When pots call kettles black
It’s clear I think Edward Snowden should be prosecuted because he took an oath then reneged on this oath in violation of federal law. He’s not a hero for doing this. I think he’s needs attention and is a person in need of psychiatric counseling; then again so do many us.
Many people, including some involved in conservative politics, are conflicted because of the validation of their feelings, suspicions, beliefs and assured knowledge the government was (they feel) illegally monitoring the actions and contacts of average citizens. This type of governmental surveillance fishing expedition is allowable for no other reason than they want to, and have the authority to do so, based on sections of the Patriot Act.
So the question continually pops to the surface like a fishing bobber pulled from below: is it a fish or a crab causing the action? This means: is the issue being confused because it’s a real strike by a fish or is it because the crab is confusing the issue? You have to reel in the creature to understand.
The Obama Administration wants the guy’s head, and I admit I was one of those agreeing. Then I started hearing some of the details of what Snowden was “leaking”. It was more a tepid flow of information merely confirming what “conspiracy theorists” had been saying for years. Big Brother does exist and his presence is as insidious in America as we claim it to be behind the former Bamboo and Iron Curtains.
And, this is disturbing to many. Diplomatically it’s a nightmare.
Now, John Kerry is self-righteously proclaiming Snowden violated the Espionage Act of 1917 and he must be prosecuted for espionage. This is the same act James Rosen, Fox News correspondent, would have been prosecuted under if Eric Holder had his way after gaining a secret warrant issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. If you question the Obama Administration, or disclose the ignominious hypocrisy and double-standards they’re known for, Obama’s people will seek revenge as violently and as vehemently as possible.
Case in point: John Kerry returned from Vietnam in the 1970s. The first thing he did was gain notoriety for his service, both as a privileged character born with wealth and position assured, and noted as having been assigned to Vietnam in a combat position. He’s then alleged to have structured his actions so as to receive commendations and combat awards for actions he either exaggerated or outright staged for his benefit. This got him removed from combat early and he returned home flashing his combat awards. All this is argued by personnel said to have served with him. Others serving with Kerry say the allegations are false. I don’t know and couldn’t care less but having his exploits filmed was a nice touch.
What I do find sickening is Kerry’s hypocrisy. He went before Congress in a singularly self-serving manner and spoke of American fighting men’s actions he DID NOT witness but testified to as truth. This continued America’s damnation in the media and hampered the efforts of the United States while still involved in the Vietnam War. Some say Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy. If nothing else it was a public relations coup the Vietcong couldn’t have done better with if THEY engineered it. But, they didn’t have to: Kerry did it for them.
Kerry, because of his lip-lock on the Ted Kennedy’s backside, suffered no real threat of being charged with treason. It’s evident Kerry’s “revelations” were issued in a narcissistic and sociopathic manner showing no loyalty to his comrades, his oath as a military officer or his status as a member of the United States Naval Reserve until 1978. He was seeding the turf to harvest Kennedy support; a necessity to run for Congress in the near future of the time.
Kerry has the gall to demand Edward Snowden’s prosecution for espionage and collaterally treason. That’s rich.
But that’s what you need to get away with acts such as Snowden and Kerry have been accused of: you must be rich to get away with it. Let’s see how well Snowden does.
Thanks for listening