Comment by cletus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cletus | Hacker News Reader

Snowden's choice of Hong Kong as a hiding spot becomes more and more interesting. I suspect the timing of this particular revelation is timed deliberately just after the US files charges against him seeking his arrest by Hong Kong authorities.

A recent article suggested that China was already inclined to "solve" this problem (from a diplomatic and political standpoint) by doing what it does best: simply dragging its feet. This seems incredibly easy to do when the Hong Kong legal system is inclined to move slowly anyway, any extradition will go through a number of appeals and the process for applying for asylum is being revamped putting all such cases on hold (not that Snowden has applied for asylum yet).

It is an somewhere between widely suspected and an open secret that China engages in concerted intelligence efforts against the US government and US corporations. Many cyberattacks originate in China (and there is strong evidence that at least some are state-sponsored). And China is widely believed to have stolen nuclear secrets [1].

But this revelation goes the other way. I really can't predict how China will take this. I suspect they'll be more disinclined to hand Snowden over (or at least do it in any kind of timely fashion). To paraphrase Ned Flanders "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"

Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the point of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush? Well maybe not that far but it's really not that far off. The war for intellectual property, Federal prosecutorial overreach (eg the Y12 "terrorists", Aaron Swartz), the relentless pursuit of whistleblowers and the end-run around the Fourth Amendment are simply stunning, particularly from an allegedly Democratic administration.

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/06/world/breach-los-alamos-sp...

>Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the point of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush?

I only wish that Snowden would have been in a position to leak this stuff about a week before Obama was reelected. At least then voters would have been able to make an informed decision. Romney may have been equally as evil as Obama in terms of surveillance ambitions and disregard for the constitution, but the difference is that part of Obama's election pitch was that he was going to get rid of these types of programs, while Romney never said anything of the sort. I don't like the fact that a man who clearly lied about his fundamental political views just to get elected is sitting in the Oval Office right now. Bush, and all Presidents before him, may have lied about many things, but at least you knew where most of them stood politically.

I don't like people that would lie about their fundamental political views just to get elected sitting in he Oval Office.

A more charitable reading is that Obama didn't lie, he was just an idealist and changed position when he was confronted with the realities of being President.

That's not to defend it, but I don't think Obama knowingly and cynically lied his way into office.

A much more charitable reading is that Obama is a patsy and the President isn't really in charge.

Far-fetched? No President could unseat Hoover. Why would any intelligence and surveillance apparatus be any less self-preserving?

>No President could unseat Hoover.

This, despite Hoover's lifestyle (not that there's anything wrong with it, but there was then). Why do so many people scoff at the notion that the intelligence agencies of the US could be up to no good? I mean, it isn't disputed that Hoover was an SOB, a scoundrel who used his office's resources to extort basically anyone he could. That's conspiracy fact. And it went on for years.

Hoover was also incredibly effective, at least earlier on...so he had a lot of political support within the government and within congress. The president is only one chamber of power, people tend to forget that. Its nice to fixate on Obama, but the whole government is in on this...congress, judges, state government, local government, and even...I dare say...much of the citizenry.

I agree with you, but keep in mind that nobody likes to think that they were duped, myself included. And we may look for support for the notion that we aren't dupes, even if we are.

I don't know about that...he is on the record with incredibly clear statements that these types of programs run counter to his beliefs and that he would eliminate them. It is now equally clear that from the moment he took office, he expanded them. Even with your "charitable reading" it means that he is willing to betray his own set of values, and probably the Constitution, whenever advisers tell him to. Not a great characteristic for a President.

Even with your "charitable reading" it means that he is willing to betray his own set of values

Right. I think this is critically important- and rather than attribute it to Obama being a liar, I suspect the reality is far more interesting/complicated. What would cause a person to betray their values? Certainly, the moment you are elected President you are privy to a lot more classified intelligence information than you are as a private citizen.

Something tells me we won't find out until an autobiography decades from now (if we do at all), but we'll see.

He had been a US Senator since 2004, so he definitely would have known a lot more (given his security clearance) going into the presidency than the average private citizen.

Honest question: Does the president really have that much more access to classified information than US senators?

> Honest question: Does the president really have that much more access to classified information than US senators?

I, too, would really like to have an answer to that. My assumption based on very little evidence is that the Chief Executive should have access to all classified information held by the executive branch's agencies. That seems to be logical. I seriously doubt that the President would accept an answer from one of his chiefs that "that information is classified." Now, a more nuanced and interesting answer might be found by digging into not whether the President has access to all classified information, but whether the President chooses to interrogate that classified information. There, I assume a President should, because if s/he does not, that raises serious doubts about a President making thoroughly informed decisions.

The only way forward for solving this problem is for the People to collectively say, with full knowledge of the potential consequences, that they are absolutely not willing to compromise, and want their government to trade security for inviolable protection of their freedom.

Sfter some reading on how CIA works and how the information retrieved is used by washington, I guess that Obama is getting highly interpreted and filtered information. More opinions based on the opinions of analist's boses, than really having access to the whole picture.

> The only way forward for solving this problem is for the People to collectively say, with full knowledge of the potential consequences, that they are absolutely not willing to compromise, and want their government to trade security for inviolable protection of their freedom.

The People did so collectively say: the Bill of Rights, which this president swore to preserve, protect and defend.

I'm talking about now, not 237 years ago.

Yes. The daily national intelligence briefing content is worlds away from anything that senators get. The only people privy to anything close to the same content would be the members of the intelligence select committee, but they receive periodic reviews not daily decision maker content. And it's worth considering that once you become president, by nature of your status you suddenly become the person everyone is spinning to. Even if you have access to the same thing, only one of you is getting told all the worst case horror stories that will benefit someone's budget if they get protected against.

I'm fiercely opposed to this newly unveiled surveillance state that US of A is... and yet I find myself not blaming Obama much for this.

I think people have misinformed notions about how much power the president really has. Obama's stated core focus was and has been on improving the situation for the poor/middle class. That's a big task on its own, I don't think you can expect one president to take on and dominate such variety of large tasks.

But now that things are in the open, support a candidate who in clear terms promises challenging these NSA programs for the next election cycle. Yes, Obama said he would do this in his own campaign trail, but it was unclear probably to him what he was up against exactly and how difficult it would have been to resist it alone. My optimistic take is now that we all know to a much greater degree what's going on, we're in better position to do something about it.

And yet he lies to cover it up. If he really wanted to oppose it, he could simply expose what's happening on his own. He could issue executive orders shutting it down. The DOJ, FBI and NSA are all part of the Executive Branch, after all.

At the very least he can explain why he changed his mind. I get it. I just can't trust him if he doesn't come as clean as he can about his reversal on Gitmo and surveillance and whatnot. I totally understand getting into office, seeing the real data, and saying, "I can't be the one that pulls the plug and causes people to die."

But he owes it to us to at least tell us that.

How has he reversed his position on Gitmo?

The Associated Press's Elizabeth White reports on a speech by Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, then a junior Illinois Senator, to a crowd in Texas. "We're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus," Obama says. "We're going to lead by example—not just by word but by deed. That's our vision for the future." [0]

[0]: http://m.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/01/obama-closing-gu...

And then there's this, from May 1st this year: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/30/obama...

> And yet he lies to cover it up.

Is there any evidence of that?

Obama talking to Charlie Rose earlier this week:

> What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls and the NSA cannot target your e-mails.

Then The Guardian released a document several days later, signed by Eric Holder, authorizing numerous exceptions to that, with which they are allowed to spy on Americans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-w...

So you are sure Obama was lying through his teeth and not just ignorant? I mean, Obama must know every detail of Eric Holder's job right?

Or are you just using "lying" to make a strong political statement, and you really see no difference?

The buck stops with Obama. Ignorance or incompetence is in some ways worse than lying as he might have some good reason to lie.

>Yes, Obama said he would do this in his own campaign trail, but it was unclear probably to him what he was up against exactly and how difficult it would have been to resist it alone

Sounds like an Obamapology to me. Been hearing alot of those lately.

> Sound like an Obamapology to me

I don't think these stupid partisan catch-phrases have any place on HN whatsoever.

I wasn't aware that it was partisan. These days, IMO, it's a term of convenience. There are so many apologies that must be made for this guy that combining the two words will save a tremendous amount of time.

yet I find myself not blaming Obama much for this.

That's fine.

Will you blame the next president who does it?

I would say not. It seems the military/surveillance arm of the Executive has become a truly autonomous entity, with no one who takes the big seat willing to come down on it or do anything other than to listen to its [from our uninformed perspective] FUD, and follow its whims. I might guess, for example, that for the same reason Obama expanded surveillance, Bush went to war. There is no representative democracy here, at least where "national security" is concerned.

If the president can't stand up to it, who can?

> and yet I find myself not blaming Obama much for this.

Might not be his fault for creating it - but he definitely bears responsibility for continuing it.

If we really wanted to - he could call a press conference at any time & blow the lid off the whole thing. But instead, he goes the opposite route & prosecutes anyone who speaks out.

bullshit. Obama could fire anyone from Eric Holder to Keith Alexandar. What is happening now is what Obama wants to happen. It's 100% his responsibility.

They kidnapped his dog.

The president's recent comment that he felt the urge to "pull a Bulworth" certainly fits with that.

tl;dr Obama did lie. But every one else lies in the same way for the same reason so he probably didn't think much of it, and neither did anyone else.

Politicians openly game the system. They poll, then they change the message based on the poll, then they win. Then they do whatever they want since the platform on which they ran was a total fiction.

In truth, the only platform that really matters is the party platform. A career politician ignores that at his great peril, as they risk losing the support of an incredibly efficient, effective political machine.

And this is nothing new. The new thing is that, in an effort to feel sophisticated, more mainstream Americans are pushing aside the initial feelings of disgust. They tell themselves the story I've told above, and they tell themselves that that feeling of disgust is naive. It would be like being disgusted by gravity - totally pointless. The same thing occurs in the private sector, when bank leaders commit fraud and walk away. The fraud is explained away "well, he was just acting in his own interest" and the walking away is explained away "well, powerful people look out for each other."

The simple truth is that we need to stop pushing aside that feeling of disgust. It's there for a reason. We have an in-built sense of fairness that our government, and our business leaders, ignore at their great peril.

> well, he was just acting in his own interest

That's a perfectly good justification, though: if you're feeling disgusted by people acting in their own interest, then you've designed the system of incentives (the thing that gives them interests to act in) wrong. To think otherwise is to be disgusted by the very concept of economics.

Don't you see? That argument itself seeks to remove one of the costs of such behavior, the cost of lost reputation.

There used to be quite a lot of social value placed on people showing restraint. Having power, but not using it. Implicit in your argument is the assertion that you don't respect self-restraint. And when people stop respecting restraint, then people in power have no more reason to show restraint.

Reflexivity at it's best.

So, make that decision explicit. Would you prefer to live in a world where people with power restrained themselves? Or would you prefer to live in a world where people with power act with no more restraint than what is legal and in their interest? If the former then you need to stop using self-interest as justification for behavior.

Except that downandout is talking about his re-election, not his original election to the presidency. In that case, it's quite obvious he knowingly lied.

> A more charitable reading is that Obama didn't lie, he was just an idealist and changed position when he was confronted with the realities of being President.

That's very charitable in my book.. but in no means noble or moral and not sure why you are defending him.

Let's give another example and stretch it a little bit. You are being promised a work of world peace leader, you love the idea you accept the job, the day you come into the work they tell you its all just public outlook, and in reality you are going to manage tanks and bombs factory.

Do you continue because you "changed position when was confronted with the realities" or you simply quit?? Nothing stops Obama from resigning given he was faced with the reality of the office. That's how you recognize a real man. He knows when the job is too big for him, OR when its against his views. If you change them as you go, you don't hold any integrity. But again, Obama changed his point of view and raped constitution too many times for me to expect anything else from him. He is best at entertaining masses at "The View" show or giving high-fives on women's NFL meetings.

> That's not to defend it, but I don't think Obama knowingly and cynically lied his way into office.

Saying "you have a right to your reading list and your library account not being scrutinized and searched through by government" during his 2008 election tour, while becoming President and doing nothing to stop that but heck going in the opposite direction and allowing the massive vacuum of the entire digital traffic channeling through US soil in the name of capturing couple bad guys does indeed prove to me he cynically lied and was never really interested to work in the name of american people. We could continue how horrible president he is but i fell like puking. It doesnt really matter because talking about all this won't change anything. We all need to pray for next 3 years that this man will do as little damage as possible and once done, whomever comes next (please have it NOT be Clinton) will clean up as much mess as possible.

"or you simply quit??"

That's just silly. I'm not trying to defend his actions but I do want to defend a sane persons option to change their mind in light of more evidence / information. You don't just quit. You re-examine your priorities and adjust your outlook.

Adjust, not abandon. And if you do abandon your stance, you owe it to your constituency to reveal the evidence and explain your change in reasoning.

I'm always curious of why people feel the need to defend various people who are obviously breaking rules, laws and other moral codes.

The government works for the people - not the other way around. We should be at least as suspicious of them as they are of us.

You're being too charitable: http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/12/22/president_obamas...

>I only wish that Snowden would have been in a position to leak this stuff about a week before Obama was reelected.

Politics is the mind killer. Partisanship is already interfering with many progressives' ability to evaluate this situation rationally; had it been released in the middle of a heated election battle, that problem would arguably have been much, much worse.

"I only wish that Snowden would have been in a position to leak this stuff about a week before Obama was reelected. At least then voters would have been able to make an informed decision."

For everyone for whom his war crimes, failure to fix healthcare, war on drugs, anti-transparency policies, support of the patriot act, legalizing the indefinite detention of Americans without trial, lack of action on climate change, failure to fix our infrastructure, failure to prosecute/reform wall street, illegal drone strikes, destroying freedom of the press, torturing whistleblowers, selling public schools to private corporations, war on religion, etc. weren't already enough.

Because Obama can pass laws and is king of america? He can't do shit all if he can't get congress to agree on doing those things.

As others have said, it's a large group of people complicit in this machine, you can't put all of your focus on one figurehead and blame him like a scapegoat.

> I don't like the fact that a man who clearly lied about his fundamental political views just to get elected is sitting in the Oval Office right now.

Right, Mitt Romney didn't lie about anything. Except of course every time he opened his mouth (many links, here's one with a pretty long list: http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/12/14397013-chroni...)

Mitt Romney was an inveterate, habitual liar, on virtually every topic.

Bush in 2000 ran on a platform of non-interventionist international policy.

It alarms me to think that people don't realize how little Obama had to do with this, and how much it has to do with Dick Cheney.

Obama is at fault for continuing it, but Cheney would have had way more hooks into a Romney presidency to continue to push it further and further beyond what it is currently.

Also, I don't think anything short of pictures of Obama eating children would have changed the outcome of that race.

"Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the point of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush?"

C'mon man, why does everything have to be partisan? Can't you just admit that both of your major parties are douches and do something about it, instead of arguing about who's worse? It ends up hijacking the entire thread.

The whole republican v.s. democrat thing is just a tired facade... Kind of obvious by now isn't it?

I don't think he was saying that Bush or Republicans are better, rather the opposite.

Back when GWB was in power he was widely deride as a tyrant (especially online) and the worst thing to happen to American foreign relations ever. Yet it would not be hard to make an argument that Obama has been worse with regards to civil liberties and foreign relations. Different guy, different party, same (or worse) policies.

Also remember Obama was (re)elected only some months ago.

OK, I get it, however I just don't think it's productive to argue over who's the bigger tyrant. It's a fixation that tends to drown out all other potentially meaningful and / or productive conversation.

I think you missed the point. He was basically saying that Obama and Bush are the same.

IMHO the problem lies in the winner-take-all voting system. A vote for a third party just counts "against" the primary one you would've voted for if the 3rd wasn't there.

It also prevents the crazies in the green and libertarian parties from getting any real power. And they do have extreme platforms that most Americans would not stand for.

Great point. The real choice is between liberty and statism. And the difference between republicans and democrats on this point is truly minuscule.

Wait, do you really think that the USG only started hacking Chinese communications, or collecting intel on foreign governments and countries, on or after Jan 20, 2009?

>But this revelation goes the other way. I really can't predict how China will take this.

Super pissed and not at all inclined to play ball with the US. They probably knew/suspected anyway, but this just plays into their hand so they won't let such minor details interfere.

I sure hope China refuses to hand him over. The US intelligence has overplay its hand & they could do with a trashing or two.

> But this revelation goes the other way.

That's not what this is saying. China hacks US and other foreign corporations for specific and exclusive economic gains. They steal intellectual property and pass that IP onto Chinese competing companies.

The US hacking into China is state run spycraft. Maybe it's not good, but it's not "the other way", because that implies the US government is taking intellectual property from Chinese companies and passing it on to US companies. There is NO evidence that such a thing is happening at a scale anywhere approaching Chinese activities.

> Who knew in 2008 that during the Obama administration it may get to the point of people wishing for the good ol' days of George W. Bush?

Republicans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com