Edward Snowden Shows Up In Park City, Utah

edward snowden
Well, only virtually, but it is one of the most interesting interviews I’ve ever heard. The obvious weight of the event makes the audience eerily silent through the first part. In fact I wasn’t even aware there was an audience until Snowden gets applause for the first of many statements that are undeniably illumining of our times, in ways you haven’t thought of before.

He’s had a lot of time to think about what he did, by breaking the law with the knowlege his life would be changing, forever. Personally, I think the guy is brilliant, obviously brave, and very hard to refute, even considering the stunning scope of his actions.

He points out that fewer of our leaders have been calling for his head since his revelations first came out, and that’s not really an exaggeration. There’s still one man, James Woolsey, who very recently called for him to be hung and even blames him for the terrorist attack in France.

In a presidential debate, Hillary Clinton was not much more forgiving then Woolsey. Bernie Sanders said he should pay a price for what he did, but also acknowledged that his actions have had positive effects. Surprisingly, Snowden agrees with Sanders and has even said he would stand trial, and be willing to go to prison, providing he gets a fair and transparent trial. Humorously, he has documents that state the only thing our government has guaranteed, is that he won’t be tortured.

Interviewer Doug Fabrizio, tests him pretty hard on his insistence that handing the top secret NSA documents to the media for careful release to the public was a safe way to go, and, indeed, top officials testifying have admitted that nobody has been put in danger. Pretty amazing.

Be sure to carfully listen to the whole show. The points Snowden makes at the end are compelling and irrefutable.

Radio West, 11-07-2015

  1. #1 by Richard Warnick on December 8, 2015 - 8:45 am

    That no-torture guarantee ought to apply to everybody. Torture is highly illegal and the U.S. government wouldn’t dare break the law. 😉

  2. #2 by Larry Bergan on December 9, 2015 - 1:26 pm

    To expand on what Hillary Clinton said at the democratic debate, she said that Snowden could have gone through “official channels” and obtained “whistle blower protection”. If that was supposed to be a joke, it was probably the worst one ever told. It’s common knowledge that whistle blowers have even less protection now, then they had when George W. Bush occupied the white house.

    Notwithstanding the Bradley Manning saga, here’s one man’s story about breaking the law in 2004 to do the right thing. I’m guessing you’ve never heard of him, but I consider him to be an American hero.

    It was after this event that governor Herbert, who was Lt. governor at the time, rushed us into purchasing Utah’s Diebold equipment for the state and forced every election official to comply.

    I even confronted Herbert about the Diebold matter in person before the purchase, and his attitude was that everybody makes mistakes. :(

  3. #3 by Larry Bergan on December 9, 2015 - 1:36 pm

    Yes, I consider voting machines to be a national security matter. Unlike Muslims, they NEVER make the news.

  4. #4 by Larry Bergan on December 9, 2015 - 1:39 pm

    Snowden’s style reminds me of Tim DeChristopher. You have to listen to them very intently. They don’t talk in the bumper-sticker language you’re used to hearing. They both give me hope for the future.

  5. #5 by Larry Bergan on December 9, 2015 - 2:04 pm

    Bernie Sanders has been taking some real heat from the left for his answer at the democratic debate, but it was a heck of lot better then Hillary’s.

    Concerning Snowdens decision to leave the country: you have to admit he’s got a much better forum today then Manning, and all he’s asking for is a fair and transparent trial, which I think Sanders would be more then willing to give him. Tim DeChristopher got raked over the coals in court. It was exactly the type of “show trial” Snowden would surely have been put through if he had stayed.

    • #6 by Richard Warnick on December 10, 2015 - 8:58 am

      What really bothers me about the Tim DeChristopher case is that the judge plainly stated during sentencing that Tim was being given prison time not for what he did, but for what he SAID afterward.

      San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman is using a different approach. He engaged in civil disobedience, and encouraged others to follow his lead. Damage to public land resources ensued. Now, to avoid a prison sentence, he’s saying he’s sorry and has already suffered enough!

      • #7 by Larry Bergan on December 10, 2015 - 5:35 pm

        The thing that irked me the most about the DeChristopher trial is that pamphlets were handed to the jurors, not telling them how to vote, but just what rights they had as jurors. The prosecutor went crazy, got rid of the jury and replaced them with jurors that were told they didn’t have the right to vote their conscience; they had to follow the judges orders. Why even have a jury?

        Tim also couldn’t even present his best arguments to the jury. As I recall, they weren’t even told that the oil companies were breaking the law. But then, as we know, corporations are people in the 21st century, unless it serves them better NOT to be people.

        I doubt Phil Lyman is going to be in solitary confinement at any time during his possible sentence, since he has the governor on his side.

(will not be published)

%d bloggers like this: