy and rights
and we are unaware of.
gitticus
10 June 2013 4:37pm
@Gelion - Yes, i think it is largely ineffective what they

are doing; but i don't like it in principle; even though i
have got nothing to hide. For them it must be pretty much
like looking for a needle in a haystack! For, even if they
are "filtering it" for particular words (like maybe bomb,
terror, explosion or whatever); the terrorists are clever
enough to leave out incriminating words; even more so
will be the case now.
HulloHulot
09 June 2013 7:32pm
1051
Brave man.
iamnotwise
09 June 2013 8:02pm
624
@HulloHulot - Brave, and refreshingly articulate after

listening to the stilted lies of politicians and security
officials.
HulloHulot
407
09 June 2013 8:34pm
@iamnotwise - People like him, those with a functioning

moral compass and the lucidity to use it, are what we
need to see more often amongst our politicians and
security officials.
iamnotwise
09 June 2013 8:40pm
135
@HulloHulot - I completely agree. Though I believe the

current recruitment guidelines preclude anyone with those
attributes from ever gaining a ticket to run. I've always
thought that if someone actually wants to rule or govern
they should be banned from doing so. Perhaps we should
draw our representatives by lot - I'm sure we'd get a
better average than we do now!
RJSadler
09 June 2013 8:43pm
79
@HulloHulot - To most of them morality is nothing more

than a convenient word to bring out around campaign
times
mspacek
09 June 2013 9:26pm
39
@iamnotwise - That reminds me of an Arthur C Clarke

book I read as a kid, set a couple hundred years in the
future, where presidents were chosen randomly from a
large pool of reasonably capable people, for the very
reasons you state. Kind of like jury duty.
FluffytheObeseCat
09 June 2013 9:28pm
19
@RJSadler - To most of them morality is nothing more

than a convenient word to bring out around campaign
times
Quite.
And quite besides the point. The harlots in Congress are
out there in constant public view; they need to run for reelection. If they get too obviously out of line, they
occasionally get thrown out of office. Impeachments and
censure are rare, but extant dangers (and we aren't
talking about the ballsiest of men).
A dull blade in my hand is still more valuable to me than
one I can't get hold of.
Phineus
09 June 2013 9:28pm
17
@HulloHulot - we need a seismic shift - the system is

suborned.
iamnotwise
14
09 June 2013 9:30pm
@mspacek - I've often thought it would be worth trying.

Along with vastly limiting inherited wealth - put an end to
undeserving dynasties.
HulloHulot
09 June 2013 9:32pm
193
@iamnotwise Perhaps we should draw our representatives by

lot - I'm sure we'd get a better average than we
do now!
The Ancient Greeks saw sortition, lots, as essential to a
proper democracy and even developed machines to stop
people from rigging the process through bribery. Some
have argued that a completely randomised method of
selecting representatives could lead to people who weren't
representative of a population from getting into power, but
isn't that what we already have?
iamnotwise
09 June 2013 9:55pm
32
@HulloHulot - Well, I thought there was a past occasion

when it had been done. Thank you for providing the
details. It may sound like madness to some but what is
evident now is that we need an alternative system of
governance to that which we have now; a return to real
democratic government that represents the people and
regulates industry - not the other way around!
HulloHulot
09 June 2013 10:12pm
89
@iamnotwise - No trouble. The longer this recession

drags out and the more exposes like this there are, the
more tempting an alternative system becomes. Some of
the comments on here have suggested that such change,
or even seeing real accountability in our current system, is
impossible. Perhaps it's a triumph of optimism over
experience, but I'd like to think otherwise.
@HulloHulot - If I'd known that'd get a pick, I'd have kept
an excerpt from a speech Herodotus invented for his
Histories, a speech put in the mouth of Otane and one
which emphasises sortition as a test of democracy:
'How can one fit monarchy into any sound
system of ethics, when it allows a man to do
whatever he likes without any responsibility or
control? Even the best of men raised to such a
position would be bound to change for the
worse - he could not possibly see things as he
used to do. [] Contrast with this the rule of
the people: []Under a government of the
people each magistrate is appointed by lot and
is held responsible for his conduct in office, and
all questions are put up for open debate. For
these reasons I propose that we do away with
the monarchy, and raise the people to power;
for the state and the people are synonymous

terms.
Translations vary (that was from Aubrey de Slincourt's,
published by the Folio Society) but the idea remains
consistent.
eowyn1
09 June 2013 10:58pm
18
@HulloHulot - We are lucky to have a great framework,

the constitution. We need to stay awake now, and
campaign and fight to get career politicians voted out. We,
as a nation, have relied on the good intention of our
representitives, but they have failed us. We must demand
term limits, and remain deligent. Then we must find a way
to teach the constitution to our children... outside of the
corrupting influence of our public schools. It's not easy,
but we must also demand responsibility from our fellow
citizens, and lastly, not fall asleep again.
CitizenTM
09 June 2013 11:09pm
13
@iamnotwise I had this same idea: electing representatives by straw

polls. Every person (between 25-65 and with a high
school diploma) is a candidate and chance will decide. No
reelection - one 5 year term for any office.
aubreyfarmer
09 June 2013 11:36pm
@iamnotwise Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against

flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against
spiritual wickedness in high places
aubreyfarmer
09 June 2013 11:46pm
11
@eowyn1 - Publicly funded elections. Take the power

away from the corporations and special interests. The
politicians know this would work and that is why you never
hear them talk about it anymore.
Exodus20
10 June 2013 1:21am
24
@HulloHulot - It should't need bravery to expose

wrongdoings in a genuinely democratic benevolent
society. What have we become? Have governments,
secret services and police become so terrified and
oppressive that it take courage and bravery do perform a
basic duty of a citizen in a democratic society?
Depressing.
Connie Cromar
10 June 2013 3:58am
@iamnotwise - Kind of like what happened with Ron

Paul's campaign? Exactly!
JackJay
10 June 2013 4:37am
@HulloHulot - Snowden for President!
muscleguy
10 June 2013 8:08am
@CitizenTM - The problem with the idea is that the

modern nation state necessitates a large and professional
civil service to act as the arm of government, the people
who enact the will of the government.
Here in the UK we see capture of idealistic ministers by
their civil servants all the time. Firm believers in drug
decriminalisation become firm soldiers in the war on drugs
on attaining office only to regain their views after leaving
office with no prospect of return.
It's partly why now ministers arrive in office with a coterie
of SPADs (special advisors) who are not civil servants to
stiffen their spines and ensure the minister is not a lone
voice and is informed by other points of view.
A government chosen by lot would suffer the same fate
only much worse since they will have no party machine to
back them up and not being professional politicians will
not have the rhetorical ability to argue against the civil
service.
So we will end up being ruled by a professional civil
service who will jig things so we have the illusion of
government by selection but in fact we won't.
This is not a blast against the civil service btw they also
provide a necessary buffer against temporary office
holders with personal agendas. Leaks did for Hunt at
Culture, but unfortunately are not working against Gove at
Education.
I'm just glad his writ doesn't run north of the border.
What worked in a relatively small polity such as ancient
Athens where all citizens were expected to enact the law
will not work now.
undersinged
10 June 2013 11:10am
@HulloHulot - Brave, perhaps, but misguided.

Miseducated, basically.
Due to having been brought up with excessively
individualistic ideas and a vacuum where political
education should be, he suffers from the delusion that he,
an individual, knows better than his government (which
represents a consensus of views of people with far
greater relevant knowledge and expertise than himself),
and has a right to arbitrarily subvert the state in order to
impose by force upon it his ideas of how it should be run.

His thinking is simplistic, and therefore, unsurprisingly,
wrong.
foolisholdman
10 June 2013 11:53am
@iamnotwise @HulloHulot - I completely agree. Though I

believe the current recruitment guidelines
preclude anyone with those attributes from ever
gaining a ticket to run. I've always thought that if
someone actually wants to rule or govern they
should be banned from doing so. Perhaps we
should draw our representatives by lot - I'm sure
we'd get a better average than we do now!
Absolutely agree. It worked for ancient Athens and with
the internet it could work for us. At he very least it would
dilute the psychopaths and limit their time in office.
dedalus77uk
10 June 2013 1:42pm
@HulloHulot - Today, instead, we're developing machines

in order to ensure that the result is a foregone conclusion
- here's one of the more light-hearted takes on what really
happened in recent US elections:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ
HulloHulot
10 June 2013 4:50pm
@undersinged - You seem to be operating under the idea

that the government of a democratic state has a right to
subvert its own laws and legislative processes to impose
through stealth a comprehensive and systemic
surveillance of its people. That idea is risible and has no
place in a democracy. A democracy which does not allow
its people to develop and exercise their capacities for
personal reflection, judgement and discussion without the
implicit threat to speech that surveillance brings is not a
democracy.
You say that Snowden:
suffers from the delusion that he, an individual,
knows better than his government (which
represents a consensus of views of people with
far greater relevant knowledge and expertise
than himself)
But by restricting the knowledge of these operations to a
few congressmen and federal officials, it was the US
Administration and the NSA that showed that they suffer
from the delusion that they know better than the
government. They were the ones that stopped a
consensus of the views of the people, formed by people
amongst whom those with far greater relevant knowledge
and experience than themselves would have been
present, from being made.
Snowden is making such a consensus possible. The
suggestion that his motives were formed through
'excessively individualistic ideas and a vacuum where
political education should be' should be treated as arrant
nonsense or satire.
mspacek
10 June 2013 8:48pm
@mspacek, @iamnotwise - Took me a while, but I finally

found the book: Imperial Earth. I think I must've been
around 10 when I read it. Interesting how it stuck with me.
ActivistGal
09 June 2013 7:32pm
1075
I don't need to read this to know that what you have done is perform
an INCREDIBLE public service, not just for your fellow Americans,
but for all of us, EVERYWHERE. Bravo and from the bottom of my
heart, THANK YOU.
jabberwolf
09 June 2013 8:51pm
190
@ActivistGal Seeing as the NSA was bluntly violating the 4th

Amendment of the constitution.. I see him as paying the
highest services to this country anyone could - upholding
the rights of all Americans.
I don't care if a secret federal judge approved it, I don't
care that congress oked it (I don't think they knew about
this order), and I don't care Obama said its ok - the
constitution is the highest law of the land above all offices.
Thank you Edward Snowden for showing the NSA and
Obama for breaking it. They should be the ones tried for
treason !!
(Manning, he wasn't trying to out anyone for breaking the
law. - I don't consider him in the same light)
ActivistGal
09 June 2013 9:11pm
103
@jabberwolf - so the release of (for example) the

collateral murder video, proof of war crimes, was done just
for fun?!
john gotti
09 June 2013 9:55pm
38
@ActivistGal - Mr Snowden is a true patriot and hero.
eowyn1
09 June 2013 11:02pm
@jabberwolf - But why is Snowden in China? It is more

intrusive than the USA. I hope there is nothing fishy here.
I agree with you about Manning. He seems a bit of a
traitor to me.
LandOfConfusion
10 June 2013 12:51am
76
@eowyn1 Fishy? Be serious. As you can read above, he chose to

go to Hong Kong because he values his life and it was
the safest place he could think to go. Do you think he
would be safe on US soil?
Have you even the slightest concept of the sacrifice made
by this astoundingly courageous young man? He will
never, ever have a sense of safety or any peace of mind
for the rest of his life (and I wish fervently that he has a
long and healthy one). He has had to leave his family
behind. He has sacrificed his entire future. Could you do
that? I think there are very few who could.
He has given his life - however long he lives - for his
country. And for the democratic rights of people the world
over.
Is integrity so rare in the world these days that people
can't recognise it when it's staring them in the face?
I am in awe of this honourable young man's bravery, and I
am grateful for what he has done. I very much want to
believe that he hasn't made this sacrifice for nothing.
Angela Monger
10 June 2013 4:14am
36
@jabberwolf - Actually he exposed a war crime that the

military tried to cover up and it was the only way Reuters
had of finding out what happened to their journalists. I
watched that video and the one thing that will always stay
with me is the maniacal laughter of the soldiers who did
that. Chilling and creepy.
JackJay
10 June 2013 4:38am
@eowyn1 - Easy to see whose side you are on.
undersinged
10 June 2013 11:12am
@ActivistGal - Like Bradley Manning, he is a traitor to his

country and a fool. Like nearly all traitors, he thinks he's
doing something noble, but all he's doing actually is
endangering the security of his fellow citizens.
thericochet
10 June 2013 11:50am
11
@undersinged - traitor to a corrupt and illegitimate

government system, sure. To his country though, a hero
willing to sacrifice his liberty for everyone's good. Only an
imbecile willing to be utterly subservient to a government
that considers itself above any law could possibly consider
otherwise.
undersinged
10 June 2013 2:17pm
@thericochet traitor to a corrupt and illegitimate government

system, sure
Corrupt and illegitimate according to you, but who appointed
you judge and jury? What procedures did you follow to
ensure that the trial you conducted was fair, and seen to be
fair? You are a corrupt and illegitimate judge.
You are suffering from the same arrogance of ignorant
individualism that afflicts Edward Snowden and Bradley
Manning.
Here's something you need to know: if you apply the
standard of angels, all governments, without exception,
are "corrupt and illegitimate", but governments are not
meant to be angels, and if they were, they would be
useless, and by their uselessness, they would be
illegitimate.
A government's first role, above absolutely everything else
(no exceptions), is to protect its citizens from attack. If it
has to spy to achieve this, then it must spy. If it has to
break its own laws to achieve this, then it must break its
own laws. If it doesn't, it is incompetent.
thericochet
10 June 2013 2:55pm
@undersinged - the spying is an attack. The government

has failed.
Manning and Snowden have only acted to defend US
citizens as well as those from other realms, and they have
done this by exposing indefensible, deadly and criminal
overreaches of authority.
In your posts you appear to be defending that which
protects no-one and cannot be defended, and attacking
that which seeks only to protect and is in the
circumstances not only utterly necessary but obligatory.
It appears you would rather enormous crimes go unseen
as this is 'for the greater good'. You would punish those
who report on crimes rather than the perpetrators. One
wonders how enormous a crime should be before you
would think it legitimate to report on it. One also wonders
whether you even have a line.
thericochet
10 June 2013 3:01pm
@undersinged - "If it has to break its own laws to achieve

this, then it must break its own laws."
What you say here is just incorrect. It must reform its laws
with the consent of its people. If this is not done and laws
are broken with impunity then the people have been
attacked and the government has failed.
Also, why is it 'legitimate' for some to break the law in
order to protect people, but not for others?
Mostly I want to know why you want people who have

unquestionably acted in the interests of everyone in the
world to suffer as Manning has/will. Why? And, while on
the subject of extreme arrogance, what on Earth do you
suppose protects you from similar overreaches?
robi
10 June 2013 4:07pm
@undersinged Corrupt and illegitimate according to you, but

who appointed you judge and jury? What
procedures did you follow to ensure that the trial
you conducted was fair, and seen to be fair?
You are a corrupt and illegitimate judge.
That is all irrelevant. In you own post you concede that
the behaviour of the government was illegal in this
instance. Are you a qualified judge, as you point out that
very obvious fact yourself? This is a comment board,
people are expressing opinions. A trial is necessary as
part of enacting justice, it is not necessary to be a judge
in order to hold a reasonable, correct or informed opinion
about the behaviour of others.
Here's something you need to know: if you
apply the standard of angels, all governments,
without exception, are "corrupt and illegitimate",
but governments are not meant to be angels,
and if they were, they would be useless, and by
their uselessness, they would be illegitimate.
Perhaps you are right that governments cannot be angels,
but I don't see why that implies that they cannot obey the
law. And if, as you clearly feel, elites know best and
things would work best for everybody if they are allowed
to do what they want, then put this to the public. If the
public rejects this view, and suffer for it, they may change
their mind and allow the legalisation of intrusive security
measure such as these.
thericochet makes a good point above. If the government
is not expected to obey the law, and people are 'traitors'
for reporting criminal activities undertaken by the
government, why should other people respect the law or
the government? I don't think a legal system which allows
some people to get away scott free with crimes while
others are punished for these same crimes can be
described as fair.
robi
10 June 2013 4:16pm
@undersinged A government's first role, above absolutely

everything else (no exceptions), is to protect its
citizens from attack. If it has to spy to achieve
this, then it must spy.
Perhaps, but I think you trust in the state too much. Just
because somebody (maybe even somebody clever) thinks
that what they are doing is necessary for the defence of
the country from attack, and just because a lot of people
(who are selected because they agree) happen to agree
and these people work together, that doesn't actually
mean that what they are doing is either necessary or
justifiable,
And that's assuming those working on these projects, or
who will have power over them in the future, have

benevolent motives. Perhaps it would be fine to set up
invasive security system , if you could somehow offer a
guarantee that they would be used to protect the public
and would not be used against innocents. Unfortunately
no such guarantee is possible, and as we have see from
anti-terror legislation in the UK broad powers that are
given or taken by the state ostensibly to protect the public
have been used in ways other than their stated purpose.
The claim that intrusive and totalitarian measures must be
taken in order to protect the country from external or
internal foes has been the favourite of every tyrant.
undersinged
10 June 2013 4:18pm
@thericochet the spying is an attack.

No, it's not. Spying in itself, as long as the process is not
disruptive, is not an attack. If the spy breaks into your house
and steals your computer to find out what's on it, that's an
attack, and that sort of thing shouldn't be done without some
sort of warrant or other emergency measures. If they spy on
you, and then use the information gathered in order to steal
from you, extort money from you, harm you by giving your
secrets away to a business rival, etc., that, too, would be an
attack. If they're just monitoring your communications across
the internet or phone lines, that's not an attack. It's
essentially different from watching you from the public
highway, noting where you go, and when, and who you meet,
which is just normal policing, and it would be insane to make
that illegal. It would amount to giving criminals carte blanche
to conspire and form networks to their hearts content with
total impunity. If they monitor what you do on social networks,
that's analogous to eavesdropping on you when you're in the
pub. If they monitor your use of search engines, that's the
electronic equivalent of checking what you borrow from a
library. Once again, these are entirely within the bounds of
ordinary police detective work. It would be wrong to ban these
practices, because doing so would make life unnecessarily
easy for criminals.
Governments must be able to monitor the movements and
communications of people within their jurisdiction, as long
as they do so in a non-disruptive manner, and do not
abuse the information gleaned. This is a fundamental right
of governments, since it is necessary in order for them to
carry out their fundamental duty of protecting the people
from criminal attacks.
In your posts you appear to be defending that
which protects no-one and cannot be defended,
and attacking that which seeks only to protect
and is in the circumstances not only utterly
necessary but obligatory.
Quite the opposite. Good surveillance is necessary to good
policing, and good policing is necessary to protect the citizens
from crime. To say that's indefensible is absurd. On the other
hand, to suggest that people should reveal government
secrets (a criminal act in itself) whenever they think the
government is doing something that in their personal opinion
is morally wrong, is completely indefensible. The secrecy
laws exist to prevent exactly that kind of idiocy.
It appears you would rather enormous crimes go
unseen as this is 'for the greater good'. You
would punish those who report on crimes rather
than the perpetrators.
You've got the whole thing ass-backwards. Government
monitoring communications is not a crime. People breaking
secrecy laws is a crime.
undersinged
10 June 2013 4:26pm
@thericochet Mostly I want to know why you want people

who have unquestionably acted in the interests
of everyone in the world to suffer as Manning
has/will.
I dispute that they have acted in the interest of anyone at all.
They have acted in the interest of a misguided and nave
conception of how governments do and should function.
And, while on the subject of extreme arrogance,
what on Earth do you suppose protects you
from similar overreaches?
What makes you think I suppose such a thing? I fully expect
my communications to be monitored by police and security
agencies. If I were to start exchanging email with someone
they were interested in, they would look at my emails. If I
were to start visiting sites related to terrorist groups or any
serious criminal activity, I'm sure they would start watching
me closely, and if I were to post things on Facebook or twitter
that suggested an involvement in gangsterism or any serious
crime, I'm sure the police would soon notice and would take
an interest.
thericochet
10 June 2013 4:32pm
@undersinged - "Governments must be able to monitor

the movements and communications of people within their
jurisdiction, as long as they do so in a non-disruptive
manner, and do not abuse the information gleaned. This
is a fundamental right of governments, since it is
necessary in order for them to carry out their fundamental
duty of protecting the people from criminal attacks."
This is crazy. Straight out of a sci-fi novel. Nothing to do
with reality at all.
Breaking privacy laws is a crime. As is committing and
covering up abuses and massacres. Why don't you care
about these crimes? Why don't you think a government
should be accountable? How far does a government have
to go before its members should be held accountable for
abuses? Please, tell us.
thericochet
10 June 2013 4:37pm
@undersinged - "I fully expect my communications to be

monitored by police and security agencies. If I were to
start exchanging email with someone they were interested
in, they would look at my emails. If I were to start visiting
sites related to terrorist groups or any serious criminal
activity, I'm sure they would start watching me closely,
and if I were to post things on Facebook or twitter that
suggested an involvement in gangsterism or any serious
crime, I'm sure the police would soon notice and would
take an interest. "
...and when you are held indefinitely or executed because
your friend did something (see 2 weeks ago) or because
you hold extreme viewpoints which have been deemed to
be 'unacceptable' (and you certainly hold extreme

viewpoints), unlike the rest of us who appeal and fight
against the Stasi, you will have no grounds whatsoever for
complaint. It's how you wanted it, and you're welcome to
it.
undersinged
10 June 2013 4:42pm
@robi Perhaps, but I think you trust in the state too

much.
I don't trust the state completely. I just trust the state a bit
more than I trust random idiots who make official secrets
public on the basis of nothing more than their own dubious
intuition that the state is doing something vaguely immoral.
And that's assuming those working on these
projects, or who will have power over them in
the future, have benevolent motives.
I think it's reasonable to expect that the staff of organizations
such as the NSA are patriots who take pride in their job and
want to do it well. They may not have perfect judgement, but
they are almost certainly not in the job for the sake of
sadistic kicks.
Perhaps it would be fine to set up invasive
security system , if you could somehow offer a
guarantee that they would be used to protect
the public and would not be used against
innocents.
You can never offer an absolute guarantee, but that's how
society works - we have to trust each other. We have no
choice. When you get in a bus, train, taxi or aeroplane, you
cannot be certain that the driver or pilot won't go crazy and
crash the vehicle with you inside it. They probably won't, but
there is no absolute guarantee. You simply have to trust
them.
The claim that intrusive and totalitarian
measures must be taken in order to protect the
country from external or internal foes has been
the favourite of every tyrant.
That doesn't mean the claim is never legitimate. If we can't
tell the difference between the governments of the US and
the UK on the one hand, and an actual tyranny on the other,
we are in a very bad way, indeed.
undersinged
10 June 2013 4:46pm
@thericochet ...and when you are held indefinitely or

executed because your friend did something
(see 2 weeks ago)
And what country did that happen in?
or because you hold extreme viewpoints which
have been deemed to be 'unacceptable' (and
you certainly hold extreme viewpoints),
And when was the last time that happened in any Western
democracy?
unlike the rest of us who appeal and fight
against the Stasi

How long have you suffered from the delusion that you live in
East Germany?
thericochet
10 June 2013 4:51pm
@undersinged - are you a comedy poster?

"And what country did that happen in?" The USA. Are you
posting all this piffle based on no knowledge of related
events whatsoever? What a surprise.
"And when was the last time that happened in any
Western democracy?" It's happening all the time in the
US and many other places.
"How long have you suffered from the delusion that you
live in East Germany?" never heard of metaphor or
simile? How long have you suffered from the delusion that
governments should be above all accountability? By all
means suffer from such delusion, but don't try and drag
us backwards along with you.
thericochet
10 June 2013 4:54pm
@undersinged - "dubious intuition that the state is doing

something vaguely immoral."
So the massacres and war crimes exposed by Manning
were only 'vaguely immoral'? What, then, would constitute
something worth exposing. I mean, come on. Actual
irrefutable war crimes, still unpunished, and you're
'dubious/vaguely immoral'. You are displaying a frankly
stultifying level of ignorance.
You trust a state that would just as soon shoot you in the
face over someone who is trying to expose those who
would shoot you. Congratulations.
undersinged
10 June 2013 5:09pm
@robi In you own post you concede that the behaviour

of the government was illegal in this instance.
No, I didn't. I didn't say the government has broken the law. I
said that if circumstances require it to do so I order to fulfil its
essential duty, then it must do so.
And if, as you clearly feel, elites know best and
things would work best for everybody if they are
allowed to do what they want, then put this to
the public.
Straw man. I did not say that "elites... should be allowed to
do what they want". Rather, I suggested that the collective
judgement of the security services on what is right is more
likely to be correct than the judgement of a random employee
who is guided by the obviously flawed moral principle that
governments should not "spy" on citizens.
intrusive security measure such as these.
What do you mean, "intrusive"? Apparently, no-one

unconnected with the security agencies knew these
measures existed until this guy revealed them. That sounds
like the exact opposite of intrusive, to me.
If the government is not expected to obey the
law, and people are 'traitors' for reporting
criminal activities undertaken by the
government, why should other people respect
the law or the government?
Who said the government is not expected to obey the law? I
didn't. I said there are some circumstances where the
government can be justified in breaking the law, in connection
with fulfilling its fundamental duty to protect citizens. As it
happens, citizens can sometimes use the defence of
necessity against criminal charges, e.g., if they were to shoot
someone in order to prevent that person from triggering a
bomb that would kill several people. So, in fact, it's quite
consistent to say that the government can illegally snoop
sometimes if it reasonably believes it needs to do so in order
to save lives, and a citizen does not have a prerogative to
reveal government secrets just because that citizen feels, one
the basis of some woozy judgement, that what the
government is doing is morally wrong.
undersinged
10 June 2013 5:13pm
@thericochet "And what country did that happen in?" The

USA.
What are you talking about? What are you referring to?
undersinged
10 June 2013 5:14pm
@undersinged - ...and what's the relevance of it?
mattlove1
10 June 2013 7:49pm
@ActivistGal - No kidding! Why are people suddenly using

Snowden as a club to bash Manning with? Their hearts
and minds aren't big enough to hold two heroes at the
same time?
Addicks123
09 June 2013 7:33pm
506
Brave man - I wonder what they'll find on him...
laguerre
09 June 2013 7:54pm
396
@Addicks123 09 June 2013 7:33pm.

I wonder what they'll find on him...
It'll be a rape accusation, like Assange.
IPFS
09 June 2013 7:56pm
291
@Addicks123 - said exactly the same thing to my missus

as soon as I read this story. I give him a couple of days
before the smearing begins.
hani42
09 June 2013 8:00pm
83
@Addicks123 - They don't have to find anything on him,

they will put him in jail for compromising state secrets.
Yosserian
09 June 2013 8:10pm
244
@IPFS said exactly the same thing to my missus as

soon as I read this story. I give him a couple of
days before the smearing begins.
And that is exactly why the NSA collects all that
information on everyone.
IPFS
09 June 2013 8:18pm
@hani42 - The US does NOT have an official secrets act.
sayiloveuoften
09 June 2013 8:21pm
236
@Addicks123
- Another brave soul, another Julian Assange.
We knew or we had an inkling that this was going on but
nobody was saying it; this guy can't live with his
conscience which is admirable...how many of us see
something and just let it go by...
I wish you the best, i am like many others here, just
plainly in awe of you. When you go to bed at night, just
know that many people are on your side and you are an
inspiration to us all.
ID1891971
09 June 2013 8:26pm
@IPFS - Minutes.
hani42
22
09 June 2013 8:34pm
@IPFS - Tell that to Bradley Manning.
DeleteThisPost
09 June 2013 8:59pm
43
@laguerre 09 June 2013 7:54pm.

It'll be a rape accusation, like Assange.
You know, there may just be a couple of women in
Sweden who need to see a therapist every time they hear
someone make a comment like that.
But since Assange ran Wikileaks, and even though the
US has never asked for his extradition or charged him
with a crime, you feel comfortable in denying those
women their day in court.
I hope you don't have any daughters.
waterfall12
09 June 2013 9:23pm
@hani42 - So,is he a traitor ?
mspacek
09 June 2013 9:27pm

TimJag
09 June 2013 9:28pm
37
@DeleteThisPost 09 June 2013 8:59pm. Get cifFix for

Firefox.
Oh don't be so dramatic.
FluffytheObeseCat
09 June 2013 9:36pm
80
@DeleteThisPost - there may just be a couple of women

in Sweden who need to see a therapist every time they
hear someone make a comment like that.
Doubtful. The women who brought his behavior to the
attention of the authorities were shut out of this circus
months ago, and at least one of them has stated she is
not happy with the unusually vigorous official pursuit of
Assange.
I tend to suspect he's a skank, who should go to Sweden
and answer the questions they have in re these alleged
incidences of sexual misconduct. But, I really, really
distrust you big-hearted fellows who keep worrying over
the matter in the press. Your delicacy in regards to
womens' rights is too precious by far.
eamonx
09 June 2013 9:36pm
41
@DeleteThisPost - How would you feel if he's proven

innocent in court?
Is it not part of justice for the accused to remain innocent
until proven guilty?
avayal2000
09 June 2013 9:45pm
@sayiloveuoften - For me, just another depressed

maniac.
BobSoper
09 June 2013 9:48pm
79
@DeleteThisPost - there have been no charges filed

against Assange. The Swedish prosecutor has been
unwilling to interview him in England or by
teleconferencing. They have also been unwilling to
promise not to extradite him to the US.
Those women were acting at the behest of the CIA...
classic honey trap.
PleaseTurnLeft
09 June 2013 9:49pm
52
@DeleteThisPost - I have daughters. One has to believe

that they have been raped before getting upset. There is
too much inconsistency in the Assange allegations to take
them seriously.
DeleteThisPost
09 June 2013 9:51pm
11
@eamonx 09 June 2013 9:36pm.

If he even went to Sweden to speak with investigators
then I would have been happy with that outcome, even if
he wasn't charged. I have nothing against the guy...except
for the fact that he was accused of rape and he
immediately hid in an embassy.
Of course it's innocent until proven guilty, but he ran away
from the cops before they even had a chance to
investigate, and he had the gall to claim that the Swedish
investigation was some sort of political conspiracy against
him.
I just wonder, every time I hear his name brought up
regarding the allegations of rape, how it must feel for a
rape victim to hear her story marginalized by the public
because the public isn't a fan of some third party.
DeleteThisPost
25
09 June 2013 9:54pm
@FluffytheObeseCat 09 June 2013 9:36pm.

Your delicacy in regards to womens' rights is
too precious by far.
I'm sorry, but...
...just what in the Christ-loving fuck is that supposed to
mean? Pardon me if I want a woman who accuses a man
of rape to at least have her allegations investigated!
What kind of sick world do you live in where it is okay to
dismiss a rape allegation just because you like the guy
accused of the crime?
john gotti
09 June 2013 9:56pm
@hani42 - What state secrets? That they were violating

the law?
Bertaboop
09 June 2013 9:57pm
15
@IPFS - Yes we do. It's called the 4th Ammendment of

our Consitution, and our current/prior
regimes/administrations are trampling all over it before our
very eyes.
runkpock
09 June 2013 9:58pm
48
@eamonx - In america, you're guilty until proven innocent.

Hence there is no justice.
Take Obama's words on Bradley Manning. He called him
a guilty man, before any kind of trial had started. Drone
strikes killing "accused" or "suspects". The NDAA,
indefinite detention without trial.
...and that's only come from 1 term of a single president.
jsunny
09 June 2013 10:00pm
24
@IPFS - to brainwash the American people, they will find

something to blacken his name and his story
jsunny
09 June 2013 10:03pm
@jsunny - /\ /\ /\ sorry that was in reply to @hani42
TimJag
15
09 June 2013 10:08pm
@DeleteThisPost - You're dramatising again, it weakens

your case.
DeleteThisPost
09 June 2013 10:18pm
@TimJag 09 June 2013 10:08pm.

Do you have anything useful to add?
TimJag
09 June 2013 10:42pm
53

Firefox.
Ok, I feel that you have hijacked this debate and turned it
into yet another (boring I might add) discussion about the
guilt of Julian Assange, a debate that was already long in
the tooth six months ago.
Democracy is in crisis, our governments are acting above
the law, and if we continue along the path that we are on
then we will one day find ourselves without the freedoms
that we take for granted.
Julian Assange is on the run, he is paranoid, after the
news we have learned this weekend, I'm not surprised.
We may never no whether he is guilty of what he has
been accused of, but what we do no is that in the west a
person is innocent until proven guilty. There is no more to
it than that.
Having been a victim of an abduction and attempted rape
I know just how awful and demoralizing, downright suicidal
if I am being truly honest.
But today, this is beside the point. I find your hyperbolic
posts a little disquieting because it feels like you are
actually enjoying the self righteousness of your statements
more than trying to add any meaningful debate to today's
events. If we could all stay with the subject we may learn
a little more.
That's all.
DeleteThisPost
09 June 2013 10:56pm
@TimJag 09 June 2013 10:42pm.

I find your hyperbolic posts a little disquieting
because it feels like you are actually enjoying
the self righteousness of your statements more
than trying to add any meaningful debate to
today's events.
Well if you have the time then please read a few of the
other posts I have made on this article. I don't enjoy
acting self righteous, and I don't feel that way.
But on this point I was simply commenting on how
uncomfortable I feel when someone deifies, Assange
considering that two different Swedish women accused
him of rape and many here disregarded their accusations
simply because they don't like the US.

We may never no whether he is guilty of what
he has been accused of, but what we do no is
that in the west a person is innocent until
proven guilty
And you're right, we may never know if he is guilty or not,
and a person is innocent until proven guilty...in a court of
law. Unfortunately that is a court that the women who say
that he raped them will probably never see the inside of.
TimJag
09 June 2013 11:06pm

Firefox.
Ok, we know how you feel, and I respect your opinion.
People can be a bit teenage about all this - it does feel
like we've entered a Gene Hackman movie, after all!
Have a nice day, you sound like a caring person.
JRTomlin
09 June 2013 11:27pm
21
@DeleteThisPost - How long would it have been before

he had been in US hands? Minutes? I am female. I have
a daughter. I absolutely sympathise with his taking refuge.
There was no way that wasn't a trap.
Roman78
09 June 2013 11:28pm
@Addicks123 Rape, drugs, pedophilia, homosexuality .

At least the Soviets used to assasinate people, rather
than their character.
sayiloveuoften
09 June 2013 11:33pm
11
@DeleteThisPost whatever you are saying is NOT working, but nice try. A
lot of us have daughters and have sons...although i don't
think you need to have any children to know what is right
and what is wrong.
I like the name you choose to post your comments, how
perfect ~
ersatzian
10 June 2013 12:15am
@DeleteThisPost What kind of sick world do you live in where it

is okay to dismiss a rape allegation just
because you like the guy accused of the crime?
Hear hear. It's like everyone's saying, Hey I like it, I agree
with it; must be great! I'm not sure one ever learns
anything from agreement.
FluffytheObeseCat
10 June 2013 1:03am
@DeleteThisPost - ...just what in the Christ-loving fuck is

that supposed to mean?
Exactly what I actually said: "I tend to suspect he's a
skank, who should go to Sweden and answer the
questions they have in re these alleged incidences of
sexual misconduct. But, I really, really distrust you bighearted fellows who keep worrying over the matter in the
press."
......... as opposed to your recasting of what I said. Every
time Assange's name come up in discussions of his
known or alleged conduct wrt leaks, someone pulls out
the "rapist" allegation.
I dislike what I've heard of the man; he sounds personally
unpleasant and thoroughly self-important, with the social
skills of a Carboniferous proto-amphibian. However, the
allegations and his unwillingness to leave Britain are being
treated as solid evidence of guilt.
seeingclearly
10 June 2013 1:55am
27
@DeleteThisPost - Actually you are completely wrong on

this. Mr Assange went voluntarily, in Sweden, to answer
allegations against him, which were at the time seemed to
be insufficient to charge him. He then came to the UK,
with full knowledge of the Swedish prosecutors, and has
at all times been available for the prosecutors to
interrogate, either in the UK or via video link. Many
people have tried to broker a compromise on this. On
both sides. He was under a form of house arrest for a
long time having been bailed into the custody of a civilian.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of his case he has not
run away, or been unavailable for interview. He did not run
away from the cops, before they had a chance to
investigate, the allegations were made and investigated
before he left Sweden. For unknown reasons they were
then passed to another prosecutor who did not handle the
case initially, and the current situation has resulted from
this. The charges are based on a different view of what
constitutes rape from that in many countries. I do not
have a view on that, or his innocence or guilt, but his
actions and that of the prosecutors and other people,
including the alleged victims are a matter of public record,
which the press often forgets to disseminate accurately,
preferring to create a 'trial by media' situation. Which
ultimately does not serve the cause of justice well at all.
I very much hope that the courageous young man
featured in this article will not have to undergo a similar
trial by media - and that his stand against undemocratic
decision making will help his cause, as it should also do in
the case of Bradley Manning. Openness and honesty are
a part of good governance, and the failure of the latter in
the more powerful nations of the world has resulted in
huge amounts of deaths on all sides, both military, and
more concerningly, civilian.
JackJay
10 June 2013 4:40am
@Addicks123 - Don't worry, they'll find something. If not,

they will invent something.
Gary Goodman
12
10 June 2013 6:58am
@DeleteThisPost - one does not have to be pro-rape to

understand that this charge was contrived on Assange.
The woman in question befriended Assange, pursued him,
and admittedly engaged in consensual sex with Assange
several times, then retroactively claimed that ONE of
those times she asked him to stop, at some point during
one of these consensual sexual encounters.
IF THIS MUCH IS TRUE, while one can call Assange a
'cad' for not immediately halting sexual intercourse on the
assumption that the fully-engaged lady simply had a
sudden change of heart for some personal reasons, the
whole story reeks of a political/intelligence set-up.
Does it not?
In some foreign countries, some political leaders who were
not sufficiently compliant on some economic or business
matter, were lured to hotel rooms with prostitutes and
secretly filmed, to blackmail them, by CIA.
That according to the late CIA officer Phil Agee who
carried out these operations --- and others, the Economic
Hitman author who described this as being more often
done as some 'private' corporate intelligence op than any
arm of the official govt. When that doesn't work, or some
other 'crime' sting, the next step is life-threatening
intimidation, kidnapping, or outright murder ... maybe an
'accident' ... or killing a loved one.
Consider the Assange rape case in that context, then
decide how likely it is that the charges are 'real'.
evenharpier
09 June 2013 7:33pm
619
Wow! Just Wow!

I am in awe of you.
THANK YOU!
Cathy Henry
09 June 2013 7:34pm
42
This is a low-level person who runs to China. Real-nice, Glen

Greenwald.
ardennespate
09 June 2013 7:36pm
431
@Cathy Henry This is a low-level person who runs to China.

Real-nice, Glen Greenwald.
Eh?
msulzer
09 June 2013 7:40pm
547
@Cathy Henry - Are you really incapable of understanding

the issues involved in this?
siff
09 June 2013 7:49pm
228
@ardennespate - Her first and only comment.
bedfont
93
09 June 2013 7:52pm
@Cathy Henry - That you Dianne?
Fuel
09 June 2013 8:02pm
240
@Cathy Henry - You didn't listen to the interview. Do that

now and listen to his explanation of why he chose Hong
Kong. He's not done what he's done for China, he's done
it for ordinary Americans.
kushtika
09 June 2013 8:04pm
221
@Cathy Henry - oh cathy, i pity your ignorance, but do

not excuse it.
marxmarv
09 June 2013 8:04pm
46
@msulzer 09 June 2013 7:40pm.

Just another drive-by Abraxas profile. Move along, nothing
to see here.
skullaria
09 June 2013 8:13pm
179
@Cathy Henry A low level person does not have access to rosters of
intelligence agents.
------to everyone else---------be wary of sock puppets trying to make it look like the
majority are against this guy - think for yourselves no
matter what.
Charles Driver
40
09 June 2013 8:18pm
@Cathy Henry - Ignore all those ignorant naysayers they

don't understand law. A person can only be a
whistleblower if the activity they are reporting is illegal.
The government was not doing anything illegal, they had
warrants and court approval to make all of the requests
that they did.
All this fool did was expose, legal activities and then run
and hide behind communist skirts, not giving one care
about all the lives of people he may have put into danger
because of this exposure.
His Karma is probably pretty jacked right now, wouldn't
want to be him and he did me no favors.
Christopher Zemp
09 June 2013 8:28pm
298
@Charles Driver - You must've missed the part where he

said he personally reviewed every document to make sure
he was not putting anyone in danger.
It sounds to me like you would rather not know about the
government spy program and instead would rather remain
ignorant. Are you sacred of an informed electorate?
Bezdomny
09 June 2013 8:30pm
220
@Charles Driver - Perhaps you should read the story

Charles:
"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."
Glad to know you are perfectly at peace with the 4th
amendment's virtual destruction. Some of us appreciate
people who would like to still preserve what's left of the
Republic, even if it virtually guarantees the destruction of
their lives, both figuratively, and I fear in this case,
literally.
Sanford Sklansky
15
09 June 2013 8:38pm
@Cathy Henry - Would you hang around?
Kathy Harris Sexton

09 June 2013 8:40pm
149
@Charles Driver - Ever since the Nixon administration

broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychoanalyst's
office, the tactic of the US government has been to attack
and demonize whistleblowers as a means of distracting
attention from their own exposed wrongdoing and
destroying the credibility of the messenger so that
everyone tunes out the message. Please just spend a
moment considering the options available to someone with

access to numerous Top Secret documents. They could
easily enrich themselves by selling those documents for
huge sums of money to foreign intelligence services. They
could seek to harm the US government by acting at the
direction of a foreign adversary and covertly pass those
secrets to them. They could gratuitously expose the
identity of covert agents. None of the whistleblowers
persecuted by the Obama administration as part of its
unprecedented attack on whistleblowers has done any of
that: not one of them. Nor have those who are responsible
for these current disclosures. By your logic it could be
argued that all surveillance laws should be kept secret in
order to make it harder for adversaries to guess how we
collect intelligence, but that's not how a democracy works.
Legally and under the Constitution, the law that has been
in place for over two hundred years (and not some law
made up in some secret court) is that American citizens
are supposed to have a say in the laws that govern them
and no matter how noble the Justice Department's
intentions are, Obama, nor any government official have
the right to substitute their judgment for the judgment of
the American people, no matter how balanced they may
perceive their own. In the event that they have doubts that
the American people will support a program they believe
is necessary to national security, they are obligated to
bring that program up for debate, not classify it and hope
no one finds out.
rrheard
09 June 2013 8:46pm
317
@Charles Driver The government was not doing anything illegal,

they had warrants and court approval to make
all of the requests that they did.
EPIC's letter to the key members of Congress set out
precisely how wrong you are:
There is simply no precedent for the FISC to
authorize domestic surveillance. As Justice
Alito, writing for the Supreme Court in a case
concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, explained just a few months ago,
Congress enacted the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to
authorize and regulate certain
governmental electronic surveillance
of communications for foreign
intelligence purposes. See 92 Stat.
1783, 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; 1 D.
Kris & J. Wilson, National Security
Investigations & Prosecutions 3.1,
3.7 (2d ed. 2012) (hereinafter Kris &
Wilson).
In FISA, Congress authorized
judges of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC) to
approve electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes if
there is probable cause to believe
that the target of the electronic
surveillance is a foreign power or
an agent of a foreign power, and
that each of the specific facilities
or places at which the electronic
surveillance is directed is being
used, or is about to be used, by a
foreign power or an agent of a

foreign power. 105(a)(3), 92 Stat.
1790; see 105(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B),
ibid.; 1 Kris & Wilson 7:2, at 194195; id., 16:2, at 528-529.
(emphasis added)8
With the Verizon Order, the FISC went
beyond its legal authority when it sanctioned
a program of domestic surveillance
unrelated to the collection of foreign
intelligence.
For thirty years the FISA required the
government to provide specific, targeted
requests aimed at agents of foreign powers
and other non-U.S. persons before lawful
surveillance was permissible.9 The FISA
Amendments Act of 2008 ("FAA")10 replaced
that system with one of broad authority and
limited prohibitions on the interception and
collection of communications involving U.S.
persons.11
Please think about what you're saying. If you want to give
up all your private information to the government
voluntarily--feel free.
Me and many like me wish to keep our private lives,
communications, and data private and I don't care if that
makes you afraid you're more likely to be the victim of a
"terrorist" attack that is statistically less probable than
slipping in your bathtub and dying and/or being struck by
lightning.
Try not being such a coward and sacrifice other's
fundamental right to privacy so you can feel safe from the
boogieman.
RJSadler
09 June 2013 8:53pm
135
@Charles Driver - When our government can secretly

interpret laws how ever it wants we are left with no choice
but to hope for people like this to come forward. And i see
you dont give a damn about our constitutional rights. The
constitution was written to protect people from the
government doing things like it is doing now.
tringo21
09 June 2013 8:59pm
60
@Charles Driver - The fact that it is or might be legal is

the problem. Don't you see that, or are you one of them?
markbeckett
09 June 2013 9:34pm
41
@Charles Driver - when is the marriage between you and

Cathy?
Adrian71
09 June 2013 9:34pm
64
@Charles Driver - Just because something is legal,

doesn't make it moral. Slavery was legal once.
BobSoper
09 June 2013 9:50pm
82
@Bezdomny - unfortunately sock puppets like "Charles

Driver" and "Cathy Henry" will be coming out of the
woodwork, trying to smear this incredibly brave and noble
person. It's what our tax dollars are paying them for.
Bertaboop
09 June 2013 9:59pm
19
@Cathy Henry - Your perspective is extremely stunted.

Big Brother will love you I suspect.
john gotti
09 June 2013 9:59pm
37
@Adrian71 - Even slavery was and is against the laws of

man and nature, even if it is legalized by the government.
It was also legal for the Germans to send Jews to the gas
chambers. I suppose Charles Driver and Cathy would
chastise anyone who resisted.
LeDingue
09 June 2013 10:02pm
14
@marxmarv 09 June 2013 8:04pm. Get cifFix for Firefox.

Just another drive-by Abraxas profile
["cathy henry" 3 posts and counting]
Abraxas Corporation a pubic company
We are dedicated to attracting, developing, and
retaining the most talented minds in the national
security community. Abraxas seeks a variety of
fully cleared professionals.
So they only hire Scientologists then ;-)
Weaven
09 June 2013 10:04pm
11
@rrheard - Thank you for an excellent reply and links in

your post, here.
TheLibrarianApe
09 June 2013 10:04pm
33
@Cathy Henry - What a truly base and odious comment.
Cactusjack49
09 June 2013 10:19pm
11
@rrheard - Excellent post, Thank YOU!
jopestron
09 June 2013 10:52pm
@Cathy Henry - YEH! Real nice......Glenn.....Greenwald.

He ran to Hong China! Nice going. Letting some NSA
officer run to Hong China! You ought to be ashamed of
yourself. Hong China indeed!
rrheard
09 June 2013 10:59pm
@Cactusjack49 & Weaven:

You're welcome.
TheClave
09 June 2013 11:20pm
@Christopher Zemp - Ever heard of the expression "Need

to know"? Its not the same as "Want to know".
Romberry
10 June 2013 12:20am
15
@Charles Driver - The Constitution of the United States is

the supreme law of the land. No matter what law congress
passes and the president signs, if that law violated the
framework of limited powers granted to the government by
the people via the Constitution of the United States, then
the law and all actions under it are in fact illegal.
I submit that the laws authorizing the government to
undertake these activities (and the secret interpretation of
those laws used to justify these activities) are in direct
violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The
Constitution is a restraint on government, and the
government is pulling against those restraints. As I said
earlier before on another forum today before Snowden's
identity and reasoning were revealed:
I dont know how something can be within the
law when the law itself, at least as its
interpreted and implemented, seems plainly
outside of the limits imposed by the highest law,
the Constitution of the United States. But forget
that for a second
(Senator) Feinsteins statements that The
program is essentially walled off within the NSA.
There are limited numbers of people who have
access to it. is of little comfort even if true.
Walled off? Maybe so. But walls have a bad
habit of being breached no matter how
strong. What Feinstein is saying is that even if
they have all this info, we just have to trust the
people in government now to be angels. And
not just that, we have to trust the people in
government forevermore to be angels, to keep
those walls in good repair, and to not breach

them themselves in order to put all of this
information to some no good use.
Imagine the security state wants a judge to rule
a certain way, or to have a representative or
senator to vote a certain way, or wants a
president to push for a certain policy, or wants
the CEO of a corporation to do or not do a
certain thing and the security state has at its
disposal a treasure trove of information that
people in these positions would find
embarrassing (or worse) if it were to come out.
Maybe theyve consorted with prostitutes.
Maybe they scored a little blow while in office.
Maybe theyve had an affair, or cheated on a
securities deal. Maybe they just habitually surf
some really outrageous porn (The list of
possibilities is endless.) Along the way they
have left some form of tracks via
telecommunications or digitally via the net. With
this huge database of communications that
covers not just the here and now but covers
always and forever henceforth, why is that not a
huge potential danger for blackmailing powerful
people even heads of state into doing
what is asked of them even if what is asked is
wrong?
The Constitution sets limits. Feinstein is
basically saying that the government of today,
like all governments, does not want to work
under the limits. Instead of limited power and
limited information about citizens, they want
limitless power and an end to privacy.
That walls can be breached has been illustrated well by
Snowden. The dangers to liberty are apparent to anyone
willing to see.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it
is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and
a fearful master". - George Washington
"The makers of our Constitution undertook to
secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of
happiness. They recognized the significance of
man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his
intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain,
pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found
in material things. They sought to protect
Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their
emotions and their sensations. They conferred,
as against the Government, the right to be let
alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and
the right most valued by civilized men. To
protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by
the Government upon the privacy of the
individual, whatever the means employed, must
be deemed a violation of the Fourth
Amendment." - Justice Louis Brandeis,
dissenting in 277 U.S. 438 Olmstead v. United
States, June 4, 1928
ersatzian
10 June 2013 12:24am
@Bezdomny 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.

Not that I agree with Mr Driver, but most of you are just
quoting the article at him. Even if he reads it, what
happens if he doesn't think Mr Snow's telling the truth?
And to be fair, how do we verify Mr Snow's account? Only
he's talking, so we've got to believe him because he looks
like a decent guy and he seems nice enough and we'd
love to believe the government are screwing us over at
every turn. I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but why
are we supposed to take Mr Snow at his word and not Mr
Driver or anybody else who isn't one hundred per cent
comfortable with what happened? It sounds a bit like
everyone's thinking, "I like him, I agree with what he did;
the cause must be just!" I guess it's hard to talk about this
without taking sides. Shame.
Corrections
10 June 2013 12:41am
@Christopher Zemp - @Christopher Zemp - Oh well, if

HE said that, a person NOT trained in anything but techie
stuff who didn't graduate from high school, then OF
COURSE it must be true. Is that what you're saying?
I'm sure he did that to the best of his ability, but that
doesn't mean his ability was sufficient.
Merlin Ravensdale
10 June 2013 2:04am
@rrheard - Alito wrote that in a 5-4 majority opinion that

Amnesty International et al. lacked "standing to seek
prospective relief under the FISA."
I happen to agree with EPIC's statement that "With the
Verizon Order, the FISC went beyond its legal authority
when it sanctioned a program of domestic surveillance
unrelated to the collection of foreign intelligence."
However, unless and until a "secret court opinion" the
Electonic Frontier Foundation is trying to get released
comes to light, no court has ruled that the NSA exceeded
its legal authority under the Constitution.
rrheard
10 June 2013 2:40am
@Merlin Ravensdale However, unless and until a "secret court

opinion" the Electonic Frontier Foundation is
trying to get released comes to light, no court
has ruled that the NSA exceeded its legal
authority under the Constitution.
Well theoretically no act or action is legal or illegal until a
properly constituted adjudicative body makes a determination
of legality or illegality.
That doesn't stop the police from incarcerating you for
pre-adjudicative violations of the law, and doesn't preclude
you, me or EPIC opining on what is the fairly
straighforward and longstanding legal understanding of the
purpose of FISA/FISC and whether or not I think what is
going on is illegal.
But I take your point and hope you understand my

response to whathisname was to counter his categorical
statement or argument that "this is all legal." Your same
analysis applies to his statement as well.
Nockster
10 June 2013 3:50am
@Cathy Henry - Oh look, a sock puppet!
JackJay
10 June 2013 4:41am
@Cathy Henry - Running for your life is a reasonable

thing to do.
foolisholdman
10 June 2013 12:17pm
@Charles Driver @Cathy Henry - Ignore all those ignorant

naysayers they don't understand law. A person
can only be a whistleblower if the activity they
are reporting is illegal. The government was not
doing anything illegal, they had warrants and
court approval to make all of the requests that
they did.
All this fool did was expose, legal activities and
then run and hide behind communist skirts, not
giving one care about all the lives of people he
may have put into danger because of this
exposure.
If these were legal activities, why is there the anger
against him? If these were legal activities why are they/
were they hidden? Why could they not be in the open? If
it is really a good idea for one government to be able to
track any conversation anywhere in the World, why not
publish the fact so that we can all admire?
OzzieboyNT
10 June 2013 3:14pm
@Kathy Harris Sexton - Great stuff.

I might add the US Government activity impact all people,
not just US citizens.
mattlove1
10 June 2013 8:01pm
@Charles Driver - Barack, is that you?
Lydmari
09 June 2013 7:34pm
240
This is exhilarating.
whichone
09 June 2013 8:00pm
137
@Lydmari - it certainly is and let's hope that he, like

Manning ,sets an example for many more to follow.
Thank you and all the best of luck.
JonDon
09 June 2013 7:34pm
442
Noble soul!
Matt Cooper
09 June 2013 7:35pm
461
Apparently, the US is gearing up to begin legal proceedings against

any American citizen involved in these leaks so good luck! You did a
very brave thing!
john gotti
09 June 2013 10:00pm
30
@Matt Cooper - If I'm on the jury, they will be found not

guilty or at least a hung jury.
tomedinburgh
09 June 2013 10:44pm
@Matt Cooper The guy stole secret information disclosed some of it at a

time which was very convenient to China and then fled to
Hong Kong. Quite possibly he took more information than
the stuff which was disclosed to the media.
He has broken a lot of laws and he should be prosecuted.
Presuming that it is altruistic whistle-blowing is naive.
ersatzian
09 June 2013 11:04pm
@john gotti If I'm on the jury, they will be found not guilty or
at least a hung jury.
Didn't you die of throat cancer in jail back in 2002?
Matt Cooper
10 June 2013 12:01am
48
@tomedinburgh - This guy wasn't some deadbeat. He had

a well paying job, family and girlfriend. The Chinese can't
offer him two of those three things. A one time, well
publicised defection with a single cache of documents isn't
(and probably never has been) a boon to intelligence
agencies. They like to have people stuck in for the long
haul.
The above, and his documented donations to Ron Paul,
leads me to think he's a hardcore libertarian and truly
believes in what he's doing. I probably would not agree
with this guy on lots of issues but this is a personal
sacrifice on a level unheard-of in recent times. A sacrifice
just so people can have at least some inkling of the
paranoia and fear that's eating away at the heart of most
western governments, and feasting on their own citizen's
personal liberties.
JackJay
10 June 2013 4:42am
10
@tomedinburgh - We should all be as "nave".
tomedinburgh
10 June 2013 9:21am
@Matt Cooper Or he was working for Chinese Intelligence and China

decided that it was worth cashing in their asset to save
their President embarrassment at a summit where Obama
was going to complain about Chinese spying and
intellectual property theft. China has gained a lot from this
and the guy ran to Chinese territory. The default
assumption should be he's working for China.
Fred1
10 June 2013 12:11pm
@tomedinburgh - Interesting angle. Could be complete

paranoia but if this is the case then you have to give it to
the Chinese intelligence they couldn't have asked for a
better response from the media and the public.
foolisholdman
10 June 2013 12:26pm
@Fred1 @tomedinburgh - Interesting angle. Could be

complete paranoia but if this is the case then
you have to give it to the Chinese intelligence
they couldn't have asked for a better response
from the media and the public.
Yeah! Dead cunning these Chinese!
Personally, I think this is a case of real heroism. I hope
the Chinese government and the American people are
truly grateful. They should be.
ardennespate
09 June 2013 7:36pm
420
Good luck and best wishes, Edward - regrettably, I really think you'll
need 'em...
DerDeutsche
09 June 2013 7:36pm
472
Poor guy will feel the Nobel Peace Prize laureate's wrath. No one
shows a "nice" politician's real face and remains unpunished.
CC0564
09 June 2013 10:14pm
14
@DerDeutsche Putin (another nice politician who knows a thing or two

about spying) could offer him a Russian passport. Just to
annoy the US. Like he did with Depardieu, just to annoy
Hollande.
Toby Rankin
09 June 2013 7:37pm
315
He's a brave fella!
Moon1874
09 June 2013 7:38pm
429
Just goes to prove that, when you want to :

"Yes, you can!"
Thank you so much, for your courage and your faith.
msulzer
09 June 2013 7:38pm
275
Wow! Now there is person to loo up to. Thank you for all that you
have done.
Pedinska
10 June 2013 12:07am
@msulzer 09 June 2013 7:38pm. Get cifFix for Firefox.

Now there is person to loo up to.
I'm sure you meant to put a 'k' on the end there, but even
so, I found myself saying, "Yeah, it might be a bit
embarrassing at first, but it would be superficial of me to
let that get in the way of "loo'ing up to" someone as
courageous as this guy. Imagine the discussion! ;-}
Trofonios
09 June 2013 7:38pm
95
Drone attack coming up?
Andy12345
09 June 2013 8:09pm
44
@Trofonios - Yes, because China will be A-OK with a

drone strike on a Hong Kong hotel or anywhere on their
territory for that matter.
No chance. It would lead to a war that nobody would
want.
iamnotwise
09 June 2013 8:17pm
153
@Andy12345 - Quite. It would be a first for the US

government to pick on someone their own size.
Doosh79
09 June 2013 9:32pm
23
@Trofonios 09 June 2013 7:38pm. Get cifFix for

Chrome.
No need for a drone, they could copy the Russians and
do him Litvinenko style.
JackJay
10 June 2013 4:44am
@Trofonios - I wouldn't put it past them.
exturpicausa
09 June 2013 7:39pm
667
This man is a hero, intelligent and articulate, principled.

I can only take my hat off, this man deserves accolades, not
punishment.
We're behind you Ed!
Charles Driver
09 June 2013 8:20pm
13
@exturpicausa - Speak only for yourself
Sadie May
09 June 2013 8:34pm
242
@Charles Driver - Pretty sure exturpicausa speaks for a

multitude in this matter.
Edward Snowden's courage and sacrifice cannot be
overstated.
anagama
09 June 2013 8:44pm
187
@Charles Driver You can speak for the pigs. For every rational and
patriotic American however, Snowden is a hero and
national treasure.
Adrian71
09 June 2013 9:37pm
101
@Charles Driver - Believe me, you do speak only for

yourself here. How anyone could defend what the U.S.
government is doing is beyond the imagination.
Weaven
09 June 2013 10:07pm
35
@Charles Driver - Look up the word "we"
ersatzian
09 June 2013 11:02pm
10
@anagama You can speak for the pigs. For every rational
and patriotic American[,] however, Snowden is a
hero and national treasure.
I resent this. I think I am reasonably rational and
reasonably patriotic, yet it seems a decision has already
been made: because I don't support Mr Snowden, I am at
best a pig. To be honest, I have yet to form an opinion on
the issue and I don't really want to. I think it's against the
spirit of Constitutionwhatever that may befor the NSA
to go tapping into a lot of people's phones, but at the
same time, I was not nave enough to think that my
government didn't do it. Speaking for myself, and only
myself, I don't actually mind agents listening in on my
conversations; I don't have anything to hide or to be
ashamed of. If they want to undergo the awkwardness of
me having phone sex with so-and-so, that's their
business. However, I understand and sympathize that this
ambivalence over privacy rights is not a popular (or
progressive) view. That's fine too; we're all entitled to an
opinion, so anagama let me have mine before you go
calling names. Thank you.
(As a bit of an aside, I don't understand why the
government would worry about Mr Snowden. Let him
come back into the country, establish he hasn't sold any
of the information, fire him, and let him be. Same thing
with Mr Manning. Just give him his dishonorable discharge
and let it go. Let them thrive and be forgotten in civilian
life.)
sayiloveuoften
09 June 2013 11:44pm
@anagama that was kind of funny... "you can speak for the pigs.." i
am imagining...pigs on a farm finding themselves not to
happy to have to talk to him ;) i can hear the pigs say to
him..." dear Charles, you've got problems ... "
LandOfConfusion
10 June 2013 1:20am
@ersatzian The abuse of privacy rights is the symptom. The disease

is the abuse of power.
ersatzian
10 June 2013 2:05am
@LandOfConfusion The abuse of privacy rights is the symptom.

The disease is the abuse of power.
But do you really think that the government has
overstepped its bounds? In order to enforce congestion
charges for inner-city London, the local government put
up an extensive CCTV network. Theoretically, there's a
great deal of potential for abuse and yet despite initial
protests in 2003 people have, by and large, just let
Transport for London get on with it. This so-called debate
in the US between Republicans and Democrats is a
sham. There is no real argument about the size of modern
government; it's going to be big! It's big in Sweden for
hell's sake and they have, like, nine hundred people. And
no matter how hard the GOP wishes they could just cut
everything related to education, social welfare, and what
not, the reality is that constituents have come to see these
things as rightsnot bonuses for when times are good
but rights. I won't argue whether this is good or bad, but if
you want to be taken seriously as a political candidate in
this country you are not slashing Medicare. It's death by a
thousand pounding hammers.
Now getting back to the topic at hand, I think it comes
down to a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis: is the
privacy of millions worth the lives of a couple dozen?
Because to be honest, it doesn't sound too implausible to
me that this NSA surveillance has helped to neutralize at
least one threat or that it could help in the future.
Terrorists use phones too, I am sure of it. The downside,
however, is pretty obvious. For every scrap of useful
information obtained, the NSA has probably compiled
reams upon reams of shit it has no business in. What if it
decides to prosecute citizens on the basis of some of this
shit? The Fifth Amendment won't do; it only prevents one
from being forced to incriminate oneself, but if they went
ahead and recorded a private conversation you can't
really say you were forced. Then again, if checks and
balances were to work out (and court orders were asked
for this time around), the judge would demand a high level
of specificity as to what the NSA was looking for and limit
it to terrorist-related activity. There is a procedure. It boils
down to how much faith one still has in checks and
balances, in the integrity of certain parts of government. A
lot of people believe it's all broken. I just don't think it's a
grand idea to throw out the baby with the water.
LandOfConfusion
10 June 2013 4:26am
@ersatzian For every scrap of useful information obtained,

the NSA has probably compiled reams upon
reams of shit it has no business in. What if it
decides to prosecute citizens on the basis of
some of this shit? The Fifth Amendment won't
do; it only prevents one from being forced to
incriminate oneself, but if they went ahead and
recorded a private conversation you can't really
say you were forced.
Exactly the type of thing I was getting at. As the saying
goes, knowledge is power. Advances in technology have
made it easy and cheap for governments to amass
prodigious quantities of data about their citizens. The
scope for abuse of the power it gives them over their
citizenry is substantial.
JackJay
10 June 2013 4:46am
@Charles Driver - He has untold numbers that think like

him. You are in the minority.
ersatzian
10 June 2013 7:36am
@LandOfConfusion Exactly the type of thing I was getting at. As the

saying goes, knowledge is power. Advances in
technology have made it easy and cheap for
governments to amass prodigious quantities of
data about their citizens. The scope for abuse
of the power it gives them over their citizenry is
substantial.
There's nothing there I don't agree with (and it's nice that
you're not yelling at me unlike quite a few others). It's just
hard to conceive of a political system in which
accountability outweighs stability. I mean, there are
already legitimate complaints about short-termism in
government; imagine how it would be if we were kicking
people out on a bimonthly basis. It'd be like Japan and
their prime ministers after Koizumi but worse.
LandOfConfusion
10 June 2013 9:56am
@ersatzian "... it's nice that you're not yelling at me..."

I think maybe that might be because the tone of some of
your earlier posts doesn't get across the points you're
making here.
It's just hard to conceive of a political system in
which accountability outweighs stability.

Would you still think that way if the price of that stability
was oppression?
Fred1
10 June 2013 12:05pm
@ersatzian - I agree. I'm struggling to see why this is a)

such a big deal and b) such a surprise. I don't get why
some people don't understand that the same technology
they use to stay connected and in some cases form
entirely online personalities also leaves a massive trail
which can be pieced together using quite simple software.
That's it. If you post something online or put up images or
videos or call people on mobiles then you are leaving a
trail. What is the surprise that an intelligence agency
wrote a bit of software to manage this trail? And if there
was a terrorist attack and people discovered that
intelligence agencies hadn't used these techniques to try
and monitor the asailants what would the media's
response be? The media was only too happy to criticse
intelligence services for failing to capture two people
committing random attacks in Boston. Now I await the
inevitable abuse....
largejack
10 June 2013 3:42pm
@ersatzian - Then you are a slave! End of!!
ersatzian
10 June 2013 6:53pm
@largejack Then you are a slave! End of!!

Out of curiosity, who do I belong to?
ersatzian
10 June 2013 7:05pm
@LandOfConfusion I think maybe that might be because the tone of

some of your earlier posts doesn't get across
the points you're making here.
Yes, the Guardian has a tendency to make me snarky
and glib. Must be the relative anonymity.
Would you still think that way if the price of that
stability was oppression?
It really depends on the level of oppression. I believe
there is a trade-off between order and freedom, especially
when you have a democratic mode of government.
Interests inevitably conflict. I mean, I think it's creepy the
way Mr Snowden describes how federal agents talk about
removing threats, but at some point I'd like to believe that
they're trying to keep us safe and doing an okay job at it.
Of course, the problem with secret agencies is that it's
often very difficult to assess their performance, given that
they're accountable to relatively few people and we don't

see what they see until 25 years later.
ersatzian
10 June 2013 8:23pm
@Fred1 Now I await the inevitable abuse....

I won't abuse you. But you're right about the online
personalities thing. Most of us leave a pretty big Internet
footprints. Convenience and security are often
diametrically opposed.
NeilPeel
09 June 2013 7:39pm
501
He needs legal and personal protection as soon as possible..

'The media' need to think very carefully about any smear campaigns
that might be in the pipeline against him...
guydenning
09 June 2013 7:46pm
124
@NeilPeel 09 June 2013 7:39pm. Get cifFix for Chrome.

The media' need to think very carefully about
any smear campaigns that might be in the
pipeline against him
Sadly, I'm sure there'll be a queue of the usual suspects
ready to pass on any old crap that the NSA cook up.
Addicks123
09 June 2013 7:57pm
220
@NeilPeel - He needs legal and personal protection as

soon as possible..
He's a brave man, but perhaps being hidden in plain sight
like this is his best protection.
The CIA would find out who leaked this information sooner
or later and if he was still unknown "dealing" with him
would be a lot easier.
StrawBear
09 June 2013 9:29pm
19
@NeilPeel 'The media' need to think very carefully about

any smear campaigns that might be in the
pipeline against him...
I hope they do act responsibly. It's not out of the question
that they'll just run with whatever comes up.
It'd be nice to see some maturity from the papers over
what happens next.
sayiloveuoften
09 June 2013 11:45pm
@Addicks123 - Agreeing with you 100%.
JackJay
10 June 2013 4:46am
@NeilPeel - Time for everyone to pick sides.
triteplanman
09 June 2013 7:40pm
214
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
NeilPeel
67
09 June 2013 7:40pm
He needs legal and personal protection as soon as possible..

'The media' need to think very carefully about any smear campaigns
that might be in the pipeline against him...
Resistance
09 June 2013 7:40pm
205
Wow, amazing, really brave! I am not sure though that Hong Kong,
or anywhere else, is safe for him. Sadly, the US is so powerful that
their "law" reaches pretty much everywhere in the world.
Andy12345
09 June 2013 8:12pm
64
@Resistance - There are probably worse choices than

Hong Kong, they're unlikely to arrest and deport him for
embarrassing the US.
skullaria
09 June 2013 8:16pm
24
@Resistance - Scary to think that any tyranny the US

decides to impose could/would as well.
ersatzian
09 June 2013 10:49pm
@Andy12345 -
There are probably worse choices than Hong

Kong, they're unlikely to arrest and deport him
for embarrassing the US.
Nah, he'd fit right in. He looks like every other pasty white
expat kid working for Merrill Lynch in Central.
Laura9999
09 June 2013 7:41pm
288
I can't be anything other than proud of you. Good luck. I hop your
family is as proud.
exturpicausa
09 June 2013 7:41pm
306
What can we do to help Ed?

#wegotyourback
Charles Driver
09 June 2013 8:21pm
@exturpicausa - speak for yourself only, I don't have

"ed"s back.
anagama
09 June 2013 8:46pm
261
@Charles Driver And that's sad, considering he's got yours.
markbeckett
09 June 2013 8:56pm
80
@Charles Driver I imagine you would wish to shoot mister Snowden in the
back judging by your terse and content free comment.
radicalchange
09 June 2013 9:12pm
167
@Charles Driver @exturpicausa - speak for yourself only, I don't

Edward Snowden

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Edward Snowden

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations | World news | The Guardian

The NSA files

Series: Glenn Greenwald on security and liberty

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower

Today's best video

Q&A with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I do not

Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Laura Poitras in Hong Kong

Edward Snowden: experts divided over

Lion and puppy 'kiss'

More from Glenn

The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

Snowden will go down in history as one of America's most consequential

NSA spying scandal:

Send us your assignment ideas

Guardian Audio Edition

The hypocrisy at the heart of the Bradley

Snowden: what might

Snowden: 'I do not

How fast is your pet?

On May 20, he boarded a flight to Hong Kong, where he has remained

down on bad subtitling,

MartinPengelly: Bell's Hague looks like

Internet's big names in

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

katierogers: Things i did not know

Having watched the Obama administration prosecute whistleblowers at a

Law abiding citizens

GCHQ 'broke law if it

2. Edward Snowden's explosive NSA leaks have

5. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't

NSA taps in to internet

More most viewed

Comment & analysis

This week's bestsellers

Bestsellers from our Guardian stores

The NSA: surveillance

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

Subscribe to the paper and get digital

like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from

Choose from one of our four subscription packages

By 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover in Geneva,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

Find the latest jobs in your sector:

Browse all jobs

to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose

More from Glenn Greenwald on security and liberty

Follow @ggreenwald on Twitter or email him at

Eurozone crisis Libya Syria Gaza US elections 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance[6/11/13 2:16:13 AM]