

Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote - tim333
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57619771-83/colbert-turns-his-funny-gun-on-snowden-in-rsa-keynote/

======
zmanian
We still have a long way to go on educating the public. The 3 branches of
government have conspired in secret to enable programs the violate the rule of
law and create the conditions for a police state.

-The FISA court does not have the authority under statue or the Constitution to rule on the Constitutionality of NSA programs. The FISA court only has the authority to approve specific warrants.

\- The Senators and Representatives who objected to the secret
reinterpretation of Patriot Act for domestic surveillance have been unwilling
to risk their positions on the committee to reveal this to the public as they
have a moral duty to do.

\- The NSA specifically lost the legislative battle to embedded backdoors,
weaknesses and key escrow in commercial encryption battles. They lost and they
went ahead and did it anyway. Clearly subverting democratic intent.

------
dclowd9901
While I don't disagree that the NSA's directive is international information
gathering, and that should be the limit of its scope, I think Colbert's wrong
to think that's something that can exist without ever going far beyond its
scope. By natural consequence of having an extremely well funded organization
with zero oversight, if we don't have whistleblowers, they're going to take
advantage of the situation.

Which brings me to the counterpoint which is that Snowden shouldn't spend the
rest of his life in jail, which is what would invariably happen would be go to
trial in the US. I think it's of little matter that he revealed how we spy on
other countries. I think the point of that was to show that that's how we're
being spied _on_ by the 5 Eyes, who will freely share their spying
information.

~~~
icantthinkofone
>an extremely well funded organization with zero oversight

This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight.

>Snowden shouldn't spend the rest of his life in jail, which is what would
invariably happen would be go to trial in the US.

This, too, is a false statement and conjecture.

~~~
nailer
Snowden states he was able to look up information on any citizen, including
the President, without any explicit approval or subsequent investigation. What
evidence do you have to refute that?

~~~
jessedhillon
That's not the way logic works. Affirmative assertions need to be demonstrated
by the person making the claim. It's not encumbent on anyone to disprove
Snowden's claims; it's his responsibility to show that they are true.

~~~
nailer
The weird thing is the NSA has never refuted the very specific allegation of
Booz's access and the lack of supervision
([http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-
snowden-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-
whistleblower-surveillance)), merely just repeated that 'oversight exists'.
Since we're all discussing a massive series of leaked documents, how do you
logically think otherwise?

Let's see what the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has to say:

[http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/23/4651448/nsa-report-
reveals...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/23/4651448/nsa-report-reveals-some-
agents-abused-spying-power)

------
bsimpson
I just watched the 30 minute video trying to hear his opinion without being
wrapped in blogspam, and I think this article is a bit sensational.

The only reference I heard made to Snowden was in the very last question where
an audience member asks Colbert how to keep people from being afraid of the
government. In his reply, Colbert asked if what Snowden did was illegal, and
when the audience said yes, he essentially said one of the bravest (and most
morally admirable) things Snowden could do after breaking an unjust law is to
face trial and accept the resulting consequences. His position came across to
me as a combination of civil disobedience and traditional stand-and-face-the-
music thinking. He didn't at all come across as vitriolic of Snowden or deeply
offended by Snowden's actions.

Here's the video:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP9qqdE4O1I&t=1610](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP9qqdE4O1I&t=1610)

~~~
glenra
There were other references to Snowden in the video you linked. Two others I
noticed in the first 15 minutes:

(1) Colbert mentions it bothers him that Snowden _claimed_ he leaked in order
to let us know how then NSA was spying on _us_ , but then a lot of the
information revealed turned out to be about how we were spying on _others_.
Leaking that sort of info would only be justified if one is specifically
opposed to us spying on _other_ countries - and Colbert thinks the case for
that position hasn't really been made.

(2) Somebody asked what Colbert sees as the likely _endgame_ for Snowden.
Answer: Colbert guesses the guy will probably come home in the end, but it's
likely to take ten years before public opinion shifts his way enough to allow
that. As an example of an analogous situation, Colbert brings up the Americans
who fled the draft and were eventually pardoned by Ford and Carter.

------
danbruc
_Why, if Snowden was concerned with letting us know how we are spied on, why
did he let us know how we spy on other countries? I think we should spy on
other countries._

The last sentence is where he is - only in my opinion of course - completely
wrong; no country should spy on other countries without _very_ good reasons.
And wanting to know what is going on behind closed doors of foreign
governments or companies misses my definition of very good reasons by orders
of magnitude.

~~~
wheaties
I think k we should spy on other countries and share his view of Snowden. I'm
really glad Snow den leaked what he did, I just wish he didn't leak all of it.
It does raise many questions on motivation. if he's disgusted with spy work in
general he should just say so and be honest with the world. I could then have
more respect for him doing what he did (and I do respect the conversation he's
started.)

~~~
danbruc
Can you give good reasons why the United States should spy on other countries?
Or let's make it concrete, I am from Germany, why should the United States spy
on Germany?

~~~
wheaties
We can only gain by spying on you. We have a military base with defense
systems in your country. Your political decisions therefore will have an
impact on the effectiveness of our military system to defend our country.

~~~
danbruc
By robbing strangers in dark backstreets I can only gain, too. Because a
country can gain something is not a good reason at all. And how do German
decisions affect the United States' ability to defend themselves? We are
thousands of kilometers away. We could maybe decided that we no longer want US
military bases on German ground - quite unlikely if you ask me - but even if
so, how does that impact the ability of the United States to protect their
borders?

~~~
jessedhillon
By robbing strangers in the dark you can lose your life! I don't think you
understand the argument here. I sincerely think you are confusing strongly the
way you think the world should work with what decision-makers can do under the
limits of bounded rationality. Because something is to be gained is almost the
only justification for everything that happens.

If you want to figure out a world where people aren't self-interested and
risk-averse, maybe a church would be a better place for you to have that
discussion.

~~~
danbruc
If people are purely selfish, then everything is lost anyway - selfishness is
not able to sustain a human society. And while people have to be selfish to
some degree to sustain their lives, I see no reasons why they can not act
altruistically after they secured basic human needs like food and shelter.

And I agree that most if not all decisions are based or should be based on the
expected gain, but the question is then of course how you define or measure
that gain. There may actually be a real gain for a country if you spy on other
countries, but I argue that this is the wrong standard for gain in that
situation, a selfish definition of gain. I would strongly prefer to consider
the gain or loss for the whole world when evaluating decisions like whether or
not to spy on other countries.

------
thelettere
Colbert's funny as hell and as likeable as they come. But despite his
reputation, he's not exactly an "outside the box" thinker.

He's a deeply religious catholic, is patriotic and apparently believes in the
rule of law.

~~~
existencebox
I think our problems come when we start looking for any more than
entertainment in our entertainers.

He attributes the "greatest threat to security" to not voting and not watching
political money. I would politely disagree. Our "greatest threat to security"
is that our people take their opinions from the mouths of celebrities and
politicians, and not through careful consideration of the facts.

~~~
yellowbkpk
Nowadays, the most reliable way to see (at least more of) the facts on
television is by watching comedy shows. "Real" television news programs are in
the business of advertising to their viewers, not informing them.

How can you blame our people for taking their opinion from celebrities,
entertainers, and politicians when they are more informative than the avenues
that are supposed to inform us?

~~~
cjfont
Can you support this? So you don't think comedy shows have any advertising
agenda simply because their main purpose is to entertain? I would suggest that
they have an additional tool at their disposal (humor) to help put a spin on
matters.

~~~
yellowbkpk
My theory is that most of the comedy shows (The Daily Show, The Colbert
Report, etc.) make jokes out of showing the opposite end of extreme viewpoints
or stories that show up on news. You might be laughing at the absurdity, but
you're more informed.

------
michaelt

      But when it comes to doing the right thing for your 
      country, as Snowden has stated was his reason for leaking 
      the NSA documents, Colbert said that you must face the 
      consequences of the law.
    

Saddam Hussein faced the consequences of law too, but we all knew the outcome
before the trial even started.

If I was Snowden I wouldn't be in a hurry to return to the United States and
spend twenty years in prison.

~~~
pmr_
Ironically, none of the officials that caused the last Iraq war have even been
charged or investigated despite failing to produce any evidence of WMDs or
massive support for Al-Qaeda.

------
mratzloff
Stating that "the American People" voted for the Patriot Act repeatedly is
ignoring the massive disenfranchisement of Democratic voters in states with
Republican-controlled legislatures, and the gerrymandering that leads to a
lock on US House seats[1]. The goal of the Republican Party is to win
government by hook or by crook, and lately it's been the latter.

Without this gerrymandering, it's debatable how things might have gone
otherwise. Colbert might not have so much faith in the system if he played the
Redistricting Game [2].

[1] [http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-
part-1...](http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-
part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/)

[2] [http://www.redistrictinggame.org](http://www.redistrictinggame.org)

~~~
WiseWeasel
Gerrymandering works both ways; you can't bring up the disenfranchised
Democratic voters in Republican districts without recognizing the
disenfranchised Republican voters in Democratic districts, or third party
voters in every district. You could have simply stated that the goal of
established political parties is to win government by hook or by crook, with
preference to the latter since it requires less effort.

~~~
pilom
I think the argument mrartzloff is trying to make hinges on the fact that the
House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans even though republicans
lost the popular vote nation wide. i.e. 1.4 million more people voted for a
Democratic representative than a Republican one and yet, Republicans had 33
more seats than Democrats.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Represen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012)

There are at least 2 possible reasons for this. One which is argued above is
that it is because of gerrymandering districts. The second is that in
Democratic districts votes were more lopsided where in districts where
Republicans won, they won by smaller margins. In either case, more than 50% of
Americans voted for a Democrat to be their representative in the house of
representatives and yet Democrats do not hold the majority of seats.

------
krisvage
There is a video of this on youtube: /watch?v=bP9qqdE4O1I

------
axanoeychron
This is Colbert's 'truthiness' showing.

------
relampago
Disgusting. For those that thought Comedy Central brought you alternative news
(which I actually did during the Bush years) in the form of The Colbert Report
and The Daily Show should now know if not already that they're both just
talking heads paid for by the mainstream media apparatus.

