Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jimmy Carter Calls Snowden Leak Ultimately "Beneficial"

timothy posted about a year ago | from the in-his-time-nsa-just-sold-cookies-and-helped-tourists dept.

Government 424

eldavojohn writes "According to RT, the 39th president of the United States made several statements worth noting at a meeting in Atlanta. Carter said that 'America has no functioning democracy at this moment' and 'the invasion of human rights and American privacy has gone too far.' The second comment sounded like Carter predicted the future would look favorably upon Snowden's leaks — at least those concerning domestic spying in the United States — as he said: 'I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial.' It may be worth noting that, stemming from Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, Jimmy Carter signed the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 into law and that Snowden has received at least one nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize."

cancel ×

424 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

+5 Insightful for (5, Insightful)

NickDanger3rdEye (1206476) | about a year ago | (#44317617)

Jimmy Carter.

Re:+5 Insightful for (5, Insightful)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about a year ago | (#44317635)


Mod parent up.

We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

Re:+5 Insightful for (4, Insightful)

RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about a year ago | (#44317693)

Unfortunately, I suspect the only reason he's spoken up about it is that he doesn't have anything left to lose. He's no longer in the public eye, and I can't even think of the last time that Carter may have been politically relevant. HOPEFULLY his opinion means enough to other people to effect positive change...but I doubt it.

Re:+5 Insightful for (-1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44317773)

As other have said, Carter was a complete disaster for the US. So since it takes one to know one, I trust his opinion on Snowden.

Re:+5 Insightful for (5, Informative)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44317853)

Carter was a complete disaster for the US.

Yes he was, but everybody after him has proven to be far worse.

Re:+5 Insightful for (4, Interesting)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44317871)

As other have said, Carter was a complete disaster for the US.

Yes, many others have said that. It doesn't mean it's true. Why do you think Carter "was a complete disaster for the US"?

Re:+5 Insightful for (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44317965)

Because Ronald Reagan created that myth when he ran for office, and perpetuating myths is absolutely an expertise of the American people.

Re:+5 Insightful for (3, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#44318275)

Horseshit. Carter was ineffective, bumbling idiot as a president, his economic policies where horible, inflation was rampant and interest rates were in the 20+ percentage area. He was weak in foreign policy and our adversaries took advantage of that. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and his response was to boycott the 80 Moscow games. His only shining foreign policy moment was getting Sadat and Begin to agree on peace of which I commend him. He and his cabinet failed to recognize the threat that Iran posed once the Shaw became ill and was thrown out of power. Other than that he was a waste of 4 years for this country.

He and Dubya will always probably be in the bottom 5, Obama will be there soon enough, just keep watching.

Re:+5 Insightful for (0)

tacokill (531275) | about a year ago | (#44318013)

Easy. Look at his record, past policies, and their impact on America.

Re:+5 Insightful for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318101)

I did. Okay, your turn!

This debate with no information is really insightful.

Re:+5 Insightful for (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44318067)

He bought into the shortage gloom-and-doom of the 1970s. Unfortunately a lot of people did back then even though. it was famously disproven in repeated 10 year experiment bets [juliansimon.org] .

He also listened to Nobel-winning economists who told him stagflation was fine for the working man, given nobody, Carter, Ford "WIN whip Inflation Now", nor Richard "Wage and Price Control" Nixon could seem to halt it. Then Reagan did.

And the hostage rescue failed miserably.

Re:+5 Insightful for (3, Interesting)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#44318151)

Raygun's staff changed the way that inflation was measured to something utterly irrelevant to reality. No much of an accomplishment.

Re:+5 Insightful for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318285)

Because sky-rocketing interest rates during his administration put a lot of small businesses OUT of business, including my father's company. A company that had been in business for over 120 years prior to Mr Carter and had weathered the Great Depression and had a solid customer base. As a FORMER president Jimmy is an outstanding human being, but as a President of the United States, his term in office was not good. This from a man that thinks both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were 1000x better leaders when in office - they LEAD the country, Jimmy was just a good old boy in residence at the White House.

Re:+5 Insightful for (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44317951)

As other have said, Carter has a fictitious legacy as a complete disaster for the US. So since it takes one to know one, I trust his opinion on Snowden.

There weren't really any policies that Carter set out that were bad. The oil crisis did, in fact, make life really terrible, but that was long-coming foreign policy chickens coming home to roost. Every criticism of carter seems to end up centering around how bad those 4 years were economically, which is a really hard thing to control over that time span, especially with a maliciously induced energy shortage.

Carter's legacy (5, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | about a year ago | (#44318127)

Carter was a complete disaster for the US.

Only by people who think Reagan was the second coming of George Washington. If you were dumb enough to vote for Bush the Lesser you might actually believe that Carter was a bad president. Carter was a mediocre president who served during a period of rather bad economic problems that were not his fault. His record is mixed but isn't especially bad overall. I'm old enough to actually remember when he was in office and there hasn't been a president since who I feel was substantially better and one who was considerably worse.

Re:+5 Insightful for (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44317795)

You nailed it. We always hear these types of 'confessions' from retired people and never the ones in office who have the power to actually change things. This game is as old as the hills. Remember, it was Carter who put Bush in charge of the CIA. Eh, it's our own fault for voting for these crooks. Obviously the voters have learned nothing and really don't care.

Re:+5 Insightful for (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317867)

Remember, it was Carter who put Bush in charge of the CIA.

And you're point is? Contrary to popular belief, President George H.W. Bush was not all that terrible of a President or political operator. He just wasn't all that popular. And he was actually a decent spookmaster.

Re:+5 Insightful for (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44318271)

...President George H.W. Bush was not all that terrible of a President...

If I read only government archives and lap dog press reports, I suppose I could come to the same conclusion...

Re:+5 Insightful for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317807)

I can't even think of the last time that Carter may have been politically relevant.

HOLD EVERYTHING!!! RonknrolZombie might have missed something in the last 30 years. Quick, someone organize a committee to figure out how to educate this cretin.

Re:+5 Insightful for (5, Informative)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#44318253)

Are you a troll, or just completely unaware of what takes place on this planet?

Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Price for his efforts at various hot spots around the world, including Palestine, Cuba, Korea, Egypt, Ireland, Haiti, Venezuela, and the Sudan (and I'm sure I'm missing some others.) He's poured himself into Habitat for Humanity. He created the Carter Center, which works for human rights around the world, peace, and is even fighting preventable diseases.

While he may have not accomplished much of note while in office, Carter has far and away been the most active, most influential, and best ex-president this country's ever seen.

Re:+5 Insightful for (5, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44317735)

Mod parent up.
We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

Bear in mind, Carter was a one term president, widely despised by Republicans and effectively abandoned by his own party -- unable to get many of his programs through a congress controlled by the Democratic Party (which at the time still contained a lot of southern social conservatives.)

He has worn the mantle of elder statesman and sage well since his time in office. Quite possibly one of the best educated and most greatly concerned for the american people of US presidents of the past century.

Re:+5 Insightful for (2)

Stormthirst (66538) | about a year ago | (#44317757)

He's a Democrat - of course the Republicans despise him.

Re:+5 Insightful for (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44318139)

He's a Democrat - of course the Republicans despise him.

Republicans seem to despise everyone, even themselves. Most dysfunctional political party I've seen since the death throes of the Perot Party.

Re:+5 Insightful for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317843)

Plus he fights crime with Louis Lane.

Re:+5 Insightful for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318083)

Plus he fights crime with Louis Lane.

If you think about it... yeah, kind of. He probably has done more good for the human race in any given week than most of us will do in our whole lives. President Carter is worthy of awe... and the comparison to Superman is, metaphorically of course, spot on.

Re:+5 Insightful for (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#44317941)

To be fair, I don't think anyone who was president from 1976-1980 could have been re-elected. Those were hard years for the US: high inflation, unemployment, the OPEC oil embargo, the bitter and recent memory of Vietnam, and the Iranian hostage crisis. That's just off the top of my head. No one could have solved all those problems at once, and it's easier to blame the President than to propose a solution.

Re:+5 Insightful for (5, Insightful)

fuzzybunny (112938) | about a year ago | (#44318077)

It should also be mentioned that most of those issues were caused by factors beyond the control of Carter and his administration (eg. the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis had their roots in the 1956 Iranian coup, stagflation was a global phenomenon which in the US was largely the result of the Nixon shock).

Then there's the whole October Surprise [wikipedia.org] topic; even without going into wingnut conspiracy mode, there's some things in there to make anyone go "hmm".

Arguably, Carter ushered in a lot of improvements - Camp David, the departments of energy and education, a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviets despite massive cold war tensions.

And last but not least, I can't see anyone arguing about the fact that the guy has (and had) integrity - which is saying a lot in a President.

Re:+5 Insightful for (5, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#44317949)

Carter had this little problem. He told the truth. He didn't secretly swap arms for hostages.

These sorts of things don't make you popular as President.

Re:+5 Insightful for (1)

RoccamOccam (953524) | about a year ago | (#44318011)

Excepting his fawning over various dictators. There's an insightful saying about him: "Jimmy Carter never met a dictator that he didn't like."

Re:+5 Insightful for (4, Insightful)

Geste (527302) | about a year ago | (#44318025)

Whatever his tribulations, Carter is the last US president that I had any respect for, and my esteem has increased with time..

Re:+5 Insightful for (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318267)

Whatever his tribulations, Carter is the last US president that I had any respect for, and my esteem has increased with time..

Clinton might not have been able to keep his trousers shut, but as a president he was intelligent and confident enough that he was not a marionette in the hand of his advisers. But that's about it post-Carter. Actually, more or less post-Nixon, though I don't remember anything particularly embarrassing about Ford's interlude. But then he was not elected in the first place.

In other words: the U.S. political system seems rather broken, judging from the quality of its results. Which brings us back to what Carter said.

Re:+5 Insightful for (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#44318295)

The original article in German: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/nsa-affaere-jimmy-carter-kritisiert-usa-a-911589.html [spiegel.de]

Google Translate: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?u=http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/nsa-affaere-jimmy-carter-kritisiert-usa-a-911589.html [googleusercontent.com]

As with most globally significant events, there's been a lot of foreign language reporting (on the Snowden mess), but very little of it filters back into the USA media-sphere

Two Other Outspoken Politicians (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year ago | (#44317755)

Mod parent up. We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of politicians speaking their minds about Snowden -- but I don't know if I'd call them "brave." Looking at just the previous administration, George W. Bush [rt.com] :

I think he damaged the security of the country

And Dick Cheney [huffingtonpost.com] :

I think he's a traitor

Of course, as another poster mentioned, they've got nothing to lose same as Carter.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians (4, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44317889)

cheny & gwb got nothing to lose from their legacies being labeled as illegal and as herding the country towards "non-functioning democracy". sure as fuck they got plenty of points to lose. if either of them said that what the programs are doing is wrong they would be saying that they were wrong and not just wrong but unconstitutional and as extension actual traitors to the country, so what are they gonna do? label snowden as traitor, of course... just like they didn't like a lot the leaks which effectively tell that they're war criminals.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44317905)

Mod parent up.

We need more brave politicians to finally speak their minds about this instead of fearing the surveillance machine.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of politicians speaking their minds about Snowden -- but I don't know if I'd call them "brave." Looking at just the previous administration, George W. Bush [rt.com] :

I think he damaged the security of the country

And Dick Cheney [huffingtonpost.com] :

I think he's a traitor

Of course, as another poster mentioned, they've got nothing to lose same as Carter.

Yeah, well Bush and Cheney are like two criminals who've never been tried for the scan of engaging the US in Iraq. I can't see them finding a silver lining in any of this. Somewhere along the line the Bush Whitehouse decided to behave like J. Edgar Hoover, sans dresses.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians (5, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#44317919)

From the article [huffingtonpost.com] you cited:

"I think he has committed crimes in effect by violating agreements given the position he had," he continued. "I think it's one of the worst occasions in my memory of somebody with access to classified information doing enormous damage to the national security interests of the United States."

The best thing to do with the Cheney quote is forget Cheney said it about Snowden. Re-read the quote, and imagine somebody else said it about Cheney. Which version rings more true?

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44318031)

To Cheney, "National Security Interests of the United States" means bandwidth of channels for money to Halliburton. I'm sure they provide some sort of "consulting" to the NSA.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians (5, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44317957)

Reminds me of an old Cold War joke.

Russian: You think your country is so great. Why?

American: In my country I can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

Russian: So what, in my country I too can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

P.S. At the time that was true in the United States. It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians (2)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#44318113)

P.S. At the time that was true in the United States. It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.

This has got to be in the running for the most insightful quip of the year. Says it all.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44318245)

Reminds me of an old Cold War joke.

Russian: You think your country is so great. Why?

American: In my country I can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

Russian: So what, in my country I too can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.

P.S. At the time that was true in the United States. It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.

One of the things I appreciate about Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert, keep us laughing at our own foibles, don't ignore those foibles, but recognize the idiocy of how we behave as parties, people and country. Under the Bush administration I felt we were approaching something vaguely Stalinist, where laughing at our mistakes was felt to be unpatriotic - when France challenged our information and motives for going into Iraq we had people re-naming French Fries as Freedom Fries - I think that was a very worrying thing and showed an extreme depth of stupidity. Turned out France was right to do so. Questioning government is the most patriotic thing we can do, not call ourselves pretend PATRIOTS and wrap ourselves up in the flag.

I do agree with Carter, the exposure of this sort of thing is healthy. Perhaps the government needs to do some of these things, but not under a cloak of double secrecy.

Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year ago | (#44318069)

I almost agree with Bush except, I think he damaged the security of the government. The country is quite a bit better off.

I also almost agree with Dick Cheney, he is a traitor to the status que within the government of obtaining more and stronger power in order to force the populace to do what the government wants with great disrespect to freedom and liberty.

He's not a politician (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317835)

The reason he can be brave, is that he's not a politician anymore.

When it comes to government-vs-governed, you either work for the government, or you don't. He used to, but he doesn't. So of course he's going to take the governed's side.

There might be a few handfuls of non-government people who selflessly take the anti-people side, but they're either literally stupid (in the sense that they wouldn't do well on IQ tests) or mentally ill. Seriously. Find anyone who is both anti-Snowden but also not a government employee or government contractor employee. 100% of these people are either dumb (you'll pick it up in a few minutes of talking to them about anything; it won't have to be politics) or crazy. I dare you to find a counter-example. You can't.

Note that I'm just talking about anti-Snowden non-government people. You will of course find some smart and sane people who are anti-Snowden. But for those people it's a simple case of "don't bite the hand that feeds you." I used to be rabidly anti-advertising but now I work in advertising to advance the cause of evil, so just like you can't trust me on ads, you can't trust government contractors on civics.

Re:He's not a politician (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318105)

I don't work for the government, nor do I work for a government contractor. I think Snowden is an arrogant fool.

Since I know I am not a moron, after a number of objective tests and a lifetime of experience, I am forced to conclude that you are talking out of your ass.

Re:+5 Insightful for (1)

Creepy (93888) | about a year ago | (#44317945)

Maybe he regrets setting up the FISC [wikipedia.org] in 1978 by signing the FISA Act [wikipedia.org] that that overstepped its bounds using the Patriot Act and now spies on Americans (but only 49% of the time).

Re:+5 Insightful for (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44318071)

Originally FISC was created as a safeguard, because of the findings of the Church committee [wikipedia.org] . The problem is that since then its powers have been expanded by the Patriot Act, etc. Furthermore, all courts are garbage if somebody has the judges in their pocket (ideologically and politically in this case, not financially).

Re:+5 Insightful for (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#44317969)

Carter for Preside-- aw crap.

Re:+5 Insightful for (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44318081)

He could still serve a 2nd term. I'd take him in a heartbeat.

Re:+5 Insightful for (2)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year ago | (#44318117)

Don't. He makes a much better ex-President.

Senator Gordon Humphrey (5, Informative)

PraiseBob (1923958) | about a year ago | (#44318009)

Here is the relevant message from a former Senator:

Mr. Snowden,

Provided you have not leaked information that would put in harms way any intelligence agent, I believe you have done the right thing in exposing what I regard as massive violation of the United States Constitution.

Having served in the United States Senate for twelve years as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee, I think I have a good grounding to reach my conclusion.

I wish you well in your efforts to secure asylum and encourage you to persevere.

Kindly acknowledge this message, so that I will know it reached you.

Regards,
Gordon J. Humphrey
Former United States Senator
New Hampshire


Here is another of his messages:

Mr. Greenwald,

Yes. It was I who sent the email message to Edward Snowden, thanking him for exposing astonishing violations of the US Constitution and encouraging him to persevere in the search for asylum.

To my knowledge, Mr. Snowden has disclosed only the existence of a program and not details that would place any person in harm's way. I regard him as a courageous whistle-blower.

I object to the monumentally disproportionate campaign being waged by the U.S. Government against Edward Snowden, while no effort is being made to identify, remove from office and bring to justice those officials who have abused power, seriously and repeatedly violating the Constitution of the United States and the rights of millions of unsuspecting citizens.

Americans concerned about the growing arrogance of our government and its increasingly menacing nature should be working to help Mr. Snowden find asylum. Former Members of Congress, especially, should step forward and speak out.

Regards,
Gordon Humphrey

Re:Senator Gordon Humphrey (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318199)

Mod the Discordian up

Re:+5 Insightful for (3, Insightful)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about a year ago | (#44318289)

Can I just say, that RT article provided no context whatsoever to this quote? Does Mr. Carter believe "America has no functioning democracy at this moment" because
a.) intrusive, pervasive domestic spying supresses minority views
b.) gerrymandering, incessant filibusters, etc have thwarted the evident will of the majority
c.) astroturfing, the Citizens United decision, opacity in finance of politics have warped the nature of small-d democracy in America?
d.) limiting access to the ballot, mandating ID at polling stations, etc have eroded the enfranchisement of voters?
e.) both major political parties are beholden to corporate and private money such that the outcome, whoever wins, is largely the same?
f.) the press, beset by false equivalencies, threatened constantly by acquisitions and downsizing, discouraged from publishing radical stances or asking difficult questions of the politicians on whose access its livelihood rests, has broken its compact with the public?
g.) all of the above?

Surely Mr. Carter is an expressive and thoughtful speaker, whether you agree or disagree with his views. I'm certain if you found the full content of what he said around his "no functioning democracy" statement, it would be far more illuminating than what was included in RT.

 

Re:+5 Insightful for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317721)

Show a little respect. That's President Carter, to you, Danger.

Re:+5 Insightful for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318175)

When millions of people were freakn-out of a nuke problem at Three Mile Island, Jimmy took charge. We learned that no-matter how bad the problem is, and doesn't matter three eyed fish and hippos with wings were spotted, just put on a pair of protective booties and the emergency is a non-event. I keep mine under the bed so when Japan's nuke plants were spilling shit I put them on. That's all it took, all is fine again! Thanks Jimmy !

Unfortunately (3, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44317619)

Jimmy Carter is no longer president of the United States.

He is not The One Who Is (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317767)

It's been said a few times by other people, but there goes: Jimmy Carter is pretty much the best former president the U.S.A. have ever had. Come to think of it, just like Obama might be remembered as the best future president the U.S.A. ever had.

Too bad we are living in the present.

Re:He is not The One Who Is (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44317879)

Why -1? I thought this was quite clever.

Re:He is not The One Who Is (0)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44318099)

It was -1 for the "moderator didn't agree" reason. Censorship in plain language.

Re:He is not The One Who Is (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44318173)

It's reminiscent of de Gaulle's comment on Brazil. Brazil had all the size, population, and natural resources of the US, "and therefore," the conventional wisdom which ignores politics went, "they will become wealthy and powerful like the US in the future."

This, BTW, is why Heinlein had Brazil as the center of world power in Starship Troopers.

But the wise who knew politics knew otherwise, and de Gaulle said Brazil was "the nation of the future...and always will be."

Re:Unfortunately (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317771)

We will still refer to him by the title "President." Please be civilized, and refrain from not doing so.

Correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317791)

Jimmy Carter is no longer president of the United States.

That's right. James Clapper is.

Re:Unfortunately (1, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44317991)

Jimmy Carter is no longer president of the United States.

I was just entering adulthood when Carter became president, so I have some recollection of that time... and I've got to disagree with your use of the word "unfortunately".

I voted for him back then; I greatly respect his work with Habitat for Humanity; and I think he's spot-on with his comments about this particular topic. That said, he was a terrible president. He was a very intelligent man, but had absolutely no idea how to be a leader nor how to get anything done.

wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317655)

people will quickly forget about it and our government will continue to spy.

Re:wrong (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317719)

people will quickly forget about it and our government will continue to spy.

NSA shill, please leave.

Re:wrong (1)

master_kaos (1027308) | about a year ago | (#44317797)

how is that shilling? The sad fact is, it is probably true. In a year or two from now this news story will most likely long be forgotten by the general public.

Re: wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317983)

You are an idiot and tge general.public.dowsnt exist

Damn it! (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44317669)

I hate agreeing with Carter.

Re:Damn it! (3, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#44317785)

Why? He is a generally good guy.

Re:Damn it! (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44318055)

Why?

Conditioning.

Same reason why so many people still think they only get to choose between Democrats and Republicans in elections.

Why? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317849)

I hate agreeing with Carter.

Why?

Looking back on history, I never got the dislike towards him. He was handed a bad deck into his presidency (inflation from Viet Nam, Oil embargo, stagflation, Iran hostages, military incompetence, and a couple of other things he was blamed for).

One of the most ballsy things he did was Tip O'Neil was elated that "one of them" was in the White House and Carter wouldn't play ball. And as we have seen many times, when one party controls both the Whitehouse and Congress, the pork flies and the budget sinks!

He was also one of our smartest presidents and one of the few who had some sort of science training - he was a nuclear engineer (BS, US Naval Academy).

So, why the dislike?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317997)

mod up. It's time the children learned the truth about President Carter... including that he has the brain the size of a planet. With near certainty, he is smarter, more rational, more driven and more ethical than any that will comment on this summary here today. Even his worst mistakes would make our greatest accomplishments seem inconsequential.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318161)

So what you are saying that his failures were monumental? Even I wasn't going to be that hard on the guy.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#44318047)

It's because he was an engineer. He was interested in facts and solutions, not maneuvering. He assumed that when he had the right answer, he could implement it, because other people would see that it was right and would agree with it.

To put it a different way: "Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and Jimmy Carter were good men, honorable men. But they disdained the game, and those who play it." - Varys

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318307)

It's because he was an engineer. He was interested in facts and solutions, not maneuvering. He assumed that when he had the right answer, he could implement it, because other people would see that it was right and would agree with it.

To put it a different way: "Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and Jimmy Carter were good men, honorable men. But they disdained the game, and those who play it." - Varys

Precisely. He honestly thought the best ideas would simply win out on their own merits, no convincing or horse-trading required. So he didn't bother, and came off as an aloof political idiot.

He couldn't even get along with his own party, let alone the opposition. Not to mention the Oil Crisis and a giant friggen volcano blew up, and the US had no power to prevent either, he just had to muddle through with the shit sandwich fate gave him.

Re:Why? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#44318061)

I think a lot of it was presentation and circumstances (as you mention). His presentation was "aw, shucks" and folksy. That plays as "moron" in much of the country, despite the man's credentials. I see a similar reaction to Obama's "academic" tone, which I think turns off the same people that Carter's folksy presentation appealed to. Personally, I like Obama's style better, even if I think he's got some pretty atrocious policies and a disaster of an executive style. Carter had a similarly horrid executive style, which may have frustrated his potential base. As a contrast, Reagan had a lot of success getting his way even though he had to deal with a split congress.

Re:Why? (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44318153)

So, why the dislike?

Partly it's image. He ran with a big smile saying "I believe America is a wonderful country". In 1976, after Nixon, Vietnam, Watergate and Ford, it sold real well. In 1980 it had passed it's sell-by date. By then people wanted a tough guy president to deal with the Iranians holding the hostages. Jimmy had the wrong image (never mind that he was actually much tougher about such things than Reagan). Also, people wanted a scapegoat.

Scapegoating (3, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about a year ago | (#44318273)

Looking back on history, I never got the dislike towards him.

It's mostly scapegoating from the right. Presidents who serve during tough economic times usually get a disproportionate amount of blame for problems that they weren't responsible for creating and often can't do much to fix. Since he wasn't exactly beloved by his own party, Carter is a fairly easy target by the conservatives. Their criticisms of him are rarely fair or accurate but the tactic has worked in the past.

Nobel Peace Prize (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44317687)

Give Snowden Obama's prize. He's not using it.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize (2)

fsagx (1936954) | about a year ago | (#44317873)

Henry Kissenger's is also available for a small fee.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44318167)

Let Henry the War Criminal keep his. It's a reminder of how meaningful the prize is.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#44318007)

Given the way he seems to be letting corporations and the security services dictate what should and shouldn't happen I'd argue the same applies to Obama's job too to be honest.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318213)

Would the U.S. of A. allow him to pick up the price, or would he be another empty chair? [guardian.co.uk]

Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily (5, Interesting)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#44317777)

I had not heard of these before and had to look it up. The privacy act ONLY applies to newspaper reporters, stemming from this incident:

"Respondents, a student newspaper that had published articles and photographs of a clash between demonstrators and police at a hospital, and staff members, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against, among others, petitioners, law enforcement and district attorney personnel, claiming that a search pursuant to a warrant issued on a judge's finding of probable cause that the newspaper (which was not involved in the unlawful acts) possessed photographs and negatives revealing the identities of demonstrators who had assaulted police officers at the hospital had deprived respondents of their constitutional rights." source [findlaw.com]

On a side note, when explaining the Privacy Act to the general public, Jimmy Carter is probably the only president ever to make this statement: "We have reduced the size of these Government files by more than 10 percent."

Re:Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317827)

Does anybody even click the links in the summary anymore? It's right there, no reason for you to be translator emeritus for /.

Re:Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#44317841)

I guess you didn't click my link, which was to a legal website instead of wikipedia.

Re:Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317891)

I guess you didn't click my link, which was to a legal website instead of wikipedia.

Right, same document as citation #3 on Wikipedia. Your point?

Re:Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317939)

Dude, I appreciate GP posting info that doesn't require me clicking through a bunch of sites. What's your problem?

Re:Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#44317977)

My point is to save people time, but apparently you are too self-righteous to appreciate it. I don't know why I bother responding to ACs.

Some years ago (2)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year ago | (#44317817)

...many American friends and relatives of mine would be agape at my alleged lack of political insight when I said: "Jimmy Carter was one of the best presidents the USA ever had". And now...

Re:Some years ago (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44318191)

Revenge is a dish best served cold (though hopefully w/ family "revenge" just means "I told you so").

Re:Some years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318277)

He was one of the most rational and honest President's America has ever had. Obviously that means he had to go.

JC (2)

hottoh (540941) | about a year ago | (#44317881)

He is more likable since he was president than when he was president.

sure, he likes Venezuela democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317913)

Not saying that USA democracy is perfect, but hearing this from someone that support the kind of fake "democracy" in Venezuela is astonishing. I still remember his private meeting with the, at that time president Chavez, a big media conglomerate owner, Cisneros, a good friend of him, and how a few weeks later Carter started to support every anti democracy decision made, how Cisneros channel stopped being critical of the government, how a TV station big competitor of Mr. Cisneros was closed

He can be right if his opinion, but everything that goes of his mouth is moved by his and his friends interests

Carter is Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317927)

I believe Carter is right that Snowden's leak about the NSA will be beneficial in the long run. This is about government surveillance, but more importantly it's about secrecy.

People like Feinstein, Graham and Obama came out supporting the NSA after Snowden's leak, saying it saved lives. That may be, but they failed to show that the program would not have saved lives if it was made public. In fact the program is still being continued. So why continue it if PRISM can't catch a terrorist now everyone knows about it? The entire argument is hypocritical. Snowden wouldn't have nothing to "Leak" if the government told its citizens these programs exist.

Also it's not like the terrorists have the means to effectively communication in real time via channels other than email, text or phone. If they can't communicate, they might just give up. In such a case, PRISM would save lives via deterrence, and there is still no need for secrecy.

I think the central point is that the US government decided instituting a spying program like PRISM will be massively unpopular. So instead of having the people debate over the issue, they proceeded in secrecy under the guise of national security. These kind of actions is against the ideals of Democracy, and Carter is pointing that out.

Funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44317953)

Why is there no mention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978? He signed that one too.

Strange.. (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#44318027)

This is the first set of comments that I've ever agreed with Jimmy Carter on. Maybe as we've both aged we've become more moderate, rational and reasonable? I mean he still puts inexplicable pauses in his speeches that for some ridiculous reason only he knows why.

"My.... fellow Americans. Tonight I'd .... like to discuss the.... Iran Hostage.... Situation.."

Man I was ready tear my TV a new one every time he'd come on... Not that wimpy Plasma LED shit we have now, no one of those glass busting go boom picture tube monsters that weighed 300lbs. The TV, not me...

Jimmy, I'll give you props you don't seem to be the liberal lunatic I once painted you as.

If I ever had any doubts that Snowden is wrong (-1, Troll)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about a year ago | (#44318059)

... then having the approval of the worst US president of the 20th century has removed all doubts from my mind. Snowden is definitely in the wrong if Jimmy Carter thinks otherwise.

There's no way to generalize. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318121)

Certain guys, like Patrick Volkerding and Jimmy Carter, make us reflect about how prejudices are wrong.

Personally, I wish Americans recover the hacker spirit these two men show, 'cause they don't just make the USA better -- they make the entire world better.

US Individual Liberty is an illusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318157)

Unfortunately, in the US, the phrase "Individual liberties" is tantamount to "3 out of every 5 Dentists..." In other words, its complete marketing bullshit. A mantra for lulling people into believing they have freedoms and that their rights are protected. So far, (barely) speech and religion are the only two that get discussed in the public discource. What about my right against illegal search and seizure? (wire-tapping, drug-screening for work etc.)

Let's take a cue from the Canadians and add something like their "Charter 10 Rights and Freedoms" and include the right to be free from invasive search like this and many other things, eg. random drug testing for low-level menial jobs when performance or behavior has not suggested substance abuse. In addition, corporations like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. should not be able to coerce you into signing a 20 page legal document that authorizes them to collect everything you've ever done, online, in an effort to "provide you a better shopping experience" (another phrase that is bullshit).

The only "group" that currently has any "freedom" is the one with money in the US. Its about damned time that we start protecting individual citizens, the People, and abolish this ridiculous notion that the Corporation has the same rights as those individuals.

I say, leave Snowden alone unless you can conclusively produce physical evidence that he harned the United States by sharing private State information with our enemies - I have yet to see anything that suggests he has!

*end of rant*

EgoaT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44318219)

hand...do8't [goat.cx]

Jimmy Carter? (-1, Troll)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44318297)

He's history's greatest monster!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>