SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the keeping-your-friends-close-and-your-enemies-closer dept.
Edward Snowden said that from contacts he has had with those in the White House and in President Obama's orbit, "we've come to understand that [Obama] was personally wounded as a result of these disclosures," which prompted Snowden to seek asylum outside the country.
[...] Snowden also addressed the notion of President Obama pardoning him. Based on communications he had with Obama's White House and those in the former president's orbit, Snowden realized he would not receive a pardon because the information Snowden leaked significantly damaged Obama's legacy.
[...] It had long been speculated, leading up to Obama's final hours in office, that he would grant Snowden a 11th hour pardon.
Snowden, however, disputed this notion saying, "I don't think it was a likely case. I'm not even sure it was a possible case, because the president himself was the one most personally embarrassed by these disclosures."
"[Obama] campaigned in 2007...on the platform of saying he would end exactly this kind of warrantless mass surveillance," Snowden continued. "In secret, instead of ending this programs, he entrenched them and expanded them. He made their reach greater, he made their use more common, he normalized what had been an unlawful and unpopular program of the George Bush administration and made it a new American tradition."
Will Obama's legacy come to be, as Snowden seems to suggest, that he normalized police state surveillance?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Sunday June 04 2017, @09:18PM (2 children)
And that's absolutely the way it should be. If not, then what does it say about a country or an individual if they judge someone by the colour of their skin, gender, religion, or any other such thing, over what they achieved (or failed to achieve), and how they went about it?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday June 04 2017, @09:37PM (1 child)
I agree with you. No doubt. But she will also forever be noted as being the first female. There might be other factors involved such as having a few Queens as rulers, it might take the edge off a bit. But in her case it might also come down to political polarization -- many people where very happy when she died, I even recall the 'ding-dong-the-wicked-witch-is-dead' thing. Perhaps more happier then when a similar male died. The miners or labor unions hated her guts, while people that liked her will remember her for other things -- such as the Falklands war or the IRA or the special friendship with Reagan and the USA. If you do something noteworthy it is naturally easier to remember that, but if you do almost nothing worth remembering then you remember something - like being the first black president. If a lot of other X follow the first X then that also takes a bit of the thing away, Thatcher ... man man man man ... May (26 years between them). If the list for US-presidents goes ... WHITE ... Black ... and then never black again he'll be remembered as the black president, if more comes along then it will fade eventually.
In some regards it might be sad that we classify people by gender, race or whatever attributes. But we keep doing it no matter how out of style one might think or say that it should be. It's just to easy and obvious not to. It might not be to judge them but just a matter of simple classification.
(Score: 3, Touché) by driverless on Monday June 05 2017, @05:20AM
Going back at least as far as Edward II, and definitely James I.