Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 115 posts

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#81

Post by CameronBanga »

o0-0o wrote: post #19
mikeyouse wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure that's reassuring to those who he's promised to kill.. It wasn't a one-off comment though, he reiterated his Snowden beliefs a few months ago: “When you just asked the question about Snowden, I will tell you right from the beginning, I said he was a spy and we should get him back,” Trump said. “And if Russia respected our country, they would have sent him back immediately, but he was a spy. It didn't take me…

You think he's not a spy?

Serious question. Why do you think he is one? What that he's done is in anyway consistent with the work of a spy?

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#83

Post by _petronius »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #69

What a confusing remark. He says that both it is a "public service" "but still must pay a penalty." I don't understand what that means, why should one pay a penalty for a public service? I also think this line "America's interest" is thrown around a lot. Are we talking the interest of Americans? Or interests of the American government? It seems more and more now the two are at odds with each other...

'The state is the name of the coldest of all cold monstrosities. It lies coldly, too; the lie that creeps out of its mouth is this: "I, the state, am the people."' (Nietzsche)

Politics likes to treat the notion of the state as interchangeable with its people, and although I don't think the US is alone in this, it certainly seems to have made an art out of it at times.

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#84

Post by [deleted] »

tajen wrote: post #50
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is this argument not immediately raised every time some clown uses the "he broke the law, he has to face the music" argument? Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions. They seek to frame the debate in the context constructed by Wall Street and Washington and redirect anger and angst so that people fight against each other instead of agai…

We should have a National Whistleblower Day and start holding celebrations for it. I suggest June 10th, if that's the day Snowden left his job. We simply whistle, in every street from Washington to Baghdad, including in Europe. Edit: Got 9 upvotes from this comment, sounds like there is traction.

[deleted]

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#85

Post by alexandercrohde »

gizmo wrote: post #71
alexandercrohde wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's definitely an interesting theory. And intentional or not, I think side-battles do deflect attention from the 1% issue (as you called "oligarchs"). However, I think you do a disservice to your cause when you use blanket remarks like "Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions" without clarifying. I think we can easily rule out that all co…

I take issue with the notion that an organization can't serve as a propaganda machine when the people who work there have good intentions. Why? Because practically everybody has good intentions. Even genocidal maniacs believe their actions are merely an "unfortunate necessity" that can be justified by looking at the long run. If the worst of humanity isn't contradicted by "good intentions" then nothing is. It's human…

"Besides, no shadowy conspiracy is needed to explain that which can be explained easily by incentives and social order."

This is exactly my point. Take care with the word propaganda, even if you mean to imply the latter most will assume you're intending to communicate the former and write you off entirely.

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#86

Post by WhatsName »

tajen wrote: post #50
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is this argument not immediately raised every time some clown uses the "he broke the law, he has to face the music" argument? Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions. They seek to frame the debate in the context constructed by Wall Street and Washington and redirect anger and angst so that people fight against each other instead of agai…

We should have a National Whistleblower Day and start holding celebrations for it. I suggest June 10th, if that's the day Snowden left his job. We simply whistle, in every street from Washington to Baghdad, including in Europe. Edit: Got 9 upvotes from this comment, sounds like there is traction.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-...

According to this timeline it would be 20th May

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#87

Post by gizmo »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #85
gizmo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take issue with the notion that an organization can't serve as a propaganda machine when the people who work there have good intentions. Why? Because practically everybody has good intentions. Even genocidal maniacs believe their actions are merely an "unfortunate necessity" that can be justified by looking at the long run. If the worst of humanity isn't contradicted by "good intentions" then nothing is. It's human…

"Besides, no shadowy conspiracy is needed to explain that which can be explained easily by incentives and social order." This is exactly my point. Take care with the word propaganda, even if you mean to imply the latter most will assume you're intending to communicate the former and write you off entirely.

I think that's good advice.

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#88

Post by woodman »

lewisl9029 wrote: post #63
gizmo686 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden didn't release documents to "the media", he gave them to two particular journalists (Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras), who did perform due dilligence before releasing documents. This is a well established practice that helps protect against the bias of the leaker from interfering with an objective judgement of what should be redacted.

While I still disagree that Snowden's blind trust in those two particular journalists (whom I referred to as "the media", not to discredit these two journalists in particular, but because I was trying make a more general statement) was justified considering the massive scale of his leak and the fact that he was quite literally dealing with matters of national security, I admit that the trade-off between having more o…

> he was quite literally dealing with matters of national security

Do you think that Al-Qaeda is a greater threat to national security than a spy agency run amok? Justifying prosecution with such logic... it reminds me of the story about the burglar suing the home owner because he injured himself while illegally on the property.

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#89

Post by ljw1001 »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #69

What a confusing remark. He says that both it is a "public service" "but still must pay a penalty." I don't understand what that means, why should one pay a penalty for a public service? I also think this line "America's interest" is thrown around a lot. Are we talking the interest of Americans? Or interests of the American government? It seems more and more now the two are at odds with each other...

You thought "no good deed goes unpunished" was just a saying? :)

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#90

Post by NamTaf »

slg wrote: post #46
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is this argument not immediately raised every time some clown uses the "he broke the law, he has to face the music" argument? Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions. They seek to frame the debate in the context constructed by Wall Street and Washington and redirect anger and angst so that people fight against each other instead of agai…

>Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions... Do you honestly believe this? How do you think an article like this gets written? Do you think that there is some secret puppet master that dictated the talking points of this article or that every journalist including the one who wrote this article is in on some huge conspiracy? Are those options…

Please go and look at the Murdoch press sometime. Here are a few newspaper covers from our last election here in Australia. Guess which side Murdoch wanted in?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQ0xPLiCMAEshrV.jpg

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/B...

http://northsideforum.org.au/wp-content/gallery/forum24-intr...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BRJTO25CEAABNsQ.jpg

It isn't limited to Australia, the Murdoch press tried to pull the same thing last US federal election:

http://us2012.bujournalism.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/B...

If you don't think the press exists to control the narritave then you're naive.

Post reply on HN