[chimeracoder]

The Streisand effect is in full force here. I only knew about this interview because Congressman Pompeo asked conference organizers to rescind their invitation to him on the grounds that Snowden is a "traitor"[0].

I can't watch this right now, but I'm looking forward to seeing it later tonight.

[0] http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-sxsw-snowden-speech-has-...

[bostonpete]

Do you really think his goal was to get them to rescind their invitation? I don't think I'm typically cynical on such matters but I have little doubt that his goal was to get publicity for asking for this invitation to be rescinded. I suspect he got exactly what he wanted here -- go on record against Snowden and get liberals attacking him. That can only help him fend off potential threats in a primary later this year...

[Crito]

> "and get liberals attacking him"

If there is one thing I don't understand about this entire issue, it is how partisan politics are actually playing out. Normally I just look at what people in my extended family think, but all of the Republicans/conservatives in my extended family think that all of this NSA stuff is A Big Deal(tm) and think Snowden a patriotic hero (presumably because they think that it paints the Obama administration in a bad light, which they are always all for.)

I agree with their conclusions, though I have a different motivation for doing so.

Furthermore, I would say that all or almost all of the pro-NSA viewpoints I have heard from people around me are from not necessarily liberals, but people who buy into the Democratic party line very hard. They seem to have the same basic motivation as my conservative relatives, though different political alignment.

What is the deal with pro-NSA Republicans/conservatives though? I haven't actually met any in person so I haven't been able to grill any. Has anybody else had the opportunity?

[nsxwolf]

I presume the pro-NSA Republicans and conservatives think they are taking a principled stand in defense against terrorism, even if it means standing with the Obama administration.

Most of my conservative friends and family (which are, in fact, most of my friends and family, period) are against the NSA not because of Obama, but because they are generally anti-big government and have been the "big brother is watching us" types for decades. They see this as vindication of a lifetime of accusations of paranoia from the Left.

[Crito]

> "Most of my conservative friends and family (which are, in fact, most of my friends and family, period) are against the NSA not because of Obama, but because they are generally anti-big government and have been the "big brother is watching us" types for decades. They see this as vindication of a lifetime of accusations of paranoia from the Left."

This is a good point; I am probably giving my family members too little credit.

[helloearth]

Forget the parties. Both sides have statists and anti statists. GOP senators like McCain, graham, are defending Obama on this, while democrats like Wyden, or Udall are aggressively anti nsa.

Feinstein, Pelosi, are super pro-NSA and they represent the most liberal population of the USA (California and San Francisco). Rand Paul who spoke against drones and said "if snowden should go to jail, then Clapper should join him" is from Kentucky. Wyden and Udall are from Oregon and Colorado.

I hate to generalize but it seems politicians from rural states are more pro-snowden, and those from the coast are pro-NSA.

[spamizbad]

> I hate to generalize but it seems politicians from rural states are more pro-snowden, and those from the coast are pro-NSA.

Good observation.

There are more terrorism targets on the coasts, too. I imagine these politicians have to pander to the "fear factor" of their constituents who are worried they'll get dirty-bombed by a terrorist unless we check under our beds for terrorists every night.

[conductr]

I have some pro-NSA conservatives in the family. I characterize them as being proNSA solely because they are seen as a government "defense" agency. They dislike Snowden solely because he broke the law. They have no concept of civil disobedience, I've made the MLK argument. They also don't fully grasp the severity of what the NSA is doing or it's implications. They also mostly believe what Fox News tells then too. I enjoy debating with them and find that they acknowledge logic, but fail to reason with it on most points.

[smtddr]

>>but all of the Republicans/conservatives in my extended family think that all of this NSA stuff is A Big Deal(tm) and think Snowden a patriotic hero (presumably because they think that it paints the Obama administration in a bad light, which they are always all for.)

I'm glad there are republicans/conservatives that are against what NSA is doing because it supports my wild theory[1] about what would happen if things finally reach a boiling point.

I'm not glad that they hold Obama responsible for something that probably started before he showed up and he probably doesn't have absolute power to shutdown.

Of course, I'm not happy that Obama publicly defends NSA's behavior. Since he doesn't need to be re-elected, I'm assuming the opinions he has these days are truly his own without any other motive. That hurts. :(

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7003678

[twoodfin]

I'm not glad that they hold Obama responsible for something that probably started before he showed up and he probably doesn't have absolute power to shutdown.

I'm sure you're right about the genesis of many NSA programs predating January, 2009, but as a practical matter, President Obama has the absolute authority to stop any of these programs as soon as he would like. It literally is as simple as asking General Alexander to the Oval Office, requesting a list of all current programs with a more or less detailed summary of their goals and methods, then ordering the General to end those programs the President finds unacceptable. Were General Alexander for some bizarre reason to refuse a direct order from his Commander in Chief, he could be fired immediately and his deputy given the same order.

For some reason, some people seem unwilling to accept that we do not live in a parliamentary system: The President has powers that cannot be suspended or absorbed by Congress, no matter how many laws they pass. There are certainly avenues for oversight, as well as budgetary, judicial and other checks on those powers, but the execution of national security policy is up to the guy in the White House. You're not just electing a speech-maker and bill-signer, you're electing an executive. Vote accordingly.

[wooter]

> he probably doesn't have absolute power to shutdown

He absolutely does. He could also pardon snowden. He could also fire clapper or even just not appoint him to the panel investigating the whole issue.

He took an Oath after all.

[bostonpete]

> Since he doesn't need to be re-elected, I'm assuming the opinions he has these days are truly his own without any other motive. That hurts. :(

If you believe he's doing it because it's what he believes is best for the country, that's the best you can hope for I guess. He's a smart guy, with an appreciation of the Constitution, and a lot more information available to him than the vast majority of people on any issue put before him. Given that he's not up for re-election again, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on his motivations in his second term.

That's not to say that I agree with every thing he does, just that I take comfort in knowing that he's relatively unencumbered at this point.

[danbmil99]

Any president would act thusly. He doesn't think he will abuse the power, and closing down the programs could risk him being blamed for any and all bad guy stuff for the rest of his term.

There is no upside for someone with power to ever give it up, for any reason at all. I'm still trying to figure out Gorbachev.

[MrZongle2]

I'm not glad that they hold Obama responsible for something that probably started before he showed up and he probably doesn't have absolute power to shutdown.

What one President can create without the involvement of the other two branches of government, his successor has the power to dismantle.

[CamperBob2]

It's not always that easy. Yes, any branch of government -- legislative, executive, or judicial -- has the authority to shut these programs down. But you can rest assured that the first people the NSA spied on were the politicians and judges who might try to stop them.

What happened to Eliot Spitzer didn't involve the NSA specifically, but I'm sure the lesson wasn't lost on anyone.

[jcampbell1]

It is the same paradox as the big military vs small government thinking in the republican party. This particular congressman is a big military republican.

Idealogical consistency isn't really important for either party. I just accept that.

[if_by_whisky]

Using the t word while trying to censor people that disagree with you politically is infuriatingly unpatriotic.

[fragsworth]

I assume you mean "traitor", but the same could probably be said of "terrorist"

[if_by_whisky]

What's the difference these days : p

[backlava]

Not exactly the Streisand effect since it's also the only reason many people have ever heard of Pompeo, which was probably the point.