How can Snowden be a traitor if the NSA program is a figment of his imagination?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Those on defense seem to simultaneously claim that we're all hysterical over something that doesn't exactly exist but then they claim Snowden damaged US national security interests. If PRISM, or whatever, is a fiction then no damage could have been done.

[randome]

1. Because he also gave intelligence secrets to China by having them published.

Because none of his wild claims have any evidence to back them up so he is simultaneously damaging international relations.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Oh please.

Then we might as well haul-in Tom Clancy for his body of work and treat Matt Damon and Jeremy Renner as rogue agents.

[randome]

5. He broke his oath. Is that good enough?

Snowden is not engaging in 'free speech' on the level of an author or actor. And I don't see anyone treating him 'hysterically'. Seems like it's been a very measured response on the part of the intelligence community so far.

Unless you choose to believe Morales, of course. But then if anyone will take Snowden's word without evidence, it's easy to take anyone else's word, too.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Scootaloo]

7. What else do you have?

"He gave away secrets NO WAIT he broke an oath NO WAIT..."

And for the record, I'll take Evo Morales' word over yours.

[randome]

9. Obviously since that shoe-horns nicely with choosing to believe what Snowden says.

Evidence matters. There is no reason to get hysterical based on what someone says without evidence to back him up.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Scootaloo]

20. So if he made it up, then nothing at all was violated.

You can't have it both ways, you know.it's binary, one or the other.

Either
1) Snowden has information that is worth all the fuss being made over him
or
2) Snowden is making it all up and the fuss over him is just a multinational Benny Hill skit staged for our entertainment.

I'm hardly "hysterical," I figure anyone who didn't know this sort of shit has been going on probably wasn't paying much attention between 2000 and 2002. I'm just mildly perturbed that so many DU'ers are suddenly discovering a deep-rooted support for this sprt of internal spying and a frankly savage hatred of anyone who mentions it. It used to be the other way around, so you can imagine my puzzlement...

[randome]

24. I guess you can take my word that I don't hate Snowden or you.

Snowden has also given information to a Chinese newspaper about how we monitor and hack into their systems. You know, the kind of stuff they do to us all the time. Where is China's outrage at this?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Scootaloo]

33. I don't care if you do or don't

I have no emotional investment in the guy, nor does it worry me if some weenie on the internet feels rage at my presence.

The point remains. You can't argue that Snowden has no information and also argue that he's exposing tons of information. either he made it all up or he didn't. Either he has information or he doesn't. There is no way for both to be true

[randome]

35. All of his claims about NSA spying have no evidence to back them up.

But furnishing IP addresses to the Chinese is definitely espionage-worthy.

He did both. He made outrageous claims and he gave the Chinese hard data.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Civilization2]

113. lolz,. the light is both on AND off,. hilarious.

Please keep the contortions coming, it is better than Cirque Du Soleil!

[siligut]

186. They have the power now to ruin anyone who causes trouble

Maybe the old 'if you can't beat them join them', is kicking in for some people. We also have some posters who consider it their job to direct opinions on Internet forums. Rest assured any 'savage hatred' you see is probably from the later. Outrage and ridicule are two other methods used to quiet dissent.

My computer is acting funny; should I be concerned?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. If Snowden fabricated tales about a non-existent program then he broke no oath.

You can't have it both ways.

If Snowden did reveal an actual program then he broke an oath and his status as hero or traitor is debatable. But that also means those who planned, implemented and utilized the program also broke their oaths.

Let them all share the same cell.

[randome]

17. Not everything about this is simple.

But this is: you do not take national security documents and give them away to other countries.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. But they're just PowerPoint slides which are no proof of anything.

You said so yourself.

[randome]

22. And it was probably unnecessary to label them 'Top Secret', too.

But they were. Snowden says he took the job with the express purpose of stealing documents. Because he "saw things" yet he won't even tell us what he saw.

He also revealed IP addresses to a Chinese newspaper. I think we can all assume that Chinese intelligence agencies can read.

And this is the kicker for me that shows he cannot be trusted: when he said "I am not here to hide from justice" from his 'undisclosed location' in Hong Kong.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. So, suddenly, there's proof even though you've been saying there's no proof.

[randome]

31. No proof of his outrageous claims. But solid intelligence info given to the Chinese.

No proof that he could spy on the President.

No proof that the NSA 'watches our thoughts form as we type'.

No proof that the NSA is hoovering up the Internet. All the companies involved say that's bullshit, too.

Nothing offered to support the claim that he "saw things."

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. So everything that supports your claim is true but anything else is not.

How convenient.

[randome]

45. It's difficult to be 100% objective on anything.

But that's how I see the 'Snowden Affair'.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[freedom fighter jh]

28. Yeah, and it also means Snowden may have been justified in breaking his oath

because that's what he had to do to protect the Constitutional system of law in which we live.

[KharmaTrain]

77. Then He Should Gladly Come Back To The U.S....

...face trial where, in front of a jury of his peers, he can present his evidence and have an open forum to show all how invasive our government is into our private lives. If that jury...12 "average" Americans, feel he was protecting the Constitutional system, then he'll be a true hero and free to further expose the "crimes" or whatever he claims he has. It's pretty simple. Running away and hiding in some third world country isn't doing anyone any good...and surely isn't "protecting" the Constitution...

[freedom fighter jh]

84. An open forum like Bradley Manning's?

Preceded by several years of horrific treatment?

Running is doing *him* good, and there's nothing wrong with that. His running isn't what is supposed to protect the Constitution. His disclosures are. He made them, he took his risk, and now I don't blame him for protecting himself.

[KharmaTrain]

92. He's Not Mannng...

...who violated military UCMJ rules...a whole different system than the charges Snowden faces. His charges are Federal...in a civilian court that would be adjudicated by a jury of 12 peers. Is he afraid of 12 Americans?

So how does running to a third world country protect the Constitution? He minimizes any good use as a spokesperson for what he claims he saw by running and hiding...

[freedom fighter jh]

97. How is running to a third world country *supposed* to protect the Constitution?

It's his disclosures that protect the Constitution, by alerting us, the American people, to a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Of course there are differences between him and Bradley Manning. But even under UCMJ rules, aren't you supposed to be punished only *after* you've been convicted? If that fundamental rule of justice was broken for Manning, why should Snowden be confident that it would not be broken in his case.

[KharmaTrain]

101. Stay On Snowden...

...he'd surely "alert" more people to whatever gross violations of the Fourth Amendment in a trial by jury...a system set up by that same Constitution you and he claim to be so protective of. You trust his word but not our judicial system? In a jury trial he could put out every piece of evidence he has, call witnesses to verify these abuses and that could easily lead to charges being brought against others. Also, a high profile case would garner a lot of media coverage...far more than his webchats...and allow him and his advocates a worldwide microphone. Seems he doesn't trust that very Constitution he claims to be "defending"...

[freedom fighter jh]

146. NSA is violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution all day every day.

I don't care about what's going on in Snowden's mind or what kind of a trial he theoretically have someday. We don't need to wait for Snowden to be tried before we can have a conversation about protecting the Constitution.

[KharmaTrain]

150. I Don't Care Either...

...I do care about justice and trust our judicial system to allow him, and his defenders to present their case. If there are abuses to the Constitution, put it forward. So far we have a lot of talk from Mr. Snowden that hasn't been backed up by facts...if the NSA is so pervasive as to monitor what we're typing as we're typing or that the government is storing every phone call, email and whatever other invasions are being claimed, then put it public in a court of law. It's what those same fine gentlemen who wrote the Constitution he and others claim to hold so dearly designed so that he can face his accusers. The burden of proof is on the government to prove the case, Snowden can use it to expose a lot of "dirt" he claims he has. That sure sounds like protecting the Constitution to me.

Otherwise...by being a fugitive...he keeps the focus on him and not on the injustices he claims to have witnessed...

[randome]

151. Agreed. The conversation needs to happen and it will.

Now please tell Snowden to stop endangering our undercover agents and to stop giving national security information to other countries.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[randome]

98. You forgot something: "I am not here to hide from justice."

Therefore, everything he says is ipso-facto TRUE!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[KharmaTrain]

128. I Guess Hiding Makes It More True...

...thank you for reminding me!

[HardTimes99]

126. You conveniently forget (or choose to ignore) Jose Padilla, also an

American citizen.

[KharmaTrain]

134. Because...

...Padilla isn't Snowden. Let's try to stay on the issue at hand here...we can discuss Padilla's case...and it's legal highs and lows...in another thread...

Snowden isn't accused of the crimes Padilla was and isn't being listed as an "enemy combatant"...he's charged with Espionage...a Federal Crime that will be adjudicated in a Federal/Civil court by a jury of peers...

[HardTimes99]

141. Padilla and Snowden are both American citizens. Padilla was denied due process and tortured

while in captivity by agents of the U.S. government.

Snowden does not have to subject himself to similar treatment to prove to me his bona fides.

[randome]

144. You're right, Padilla was treated terribly. By Bush.

I can understand why someone would not trust the government no matter who is President.

All of which has nothing to do with Snowden's wild claims and his idiotic assertion that "I am not here to hide from justice." Obviously he is trying to hide from justice.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[HardTimes99]

147. On the contrary, it has everything to do with why Snowden should

not have to return to the U.S. to prove his bona fides.

As some wag pointed out in a different thread, Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman both fled rather than stay and fight. Do we value their contributions the less for their flight to safety?

Obviously, Snowden is seeking asylum. A country where Bush and Cheney walk around free men is hardly one I would characterize as a land where "justice" prevails.

[randome]

148. Well, Snowden didn't really 'contribute' anything.

He seems to be 'fighting' for the 'right' to endanger the lives of our undercover agents and risk national security.

I can understand why a thief does not want to be caught but I will still support his capture.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[HardTimes99]

152. Right, Snowden didn't contribute anything, other than to supply proof

positive that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, perjured himself before Congress. And that the Director of the NSA, General Keith Alexander, perjured himself before Congress.

That's just for starters.

I can understand why perjurers don't want to be caught, but i still support their prosecution for perjury.

[randome]

156. You don't hear much about that from Congress, though.

Apparently they are okay with the testimony. Go ahead and get them started on that if you want. Snowden is the more immediate danger for the reasons I cited.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[HardTimes99]

160. There's the Congress you have and the Congress you'd like to have. (Now why am I

channeling my inner Rumsferatu? Beats me

[freedom fighter jh]

169. But you're right about that.

If Congress is OK being lied to in a matter on which they are supposed to have oversight, then they are not doing their job.

[treestar]

176. And the Supreme Court made a ruling on that case

In his favor. I.E., the rule of law.

[Katashi_itto]

85. And get the treatment Bradley Manning got, right?

[KharmaTrain]

89. Military Vs. Civilian...

...Snowden faces Federal charges that would take place in a Federal court with a lawyer of his choice. You'd think there'd be some great libertarian scholar who'd love to take up his case...especially if they believe he is "defending the Constitution". I'm sure the trial would be very high profile...especially on the innertoobs...and any "abuse" or injustice would be spread far and wide, just like it is right now...

[Katashi_itto]

99. Yes, I am sure that will make such a difference.

.....the fact it was high-profile didnt stop them from torturing Manning anyway

[randome]

100. What happened to Manning was ruled 'excessive' by the judge in the case.

No one is condoning what he underwent but he was also suicidal at times and the military brig at Qantico was not equipped to handle that well.

Again, not condoning it but a ruling has been made on the issue. Snowden does not fall under the military justice system.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Katashi_itto]

103. Again, your wearing rose colored glasses, if you believe he would be

treated fairly.

[randome]

106. It's a simple case of espionage. Others are prosecuted for similar charges.

Why would the government make a big deal out of him? Because he 'embarrassed' us? I think he's embarrassed himself more than anyone else.

He's thrown his life away, hurt his fiance and parents, made claims that can't be substantiated. He's painted a picture of himself as a goofball.

Someone pointed out he could get as little as 36 months for a sentence. He should serve the time then go on the road preaching that the end is near.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Katashi_itto]

108. No. It's not espionage.

Espionage is often part of an institutional effort by a government or commercial concern, however the term is generally associated with state spying on potential or actual enemies primarily for military purposes. Spying involving corporations is known as industrial espionage.

Snowden was never actively working on behalf of a foreign power or corporation. If anything he was actively working for the people of the US.

[randome]

110. Fine. Then he has nothing to worry about and should come home.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Katashi_itto]

119. Circular logic. Right, come home so he can get tortured.

Banana Republics always declare enemies of state, spy's or something similar.

[randome]

120. Obviously he faces charges. Maybe it's not espionage according to your definition.

But he is clearly violating some law which says that giving away national security information to other countries is frowned upon.

And you are using your own circular logic. If nothing Snowden has done is wrong, why would he face torture?

He does not face torture. Manning's treatment was 'excessive' and downright wrong. But Snowden is not part of the military.

Visibility is his best defense and he has certainly made himself visible.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Katashi_itto]

124. The Altemeyer Authoritarian Test

http://helloquizzy.okcupid.com/tests/the-altemeyer-authoritarian-test

[randome]

127. It still comes down to basic facts.

Snowden was unable to get evidence of his wild claims.

Snowden gave away national security information to other countries.

'Authoritarian' has nothing to do with those two facts. I know you intend that word to be an insult of some sort but the only thing that matters is evidence.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Katashi_itto]

138. Make up your mind

"Snowden was unable to get evidence of his wild claims. " (Ergo he had nothing to give anyone)

Snowden gave away national security information to other countries. (So he did give something away)

[randome]

142. He didn't 'claim' anything about our international hacking processes.

He simply gave the info to a Chinese newspaper while inviting them for an interview.

Snowden did claim all this NSA spying stuff. He did give away info to the Chinese. I don't think these two points are in dispute, are they?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Katashi_itto]

125. Banana Republics always generate trumped up charges against enemies of the state

[randome]

129. Some 'enemy'. If this is what 'enemies of the state' have devolved into...

...I'm sure the state can rest easy.

Snowden is a goofball for not getting evidence to support his claims. His resume is a lie. He admits taking the NSA job for the sole purpose of stealing and he admits to giving away info to China.

You really want to hang your hat on him as a 'hero'? Better heroes can be found in the action figure aisle of any toy store.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Katashi_itto]

135. I like how you insert "hero" into someone who is simply a whistle blower

Your constant moves to try and discredit him bring this to mind though

&list=FLQ_8IaT-Wbt7aj43vt2csDQ&index=20

[treestar]

178. This ^^^^

The rationalizations that he can't face the charge due to Manning or that he will be "tortured" are ludicrous. Just shows their desperation. If they think he did such a great thing they should welcome the opportunities the trial would give him. If he really believes in what he did, he'd want to speak up for it in the US during the trial.

[Towlie]

43. Would you side with the Mafia against a "squealer", "rat", "stool pigeon", etc?

Do you condemn members of crime syndicates who break their oaths and reveal the crimes committed by those syndicates to the authorities? Keep in mind that We the People are the authorities here.

Another way to put things in perspective when your moral compass gets confused is to consider your feelings about a work of fiction. Think about the movie plot of Clear and Present Danger. If you saw it, did you condemn Harrison Ford's character (Jack Ryan) for blowing the whistle on the President's illegal activities against drug cartels in South America? I didn't, and I doubt very many others saw it that way either. Jack Ryan was clearly the good guy and the President was the bad guy. Think about what James Earl Jones (Admiral Greer) says to Jack Ryan from his hospital bed:

You took an oath, if you recall, when you first came to work for me. And I don't mean to the National Security Advisor of the United States, I mean to his boss... and I don't mean the President. You gave your word to his boss: you gave your word to the people of the United States. Your word is who you are.

Snowden may be an enemy of the state, but he's a hero of the people.

[randome]

44. Because he 'revealed' metadata storage?

This is what you want to take up arms against? This? The state of protest in America is broken if this is important enough to consider Snowden a whistleblower. He is not. He is a leaker. Not even a very good one.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[SwampG8r]

91. do employees of outside contractors even take an "oath"?

[randome]

94. That's a good point. I'm sure they do but I don't know precisely.

I'm an IT contractor. When I change jobs, I routinely sign documents pledging not to sell inside information, give it away to competitors, etc.

I'm sure something like that exists for NSA contractors, too. But I sincerely doubt they have access to anything that Intelligence Analysts have access to. The 'evidence' of that is that Snowden was unable to get evidence of that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[SwampG8r]

107. i would be

pretty sure they sign papers and agreements of non disclosure and acknowledge the legal risk of disclosure
but I doubt they actually swear an oath

[freedom fighter jh]

170. Even if they don't . . .

Federal employees take an oath to the Constitution. A U.S. citizen who has not taken that oath may still feel bound by it, just as a citizen. I know I felt that way before I went to work for the federal government.

[SwampG8r]

193. he was not a federal worker

he was an employee of an outside contractor

[villager]

177. You mean like the oaths those in government constantly break -- to us?

Starting with that "defending the Constitution bit?"

[randome]

180. Show evidence that they are not defending the Constitution.

And realize that the collection of metadata has routinely been ruled not a violation of the 4th Amendment any more than metal detectors, drug-sniffing dogs, drug tests, DNA collection or fingerprinting.

If that needs to change then that's the discussion we need to have.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[villager]

183. Ah, so as long as it's been "ruled" -- a la Dred Scott -- we underlings dare not question

...anything being done to us?

Got it.

[randome]

188. Question it all you want. Change it. It's all the same to me.

But it has nothing to do with Snowden claiming the NSA can 'watch our thoughts form as we type' or that they are downloading the Internet on a daily basis. Or that he personally could spy on the President.

And it has nothing to do with him giving away national security secrets to China.

And it especially has nothing to do with not defending the Constitution since the Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, currently permit this.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[villager]

190. Actually, until we see those too-secret-for-our-own-good FISA court rulings

...we don't know what kind of tortured logic they're using to decimate the 4th Amendment. (and doubtless, the 5th, et al)

But you are free to keep placing your faith in the capable hands of Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, their appointees, et al...

[randome]

191. More transparency, less secrecy. We all agree on that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[villager]

192. Indeed we do!

[pnwmom]

57. None of them hacked into US computers, downloaded classified documents,

and shared them with Chinese and Russian leaders.

They are fiction writers and actors, not men who were paid to protect US secrets but instead stole them and shared them with others.

[Maedhros]

112. Snowden didn't share information with Chinese or Russian leaders

he published the information in newspapers.

[randome]

114. If he had written it on a men's room stall...

...he would still be revealing national secrets.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Maedhros]

171. Then there's no reason to misrepresent what he did. [n/t]

[pnwmom]

194. The Chinese leaders could actually read about the documents in the Chinese newspapers.

Funny how that works.

[Maedhros]

196. There is a distinct difference in the traditional application of the law

to whistle-blowers/leakers who give the information to the press for publication, and spies who give/sell the information directly to agents of a foreign power.

Snowden did the former.

[pnwmom]

197. Not when they give US classified documents to the newspapers of a foreign power.

The same law applies. And it's not a whistle-blowers law.

[naaman fletcher]

6. So

I take it you think Daniel Ellsberg should have gone to prison as well?

[randome]

8. Ellsberg had evidence, the Pentagon Papers. Snowden has PowerPoint slides.

Not even a close comparison. Snowden, the 'genius' computer hacker who was surprisingly unable to get evidence of his claims, does not rise to the level of Ellsberg, IMO.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[naaman fletcher]

10. so?

Each one violated their oath not to disclose stuff.

[randome]

14. And it is always worth violating an oath or refusing unlawful orders...

...when the greater good is at stake. I would wholeheartedly support Snowden the same way I would have Ellsberg (if I had been politically aware back then) if he only provided evidence of his claims.

He hasn't. For someone who claimed to personally be able to spy on the President, you'd think he might have snatched some evidence of that, right?

Carl Bernstein has said it sounds to him like there are sufficient safeguards in place at the NSA. I agree since obviously Snowden did not get evidence of his claims. Until someone shows me evidence to the contrary, that's what I will continue to believe.

There is a reason even the Wikileaks attorneys turned Snowden down.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Fumesucker]

11. Evidently Ellsberg himself disagrees with you

Who should I believe, iconic standard bearer of freedom or some randome internet poster?

[randome]

16. And I disagree with Ellsberg.

Everyone has an opinion.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Fumesucker]

37. You know who else had an opinion?

Hitler, that's who.

[sibelian]

47. OOOO Oo oo oo ! that's CHEATING!

you said HITLER. That's CHEATING.

OOOoooooooo.

[QC]

73. Daniel Ellsberg is senile. n/t

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67693

[HardTimes99]

130. If Ellsberg hadn't released the PP, we could have

whipped those gooks!

(in case it's needed)

[Nanjing to Seoul]

46. Published where? No newspaper has this. . .nothing on the internet. Hell,

my friends that are no less than Colonel's in the PLA that I go drinking with every couple of weeks don't know shit.
Where is this published? Tell me. . .this DUers in Suzhou wants to know.

[randome]

50. Here is the link to IP address info.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/16/us_fears_china_may_have_manipulated_edward_snowden_118829.html

And he apparently allowed Chinese journalists to view some documents. That's espionage.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nanjing to Seoul]

56. But if it's a legal, open program that it is sanctioned by law under the Patriot Act, what's the

issue?

And the issue is "may." Key word. He "apparently." I apparently took a shit in someone else's bathroom, but I didn't. I want proof. US government makes the accusation, then uses weasel words like "may."

Until I have ironclad evidence, I will reserve judgement.

[valerief]

75. But it's Congress's job to sell those secrets! nt

[randome]

79. I'd bet your telecom company does more selling than the NSA.

They have a lot of safeguards in place. It is not so easy to get past them. As Snowden inadvertently showed by not being able to get past them.

That doesn't mean I trust everything the NSA says. I don't. But I don't see why Snowden's unsupported allegations get any traction.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Savannahmann]

93. Then why haven't we filed charges against the Weekly World News?

After all, they said Obama was meeting with Space Aliens? Obviously a lie, but some people believe it.

According to this news story, a Secret Space Alien invasion was averted because of last minute negotiations with President Obama. When might you ask? It was going to happen TODAY, Saturday, the 5th of July.

http://weeklyworldnews.com/aliens/9608/fourth-of-july-alien-invasion/

If telling lies is treason then shouldn't we file charges against the Weekly World News? Shouldn't we arrest every nut on a street corner holding up signs that says the end of the world is near and try them for spreading disinformation?

Telling lies isn't treason, telling the truth isn't treason. Merely damaging our reputation by exposing our immoral, illegal, and direct violations of international law isn't treason either.

So I'll be expecting weekly reports on why the weekly world news will be indicted by the Federal Government for the lies they're telling.

[randome]

96. Telling lies is not treason, although it's definitely grounds for dismissal.

But giving national security secrets to other countries is definitely a crime.

Snowden did both.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Savannahmann]

102. But the programs have been denounced here as lies

That Snowden is making them up, or even exaggerating them. So for Snowden to be guilty, those things would have to be happening right? I mean, PRISM is Hoovering up all the data. The NSA/CIA/does anyone know everyone involved?/FBI is getting all the Metadata and who knows what else from the cell phone companies.

So all those things are happening? Is that what you are finally admitting? That the Federal Government is watching you, me, and everyone here? That the Federal Government is employing and contracting out to millions of people who are watching what we type almost as fast as we type it?

[randome]

104. Read other posts in this thread.

He did both. He made wild claims about spying and he revealed sensitive information to China.

The wild claims are grounds for dismissal. Giving away national security information to other countries is grounds for an espionage charge.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Savannahmann]

105. Baloney

You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind. If he had no access to our individual records, which it is claimed he didn't have. Then he had no access to sensitive information to give China. Nuff Said.

[randome]

109. I'm not trying to 'have' anything both ways. This is what he did.

Do you think he did serve up evidence of mass spying? Most people disagree with that.

Do you think he did show sensitive information to China? The Chinese newspapers say so.

How he gained access to the Chinese information is troubling. And I would think more than a few heads at NSA are spinning. But apparently our personal metadata records and the President's email (which he claimed to be able to personally read) were beyond the 'genius' abilities of Snowden.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[TM99]

159. Put up or shut up!

What was revealed was the NSA PRISM program which was published by Chinese papers. If that is not real, as you continue to argue, then he did not violate anything. If it is real but is legal & known by all, he did not violate any oaths or share anything 'secret'.

You attempt to have it both ways by claiming that he gave away valuable 'secrets' to the Russians and the Chinese.

Please provide a set of valid links that conclusively proves that:

1) He revealed these secrets to these governments
2) What secrets he revealed to these governments.

By conclusive, I do not mean the following:

1) Unnamed US government sources speaking anonymously
2) Newspaper reports 'claiming' he did so but without any proof of the actual transfer and the actual secrets.

I will wait for your reply.

[randome]

162. PRISM is an actual program. No one doubts that.

The PowerPoint slide S&G released specifies it only applies to foreign targets. It is not, as Snowden said, a repository of basically all information in the world.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/16/us_fears_china_may_have_manipulated_edward_snowden_118829.html

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[TM99]

172. So in other words,

you can't provide anything of substance.

This is a article from weeks ago. It includes ad hominen attacks on his character. It includes 'possible scenarios' that may or may not be accurate. It is purely speculative, and you know this.

You have nothing but this. It is not enough to support your claims.

[randome]

174. Character assumptions aside...

The newspaper said he had shared the internet protocol (IP) addresses of specific computers in mainland China and Hong Kong that the agency had tried to penetrate over the past four years, details of its success rates and other classified data.

Of course it was from a few weeks ago. That's when he gave the interview to the Chinese journalists.

You can't believe everything you read. Neither should you believe everything Snowden says. Evidence should be paramount.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[TM99]

181. Ironic really what you write.

You state that one should not believe everything read nor believe everything Snowden has said. Furthermore evidence should be of a high priority. Perhaps you should follow your own advice?

I do not need to believe every word from Snowden to know that what he has revealed thus far through leaks to journalists has been accurate and not denied by the US government.

I do not believe everything written that is why I question almost every article written like this full of double-speak, character assassinations, and speculations, yet you seem to trust them. Why?

Now to your quote. So he confirmed for the Chinese that the NSA had attempted to penetrate THEIR computers. I see no mention, do you, of him giving IP address of OUR computers to the Chinese? That would most certainly be 'evidence' of spying for the other team, whereas, what he actually did was to reveal the extent to which the NSA has collected meta date and other information on everyone - foreign and domestic whether they are a direct threat or not. And if you think the Chinese were not aware that the US had made attempts to penetrate their systems, well, obviously you are smart enough to know that.

[randome]

182. He gave them the IP addresses of the computers we were hacking.

Allegedly.

The PowerPoint slides are, at best, ambiguous. That's being charitable since all the Internet providers involved say Snowden's claims are bullshit. I suppose it's possible the NSA is blackmailing them all but I find that unlikely.

And at least one slide directly refutes Snowden's claims.

If he was such a 'genius' hacker, why wouldn't he have stolen less ambiguous and contradictory documents? We would not be having this debate if he had provided, say, a copy of an email message from the President since he claimed he could personally do that.

Why didn't he do that?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[TM99]

185. Allegedly?

Perhaps they are ambiguous to you but not to other experts including other NSA whistle-blowers, journalists, etc.

I wear two hats professionalyl - clinical psychologist and computer programmer for almost 35 years. I worked my way through graduate school in the IT field. I have learned not to trust everything tech companies say. Did you happen to read all of the major companies' formal PR denial statements? Go find them as it is quite interesting to see how exactly alike they are.

Classic straw-man - did I ever argue that Snowden was a genius hacker? No. He is a young man with some technical skills. Enough to get hired by private contractors working for the NSA. Enough skills to evade their security and hack their systems. Enough skills to access and save enough information that the US government now considers him a criminal who has committed espionage.

Personally, I am waiting for the rest to be revealed. Once he is either dead from a covert ops, captured and returned to the US, or is granted asylum in another country, I expect the rest of the material to be released to journalists like Greenwald.

[WinkyDink]

2. Heh heh heh.

[Waiting For Everyman]

3. Because he wasn't s'ponsed to talk about it not existing.

That was a big secret!!!

Paraphrasing the classic hippie cartoon ages ago, "there's a hole in their reality".

[stonecutter357]

12. Metadata does not belong to you.

All this ‎Libertarianism bull is giving me a headache,I will not vote for a Libertarian EVER!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. When did Progressives become the party of unquestioning obedience to authority?

[baldguy]

18. When did progressives start accepting libertarian woo with no criticism?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. Libertarians are against restrictions on owning pit bulls.

[baldguy]

26. Does that mean we should ALWAYS support them on every issue?

Libertarians are against restrictions on selling rancid meat, too.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. You and the other one made the blanket declaration, not me.

[baldguy]

40. Your Post #15

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023182268#post15

Implying that merely by questioning the accuracy & integrity of Snowden - who has displayed neither - me, "the other one", and everyone else who has respect for the truth are guilty of "unquestioning obedience to authority"

looks to be a fairly blankety declaration to me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. No, the complaint against spying on Americans was given the unqualified dismissal of

being Libertarian talking points. Presumably all things Libertarian must be bad or something.

[baldguy]

49. No, it's because Snowden is a libertarian with controversial, contradictory and irrational ideas

Which have been taken up wholeheartedly & uncritically by a very few under-informed DUers, who further have continued to support him in spite of being shown how he has exaggerated, lied and misled in his statements.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. Then he can't be a criminal.

If exaggerating, lying and misleading were crimes then no man hoping to score on the first date would be free.

[baldguy]

55. Theft is still a crime. Exposing secret information is still a crime.

If you believe he's still innocent even after he's confessed his crimes to the world, then you're as irrational as he is.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. Lies, misleading statements and exaggerations can't be secrets.

[baldguy]

74. But exposing methods & practices, as well as active intelligence agents (as he has threatened to do)

Certainly is.

The fact that Snowden couldn't do what he said he did, that the NSA was following the law, and that the people at Booz Allen have horrible PPT skills, aren't the only things exposed in Snowdens document dump.

[stonecutter357]

30. You are

You are an idiot if you did not know the government spies on you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. They can also send police or soldiers to ransack people's homes.

That doesn't make it any less of an outrage against personal rights and liberty.

[treestar]

179. Interesting that Progressives are supposed to march in lockstep behind anyone

who "questions authority" as if the one who questions it must be in the right just due to the questioning. And notice we cannot discuss the question at all without being labeled "authoritarian."

It's really amusing to see this. The very people who call us obedient to some supposedly evil "authority" that is the US government expect complete obedience to them on what to believe. It takes about one post to get the personal insults.

The metadata is not a big disaster loss of our freedoms. We could discuss the pros and cons but your side does not want to. You demand immediate adherence to your extreme conclusion that it must be the end of our freedoms and when you don't get that you start the name calling.

[sibelian]

51. There is a case that needs overturned.

I forget where it is listed on DU... but, basically, there needs to be legislation put in place so that metadata DOES belong to the citizen it's about. Saying "it doesn't" is just a way of avoiding the point.

As for libertAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArians ack pth, well go you for your firm stance. Once you've found a thread where announcing this stance is in any sense relevant to the discussion therein and posted it there, we shall all applaud you mightily.

[Galraedia]

23. Yes, PRISM is real. However, Snowden made a few false statements and exaggerations.

What proof do you have of Snowden's claim that he could "wiretap anyone from a federal judge to the president" simply from his desk?

That isn't just an exaggeration, it's a lie that is even contradicted by some of the documents released. See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023137494

If Snowden was interested in the truth he wouldn't be making false claims and exaggerations.

[baldguy]

29. "If Snowden was interested in the truth he wouldn't be making false claims and exaggerations."

[phone]

The only reasonable conclusion is that he's not interested in the truth.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. To hell with the President's privacy. He's just another public employee.

I'm talking about the American people.

[stonecutter357]

36. when?

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2013, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)

when do you feel like you lost your privacy?

[sibelian]

58. Because the government is keeping data on its citizens.

Phone metadata on citizens should not be kept. That's it.

[randome]

64. The 4th Amendment regulates searches. It has never been an absolute.

Over the years we have accepted all sorts of limitations and restrictions from metal detectors, drug-sniffing dogs, drug tests, etc.

If metadata was not copied to the NSA's black box storage, every time information was needed, a warrant would need to be issued to every single telecom in the country.

The points of interception, hacking and employee malfeasance would be greatly multiplied.

Which would render law enforcement useless.

If sufficient safeguards are in place (and Carl Bernstein and I agree they are) then having the metadata available at the NSA -so long as it cannot be searched without a 2nd warrant- is okay with me.

And apparently with the majority of Americans, judging by recent polling.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[sibelian]

66. No, that's not good enough.

The potential for abuse is too high.

[randome]

70. It has been this way since Bush, Jr. days.

Has anyone claimed that having a copy of metadata in storage has damaged anyone?

Of course it can be abused. Any law can be abused. But paradoxically, Snowden's inability to get evidence of his claims is sort of evidence that the data is safe.

Think what he is claiming: "The system is out of control if I can spy on anyone I want. And as evidence of this, here are some documents that talk about something else."

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. All hail, Bush! Long may he reign.

[sibelian]

80. What people "claim" or do not "claim" is irrelevant, randome

- history is very clear on what happens in societies wherein the State has an inviolable generalised advantage over the populace in managing its communications. Trying to delegitimise concern over that by pretending the abuse of any other system is comparable is just avoiding the point by conflating it with something that hopefully has fewer potential consequences. Clearly there is no other system in the American State apparatus with the scope for abuse that PRISM has, so saying any of them can be abused is simple misdirection.

You address the subject of abuse in terms of risk, when the pertitent issue is the hazard associated with that risk.

[randome]

82. Even the 'genius' hacker could not get evidence to support his claims.

Accepting his word that PRISM collects all data about everybody is something more fitting to a Harry Potter novel.

The documents S&G released have actually indicated the opposite: that only data believed to belong to foreign suspects is collected. With a warrant.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. Apparently those who have the power assure us they are to be trusted.

You trust them, don't you?

(Say, "yes" you don't know who might be listening.)

[Fuddnik]

83. You may have accepted it. I haven't.

Read the exact wording of the 4th amendment, and try to untie your pretzel.

[randome]

87. Metal detectors. Drug-sniffing dogs. Drug tests. DNA collection. Fingerprinting.

All exceptions to the 'unreasonable search' clause of the 4th Amendment.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

111. Spell check can't help you now. You're in the dark land of bad homophones.

[stonecutter357]

115. It's

It's that 78 IQ. and Dyslexia.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

116. Awwww, come on. I wasn't going er.

Enjoy your weekend, 357.

[stonecutter357]

117. Thanks

[DisgustipatedinCA]

118. You too

[backscatter712]

27. For the same reason that...

Snowden betrayed us to the Chinese, the Russians and Al Qaeda, resulting in all our spies getting whacked in the streets, but then again, he didn't reveal anything that we didn't already know!

[rhett o rick]

41. Also they claim that he is a liar but the PowerPoint slide he provided proves that the

NSA isnt spying on Americans.

[watoos]

48. I'm sorry, but something just doesn't smell right about Snowden.

The guy works for a subsidiary of the Carlyle group to begin with. Secondly, does anyone actually believe that all of this surveillance is going to stop, be changed, be more open? Nothing is going to change.
What I do see is that Pres. Obama has been weakened. What I do see is that it is Democrats who are mainly condemning him. Maybe everyone can't see the forest for the trees. Maybe the only purpose for Snowden's leaks was to damage Obama. I know that's a lot of maybes, but I'd say if that was the intention, mission accomplished.

[sibelian]

60. Maybe I don't give a shit.

Maybe Obama can strengthen his position with his base by repealing the Patriot Act.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. Or at least

delaying implementation until 2015.

[sibelian]

52. Because he's a felonious lawbreaking criminal wrongdoing badness type guy

and doesn't have a personality but, instead, has a weird constellation of mutually supporting neuroses that somehow manage to fall together to make it LOOK like he has a personality.

[pnwmom]

54. It's NOT a figment of his imagination or even under dispute that

he shared documents related to our spying on China with a Chinese newspaper while Obama was negotiating with China about their hacking.

And he shared documents related to our spying on Russia with Russia. That's not under dispute either.

Going public about programs related to US internal surveillance could be classified as whistle blowing.

But going public about programs related to US spying on other countries -- which he has done and continues to threaten to do -- moves into acts of espionage, and possibly treason, depending on what he has in the thousands of documents he claims to possess. If he actually releases documents containing names of American agents around the world, and releases them -- i.e., lists of Valerie Plames -- then releasing those names would be an act of treason, IMHO.

It doesn't matter that someone in the Bush administration did the same thing. Just because one person got away with a criminal act doesn't mean someone else should.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. I'm OK seeing Snowden go to jail for those crimes

But I want him sharing his cell with the people responsible for spying on Americans.

[pnwmom]

71. No one has shown that any criminal laws have been broken yet

in relation to US internal surveillance by the Obama administration, but if they have, they should certainly be prosecuted.

But they are two separate issues, and it is the revelations about US spying that threaten to move him from the category of whistleblower to traitor, depending on what remains in the documents he's threatening to release.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. They violated the 4th Amendment and no law can trump that.

The 4th was written specifically to guard against this sort of thing which, back in the day, were known as a Writ of Assistance. It's one of the key factors to igniting the War for Independence.

[pnwmom]

195. Collecting telephone metadata has already been ruled by the Supreme Court

as compliant with the 4th amendment, decades ago.

Maybe some other Supreme Court will agree with you, but it hasn't happened yet.

[KittyWampus]

59. It is really simple. He STOLE information & gave it to China/Russia. How some can't grasp

something that simple is perplexing.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. Then he can share a cell with James Clapper.

[KittyWampus]

121. total non sequitor.

[bornskeptic]

166. Sharing a cell with Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen might be more appropriate. n/t

[sabrina 1]

69. What information did he give to Russia? I could say I am the Queen of England on the internet

and I bet some people would believe it.

Please provide your evidence that there is more than what is being published in the news media. Otherwise this is just another 'let's throw stuff around for the fun of it' game.

[KittyWampus]

122. Please, you know damn full well he did. HE ADMITS IT AND IS GOING TO GO THROUGH HIS FILES

and hand out more to journalists in other countries.

[sabrina 1]

184. I don't know any such thing. I know what has been released, that is all. You stated

that he gave information OTHER THAN THAT to the Chinese. I asked for something to back that up with. Apparently there is nothing.

[KittyWampus]

187. sick, here you go.

http://americablog.com/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-russia-medvedev.html

[ohheckyeah]

189. But everybody already

knew the US was spying so what difference does it make?

[sabrina 1]

67. Because there is no need for logic when you are defending the indefensible. You just keep throwing

stuff out there to keep people distracted from the message.

[hedgehog]

68. There is a difference between making a big hullabaloo about

surveillance that is legal under the Patriot Act, and revealing or passing on the results of said surveillance. AS near as I can tell, everything Snowden accuses the NSA of doing is implicit in the Patriot Act and is legal. It may not be right, but it's legal. (We've lived with the Patriot Act for over 10 years and all of a sudden it's Obama's fault?)

But - if Snowden is carrying the results of the surveillance, he may not even realize what he has since he doesn't have the context.

[Arctic Dave]

81. Good job!

[arely staircase]

86. The info he gave to the Chinese had nothing to do with domestic surveilance, PRISM or phone metadata

eom

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. But many want to use the fact of the former to dismiss the latter.

[arely staircase]

90. I just use it to point out that he is a traitor. nt

[KittyWampus]

123. I think you need to go back and read your own OP.

[VanillaRhapsody]

95. No the technology DOES exist.

the problem is....you have to prove that it HAS been.

You see....you CAN go faster than the speed limit on an interstate....but because you CAN doesn't mean that you HAVE exceeded the speed limit. This is why you cannot just say that the Govt is doing it because they can. They can because the Internet exists. You have to show ACTUAL spying on an individual. The capability to datamine in the stores of data that the Corporations that are connected to the Internet exists. The ability to run queries against databases will remain with us. We are going to have to decide what the "speed limit" laws are....where we want boundaries.

[Savannahmann]

132. Wrongo

Speed limits are not determined by the capability of the car, but by road traffic density, road condition, and other factors far more arbitrary. Today numerous production cars can safely travel well in excess of 100 MPH. They are designed to handle the speed easily. That doesn't mean that we should raise the speed limit because the Porsche 911 GT3 can handle the higher speed.

The limits put on the Government are already laid down. The 4th Amendment is the general guide, but apparently it is just not fast enough. So we created exceptions, areas of law where no speed limits existed, an autobahn where civil rights were not really applied. We don't need to see the accidents to see that the civil rights free autobahn is a bad idea, and we don't need statistics to show that most people on the autobahn travel without any problem. If one persons Civil Rights are violated, that is too many. If one person is not secure in their person, or papers, or electronic versions of such, than that is too many.

It is a lot like other crimes against people. We don't just hunt down and prosecute a percentage of the rapes. We try to find everyone who commits that particular atrocity. We should not judge civil rights by any other metric. We should hound down every one of those who commits that offense, even if the cop with the radar gun never sees them.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

131. This will be completely ignored again in subsequent threads on this subject,

but this is what he did wrong. It's actually some very specific stuff that he himself said. This is why they want him. PRISM is a load of crap, and Greenwald was a blithering idiot for not even taking the 15 seconds it would have taken him to figure out that's what it was. I think I'll just cut and paste this continuously until you cultists (you fall for all of these guys as long as they say the right words, don't you?) finally figure this crap out:

What Snowden May Know About Human Ops

Beyond technical systems, U.S. officials are deeply concerned that Snowden used his sensitive position to read about U.S. human assets, for example spies and informants overseas as well as safe houses and key spying centers.
They worry this recent quote from Snowden was not an exaggeration: ”I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are, and so forth.”
So it’s not just about what he took, but what he knows, officials emphasize. Officials describe Snowden as a walking treasure trove, a dream for foreign intelligence services. One intelligence official called Snowden and his cache an “entire U.S. government problem.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/06/officials-how-edward-snowden-could-hurt-the-u-s/

So, two things:

1 - This compromises all of US intelligence. This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything regarding the NSA. Zip. It's a simple betrayal of the US. Period, the end. Remember, this isn't speculation on what he took, it's him admitting that he took this stuff, the names, the missions, the whole freakin thing.
2 - It also compromises future intelligence. Now if the US wants to do something overseas, no one is going to want to do it for the very good reason they wouldn't want to be outed just because of some contractor with access to all this stuff.

This is way, way, way beyond being a whistleblower on the domestic side of the NSA. This is breathtakingly over the line. And he has very publicly offered to share this stuff with journalists around the world. Once again, those are words out of his own mouth.


Now, on to PRISM.

It took me, I am not lying, 15 seconds to find this using Google. But Greenwald treats this as if it were some sordid, deeply secret revelation. It's seriously laughable.

Computer Evidence Specialists (CES) Launches PRISM, a Social Media Investigative and Research Tool

ST. AUGUSTINE, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Computer Evidence Specialists (CES), a firm specializing in investigations, intelligence and analytics, has launched PRISM, a browser-based social media aggregation tool designed to allow users to search, identify, monitor and archive information publicly available on the most popular social media sites. PRISM was created by a team comprised of former FBI executives, lawyers, and investigative analysts. With PRISM, users can use a single tool to search across multiple social media sites, blogs, and news sites to capture information. PRISM provides users with the ability to make sense of the vast amount of information available on social media.
With the rise of social media, more and more individuals and organizations are posting publicly available content. Within that content lies pertinent information which is useful to organizations. Before PRISM, users had to manually comb through multiple social media sites to try and synthesize the available data for information relevant to their needs. PRISM offers a single place to pull together all available data, filter out the noise, and make sense of the avalanche of information out there. To aid users, PRISM features the ability to map posts, compare digital footprints, monitor profiles, and to identify and monitor organizations. Users can export all data, including meta-data, for use with knowledge visualization analytical tools. PRISM is built upon an extremely versatile platform which can be accessed from anywhere with an Internet connection. PRISM allows any organization to efficiently manage the collection and analysis of publicly available information on persons, organizations and events.
…
About CES
CES is a professional firm, founded by Carl Florez, a former FBI executive, to provide investigative, intelligence, and analytical services to government agencies, private companies, and law firms. CES has consistently provided new and innovative tools and techniques to meet the needs of their clients.

[randome]

133. Personally, I think he's lying about that.

Same as he lied when he said he personally could spy on the President.

But I understand why the government would like him to stop threatening us.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Benton D Struckcheon]

136. They can't treat it as a lie.

They have to treat it as a danger to all of their agents and their missions unless and until they know otherwise.

[randome]

140. Or they could simply wait and see who gets killed.

You're right. People do matter, even when they are undercover agents on our side. S&G don't seem to care. I suppose they have adopted Assange's viewpoint that if you're an informant, you deserve to die.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Benton D Struckcheon]

143. Yeah, well, I don't know about the rest of these people,

but my passport comes from the US State Dept. I had a cousin who died of a disease he contracted while overseas on a mission for the CIA; we only found out he was in the CIA when he died. They don't ever tell you these things.
Agents are considered an extension of the armed forces, and their lives are treated as seriously as well: my cousin got a 21 gun salute at his funeral. That's why they're going after Snowden.

[Savannahmann]

137. OK, now the next question.

How did Booz Allen get access to HUMINT (Human Intelligence(spies and sources)) assets anywhere? Are you telling us that the policy of the US Government is to outsource management of human intelligence assets and information?

This argument raises more questions than it answers. For example, Top Secret is a classification, but no matter what classification it is, there was supposed to be need to know, and what need to know did Booz Allen, a Security Consulting firm, have with human intelligence assets or information?

So what you are saying is that anyone with a Top Secret Clearance, and a networked computer, can access any files they want on any program? That makes as much sense as putting a screen door on a submarine. You might as well publish the information to the New York Times, it would have fewer people reading it.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

139. I just have to keep repeating myself cause you guys keep circling back to the same,

publicly discredited arguments.
He went to Booz with the specific intention of doing what he did. This stuff isn't available to everyone, I'm quite sure of that. He hacked his way in to get what he claims he now has. Not the PRISM stuff, which is total BS. The stuff on agents and their missions is what he would have hacked to get at.
He admits he went in to do espionage and you still sit there and say any old guy in the NSA can get this. Pathetic.

[Savannahmann]

149. Again Booz Allen is a contracting company.

How did Booz Allen's systems even have access? Are you telling me that a high school drop out can hack past what is supposed to be the most secure network in the world? The FBI ran the FISA program, but Booz Allen had access to the court orders. The NSA ran Surveillance that would be interesting to the Foreigners about how we spy on them. So that is a completely different agency, on what should be a completely different network, with completely different access and need to know requirements. Yet, Booz Allen had access to that which is why you and others call him a traitor.

Then there is the next question. If he had access to spies, that should be the CIA, which again is a completely different agency, and different mission, and supposedly different network, and yet Booz Allen had access?

Why do you think they called the effort to build the Atomic Bomb the Manhattan Project? Because it was going to be so huge, employing hundreds of thousands of people, and using tremendous amounts of assets, that eventually someone would hear about it. If they did, and they objected to tires being routed to the Manhattan project, then they would blame the congressmen and senators and political influence in New York. They could have called anything, but they chose the name purposely to distract from the truth.

Enigma, defined as mystery. The program to read German mail.

Magic, the program to read Japanese messages.

We give names to things that are supposed to distract from the truth. PRISM is no different. Some corporations version of it may not be the big secret, it is almost certainly a distraction. Like Jennifer was the name of a project to recover a Soviet Submarine, and Ivy Bells was the name of a project to tap soviet underwater cables.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

154. Go ask Snowden.

He has told you he went in there to spy. Anyone can educate themselves, if they're motivated enough, in how to do this stuff. He wasn't just some high school dropout. The CIA had him in Geneva for a while maintaining their systems. He leveraged that experience into what he just did.
If you look at what I've posted, all of it is his admissions. He said it, no one else.
It's one thing to leak a FISA warrant asking for all of Verizon's phone data for a set time period. That was whistleblowing. Offering to reveal the names and locations of all of our agents around the world is treason.

[DirkGently]

145. Because it's politically inconvenient to remind people we're getting screwed?

... or to illustrate how bad it's actually becoming?

The logic appears to be that no one can actually object to government surveillance, or ask that it be examined, because our only reasonable recourse is to elect Democrats and hope for the best.

It's therefore simply rude to point out that a Democratic administration is engaged in much of the same bad policy we objected to under the last Republican.

And that rudeness, apparently, should be punished as treason and espionage.

[randome]

153. Evidence counts. Snowden has not shown any.

Some lame PowerPoint slides, some of which directly disprove what he claimed.

Meanwhile, Snowden is endangering the lives of our undercover agents and giving away national security information to other countries.

He needs to stop doing that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[DirkGently]

157. Which "undercover agents" has he outed?

I have not seen this reported anywhere.

And, are you referring to the "lame PowerPoint slides" produced by the NSA?

If they're so "lame," isn't that 1) The NSA's lameness, and 2) exactly the point of the OP?

What "national security information" has he been giving away to other countries?

Do you have some indication he's given some other country information the rest of us haven't seen, which, as you point out, consists of some slides the NSA produced, which simply give the rough outlines of a surveillance program?

[randome]

161. He said he had access to that info and strongly implied he would release it.

That's a 'danger' in itself since no one truly knows what he has in his possession. Do we risk agents' lives by sitting still and doing nothing? Do we start to recall them all? Even recalling them carries an element of danger. It's not like every agent can suddenly apply for a leave of absence and return home. At least I would think it wouldn't be that easy.

He freely admitted letting Chinese journalists look at the documents in his possession, which they and he claim contained actual IP addresses of hacking targets.

Referencing the OP, Snowden did both these things. He made wild, unsubstantiated claims and he gave hard data to China by way of letting Chinese journalists publish information.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[DirkGently]

163. I thought he & Greenwald said they were vetting to avoid that.

We can agree outing undercover agents is not acceptable, if that's the main question. Although we don't have a great recent track record of nailing Cheneys who do that.

I don't know what he told China. I haven't heard China claiming any kind of victory, or making an accusations they're now aware of something they weren't before. Maybe they're keeping it under their hat.

As for the rest, I find the main value in the leak being those lame NSA Powerpoint slides, which simply show the rough outlines of a massive surveillance scheme that vacuums up vast swaths of data.

And it continues to seem to me that the main objection to all of this is that it is politically inconvenient for the administration to have people looking critically at something I think we all need to be looking at critically.

[randome]

165. I think they said initially that vetting was occurring.

But then Snowden started giving away info to China and threatened more. I think that's when Greenwald basically abandoned him, although who knows what Greenwald may be cooking up.

I think the PowerPoint slides are, at best, ambiguous since they can be interpreted in different ways and, in at least one case, directly refutes Snowden's claims.

But if Snowden really had the access he claimed, why would he not have stolen less ambiguous documents? Why not steal something that would blow the roof off instead of making vague assertions that depend, more than anything else, on our taking his word for it?

The obvious answer to me is he lied. His resume is a lie. I think he's lying about having detailed agent info, too, but that remains to be seen. He said "I am not here to hide from justice" so that's another point against his credibility.

He said he "saw things" but he won't ever say what he saw.

He simply does not come across as believable, IMO.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[DirkGently]

168. I don't think it helps the NSA if Snowden is lying or exaggerating.

The docs raised the issue, and the inquiry is proceeding from there.

I don't see it as particularly relevant if the bits about "I can read the President's e-mail" are bloviating on Snowden's part. It's the size and scope and secrecy of the program, and the outsized reaction to the leak that are damning. And that part of the information has not been disputed.

Say Snowden's a Rand Paul-loving, RW-ish, self-aggrandizing twit.

Doesn't that just mean that Rand Paul, loving, RW-ish, self-aggrandizing twits are currently employed by private contractors to the NSA, and given access to information sensitive enough to freak out an administration?

[Octafish]

155. Capt Kirk fried the electronic brain in the doomsday machine NOMAD by asking such a trick question.

Brilliant, and I mean it.

[randome]

158. My daughters -just turned 16- have become Trekkies.

We watched that episode together just three days ago. What a coincidence!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Octafish]

164. Ours may be an 'Associative Universe'

Dr. Jacques Vallee says we may live in an "Associative Universe," one in which our minds act as a rudder, guiding us toward destinations we have pre-considered. An astronomer and computer scientist by training, he was among the first to apply computers to analyzing the UFO phenomenon when an assistant to the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek of Project BLUEBOOK fame and "swamp gas" notoriety.

Vallee describes the "Associative Universe" in detail in "Messengers of Deception," a study of UFO cults and people who manipulate followers and what it means to the greater society as a whole. He had been studying a contactee group called, iirc, "The Order of Melchizedek" for several months. On an unrelated matter, Vallee flew to L.A. for a conference and hopped aboard a cab. When he finally got to his room, he looked at his receipt for the cab ride and it was signed, iirc, John Melchizedek. Vallee looked in the phone book and he was the only Melchizedek in town.

The coincidence made him think that, perhaps the universe is organized along the lines of a series of information events. Time and space, rather than acting as a phonograph needle laid down at the beginning of track one and coursing through to the end of the side, may be a series of seemingly unconnected experiences woven together by our consciousness. Thus, our awareness serves to pick up the needle and put it down at different places on the album. A similar situation may exist in data storage systems, where key words help retrieve information faster than having to go through an entire pile of data to find the needle in the infohaystack. For us, our minds act as a sort of rudder, guiding us more often to the visualized destination.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120331033917/http://www2.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/UFO-info-age.html

This is an amazing universe. Perhaps important thoughts are like the clouds moving across the clear blue sky of the Universal Mind. Whenever possible, it really does make sense to visualize peace, justice, understanding and love. It could hasten the day when this becomes the kind of universe good people deserve.

[randome]

167. It is an amazing universe.

It doesn't make sense. Something from nothing? God? Neither makes sense. WHAT THE HELL IS IT ALL ABOUT???

I want to know. Thanks for the references.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dkf]

173. And it's nothing we didn't already know!!!

[treestar]

175. Straw man

Snowden is not being charged with treason, but with theft of documents and release of classified information.