I fear you’ve been successfully propagandized to. His involvement with the NSA postdates the GWB administration, as @Dharmabum pointed out. He can’t have been okay with it, because at the time he didn’t know that the NSA was spying on everyone, because nobody outside of the agency and the upper echelons of power knew.
You should consider that almost everything else from the news source you heard this from is probably also a lie.
Obama’s foreign policy and domestic attitudes towards the security state and law enforcement were extremely similar to Bush’s, but a whole lot of people who should know better seem to want to cut him a lot of slack for it.
People often need only one “damning fact” to dismiss a entire person and all they ever said and did. Obviously other people are going to take advantage of that when they want to get someone to be dismissed.
If this is the best smear they can think up for Snowden I would say that’s a vote in his favor. (I’ve heard much worse, never encountered one that really stuck, most arguments are obviously false)
Permanent Record is awful. My boss still gives me guff over that ‘D’ I got in Journalism in 9th grade, and that was back in 1979.
You already read the whole book? It just came out yesterday.
Oh, I was talking about my permanent record, not Snowden’s book.
They’re not blocking publication, they’re collecting royalties. If the US gov wins the case, the money you paid will go to the government.
Instead get it from your local library!!
If Snowden plays his cards right, (I know this is a rigged game), all he has to do is counter-sue and ask (through his lawyer), “In what part of the book did I violate the NDA?”
If the state is going to make a claim of “national security,” then the judge could say, “OK, now I am confused, you have 15 days to articulate where the NDA was violated, while you yourself abiding by your national security claim, else it is case dismissed.”
If the courts were designed to be fair, I could see this working. But fairness is only an occasional byproduct of the ‘justice’ system. What its really optimized for is repeatability. And the US governemnt has been found again and again, to not need to comply with its own contracts. Its the puny individual citizens who must meet their end of the bargain.
As I mentioned before, the magic words “national security” dissolve all notions of fairness or logic.
Plus, Im doubtful any US court would accept a legal argument from Snowden in absentia. If he were certain of himself prevailing, he could certainly show up and take that chance, but… yeah.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.