Marc Andreessen: Snowden Is 'A Textbook Traitor'

[Aluisious]

I wish I could ignore posts that quote Stiletto. FFS get a job or something.

 

[heatlesssun]

And I'd also re-apply your logic by saying that if Obama wants everyone out of Gitmo, then he should be honest about it(just kidding...honesty isn't a concept he understands). This appears to be nothing more than a maneuver to surreptitiously empty Gitmo so he can salvage his shambles of a presidency by claiming he pulled through on that promise.

Half the people in Gitmo shouldn't even be there and have been cleared to leave. But now we're probably too scared to release them because we just pissed off a lot of folks holding them indefinitely without any kind of process.

The war in Afghanistan is drawing to a close. Are we going to keep it open past the end that war? At this point anything we do to get some stability in Afghanistan is going to be through dealing, not fighting. And I don't see how keeping Gitmo open past the end of the war does anything but make the situation in Afghanistan but worse for us.

 

[Stiletto]

Would it have been ok to let this guy die in captivity if there was a way to get him out? That's the at the very heart of the whole thing. Maybe Burgdahl is a traitor or deserter and may the price was too high to get him back. But everyone blasting the President now would be blasting him still if Burgdahl has died in captivity. That's not a straw man, that's the truth.

Would it have been worth sacrificing the lives of American soldiers that weren't traitors to get him out?

I'll give a big, fat, resounding NO to that. Do you disagree?

 

[Stiletto]

Half the people in Gitmo shouldn't even be there and have been cleared to leave. But now we're probably too scared to release them because we just pissed off a lot of folks holding them indefinitely without any kind of process.

So that gives Obama the right to sidestep Congress and further damage the checks and balances system? I wonder if you'll feel that way with, say, a President Rand Paul.

The war in Afghanistan is drawing to a close. Are we going to keep it open past the end that war? At this point anything we do to get some stability in Afghanistan is going to be through dealing, not fighting. And I don't see how keeping Gitmo open past the end of the war does anything but make the situation in Afghanistan but worse for us.

Frankly, I'd like Gitmo closed and the people released as well. I just don't want the separation of powers obliterated in the process.

 

[amddragonpc]

Welcome to reality Marc Andreesen. Now take your blue pill and STFU.

 

[m heisty]

Who the fuck cares if that guy would have died in captivity, other than his parents who by all public accounts are likely MKUltra patients. There is video evidence and a note from the guy that he was leaving his post voluntarily. American soldiers died trying to find him. Anyone who defends the actions of this guy or anyone who worked to "rescue" him need to be taken to the shed and whipped with a belt for their idiocy.

 

[heatlesssun]

Would it have been worth sacrificing the lives of American soldiers that weren't traitors to get him out?

I'll give a big, fat, resounding NO to that. Do you disagree?

But you seem to keep ignoring that Sargent Bergdahl is STILL an active serving member of our militarily how again, was promoted twice while in captivity. Maybe the guy is guilty of everything that's been said about him but officially that's never been determined by the military and as such the military was bound to do for him what they would have done for any other service member. And if you don't like this answer, well it's not my answer. This is coming from the military's top brass.

 

[m heisty]

But you seem to keep ignoring that Sargent Bergdahl is STILL an active serving member of our militarily how again, was promoted twice while in captivity. Maybe the guy is guilty of everything that's been said about him but officially that's never been determined by the military and as such the military was bound to do for him what they would have done for any other service member. And if you don't like this answer, well it's not my answer. This is coming from the military's top brass.

All POWs get promoted to a minimum rank. There are special benefits for the families of POWs. These benefits require a minimum rank. The fact that he was promoted twice is irrelevant to the point that he vacated his post.

 

[heatlesssun]

Frankly, I'd like Gitmo closed and the people released as well. I just don't want the separation of powers obliterated in the process.

Considering that Gitmo is located where the US Constitution doesn't apply so that the Constitution can be subverted, your statement is well, let's just say it helps to point to the heart of the matter of what is so fundamentally messed up about Gitmo.

 

[heatlesssun]

All POWs get promoted to a minimum rank. There are special benefits for the families of POWs. These benefits require a minimum rank. The fact that he was promoted twice is irrelevant to the point that he vacated his post.

I get that, the point though is that he is still an active serving member of the military and has never been court marshaled. As such the military is bound to treat him like any other solider. Maybe he should have been court marshaled in absentia but I don't think that's possible to do with POWs while they are still captive. It sounds like to me that some may have more an issue with military justice and law than Obama in this case.

 

[m heisty]

I get that, the point though is that he is still an active serving member of the military and has never been court marshaled. As such the military is bound to treat him like any other solider. Maybe he should have been court marshaled in absentia but I don't think that's possible to do with POWs while they are still captive. It sounds like to me that some may have more an issue with military justice and law than Obama in this case.

There is a problem with your defense. You can't be tried of a crime in the United States if you can't stand to your own defense. So to give "he is still active duty" as a reason for the actions taken to secure his release. While technically true, are weak at best. People are pissed at Obama because this is just the next thing in a long string of incompetence by him or his team. He has consistently shredded the Constitution and the separation of powers in the last 4 years.

 

[heatlesssun]

There is a problem with your defense. You can't be tried of a crime in the United States if you can't stand to your own defense. So to give "he is still active duty" as a reason for the actions taken to secure his release. While technically true, are weak at best. People are pissed at Obama because this is just the next thing in a long string of incompetence by him or his team. He has consistently shredded the Constitution and the separation of powers in the last 4 years.

Prisoner trades at the end of wars is far from unconstitutional and abnormal. If you think Bergdhal should have been left behind that's fair enough. But that's a VERY touchy subject in the military and there's no way that leaving an active serving solider behind wouldn't have the same people that don't like this deal from setting themselves on fire over leaving a solider behind.

 

[mesyn191]

It's hard to prove they're doing illegal shit when they destroy the evidence and smash anyone looking into it.

That is related to the NSA spying debacle, which spans at least 2 presidencies (Bush Jr and Obama's), and not the other stuff Stilleto is attributing to Obama directly as illegal. Stilleto is just making claims, claims which are generally repeated by Retail Repubs and Teahadi's, which haven't been shown to be true despite years, in some cases, of efforts to prove they're true by a Repub dominated Congress.

So they're above the law and we should just deal with it, got it! ....Yay, pat yourself on the back. Not really, tool!

You don't get it. The rules have been changed, with multiple Congresses consent, to make their actions legal. IOW they're in compliance with the law as it currently exists and not above it. This doesn't mean I agree with everything the President does or can do due to the powers his office has but that is the way it is right now.

 

[Stiletto]

But you seem to keep ignoring that Sargent Bergdahl is STILL an active serving member of our militarily how again, was promoted twice while in captivity. Maybe the guy is guilty of everything that's been said about him but officially that's never been determined by the military and as such the military was bound to do for him what they would have done for any other service member. And if you don't like this answer, well it's not my answer. This is coming from the military's top brass.

So his being in the military entitles him to not be called a traitor in the face of overwhelming evidence to that fact? Nope. And "top brass" being the Pentagon, which I already showed you is lockstep with the White House on this, as are you. All of you, with this "how dare you impugn the reputation of a mighty soldier". Yeah, these from the people who brought you Pat Tillman. Your fealty to your cult figure is quite dogged.

 

[Stiletto]

Considering that Gitmo is located where the US Constitution doesn't apply so that the Constitution can be subverted, your statement is well, let's just say it helps to point to the heart of the matter of what is so fundamentally messed up about Gitmo.

Oh, so because of the complicated nature of our presence in Guantanamo Bay, the president is entitled to ignore the laws of the country he governs to further his political career. Yeah, I get it.

North Korea ain't got nothing on some of the people here.

 

[heatlesssun]

So his being in the military entitles him to not be called a traitor in the face of overwhelming evidence to that fact?

People can call him anything they want. But until he's court marshalled and convicted, the military is required by their on laws to treat him like every other solider.

 

[Stiletto]

People can call him anything they want. But until he's court marshalled and convicted, the military is required by their on laws to treat him like every other solider.

The info is out. His guilt is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point. You are arguing semantics to protect Obama, like all the remaining acolytes that excuse his every move. Then again, why should I be surprised? I loved it when I asked you to name something wrong that Democrats had done, and you responded with "They did what the Republicans wanted". There's a wonderful duality of hilarity and horror in such sycophancy.

 

[heatlesssun]

Oh, so because of the complicated nature of our presence in Guantanamo Bay, the president is entitled to ignore the laws of the country he governs to further his political career. Yeah, I get it.

North Korea ain't got nothing on some of the people here.

I was just pointing out the irony of saying that Obama was using unconstitutional means to shut down something that's located where it is because it's unconstitutional.

 

[Stiletto]

I was just pointing out the irony of saying that Obama was using unconstitutional means to shut down something that's located where it is because it's unconstitutional.

There's automatic irony in Obama doing anything constitutional since he was a constitutional law professor and in any sane world he'd have been repeatedly raked over the coals by the same leftists who considered the Constitution sacred under Bush, and will suddenly do so again in 2016 when Hillary loses.

I'm really looking forward to those of you devoted followers who attempt to whitewash his legacy when he leaves office. You're going to be some of the angriest people in the country when his history is brought up.

 

[mesyn191]

Don't move the goalposts just to dump on the Republicans.

I didn't move the goal posts. I cited an article that quotes the Pentagon saying they informed the responsible panel 5 hours before the deal was done. If the article is incorrect then show it to be and don't claim partisanship or goal post shifting which would be totally false if the article is correct.

By the way, I've never claimed that Obama's abuses of power were illegal, so you may want to ditch the straw man.

All abuses of power are inherently either illegal or immoral or both.

You claimed Obama was "openly abusing executive power" and I pointed out "executive orders aren't an abuse of power and you can disagree with them but that doesn't make them bad or illegal" and then you went a listed a bunch of supposed abuses of power. At least one of those supposed abuses of power was "Carrying out a several-months-long military incursion into a foreign country without following the War Powers Resolution" which would be an example of something illegal, and if true, Obama could and by now would with the Congress we have been impeached.

What is the War Powers Resolution?

"The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past, for example, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations."

So no strawmanning going on here.

 

[Semantics]

People can call him anything they want. But until he's court marshalled and convicted, the military is required by their on laws to treat him like every other solider.

Problem being in the US a court-martial requires the accused to stand before the court. And snowden has been summoned to court via warrant as he was charged with espionage, not convicted as he cannot be tried due to not appearing. So if you want to be technical he's still guilty of evading the law.

 

[Stiletto]

I didn't move the goal posts. I cited an article that quotes the Pentagon saying they informed the responsible panel 5 hours before the deal was done. If the article is incorrect then show it to be and don't claim partisanship or goal post shifting which would be totally false if the article is correct.

5 whole hours? Wow!!!

And I posted an article directly quoting Democratic heads plainly stating their lack of notification and you sidestepped it completely to turn it into an attack on Republican administration. It's pathetically transparent. Instead of addressing the comments of the Senate Intelligence Committee, you redirect to, "Yeah, but Republicans...". Nobody gives a fuck, including Dianne Feinstein. It wasn't a Republican that called her to apologize. Stop moving goalposts.

All abuses of power are inherently either illegal or immoral or both.

And I didn't say illegal, and your inferences are irrelevant. Notice heatlesssun has completely avoided quoting where I said illegal? The reason for that is because I didn't say it. Stop using straw men and stop moving goalposts. Your debate tactics are quite underhanded.

 

[m heisty]

First of all you all need to understand something about Washington. No one causes actual problems for others in what is called "the club." So as much hoopla as the Washington types make about XYZ problem, no one really causes any real problems for the club members.

 

[mesyn191]

5 whole hours? Wow!!!

I already said it'd be against the spirit of the law but followed the letter of the law and so no chance of impeachment if true.

You haven't shown that information to be incorrect so what is the problem here?

And I posted an article directly quoting Democratic heads plainly stating their lack of notification

Yes you did but their statement doesn't mean that Pentagon is lying or that Obama didn't follow the letter of the law. Which is what really matters here. Did he probably do it in a underhanded way? Sure, and he has as good as admitted it.

But if he followed the letter of the law, which you and others are saying he didn't, then any argument of him breaking the law is mooted.

and you sidestepped it completely to turn it into an attack on Republican administration.

I didn't attack anyone and I didn't sidestep it. I gave you other information, which if true, moots any and all argument of illegality on the President's part which goes directly to yours and others claims against him here.

And I didn't say illegal, and your inferences are irrelevant.

You didn't say illegal but you gave an example of something illegal as an abuse of power.

But OK so if abuses of power aren't illegal or immoral then what are they and why are they bad and how does that square with the examples you've already given?

Stop using straw men and stop moving goalposts. Your debate tactics are quite underhanded.

I'm not sure at this point you know what strawman attack or goal post shifting are and while you claim I'm being underhanded you've posted nothing to back that up nor have you substantiated anything you're saying. Claims are not evidence or substantial either BTW. Anyone can claim anything. Prove it.

 

[Stiletto]

I already said it'd be against the spirit of the law but followed the letter of the law and so no chance of impeachment if true.

You're talking impeachment now? Damn. I could infer all sorts of things.

Did he probably do it in a underhanded way? Sure, and he has as good as admitted it.

"As good as" my ass. Susan Rice is still clinging to the image of this guy as an honorable soldier. Do you really think they're fooling anyone apart from the remaining group of true believers?

But if he followed the letter of the law, which you and others are saying he didn't...

Straw man. Stop using them.

I didn't attack anyone and I didn't sidestep it. I gave you other information, which if true, moots any and all argument of illegality on the President's part which goes directly to yours and others claims against him here.

See previous response. Stop arguing with the imaginary pixie you see on my shoulder.

You didn't say illegal but you gave an example of something illegal as an abuse of power.

I gave multiple examples of abuse of power. Your cherry-picking of one to misrepresent my entire argument is as reprehensible as your other weasel tactics.

But OK so if abuses of power aren't illegal or immoral...

They are immoral. We could discuss that if you'd quit with the conflation of the two as well as the straw men.

I'm not sure at this point you know what strawman attack or goal post shifting are and while you claim I'm being underhanded you've posted nothing to back that up nor have you substantiated anything you're saying. Claims are not evidence or substantial either BTW. Anyone can claim anything. Prove it.

Straw man means addressing an argument that your opponent has not made, which you have repeatedly done now. Goalpost shifting is when you keep changing the standards of the argument. I never once mentioned the legality of the matter, only that it was one of many abuses of power. You keep attempting to shift it back solely to legality in order to shut down the discussion of the morality of his actions. Just like you shifted the discussion of Obama-loyal Democrats being outraged at his actions to a claim that the Republicans are ultimately responsible for Obama's actions.

GodDAMN, I just don't get how so many of you go to the wall for this guy. Clinton, at least, was clever. And at least Carter was the antithesis of Obama's passive aggressive narcissism. How you continue to summon a reason to support someone with such a dismal record, as well as a tendency to throw people under the bus, is utterly*cough*whiteguilt*cough* baffling.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

I wish I could ignore posts that quote Stiletto. FFS get a job or something.

Aw, be nice. He's kinda outspoken and stuff and his ideas are really weird sometimes...in fact, I'm not even sure he likes cats at all...but he's just trying to share his thoughts.

 

[heatlesssun]

There's automatic irony in Obama doing anything constitutional since he was a constitutional law professor and in any sane world he'd have been repeatedly raked over the coals by the same leftists who considered the Constitution sacred under Bush, and will suddenly do so again in 2016 when Hillary loses.

I'm really looking forward to those of you devoted followers who attempt to whitewash his legacy when he leaves office. You're going to be some of the angriest people in the country when his history is brought up.

When Hillary loses? You better hope that anyone you're supporting for President is a little less sure about that.

 

[mesyn191]

You're talking impeachment now? Damn. I could infer all sorts of things.

Sure but they wouldn't matter or be interesting since anyone can infer anything.

That is how conspiracy theories get started after all.

If he followed the letter of the law here, which both addresses the moral and legal aspects of any argument about Obama doing something wrong here, then there isn't anything to get in a uproar about. At least not reasonably anyways.

"As good as" my ass.

His 'no apologies' statement and legal arguments he is using as justification are about as close as you're going to get to a public admission of going about things in a underhanded fashion. If that is not enough for you then you're going to have to be disappointed with not only him but pretty much every President ever.

Straw man. Stop using them. See previous response. Stop arguing with the imaginary pixie you see on my shoulder. You keep attempting to shift it back solely to legality in order to shut down the discussion of the morality of his actions.

Obama not following the law here, specifically not informing the necessary parties within 30 days, is a argument based in legality. Your denial of this won't change that fact.

I gave multiple examples of abuse of power. Your cherry-picking of one

So you're admitting 1 of your 3 examples was based on supposed illegality but somehow =I'm= in the wrong here for cherry picking?! Cherry picking isn't even possible here since its only used in statistical misrepresentations! For it to apply you'd have to have given dozens or hundreds of examples, nearly all morality based, with only 1 or 2 legal examples.

They are immoral.

They can be either immoral or illegal or both. The definition is not a matter of opinion and is actually tends to have a legal application.

<snip brief explanation of strawman + goal post shifting>

OK good you know what they are but then it seems you don't know how to recognize them or to show that someone is using them.

I just don't get how so many of you go to the wall for this guy.

I've said before Obama is a shitty President. For me its not about defending him as calling out others BS about him which tends to distract others from the real issues that actually matter and not Benghazi or Berghdal or death panels or Agenda 21 or etc.

 

[chockomonkey]

When Hillary loses? You better hope that anyone you're supporting for President is a little less sure about that.

Scary fuckin thought, huh?

 

[Stiletto]

When Hillary loses? You better hope that anyone you're supporting for President is a little less sure about that.

Obama is dragging the DNC brand into life support with his hijinks. The age remarks about Hillary are already coming out, and the same misogyny that kept Sarah Palin out of the White House is going to do the same for her. Her history is going to be brutally displayed all over YouTube. I'm honestly expecting to feel sorry for her. The internet, in particular, is going to be bloodthirsty.

Rand Paul, Ben Carson, even Ted Cruz will easily be able to project more youth and energy, the same way Obama did. Chris Christie can lose all the weight he wants, but that bridge debacle doomed him. Jeb will be way too establishment, apart from the fact that the third Bush president in 30 years would be a national disgrace.

 

[Stiletto]

<snip>

Uh huh.

 

[heatlesssun]

I've said before Obama is a shitty President. For me its not about defending him as calling out others BS about him which tends to distract others from the real issues that actually matter and not Benghazi or Berghdal or death panels or Agenda 21 or etc.

In a lot of ways I couldn't be happier how the right is dealing with politics nationally. The right is almost literally setting itself on fire over everything Obama does. Then when someone agrees with his actions, those people are accused of worshiping a false god. It's about the least sophisticated politics nationally I've ever seen and what's amazing about it is that tons of conservatives totally get it. But because the extreme right has so much power at the primary level there's little they can do straighten things out.

 

[Naieve]

I consider the people destroying our rights to be the real traitors. They are betraying the Constitution they swore to uphold. Both in the letter, and the spirit.

Snowden merely betrayed the laws of the traitors.

 

[Stiletto]

The right is almost literally setting itself on fire over everything Obama does.

That's because he's incompetent.

However, I can produce the exact mirror-image phenomenon you're describing with two words:

Koch Brothers.

 

[mesyn191]

Their actions and efforts are very well documented and known though so that is no mirror image at all but an actual issue of the rich using their money for undue influence.

Usually Repubs/Teahadi's won't actually deny that though and will just shift goal posts to saying, 'well Soros does it too, nyah!' while totally ignoring Soros only ever donated a fraction of what the Koch Bros did to political candidates and he doesn't have anywhere near the political influence they do either. The most they'll do to back up their claims is say, 'he is a billionaire!' as if that explains anything.

 

[pigwalk]

The same misogyny that kept Sarah Palin out of the White House is going to do the same for her.

People didn't keep her out of the White House because she was a women. People turned against McCain and her because she was a Fox News Conservative Cartoon character.

I won't vote for Clinton (and I didn't last time) not because she's a woman, but because she seems like a shitty human being. Your husband cheats on you, gets caught and makes a mockery of your marriage in as public a manner as possible. Yet you stay by his side in what no one can see as anything but political reasons? Fuck that shit.

FYI - Hildawg was actually kind of hot back in the day.

 

[heatlesssun]

People didn't keep her out of the White House because she was a women. People turned against McCain and her because she was a Fox News Conservative Cartoon character.

I won't vote for Clinton (and I didn't last time) not because she's a woman, but because she seems like a shitty human being. Your husband cheats on you, gets caught and makes a mockery of your marriage in as public a manner as possible. Yet you stay by his side in what no one can see as anything but political reasons? Fuck that shit.

FYI - Hildawg was actually kind of hot back in the day.

Bill Clinton is a brilliant and gifted politician. Hillary, with her on ambitions saw that early and is probably why she married him. I think Barack Obama is an much more decent man than Clinton, but Clinton is the best politician of his era. Not as eloquent as Reagan, but much younger and smarter. I myself am an old fart around here and far more liberal than the vast majority around here. But since LBJ ran in 1964 before this old fart was born every single Democrat to hold the White House has been far younger than his Republican challenger. That's probably the only prayer that Republicans have in defeating Hillary. Until some old white right winger goes off on something like "legitimate rate."

Again, great time to be a liberal nationally because the right has absolutely no conception beyond their own echo chamber.

 

[DPI]

Read this NY Times article and then see if you still think Snowden is a traitor.

http://nytimes.com/2014/06/07/technology/internet-giants-erect-barriers-to-spy-agencies.html

None of this would be happening without him sacrificing himself to expose the NSA matrix. How history will judge him will take years if not decades to see the real impact.

 

[Stiletto]

Their actions and efforts are very well documented and known though so that is no mirror image at all but an actual issue of the rich using their money for undue influence.

Plenty of rich use their money for undue influence, but nobody complains about them.

Once again, we're not defending the Kochs or saying that they don't gain influence through their money. We're saying you're goddamned hypocrites when the Left enjoys quite a lot of support from the 1%...Obama in particular. Harry Reid's derangement over them sums up the frothing madness quite well.

 

[Stiletto]

People didn't keep her out of the White House because she was a women. People turned against McCain and her because she was a Fox News Conservative Cartoon character.

Yeah, whether calling her "Caribou Barbie", or talking about putting lipstick on a pig, or just printing t-shirts that say "Sarah Palin is a ", it's clear there wasn't a hint of misogyny in any of the attacks, just totally professional political conduct. Lord knows all the dumb shit she came up with. Russia attacking Ukraine? What a moronic bitch, right?

Hint: there was a reason that Hillbuzz actually defended Palin from this shit. They know, obviously better than you, that most of it wasn't partisan. The Left merely amplified the bigotry. When it goes the other way, hooo...as I said, I hate Hilldawg, but I'll feel sorry for her. Even some of the shit she got when Bill was in office was way over the line.