Don't let Snowden search drive nation's priorities

  • Article by: Editorial Board , Star Tribune
  • Updated: June 28, 2013 - 5:51 PM

Issue of NSA methods should not get lost in extradition question.

  • 21
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
jarlmnJun. 28, 13 8:34 PM

Gotta laugh at an administration that undoubtedly reveres Daniel Elsberg as practically a Saint for releasing The Pentagon Papers, now going after Snowden as a "traitor"... for doing the exact same typea thing.

10
22
borisbadenovJun. 28, 13 8:47 PM

I am very angry that Snowden told us our government was spying on us. I prefer a government cloaked in secrecy with secret courts making law. Fortunately, we have the most transparent government money can buy thanks to obama. Transparent as looking through a brick wall. And to think that so many liberals like this is astounding - get the government out of our bedrooms but it seems to be OK if we don't know they were there.

8
19
jd55604Jun. 28, 1310:18 PM

“It is the height of naivete to think that once collected this information won’t be used. This is the nature of secret government organizations. The only way to protect the people’s privacy is not to allow the government to collect their information in the first place.” -Wolfgang Schmidt, former Stassi department head

13
11
comment229Jun. 29, 13 4:45 AM

Here we go again (Boston!). Persecute anyone in the administration because those pesky Russians don't just fall over when we request information or demand extradition.

5
4
monkeyplanetJun. 29, 13 6:59 AM

Obscured in the editorial is how ironic it is that a whistleblower is taking temporary refuge in Russia. While that isn't a testament to Russia's (nonexistent) respect for civil liberties, it does say a lot about how the US has been treading a very dangerous path - down the road to a police state. The editorial writers should thank Snowden for his courageous decision to inform the American people of the government's unconstitutional surveillance. How do they think a debate, which they state is terribly important, would have otherwise occurred, given that the government has built all this in secret to begin with, and would never have revealed it?

7
6
sundialJun. 29, 13 7:49 AM

Mondale: “The police states don’t care about that,” he said. “They just do whatever they want. We hold higher standards for ourselves than that.” I agree with him about how police states behave. I question whether we hold ourselves to higher standards. So when the powers that be order warrantless wiretaps, record everyone's phone record, give kickbacks and retrospective immunity to telecom companies who cooperate, and let the too big to fail and too big to jail titans of finance off the hook while the middle class gets stuck with the bill, then exactly what kind of state do we live in now? Read "And Liberty and Justice for Some" by Glenn Greewald if you want to open your eyes.

6
3
unclemushyJun. 29, 13 8:51 AM

Why do you like the government secretly collecting information on you? Why do you like the idea of secret courts? So many liberals were angry about Bush authorizing listening in on foreign phone calls but love that obama is collecting our phone and financial records. Liberals were angry about secret prisons in foreign countries housing terrorists but the love having secret courts in the USA. Anyone who thinks that have the government spy on us is making us safer is naive. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but maybe you can also tell us why the Department of Homeland Defense has bout billions of rounds of ammunition and thousands of armored vehicles. Who's defense are they coming to and what supposedly are they protecting us from? We know it is not border security.

8
4
edinawaterJun. 29, 1310:18 AM

unclemushy, this is not a partisan issue! There are many people on both sides of the isle that believe the government's actions are wrong. ----

Note also that Bush was unconstitutionally eavesdropping on calls. He claimed it was only foreign calls but the bill that granted the phone companies retroactive immunity also granted it for domestic calls. When called out on it congress and Bush* both refused to limit the bill to foreign calls. In that light, a person has to be incredibly naive to believe he was only eavesdropping on foreign calls. ----

*As previously noted this is not a partisan issue. Obama criticized Bush for his surveillance programs but when it came time to act the two of them were best buds. While Obama was leading the polls in the 2008 campaign he took a break from his campaign, rushed back to congress, and cast a vote in favor of the immunity bill.

3
1
docgeddyJun. 29, 1310:28 AM

Snowden is a petty narcissist who has never failed at any turn to make this story about himself. His big revelation? The government knows less about us than our phone company and Google. The internet has never been a privacy zone. You've always had to opt in to privacy. Same with phones. Buy a burner. Congress pretends they've never heard of Prism despite thousands of briefings. The biggest story here is the attention this naive Snowden character continues to receive. And Boris, the program and process were set up by Bush/Cheney's celebrated and ironically named Patriot Act, not by Obama.

6
4
unclemushyJun. 29, 1311:30 AM

"Note also that Bush was unconstitutionally eavesdropping on calls." Your opinion based on Bush hatred.

2
5

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT