Former CIA and NSA employee source of intelligence leaks

[The Brain]

The arguments are weak? You're weak!

[grumbler]

That has to be some seriously weak argument.  It's probably safely in the Top 10 of the weakest arguments ever uttered on Languish.

It certainly isn't as weak as the argument that reason people disagree with you on this issue because the US exported so much democracy there isn't enough left for the US! 

[DGuller]

That has to be some seriously weak argument.  It's probably safely in the Top 10 of the weakest arguments ever uttered on Languish.

It certainly isn't as weak as the argument that reason people disagree with you on this issue because the US exported so much democracy there isn't enough left for the US! 

No, that one's weaker.  Mine was a joke, whereas Minsky's comment, while very comical, wasn't.

[Admiral Yi]

No, that one's weaker.  Mine was a joke, whereas Minsky's comment, while very comical, wasn't.

Please elaborate.  I don't get what your point is.

[Valmy]

Meh I hope this does not become about Snowden.

[Iormlund]

If this thread is representative of US opinion it will become about him , simply because hardly anyone cares about the program itself.

[DGuller]

No, that one's weaker.  Mine was a joke, whereas Minsky's comment, while very comical, wasn't.

Please elaborate.  I don't get what your point is.

Minksy is accusing Snowden of hypocrisy, because he was in effect spying on the company that was spying on people.

[Sheilbh]

Meh I hope this does not become about Snowden.

That was his worry as he announced his name to overexcitable activist Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian.

[The Minsky Moment]

That has to be some seriously weak argument.  It's probably safely in the Top 10 of the weakest arguments ever uttered on Languish.

I guess it must be since apparantly it falls of its own accord, without any need of a counter!

[DGuller]

That has to be some seriously weak argument.  It's probably safely in the Top 10 of the weakest arguments ever uttered on Languish.

I guess it must be since apparantly it falls of its own accord, without any need of a counter!

By your logic, a cop who shoots a mass murderer during the rampage is a hypocrite.  So, yeah.

[11B4V]

Meh I hope this does not become about Snowden.

Should be about that twat.

[Sheilbh]

By your logic, a cop who shoots a mass murderer during the rampage is a hypocrite.  So, yeah.

Given the amount it looks like the Guardian will have to walk this story back, what's the rampage?

[Phillip V]

Nation Mostly Alarmed That Government's Top Programs Handled By 29-Year-Olds



http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-mostly-alarmed-that-governments-top-program,32792/

[Valmy]

Meh I hope this does not become about Snowden.

Should be about that twat.

Why?  Who cares about him?

[The Minsky Moment]

That has to be some seriously weak argument.  It's probably safely in the Top 10 of the weakest arguments ever uttered on Languish.

I guess it must be since apparantly it falls of its own accord, without any need of a counter!

By your logic, a cop who shoots a mass murderer during the rampage is a hypocrite.  So, yeah.

No that is not my logic.  Some other logic is being employed there.
A cop who shoots a mass murderer is going his job of protecting the public.  Mass murderers OTOH do not protect the public.

Snowden's beef is that the government has arrogated to itself the unchecked discretion of deciding which private details will be kept private and which will be snooped upon.  He views this as an abuse of power.
But Snowden is doing the same thing.  He was entrusted with secrets he swore to keep.  And he has arrogating to himself the unchecked discretion of deciding which secrets he will actually keep and which to reveal to the world. 
Between the two, at least the government has a patina of legitimacy, since their decisions are directed and supervised by elected officials and take place within a framework of laws and theoretical checks and balances.  Snowden OTOH is just a rogue free agent with his own subjective moral sense as his only guide and check.
The fact that he is now revealing details about intelligence operations that do not affect the privacy rights of Americans (indeed perhaps the privacy rights of any individual at all) illustrates the potential danger of abuse of power that exists once one endorses the concept of each person with a security clearance being justified in deciding what secrets are worthy of staying secrets and which ones must be revealed for the sake of the common good.

The fact is that is Snowden was really what he says he is, and truly motivated by the desire to stop abuse and nothing else, he would have brought his evidence first to a sympathetic ear on one of the Intel committees before taking the extraordinary step of fleeing to the territory of his nation's most powerful strategic competitor and issuing press releases.