Snowden: I Raised NSA Concerns Internally Over 10 Times Before Going Rogue - WaPo

[WillyT]

Snowden: I raised NSA concerns internally over 10 times before going rogue
By Andrea Peterson - WaPo
March 7 at 10:58 am

<snip>

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden said he repeatedly tried to go through official channels to raise concerns about government snooping programs but that his warnings fell on the deaf ears. In testimony to the European Parliament released Friday morning, Snowden wrote that he reported policy or legal issues related to spying programs to more than 10 officials, but as a contractor he had no legal avenue to pursue further whistleblowing.

Asked specifically if he felt like he had exhausted all other avenues before deciding to leak classified information to the public, Snowden responded:

Yes. I had reported these clearly problematic programs to more than ten distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them. As an employee of a private company rather than a direct employee of the US government, I was not protected by US whistleblower laws, and I would not have been protected from retaliation and legal sanction for revealing classified information about lawbreaking in accordance with the recommended process.

Snowden worked for the CIA before becoming an NSA contractor for various companies. He was working for Booz Allen Hamilton at an NSA facility in Hawaii at the time he leaked information about government programs to the press.

<snip>

And...

<snip>

Elsewhere in his testimony, Snowden described the reaction he received when relating his concerns to co-workers and superiors. The responses, he said, fell into two camps. "The first were well-meaning but hushed warnings not to 'rock the boat,' for fear of the sort of retaliation that befell former NSA whistleblowers like Wiebe, Binney, and Drake." All three of those men, he notes, were subject to intense scrutiny and the threat of criminal prosecution.

"Everyone in the Intelligence Community is aware of what happens to people who report concerns about unlawful but authorized operations," he said.

The other responses, Snowden said, were similar: suggestions that he "let the issue be someone else's problem." Even the highest-ranking officials he told about his concerns could not recall when an official complaint resulted in the shutdown of an unlawful program, he testified, "but there was a unanimous desire to avoid being associated with such a complaint in any form."

<snip>

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/03/07/snowden-i-raised-nsa-concerns-internally-over-10-times-before-going-rogue/

[fried eggs]

1. Why didn't he say this in the beginning?

We could have avoided all the Snowden debates here on DU.

[BainsBane]

3. Seems an important point

I certainly never heard it before. I had the impression he took the contractor job with the intent of leaking the information. Not that invalidates in anyway what we learned as a result of his disclosures. That really is the important issue, the NSA, not Snowden's motivations or whether he followed protocol.

[riderinthestorm]

10. This has been said repeatedly. That private security contractors have no whistleblower avenues

Nor do they have any protection. That Snowden tried to go to his superiors before he went public but there was no avenue for him to whistleblow.



This is usually followed up with a comment about how he should have gone to Congress then with the information (snort).

[BainsBane]

12. Actually SCOTUS ruled this week they do have whistleblower protection

There was a thread, though it got little attention. The decision related to financial information that was from the company, not govt info. I'm not sure if it would help people like Snowden.

[riderinthestorm]

14. Ruled this week. Not applicable to Snowden at the time however nt

[cui bono]

110. Unfortunately, whistleblowers still get smeared and have their lives ruined.

Even if they win in the courts later.

[merrily]

146. Not Ellsberg.

Charges dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct and he became a hero to most Democrats his age at the time. Still is something of a celebrity speaker. He may have gotten the best result a whistleblower can expect.

Manning and Snowden, on the other hand....

[cui bono]

156. And Ellsberg says that Snowden made the right call. His words:

Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S.
By Daniel Ellsberg, Published: July 7, 2013

Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree. The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago.

After the New York Times had been enjoined from publishing the Pentagon Papers — on June 15, 1971, the first prior restraint on a newspaper in U.S. history — and I had given another copy to The Post (which would also be enjoined), I went underground with my wife, Patricia, for 13 days. My purpose (quite like Snowden’s in flying to Hong Kong) was to elude surveillance while I was arranging — with the crucial help of a number of others, still unknown to the FBI — to distribute the Pentagon Papers sequentially to 17 other newspapers, in the face of two more injunctions. The last three days of that period was in defiance of an arrest order: I was, like Snowden now, a “fugitive from justice.”

Yet when I surrendered to arrest in Boston, having given out my last copies of the papers the night before, I was released on personal recognizance bond the same day. Later, when my charges were increased from the original three counts to 12, carrying a possible 115-year sentence, my bond was increased to $50,000. But for the whole two years I was under indictment, I was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures. I was, after all, part of a movement against an ongoing war. Helping to end that war was my preeminent concern. I couldn’t have done that abroad, and leaving the country never entered my mind.

There is no chance that experience could be reproduced today, let alone that a trial could be terminated by the revelation of White House actions against a defendant that were clearly criminal in Richard Nixon’s era — and figured in his resignation in the face of impeachment — but are today all regarded as legal (including an attempt to “incapacitate me totally”).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html

TPTB - and that includes Republicans and Democrats - have legalized what used to be criminal and unconstitutional. This whole thing is about NSA spying on American citizens. That used to be illegal under BushCo but Obama pushed to make it legal. All of a sudden the Obama supporters are okay with it, since it's their guy so there's no outcry, and when there is, well, you get responses like the ones you see hear smearing the messenger. Because defending one man who they will defend, right or wrong, is more important than defending the principles of that constitution that that man took an oath to defend.

So yeah, things are very different in the US today.

[merrily]

157. Yep. Because the 2010s are very, very different from the 1970s.

Something far too many people of all political persuasions overlook from time to time.

However, although Ellsberg has been a hero for a long time, he's been getting thrown under the bus precisely because he said that. Sic transit gloria mundi.

[backscatter712]

172. Not for lack of trying.

He was prosecuted, and looking at a lengthy prison sentence before the technicality caused his case to be dismissed.

Not to mention the shenanigans like feds breaking into his psychiatrist's office to dig through his confidential medical & psychological records.

Oh, there were plenty of people smearing & attacking. Ellsberg was lucky in that he outlasted the fuckers.

[merrily]

178. Yes, but the case did get dismissed.

I didn't say that it was Ellsberg's dream outcome or a trouble-free outcome. I said only that it was about the best possible outcome that a (US) whistleblower could expect. And I think it is.

[Aerows]

181. And if that is the best outcome

a US whistleblower can expect, then we are doing something very, very wrong.

[merrily]

182. You are singing to the choir, but please don't stop.

[Aerows]

188. You likely couldn't keep me from it!

I'm going to keep singing.

[backscatter712]

204. That's fair.

Ellsberg was very lucky.

[msanthrope]

17. Taht is simply untrue--the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998

Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 was at his disposal....

And yes, it covers contractors....unfortunately, Mr. Snowden didn't consult with an actual lawyer, and, so fucked his changes of being shielded.

Instead, a separate law, the Intelligence Community Whistle-blower Protection Act, applies to people who held positions such as the one Snowden did as a contractor for the National Security Agency. Legal experts say, however, that it provides no protection to him for two reasons.

First, they say, he did not expose the kinds of actions covered by whistle-blower protections — illegal conduct, fraud, waste or abuse. Some people have argued that the programs revealed by Snowden are illegal or unconstitutional. For now, they are presumptively legal, given the assent of members of Congress and the special court known as FISA that oversees intelligence operations.

But suppose Snowden’s supporters are right, and what he exposed was illegal conduct after all.

Then he would face a second problem: The Federal Whistle-blower Protection Act protects the public disclosure of “a violation of any law, rule, or regulation” only “if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law.” In other words, Snowden could claim whistle-blower protection only if he took his concerns to the NSA’s inspector general or to a member of one of the congressional intelligence committees with the proper security clearances.

Asked on Tuesday what chances Snowden would have to qualify for whistle-blower protection, Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington — an expert on the issue — said, “none.”
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/18/19024443-analysis-why-edward-snowden-isnt-a-whistle-blower-legally-speaking?lite

[cui bono]

111. Whistleblowers do not fair well even if they have supposed protection.

The Obama administration in particular increased whistleblower prosecutions. Just watch Greenwald's documentary War on Whistleblowers to see how their lives are ruined even when they followed proper channels.

[Rex]

439. Funny how

certain people ignore the obvious over and over again.

[merrily]

158. For me, the article is not specific enough.

Step 1. Violation of the the Bill of Rights by the USG is illegal. 4th amendment, right of privacy.

Step 2. Disclosure can't be specifically prohibited by law. How could a law prohibiting disclosure of massive violations of the Constitution be valid?

Step 2.5.

In other words, Snowden could claim whistle-blower protection only if he took his concerns to the NSA’s inspector general or to a member of one of the congressional intelligence committees with the proper security clearances.

He tried going through channels and going to the NSA or Congress would have been both dangerous to him and futile. He would know that better than I do and I'd be afraid to do it.

Step 3.0 He chose disclosure because he thought Americans should know,
even if it meant giving up his life and everything in it for the rest of life.

[cui bono]

335. Yes. He did the honorable thing.

Why/how people want to vilify him is absurd. What is the point? It doesn't make the NSA spying go away. The whole world knows it happened.

[merrily]

361. I agree.

But, I find that speculating in a post about motives of posters tends to lead nowhere good.

I don't like it when people do it about my posts. I usually think the things they attribute to me are off the wall, too. But, once they say it, it's written in stone and there is no use pointing out that I know me and my motives a hell of a lot better than they do. I think it's probably like that for all of us.

But, I suppose the standard answer here might be deflection. As long as we are talking about how Snowden is so awful and has to provide documentation (to whom, why?), we're not talking about shredding of the Constitution or anything else the USG has been doing lately. If that is spurring everyone here against Snowden, I'd be surprised.

If you think back, the whole birther stuff was most incessant during Obama's first years in office. I wonder if that was to take the focus of the right off the possible benefits of a national health care plan? Dunno. Could have been simply to play on the xenophobia of the right.

[Aerows]

191. I'll ask you again

*HOW* is he supposed to provide proof that he complained to authorities within the chain of command without disclosing their identities? He worked for the NSA. Disclosing the identity of those he reported the issue to would be treason.

But you knew that already. That's why it seemed like a safe argument, didn't it?

[merrily]

202. The issue is deprivation of Constitutional rights, but

what reason does Snowden have to prove anything to anyone at this point?

Because someone on DU wants to make a point for or against him?

[msanthrope]

250. Disclosing the identity of who you complained to to federal prosecutors, or the judge assigned to

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 09:24 AM - Edit history (1)

your prosecution is treason? I mean...if he feared prosecution for revealing names?

I think that's not a concern...in fact, I think it's an illogical and irrational defense.


Further--could you kindly cite the law that does not allow us to name NSA workers??????

[udqamlqc]

237. Did you read the excerpt you posted?

"Legal experts say, however, that it provides no protection to him . . . "

AND

"Asked on Tuesday what chances Snowden would have to qualify for whistle-blower protection, Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington — an expert on the issue — said, 'none.'"

What you posted does not support your position at all.

[WillyT]

243. Welcome To DU udqamlqc !!!

Glad ta have ya aboard !!!

[msanthrope]

249. Indeed...he had the Act available to him, chose not to conduct himself under it, and now,

cannot claim its protections. The point, which you missed, is that he cannot legally claim status of whistleblower, because he chose not to follow the Act. That is the fault of Mr. Snowden.

[JJChambers]

281. Why would he follow an act which would not have protected him?

From the article YOU posted:

First, they (legal experts) say, he did not expose the kinds of actions covered by whistle-blower protections — illegal conduct, fraud, waste or abuse. Some people have argued that the programs revealed by Snowden are illegal or unconstitutional. For now, they are presumptively legal, given the assent of members of Congress and the special court known as FISA that oversees intelligence operations.

...

The programs snowden blew the whistle on would not be covered under the law you cited.

[msanthrope]

283. But it would have protected him--all he needed was an "urgent concern" of what *he* believed was

◦A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive Order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters;

◦A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; and/or

◦An action, including a personnel action described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of Title 5, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under section 7(c) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, in response to an employee reporting an urgent concern.

His reporting would have been protected, because it is the OIG who would be responsible for determining the course of prosecution of the complaint. In other words, the law does not expect the whistleblower to make legal determinations---it protects those who use the process, and then determines if the complaint moves forward.

Had Snowden complained, and then been rejected, he still would have been protected because (as cited above) the OIG Act of 1978 protects you even if you are wrong.

[merrily]

410. Again, other people say leaving the US was his best hope.

You are assuming that the letter of the law would be followed. I think we can all agree that is not always the case.

That is the crux of most of the disagreement here. You are a lawyer, so maybe you have more faith in the law.

[MADem]

302. Apparently YOU didn't read it. All Snowden needed to do was to go to his hero Rand Paul, who has

the requisite clearance to assist him:

Snowden could claim whistle-blower protection only if he took his concerns to the NSA’s inspector general or to a member of one of the congressional intelligence committees with the proper security clearances.

[sabrina 1]

293. Too bad the law protecting the PEOPLE rather than CORPORATIONS, was tampered with

after Bush/Cheney's corrupt use of the telecoms to spy on the American People was exposed.

And the law was changed retroactively in order to protect them and their telecom friends from prosecution and lawsuits.

It's the new America, when they get caught violating laws now, Congress's job is to CHANGE the law, back to before they broke it for them.

Makes their claim that 'money talks' a fact.

Until we have a government that refuses to bail them out each time they are caught.

Meantime Whistle Blowers, as Ellsberg stated, are far better off leaving the country or they will end up like Chelsea Manning, isolated and silenced, then convicted.

[L0oniX]

318. LMFAO ...sure they will be protected by some ignored Act.

Yeah he should have gone to a lawyer first ...because if you don't you won't be protected. LMAO

[msanthrope]

321. He didn't have to go to a lawyer--he could have gone to the OIG, or any member of certain

Intelligence Committees, including Ron Paul, who had the clearance.

I am betting that from his Moscow winter, Comrade Eddie is regretting not consulting with an attorney, first.

[merrily]

364. Would we know if Snowden had consulted with a lawyer?

Wouldn't that be attorney-client privileged information?

There are several lawyers who special in this kind of thing, one of whom was harassed herself, even though, IIRC, she did not disclose anything (not sure on that bit).


Anyway, isn't possible that he did consult an attorney who is familiar with these matters who told him he'd best bolt?

Does it even matter anyway whether he consulted a lawyer? So many people, including Ellsberg, have said Snowden was wise to leave the country.

[merrily]

142. Not only private contractors. Other whistleblowers

have said that they tried government channels and got nowhere.

You're a criminal unless you go through channels, and if you go through channels they tell you to sit down and shut up.


The goal seems to be to keep the information secret, no matter what the whistleblower tries; and, if they can't shut the whistleblower up, they can at least make the rest of life miserable, as an example to others who might be thinking of prosecute him as an example to others who might have a similar idea. And, of course, he or she deserves it because...channels.

[father founding]

297. good citizen

Or the DOJ orFBI, like that would do a lot of good.

[riderinthestorm]

5. This has been pointed out. Repeatedly. That you didn't know this

means the authoritarian bunch have done a good job with their smear campaign against Snowden.

[msanthrope]

8. Is it authoritarian to note that Mr. Snowden hasn't provided documentation of this claim? nt

[riderinthestorm]

16. Does he have to? Wouldn't that "ruin" another NSA person's career as he's already been accused of?

Why wouldn't it have all been verbal in meetings? I'm not sure why you think there has to be some kind of paper trail?

[msanthrope]

20. Well, yes. FYI--Snowden was protected under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act

of 1998--


And yes, it covers contractors....unfortunately, Mr. Snowden didn't consult with an actual lawyer, and, so fucked his changes of being shielded.

Instead, a separate law, the Intelligence Community Whistle-blower Protection Act, applies to people who held positions such as the one Snowden did as a contractor for the National Security Agency. Legal experts say, however, that it provides no protection to him for two reasons.

First, they say, he did not expose the kinds of actions covered by whistle-blower protections — illegal conduct, fraud, waste or abuse. Some people have argued that the programs revealed by Snowden are illegal or unconstitutional. For now, they are presumptively legal, given the assent of members of Congress and the special court known as FISA that oversees intelligence operations.

But suppose Snowden’s supporters are right, and what he exposed was illegal conduct after all.

Then he would face a second problem: The Federal Whistle-blower Protection Act protects the public disclosure of “a violation of any law, rule, or regulation” only “if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law.” In other words, Snowden could claim whistle-blower protection only if he took his concerns to the NSA’s inspector general or to a member of one of the congressional intelligence committees with the proper security clearances.

Asked on Tuesday what chances Snowden would have to qualify for whistle-blower protection, Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington — an expert on the issue — said, “none.”
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/18/19024443-analysis-why-edward-snowden-isnt-a-whistle-blower-legally-speaking?lite

Are you seriously suggesting we should accept what Snowden says....without proof?

[ddddemarco]

101. Your post has an interesting legal opinion:

Asked on Tuesday what chances Snowden would have to qualify for whistle-blower protection, Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington — an expert on the issue — said, “none.”


For starters I don't think any of this discussion over whether Snowden did or did not try to go through channels makes the least bit of difference. I'll take his word for it and also be happy knowing that he saved the taxpayers a lot of money by telling the public directly what they needed to know, that is making damn sure they got the information. Ditto for Manning. The Public's "Right to Know" is, IMO, sacrosanct, without it there is NOTHING really worth talking about. The end result of Snowden's acts--that is the public getting the information--is the most important thing. If he did try going through channels OK, if not that's OK too.

[erronis]

141. Thank you - my sentiments also.

[msanthrope]

165. Of course....had he used the Act, he would have been shielded. But he didn't use the Act, did he?

[cui bono]

177. I disagree that he would have been shielded.

There are plenty of whistleblowers who don't get listened to or get fired/demoted or have their workplace become unbearable. After not getting any action going through appropriate channels they have to go outside the "proper channels" only to have their lives ruined even though they were right about what they exposed.

Whistleblower protection only works when people actually want to hear about it and going through "proper channels" usually means you have to tell people who don't want that info out in public.

[msanthrope]

259. Oh--I think had he followed the proper channels and gone to Sanders or Warren, he would have been

fine.

[cui bono]

322. Do you have proof of that?

Even Ellsberg wasn't "fine" and he went to senators. He said Snowden did the right thing by taking off.

[msanthrope]

325. The problem with your hypo is that the law that would have shielded Snowden was not in existence

in a comparable form for Ellsberg, so it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Laws evolve.

As for his being just fine, I have faith that either Warren or Sanders would have steered him in the right direction, and secured him the proper channels, and legal representation.

The sad thing is that we will not know what Snowden could have done for us because of his incredibly poor decision making. I caution you--grandiose claims made by criminal defendants are a sign of lying.

[cui bono]

330. So he should have stayed because of your faith in the system?

So you have no evidence that he would have been fine. You just feel he would have. So he should have risked the rest of his life based on your faith? There is evidence to the contrary, that he would not have been fine, based on other whisteblowers fates yet you believe he would be fine.

And yet you won't simply believe his words - without putting anything at stake - unless he has a paper trail. And there is evidence here that what he has told us is true. Yet you won't believe him now.

I'd go with factual evidence over faith myself.

[msanthrope]

336. He should have stayed because of his faith. Otherwise, his motive was purely malicious.

Why bother to expose what you think is broken, if you have no faith in the system to correct itself?

Why would you work, and take money from such a system?

I don't believe Mr. Snowden because I have had clients like him....and the grandiose, unbalanced claims he is making are consistent with someone not telling the truth.

[cui bono]

340. He didn't have faith in the system. Not many people do.

The rest of your argument is silly really. People live here they have to live in the system. They take money from the system.

Snowden in particular wouldn't have known about the NSA spying until he was part of that particular system.

So basically, your feelings about Snowden are just that, feelings. And some of the feelings you have about him are because of your faith in the system. The system that has failed so many.

As I said, I'll take factual evidence before faith and feelings on this one.

[merrily]

411. Obviously, his faith was not in US fairness to whistleblowers.

Why bother to expose what you think is broken, if you have no faith in the system to correct itself?

Lots of reasons. Also, you can have faith in the system to correct, but maybe not in time to spare you.

Why would you work, and take money from such a system?

He seems to have stopped doing that.

[merrily]

405. I don't want to seem tit for tat, but

your faith is not proof of anything, either. Warren and Sanders both have taken an oath to uphold the law. I don't think they would have advised Snowden to skip out, which is what many say he should have done. And again, he may or may not have seen a lawyer. I don't think we can assume.

[OilemFirchen]

425. Skip out BEFORE stealing documents?

Of course, they wouldn't have advised him to do so. Theoretically, they would have helped shield him from harassment and malicious prosecution. After all, he would have only been making allegations of illegality, perhaps backed up by anecdote or legitimately-obtained material.

Once he stole documentation no legislator would have advised him to flee. I would hope, at least.

[merrily]

453. Skipping out before stealing is not what I meant.

But I don't think he would have been okay unless he skipped out, no matter how many channels he went through.

Drake's wiki says he went through channels and got screwed anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake


Someone else on the thread mentioned another man who did the same, but you'd have to find the post because I've forgotten.


There are videos online of Drake telling his story. He did not come out "fine."

If you are interested, here's a link to a you tube search of Drake Raddack.

They lecture a lot, so there are a number of videos.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Thomas%20drake%20Raddach%20&sm=12

[sabrina 1]

422. The problem with your assertions is that several Whsitle Blowers who abided by the letter of the law

were not protected. There was no one who had more faith in the law than Drake, or Binney. If you want to know what would have happened to Snowden had he 'gone through channels', google Drake and Binney.

No doubt SNOWDEN googled what would be his chances if he 'went through' channels.

Here's what happens in reality regarding the exposure of corruption and crime by Whistle Blowers.

The Whistle Blower, going through channels or not, is prosecuted.

Nothing is done about the perpetrators of the crimes and corruption.

In the real world therefore, Whistle Blowers from now on until we return to the Rule of Law, which you are noting, and I am pointing doesn't apply to those in power, see Bush/Cheney eg, will do what Snowden did.

And that will ensure the people's right to know, which trumps, as the SC already established in Ellsberg's case, any violations of law to get that information to the people.

[merrily]

408. IIRC, Drake has as well.

But msanthrope is a lawyer and has a different mindset. I can understand that.

[merrily]

394. Former whistleblowers, including Drake and Ellsberg, beg to differ.

[msanthrope]

396. Did they go to Warren, Sanders, or otherwise take action as directed by the whistleblower

statutes that covered them?

[merrily]

404. You tell me.

I don't know what the law was when Ellsberg acted, but he says, for today, Snowden did the smart thing.

Drake claims he went through channels.

I am sure you are more familiar with the particulars than I am.

[merrily]

454. P.S. FWIW, Drake's wiki also says he went through channels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

I am guessing there is a lot more online in terms of news stories from the time, but I am not going to spend more time on this thread.channels.. I've seen some of the Drake videos not long ago and found him very credible. You can judge for yourself.

You can find a bunch of videos at You Tube featuring him and/or Raddack. And, others on this thread have cited two or three other whistleblowers who claim to have gone through channels and did not fare well.

As I just posted to someone else, on national television, Clapper admitted he lied to Congress and America and he will never go to trial for perjury. Snowden revealed the truth to America and he will probably be on the run or in jail for the rest of his life, absent a Presidential pardon.

That is one of thousands of reasons some of us don't have your faith that everything would be fine if Snowden had only followed channels. Our justice system is imperfect, to say the least.

If Snowden does go to jail, it would be fine with me because he knowingly took that risk when he made his decision. But I am glad for the disclosures, no matter what happens to him.


I just googled "Obama most secretive administration ever," words I've read and heard a lot in the past five years.

About 68,800,000 results (0.47 seconds)

Another reason, if government is violating the Constitution to that extent, why would I believe in the sanctity of the Whistleblower's statute? And I don't mean only the fourth amendment.

Thanks for the discussion. It was interesting. But the Constitution is the real issue, not whether a statement is admissible evidence in a trial that never existed and may never exist, or the long since moot point of what might have happened to Snowden if he had followed channels.

[merrily]

184. Says he tried. Doesn't matter now. This is NSA v. 4th Amendment. That matters.

[Aerows]

187. Not to those that

want to smear the messenger instead of talking about the message.

[merrily]

193. 4th amendment rights are the issue, not Snowden.

Great thing about message boards: Unless and until you're banned, you can post that subject line in response to any post, to your heart's content. It does not violate the TOS. Then, you can use the body of the post to say whatever you want.

I try not to deal in motives or hidden meanings, though, just what a post actually says. I'm sure i am not always successful, but I think it's a good idea. For me, anyway.

[Aerows]

194. Indeed, the issue is about 4th Amendment rights

but people making bogus arguments need to be called on those bogus arguments.

[merrily]

199. Yes, the issue is deprivation of our rights, but

I would prefer to deal with what a post actually says, if I don't slip, as all people do now and again.

[Aerows]

201. Sorry I wasn't clear

that wasn't directed at you.

[merrily]

203. No worries. I did not take anything personally.

[ddddemarco]

314. Your citation says that Snowden would not have been shielded. IOW

the legal opinion you cite says the opposite of what you are suggesting.

[merrily]

409. No, but none of us knows if he really would have been shielded or

suffered as Drake did.

[treestar]

103. Well of course we should

why should Eddie have to prove what he's saying if it's what we want to hear, that's good enough!

[merrily]

189. If he has to prove it, it's to the country, if any, that entertains his request

for asylum, if that country require it. He doesn't have to prove it to DU or anyone in the US, nor would it do him the slightest good to prove it to anyone in the US, because he did not go to Congress or the NSA.

Those failures, I take that as a sign that, if we ever do get to try him, he will never be able to plead that he was insane at the time.

[treestar]

271. He doesn't have to prove any of that until he comes to the US to be tried

for what he is charged with - if he complied with the WPA, that sounds like it would be a defense.

Everyone has to prove their case to DU!

[merrily]

360. I included a nation who takes his application for amnesty, if they request it.

Legally, he would not have to produce anything, but, as a practical matter, if you are asking a country to piss off the US by giving you amnesty, you will probably comply with any request made of you, if you can. In his shoes, I get the flag of the country tattooed on my face, if that's what it took, let alone produce some paperwork.

Everyone has to prove their case to DU!

No one does. Some posters seem to think they do, though. Sigh.

Thing is, Snowden is probably not even aware he's on trial in DU. So, he's unaware of his binding obligation to produce documents, or at least tell us "exactly" when he will. Kind of hard (and perhaps pointless?) to hold a fair trial when the defendant has no lawyer and, more importantly, doesn't even know he's being tried and has much larger fish to fry anyway.

[msanthrope]

277. This is a crop circle thread--the lack of proof confirms the truthiness of the claims.

If Comrade Eddie claims something, it is the absence of proof that proves that he is right.

And, stasi....something.

[SunSeeker]

301. LOL nt

[merrily]

402. For reasons stated in my reply to treestar and others, the real crop circle may be

on the other side of the debate.

He has had less than zero* reason to produce evidence, let alone proof. So, implying he must be lying because he has not produced proof (according to you) doesn't make sense to me.


* I say less than zero because what he did submit is an admission against interest. So he did that to his own detriment, which gives it a presumption of truthfulness in court, albeit not in the much stricter court of DU, apparently.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. Or any claim for that matter....

[cui bono]

113. Here you go...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4624964

[msanthrope]

164. Not proof....merely his words with no paper to back it up. nt

[cui bono]

168. So what does it matter anyway? Does it change what the NSA is doing?

[msanthrope]

170. What does it matter? Well, first of all, it's a claim in mitigation of the criminal

charges against him. Kinda important.

[cui bono]

171. But how does that change what the NSA is doing?

Most people on here who are trying to make Snowden a bad person are doing it to negate the NSA story. I don't think it changes the fact that what the NSA is doing is wrong and should stop. I think it's two separate issues at this point.

I also think that even if he's lying now, which I would doubt since he did it at the EU Parliament I would tend to think he is being truthful. Also based on how whistleblowers are routinely ignored or worse, I would tend to believe him. Either way, the NSA issue is still the real story.

What do you think?

[msanthrope]

173. But the thread isn't about the NSA...it's about his claim of reporting 10 times to his superiors.

Which is bullshit.

As for the NSA, give me a specific question, and I will answer it.

[cui bono]

175. You're absolutely right about the thread.

I will leave it at that so as not to hijack it.

[merrily]

406. He's not in court yet, no court in the world.

[merrily]

196. Not proof, but evidence, isn't it.

And so far, it's uncontradicted with any testimony, isn't it?

[msanthrope]

262. Evidence of what? In what court do you think this is evidence? nt

[JJChambers]

282. All of them?

http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subject01/pdi_s01_m01_01.htm

Evidence can be divided into two categories:

Testimonial - statements or the spoken word from the victim(s) or witness(es).

Physical - also referred to as real evidence, consists of tangible articles such as hairs, fibers, latent fingerprints and biological material.

[msanthrope]

285. No, my friend, no. First, you have to clear the hurdle of relevancy. Explain to me

precisely how this rambling statement to the EU is relevant to any of the following: 18 U.S.C. 661, 18 U.S.C. 793(d), and 18 U.S.C. 798(a)(3).

[JJChambers]

292. Perhaps, initially, you intended to address the admissibility of this evidence?

Or is your argument that inadmissible evidence isn't actually evidence?

[msanthrope]

305. No. And no. nt

[JJChambers]

306. Then we're in agreement; evidence is evidence.

[msanthrope]

308. No, we are not in agreement. And you seem to be ducking a very precise question I posted

to you. Please answer it.

[JJChambers]

310. Yes, we are in agreement, unless you contend that evidence isn't evidence. Good day. Nt

[msanthrope]

313. I asked you a very specifc question about what you think is evidence, and it seems you cannot answer

that.

So I understand why you closing off this avenue.

[JJChambers]

316. In which post number did you ask that?

[msanthrope]

319. Post 285. nt

[JJChambers]

320. In that post you asked about relevancy.

[msanthrope]

323. Yes. Exactly. You are claiming this statement is "evidence." That is an apriori

assumption as to the nature of the thing.

You start your inquiry with FRCP 401.

What is this "evidence" of? Start with my question, and tell us how the thing you claim is "evidence" is related.

[JJChambers]

326. Diversion

Admissible or inadmissible, relevant or irrelevant, evidence is still evidence.

FRCP 401 is irrelevant.

[msanthrope]

328. No--I'm really serious--you are claiming this is "evidence." Of what, exactly, pray tell? nt

[JJChambers]

334. You know it is evidence

Whether or not Snowden attempted to alert superiors is certainly evidence of motive and it's a mitigating factor.

[msanthrope]

337. Okay--you say it's "evidence" of motive and it's a mitigating factor.

To what and for what? Look at the charges, and tell me how motive and mitigation answer these charges. Tell me how motive and mitigation are relevant.

[JJChambers]

339. How are they not?

[msanthrope]

341. Okay--the law does not work by proving negatives. It works by you claiming

"x" is relevant to an element/fact and then by you showing why the statute, precedent, or rule says it is so.

So, you claim motive and mitigation are somehow relevant to the charges---show us how.

[JJChambers]

344. Okay--forum discussions do not work constantly shifting the focus of the discussion.

In your post (262.), you wrote: "Evidence of what? In what court do you think this is evidence? nt"

My response has satisfied the question posed; the statements pertaining to notifying superiors prior to going public are indeed evidence. Evidence, whether admissible or inadmissible, is still evidence.

[msanthrope]

345. Backing down? Okay. nt

[JJChambers]

348. I've addressed your post 262 concerning evidence

There's nothing to "back down" from. You switched from discussing evidence to relevance in 285. If you still contend that evidence isn't evidence if it's irrelevant evidence, we can continue. But I'm not sure how that position is defensible.

[msanthrope]

357. No--you still haven't answered the question--what is this evidence of, precisely? nt

[JJChambers]

358. It's a confession, it goes to motive, and it's a mitigating factor.

[msanthrope]

370. Oh dear, sweet Christ....if he's confessing to the crimes he's charged with, then

his motive will be effectively irrelevant, and only brought in during sentencing.....the jury will be charged with instruction to ignore his motivations, and only look to his intent.

So, congratulations, counselor. You've now gotten your client convicted, and facing a federal judge for sentencing. A judge who will be sentencing a federal fugitive who sat in Russia for the better part of a year.

That was brilliant. Where did you get the idea that introducing his motive was a plus for the defense?

[JJChambers]

371. I think you're confused, my friend.

This is a forum, not a court. You asked a question about how Snowden's statement that he notified his superiors could be considered evidence in (any) court. I'm helping you understand how. I'm not Snowden's defense, I'm not arguing that the statements are entirely beneficial to Snowden (that's the nature of confessions, you know?), I'm simply enlightening you.

If you happen to go back and re-read some of this subthread, perhaps that will become apparent.

Have a brilliant morning.

[msanthrope]

372. So now this is evidence for a forum, but not a court? Yeah...I can see why you'd back down. nt

[JJChambers]

373. Still confused?

Is that the second or third time you've used the "back down" phrase? This isn't a fight. Are you accustomed to having to back down? Or do you regularly make indefensible statements and then try to bully posters into "backing down?"

This is a forum. Within the forum there is a thread about Snowden's recent statement that he notified his superiors prior to leaking information. Within that thread there is a subthread, in which you asked how these statements could be considered evidence in court (here we are!) -- happy to help direct you.

Reminder: I'm not Snowden's defense attorney and you're not his prosecutor. We are on a forum. You asked a question (on the forum, not in court) and I answered it (still on the forum, also not in court).

[msanthrope]

374. No--again, when confronted with the illogical nature of your claims, you've backed down. nt

[JJChambers]

377. Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it true.

Despite your numerous and transparent attempts to redirect the discussion, evidence is still evidence.

Do you use the same head-in-sand strategy when advocating for your clients? How does it work for you?

[OilemFirchen]

342. His claim is not evidence.

In a court of law, under oath, it would be considered testimonial evidence.

[merrily]

412. And how is testimonial evidence not evidence?

(This is not rhetorical or snark. I just don't know.)

[OilemFirchen]

420. Testimonial evidence IS evidence.

Everything is "evidence", as in proof or disproof of something.

It can even be self-referential: there is a pebble - which is evidence that the pebble exists.

In the context of this conversation, however, Snowden's statement, though evidence in a rhetorical sense, is otherwise a simple utterance. Were there a legal proceeding in which this utterance has testimonial value (is relevant), then it could be considered testimonial evidence. The existing warrant charges him with Theft of Government Property, Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information and Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person. His statement that he reached out to others before the commission of his crime is irrelevant to the charges. It could be used in his defense, but only if presented during trial. Otherwise, it's literally neither here nor there.

In simpler terms, a man on the run from robbery charges may say to his friends that the reached out to his family and friends seeking money before the commission of his crime. That, even if true, in and of itself is not evidence of anything.

[merrily]

426. thanks. I thought you were making a distinction between

evidence and testimonial evidence, as opposed to simply naming one kind of evidence.

In simpler terms, a man on the run from robbery charges may say to his friends that the reached out to his family and friends seeking money before the commission of his crime. That, even if true, in and of itself is not evidence of anything.

Not evidence he committed a robbery, but perhaps evidence that he had a motive for robbery.

[OilemFirchen]

430. ... and may be admissible in court...

but until he faces trial, is otherwise irrelevant. BTW, that defense would have to be offered by him, otherwise it would be heresay.

[merrily]

451. No idea why we beat the evidence issue to death when there's no arrest, let

alone a trial.

Oh, well, bookmark the thread. If and when he ever goes on trial, it might save some time. Or not.

[merrily]

363. Links to the statutes.

Not so much for you, but in case anyone else is interested.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/1994/title18/parti/chap31/sec661

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798


The statement looks relevant to me, but I am not a trial lawyer and don't know how these things play out in court

[merrily]

362. The court that is trying this case.

Don't mind me, though. I've haven't even been able to figure how why you so certain that the testimony was not submitted under oath.

I know the document at the link doesn't specify it was, but nothing says that the material at the link looks exactly like the physical papers that he submitted to the Parliament or that some law doesn't provide that all written material submitted is under oath, or whatever.


Don't know why any official body would even bother reading a statement by Snowden that was not subject to penalties of perjury, especially since he is an admitted lawbreaker.

In any event, maybe the statement is subject to penalties of perjury and maybe it isn't. I disagree that what we see at the link proves it wasn't. If it was, it's evidence. If it wasn't it could probably be submitted, though not by Snowden, in court as admission against interest, given he is confessing to a creime, and a serious one at that.

Then again, you're the lawyer.

[merrily]

365. For anyone interested in admission against interest:

An admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a stament of another that reveals something incriminating, embarassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the statement's reliability.

In criminal law, it is a statement by the defendant which acknowledges the existence or truth of some fact necessary to be proven to establish the guilt of the defendant or which tends to show guilt of the defendant or is evidence of some material fact, but not amounting to a confession.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/admission-against-interest/

I guess a prosecutor could submit it to show Snowden's guilt. It would also show that he did consult people, just not all the people he needed to consult in order to avoid violating the law.

[msanthrope]

369. Yes....and I think any defense lawyer who tried to get this submitted would

be a fool, and you'd better hope the prosecution doesn't get this in.

[JJChambers]

380. Get this... Evidence... In?

[msanthrope]

383. I didn't call it "evidence," did I? And I do think that a defense attorney who

tried to take this to a court as evidence of any sort is handing the prosecution a freebie.

[merrily]

386. You don't have to call it evidence on DU for it to be evidence.

So that seems non-responsive.

From what I posted about admissions, I assume it would be admissible as an admission against interest. If it's admissible, it's evidence, isn't it?

And I do think that a defense attorney who tried to take this to a court as evidence of any sort is handing the prosecution a freebie.

Again, you're the lawyer, but I understood from what I saw online that Snowden's defense attorney--assuming Snowden ever comes to trial--would not be able to take it to court as evidence. Only a third party could get it admitted. That's why my post upthread referred to a prosecutor.

[msanthrope]

392. I responded already to your post on admissibilty. nt

[merrily]

429. Thanks. I'm thinking a prosecutor could probably get it in.

[merrily]

443. There is no question his sworn testimony in court would be evidence.

Not proof but evidence.

And, since none of this matters unless and until he's in court, whether he has produced evidence now, when he has no obligation so to do, seems like a faux inquiry somehow. It doesn't matter a bit.

[JJChambers]

389. Your question wasn't whether the evidence was beneficial or damaging,

You weren't inquiring if a defense attorney would be "handing the prosecution a freebie" by introducing this evidence, either.

[msanthrope]

393. You and I will not agree. So what do you think this is evidence of? nt

[JJChambers]

398. We do agree

Because secretly you agree with me.

Evidence is evidence. It matters not if the evidence is relevant or irrelevant, if it is admissible or inadmissible, if it benefits the defense or prosecution, or neither or both. Evidence is evidence.

This isn't an agree or disagree discussion. You may as well try to argue that water isn't wet.

[msanthrope]

399. Secretly I agree with you? I think you've spent a little too much time trying to figure out my

thoughts, and while I find it flattering that you would devote the time, it's also a bit creepy, sir.

[JJChambers]

403. Reeeedirreeecting

Evidence is evidence.

[merrily]

382. I'd better hope? Why? Is someone going to prosecute me?

I am grateful for the disclosure. Other than that, I have no vested interest in Snowden. Besides, what prosecution would it be, if he doesn't return to the states?

Point is, it would be evidence and the very reason an admission against interest is admissible is that it is presumed to be truthful. At least, that's what I read online.

[msanthrope]

391. That's a facile interpretation of an admission against interest---

You wrote:

But, the very reason an admission against interest is admissible is that it is presumed to be truthful.

Um, no. Merely being a statement against interest does not mean it is admissible. One, you have to prove it is truly against interest, and two, that the nature and circumstances of the statement lend themselves to veracity. If a defense attorney was stupid enough to attempt to admit this document (and I'm not even going to bother discussing other reasons why that documents isn't coming in because I'm not going to debate the FRCP all day) the prosecution would be able to exclude it as self-serving. (And again, I'm not going to digress into other evidentiary issues that would keep it out.)

But let's say time, space, and reason have lost all continuity, and Mr. Snowden was in a courtroom, presenting his statement to the EU as evidence. An AUSA from a 4th tier school would make a bloodbath of his unproven claims.

No jury is going to believe that a person who stole millions of documents forgot to steal evidence of his complaints.

The problem with your client making grandiose and unproven claims is that it undercuts the veracity of other claims that may be true.

[merrily]

413. Again, it seems Snowden or attorney cannot introduce it.

That's why I referenced a prosecutor introducing it.

As for being facile, it was not an intentional omission. I am not a prosecutor or a defense attorney. I got the information online and was repeating what it said. It did not go further.

But, if he is in court, he could name names under oath and that would be evidence, which is why this whole thing about evidence is beside the point anyway.

I think all the 100s of posts on this thread boil down to two things:

1) You are one of few who are certain that Ellsberg and Drake are wrong about this and Snowden would have been just fine if he had gone to the Senate or the NSA. Given you are a lawyer, you may have a different point of view than those of us who usually look at from another perspective. And no matter how many times you say he would have been shielded, I doubt people who believe otherwise will accept that at face value.

2) all this talk of evidence or lack of evidence is beside the point since he is not on trial and has had less than zero reason to produce any.

Debating about what he has not produced and has had no reason to produce may be interesting, but doesn't make much sense unless and until he gets to court and fails to produce evidence.

Implying anything, positive or negative from his failure to produce something when he is under no obligation so to do is not warranted.

[OilemFirchen]

428. To the best of my knowledge, he's not been charged in England.

Therefore anything he "testifies" to them, even "under oath" is not evidence in the case presented by the U.S.

[merrily]

159. He is under no obligation to do so and, AFAIK, no one has asked.

Also, for all i know, he has provided documentation, just not to us. (Yet?)

If he is lying about that, the USG and said "channels" can deny it easily enough, if they wish. And they won't provide any documentation either because none can exist.

Do you disbelieve him?

[VanillaRhapsody]

205. So just when will he "provide this documentation to us"? Aren't we important enough to see it?

How long would you be willing to wait to see some evidence of these thus far unsubstantiated claims?

Even Bill Maher thinks every time he opens his mouth something crazy flies out....and this is obviously another example.

[merrily]

217. The issue is not Snowden, but violation of the 4th Amendment.

How long would you be willing to wait to see some evidence of these thus far unsubstantiated claims?

Since the issue is not Snowden, but massive, secret violation of the 4th amendment by the USG, the only evidence I am waiting for is evidence that the USG is in compliance with the Constitution. And, I expect to turn 150 long before that happens.

Aren't we important enough to see it?

"We?" who? You and me? DU?

It's not a matter of importance. It's a matter of no reason for us to be presented with evidence from anyone. We're not a court of law or a nation from whom he has requested amnesty. Even if we were, I don't know if all the evidence in the world would change many minds on DU about Snowden, either supporter or critics.

Even Bill Maher thinks every time he opens his mouth something crazy flies out

"Even" Bill Maher? He's a comedian, not a psychiatric expert. His opinion on sanity or insanity is no more authoritative than yours or mine. For that matter, many people have said much the same about Bill Maher and his mouth, though I personally usually enjoy his humor.

However, the real issue for Americans is massive violation of our Constitutional rights that government has kept illegally for a long time and intended to continue to keep secret illegally , and not Snowden.

As regards Snowden, what is relevant to the real issue is whether the info he disclosed about the illegal activities of your government and mine as to us was fake or not. And, by every indication, including those from the USG, it seems to have been real. That is all that matters.

BTW, I did see your "self-identify" reply and it made me regret that I promised not to post to you on that thread again. So, on this thread, I will tell you that I thought it a very clever post. I smiled, even though it was directed at me. So, thanks for the smile.

Also, I sincerely apologize for my part in those exchanges.

And now, I have another post on another thread that I've been dying to reply to since I saw it a while back. I bid you good night.

[VanillaRhapsody]

220. No actually it is NOT this is about the truthfulness of Snowden again saying something

with NO proof or evidence to substantiate it.

YOU seem to want to accept anything he says at face value.

[merrily]

222. No, actually, it is about massive violation of the constitution.

So, we disagree on that.

YOU seem to want to accept anything he says at face value.

Um, if true, so what? But, got any quote from one or more of my posts to back that up?

You seem to want to take nothing he says at face value. So?

You also seem to think that whether he provides a written document is more important than massive violations by your government on your dime.

So, we disagree on that, too.

[VanillaRhapsody]

223. NO in this thread we are discussing the fact that SNOWDEN again SAYS he has done something

without evidence

(and obviously YOU just believe anything he says....)


THAT is what this is about.

Its very simple...no matter how many times you make the strawman.

[merrily]

225. Regardless of the OP, the 4th amendment is real issue in the entire scenario.

Speaking of not providing evidence, you did not respond to my request to provide any evidence from my posts that I believe anything he says.

On the other hand, I have at least one post on this thread that say IF Snowden is telling the truth, which clearly indicates that I neither believe him nor disbelieve him. Guess why i don't trouble myself about it? Because massive violation of the 4th Amendment by government with my tax dollars is the real issue. I know you don't agree, but I am happy to live with that disagreement.

But again, even if I did believe him, so what? I have an absolute right to believe whatever I want. So do you.

So are these posts even about Snowden or do you just want to fling accusations at me, even if they are only about what I "seem to want to believe."

Actually, never mind answering unless it makes you feel good. Our exchanges do not seem to lead anywhere. I am going to stop before they devolve. I again apologize for my part in our exchanges on the poll thread, and again bid you good night,

[VanillaRhapsody]

226. so are you saying that just the name Snowden is synonymous with the 4th Amendment?

Seriously???

If Snowden danced naked by moonlight....that would be a story about the 4th Amendment?


Do you think that makes sense?

[cui bono]

338. No. You are absolutely not important enough.

[VanillaRhapsody]

352. and apparently neither are you!

[cui bono]

356. I'm not outraged about it.

Like some people claim to be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4627659

[rhett o rick]

227. No but blindly believing Republicans Clapper and Alexander could be considered authoritarian. nm

[Rex]

438. Look at these sub-threads!

Amazing watching people that are never at fault or wrong! Authoritarian? I think it is something else.

[fried eggs]

22. That's simply not true. I admit I haven't followed the Snowden debates that closely

but there has never been a post or OP stating that he wrote to any officials, much less 10 officials. This is the first time. I read the article, and it simply says he wrote to 10 officials, but doesn't give details on who those officials were.

Again, if this information was spread after the information first leaked, a lot of the Snowden debates could have been avoided.

However, mentioning this now, without giving any names, is not going to help.

[merrily]

163. Help?

In all likelihood, people who are glad he made the disclosure don't much care if he gives names or not. Many of them don't even care if he went through channels or not. They're just glad for the disclosure.

In all likelihood, the people who are not glad he made the disclosure aren't going to be any gladder if he gives ten names.

It probably would, however, cause problems of one kind of another, maybe several kinds, for the people named. If you were one of them, would you want Snowden to name you?

So, if it wants to name them, fine with me. If Snowden is telling the truth, they put him in this spot. If it doesn't want to name them, maybe it's just as well.

[Aerows]

192. He can't legally name the 10 officials

because that would be identifying members of the NSA. That's why this is a circular argument. He would be locked up for treason if he disclosed the identity of 10 members of the NSA and/or CIA.

Try again.

[msanthrope]

257. There is no prohibtion on naming NSA employees. Perhaps you could cite the law you

are referring to?

And cite the law that would prevent you from turning over the names to a federal prosecutor, or a judge?

[MannyGoldstein]

268. The Espionage Act of 1917

There's nothing that can't be prosecuted under that act, according to the Obama Administration - which is why it's prosecuted more people under that act then all other presidents combined.

Even if a defendant would ultimately prevail at trial, Obama can throw many millions at making the defendants life a living hell, forcing them to spend their assets on lawyers until they go bankrupt and the lawyers head off for paying customers.

[msanthrope]

275. WHAT???? Kindly cite the actual subsection of the law you are referring to. You know, the one

where it says we prosecute people for naming NSA employees.....

Hell....name the case where someone has been prosecuted for revealing the name of NSA employees under the Espionage Act. Come on!! NAME ONE!!!

[Number23]

347. It is just a joy to watch you in evisceration mode

[DonViejo]

126. What is your response to this comment...

above?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024624823#post17

[Aerows]

195. I replied to it

And why it is a fictitious argument.

[msanthrope]

6. Indeed--where is the documentation proving this claim? I would have saved an email or two. nt

[Aerows]

197. And taken on a treason charge

for disclosing the identity of NSA or CIA members? Try again.

You claim to be a lawyer (which I believe you, though you may be as full of it as you think Snowden is), therefore you can't possibly be unaware of the consequences of disclosing the identities of NSA or CIA employees. I *KNOW* you are smarter than that, even if you aren't a lawyer.

[msanthrope]

258. Kindly cite the law you are referring to, please? I am quite serious about this---kindly cite the

law you are referring to.

[1awake]

265. I'm around lawyers all the time

and very few of them would know the consequences of this. Being a lawyer doesnt make them all knowing.

[msanthrope]

276. True...but since you are around lawyers all the time, why not ask them if it's a crime to

say the name of someone who is working with the NSA????

[1awake]

286. I wouldn't need to; I already know the answer.

It would depend on the position. I would say the fast majority of workers it would not be illegal. Depending on the position, contract and duty, it most certainly could be. Not sure any of that has to do with this situation though.

[msanthrope]

288. Really??? Care to cite the provision of law you think tells you this? nt

[1awake]

289. Which part? Your not really trying to say nobody at the NSA is doing convert/secret work? nt

[msanthrope]

307. Again....point me to the law you think precludes you from naming an NSA employee, even if they

are doing covert/secret work.

[1awake]

309. Your playing word games, thus not debating honestly. Ill opt out. nt

[msanthrope]

311. I'm asking you this in all seriousness....you've made a claim, kindly provide the law you think this

violates???

[merrily]

419. If they're doing covert work, wouldn't that come close to the Plame situation.

Apparently, outing her was a crime, but there was some mumbo jumbo about Cheney having authority to classify, and, by extrapolation, power to de-classify and he implicitly de-classified.

[cui bono]

19. I don't know, but I don't think that would have stopped the debates in the least.

I haven't read the rest of this thread yet... could be interesting and might prove it one way or the other.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. Maybe he did, and it simply didn't fit the reporting narrative?

[merrily]

135. Maybe. Maybe not.

It seems to be more about how things may reflect on or affect Obama.

[Aerows]

183. Bingo

Had this happened under Bush, the hell being raised on DU would rival WWIII. Under Obama? Snowden must be smeared at all costs.

[1StrongBlackMan]

317. Because he just thought about it. eom

[MrMickeysMom]

375. This was made public, but if you think it would have avoided what you saw on DU...

Uh-uh, now…

[merrily]

414. Sure didn't avoid it on this thread, did it?

[Cleita]

2. Don't confuse the Snowden bashers with

information.

[msanthrope]

26. I would love the information!! Where's the actual proof he did this? nt

[Cleita]

29. Do you think the WAPO reporter would have written this article

without documentation to back her words? Actually she provides links to the documents she is basing her report on.

[msanthrope]

32. Yes--I do. She provides a link to testimony, but not to actual evidence...like emails, or copies of

his complaints.

If you have copies of his complaints, please provide a direct link.

[Cleita]

34. Sorry, I didn't write the article. Maybe you need to ask that author the

question and if Snowden has provided them to her. She may not have considered to publish them but has them. The testimony is done under oath and considered a legal document as far as I know.

[msanthrope]

38. Um...this was unsworn--as you can see by your link provided. And where's the link to the evidence

he provided to either the Parliament, or to the reporter. In fact, the reporter mentions having no source other than Snowden's unsworn testimony.

Where are the copies?

[Cleita]

61. You need to email this reporter, if you really care, and ask her but I have

a feeling that whatever is provided to you as proof won't be enough. I did prove my point though. Once a Snowden hater always a Snowden hater.

[msanthrope]

65. Enough for what? He says he complained! Okay....show proof of that. It's pretty simple. nt

[Cleita]

75. The burden of proof is not mine. Stop with the red herrings already.

I didn't write the article or the OP.

[treestar]

105. Then why do you believe it's there without seeing it first?

Just because Eddie said so?

[rhett o rick]

219. "Just because Eddie said so?" Oh plez. nm

[neffernin]

129. You are saying that asking for proof instead of relying on hearsay

is a red herring. Just figured I'd throw that out there.

[merrily]

423. It goes both ways.

Others seem to be saying, or implying, at least, that failure to produce proof when you are under no obligation so to do and may damage yourself if you do, means you have no proof.


He may or may not have a paper trail of who he discussed this with. Remember, this was secret info before he disclosed it. If he does, he is not in court, not under subpoena, nothing. He has literally less than zero reason to produce paperwork even if he created any.

Besides, if he created paperwork, would we trust it? If he is telling the truth, it's highly unlikely that the people he saw would have signed anything.



Until he gets into court, all this arguing about evidence and proof and paperwork is a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing..

If he were in court, and had no paperwork, his sworn testimony would be evidence, even if he has no paperwork.

[VanillaRhapsody]

206. "you have a feeling"

yeah..,..gotcha...

Feelings are always considered valid in a court of law...

[Aerows]

190. Uh, you *are* a lawyer, right?

Are you *really* going to sit here and preach that he should disclose information, which would include the names of the people he submitted his concerns to, thereby outing NSA personnel?

What?

[msanthrope]

312. Yes. nt

[cui bono]

115. Here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4624964

[msanthrope]

169. That's a statement...not proof of anything. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

376. Be honest...

You don't want to do the homework.

May I put a bib on you and feed you until you make "yummy sounds"… How about that I burp your ass afterwards?

[msanthrope]

378. Good lord....I don't want to hear about your sexual fantasies towards me. How uncouth. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

379. predictable answer...

sophomoric, but whatever satisfies your scope of interpretation…

[msanthrope]

381. How should one answer your rudeness? nt

[merrily]

415. As you know, the OP article provides information.

As you know, information and proof are not the same thing. Neither are information and evidence.

[Blue_Tires]

59. I've been begging for information nonstop since the whole ordeal began

it's kind of difficult to paint a full picture of a situation using only one drop of paint at a time...

[msanthrope]

4. Does he have any evidence of this? Any? nt

[randome]

9. He has this much evidence.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

13. I was thinking it was more the jack/shit quotient myself. nt

[Cha]

71. He's a liar. He needs to show proof if he's going to spout off his fucking mouth.

Course, he'll have the contingent of those who believe whatever he says.. just like they believe all of greenwald's crap.

[msanthrope]

73. I await the proof of a single email. And enjoy reading the reasons why it can't be produced. nt

[Union Scribe]

161. And if he did?

Do you really think those posters here, or people elsewhere, who are so deeply invested in being anti-Snowden are going to say, "Well shit I was wrong"? No, they'd just say they were fakes.

[msanthrope]

167. So, because his proof might be treated with skepticism, that's the reason there is no proof?

This is like a crop circle thread.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

162. He's a liar? We have plenty of documentary evidence that NSA is pakced with liars.

On the other hand, you have no backing for your claim, which is ironic in a thread where those holding your opinion are yammering for evidence.

[merrily]

427. No, he doesn't need to show proof before he speaks.

Unless and until he is in a court of law on trial or he's received a subpoena, he has zero obligation to show proof.

No one has to believe him unless and until he shows proof, but that is a different issue.

[SwankyXomb]

95. Much like the birthers and the President's birth certificate

Based on your posts, I don't think any evidence could convince you.

[treestar]

107. And you can be convinced just because Eddie says so?

[SwankyXomb]

123. I wouldn't mind there being some evidence behind it

but my point was that even if there was a mountain of proof, with the people Snowden allegedly talked to coming forward with video of the meetings, it wouldn't be enough to satisfy msanthrope or a number of others.

[treestar]

132. If he showed he went through what the WPA allows him

He'd have even less reason to flee, so it's a moot point. He fled the country because he knows he can be prosecuted and didn't have that defense. Why not come back then and use that defense? He could have done so in the first place. I know his supporter's excuse is that the defense is a joke or some such thing and it just wouldn't count because he would instead be sent to Gitmo, etc., but that just is too out there for people who work in the legal system. It may have faults, but it's not a complete farce.

[Aerows]

185. And for one reason

It happened under the Obama Administration. They would be calling for President Romney to hang.

[merrily]

433. Almost anything can be falsified anymore, even money.

[MannyGoldstein]

251. So far, everything he's said has checked out, while

the Executive branch has admitted it knowingly lied to even to Congress and is fine with it. Absolutely fine.

So, given their respective track records, Snowden's most likely right.

[msanthrope]

254. So Snowden must be telling the truth because James Clapper lied? I don't think that's a logical

way of judging candor.

I think the grandiosity of Mr. Snowden's current claim is unfortnate for his supporters.

[MannyGoldstein]

255. Which part of "most likely" means "must"?

Words have meanings, yes?

It looks like the CIA also spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee just for shits and grins. Shits on the Constitution, that is. The Executive branch is totally out of control, any truth emerging from it is totally a coincidence.

There may well be no proof of Snowden's allegations if true, he'd have been dumb to do it in writing given what's been done to other who did. And he might not want to make scapegoats of those he informed, because, you know, this President has not been shy about totally screwing lower-level employees if it might stop Fox News from being such meanies (which it never does, anyway).

[msanthrope]

256. Again--not a very logical test for candor. I am dismayed to hear you echo a RW talking point:

The Executive branch is totally out of control,

Quite a few CPAC speakers have railed against the "Imperial Presidency" of President Obama this week, so I am pondering your echoing of that meme. Indeed, Senator Cruz has spent quite a lot of time over the last month railing against the "lawlessness" of the Obama presidency.

You also wrote:

There may well be no proof of Snowden's allegations if true, he'd have been dumb to do it in writing given what's been done to other who did.

Again--that is not logical. When one fears retaliation, one does not go and complain 10 times. And to not write anything down also seems illogical.

[MannyGoldstein]

260. Oh, now I'm a CPAC member.

That's #%^*ing awesome.

[msanthrope]

263. I'm saying that your concern over the Exec. branch echoes a hot CPAC topic--much like your Benghazi

concern echoed a RW concern, and used RW sources----

Yikes, I just saw the polling on this


70% of Americans think Benghazi! Is a big problem. Republicans seem to be good at ginning up fully-fake scandals, and Democrats suck at stopping them.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4339715

That's a fairly interesting subthread, no?

[MannyGoldstein]

266. "You're not CPAC... BUT YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN PLANT OF SOME KIND, DAMMIT!!!"

You inadvertently forgot to mention my prompt apology when my mistake was caught. How often do you see apologies on DU? I'll bet only Republicans apologize, right? Because I don't recall seeing YOU ever apologize.

Regards,

Republican-plant-of-some-kind Manny

[msanthrope]

267. You seem upset. I am merely noting the various concerns you raise, and the sources

you use to do so.

Like when you blamed President Obama for a law written and sponsored by a Republican, and passed 16 years ago, after raising the RW meme of "usurpation of American laws."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4550863

(It starts with post # 1 and subthread.)

[MannyGoldstein]

269. It cracks me up that in the thread you refer to, you refuse to look at links I supplied

Because, you know, you're too important for that. But now you run around looking for instances where I was wrong (and admitted it in all cases, although I was clearly right about the larger point on the TPP but you couldn't click on the link I supplied because, you know, you're too important).

Refuses to click on links that hurts their case.

OK.

As I wrote in the TPP thread: "Seems like you're interested in scoring points, not in finding the truth." And that, my friend, is the essence of being a Republican today.

Good day.

[msanthrope]

273. Manny, your complaint doesn't seem grounded in logic or facts.

After proving that you were blaming President Obama for a law passed 16 years ago, you demanded that I click a blind link that you provided without context or excerpt.

I don't generally play the Internet's version of "pull my finger," but I afforded you the courtesy of offering to answer any specific questions you might have.

I am still awaiting those specific questions.

But here is a curious parallel between you and Mr. Snowden....the lack of proof posted of claims---

Here, in this thread, you claimed that a friend of your had a 23% rate increase under the ACA, and you knew this because you had the letter--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024479945

I asked you then to produce proof of said letter. You didn't.

Interestingly, Mr. Snowden hasn't produced jack shit to back his assertion that he complained 10 times.

I agree with Mr. Krugman on ACA claims of this sort---(it's a short thread!)

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4573513

[L0oniX]

384. Before you know it you will be told that you have issues with your mother.

The person you are going back and forth with is not here to benefit the DU community IMO.

[L0oniX]

333. My mother ...drunk or sober.

[Blue_Tires]

7. Who did he go to, and when?

Is he talking about his time at BAH, at Dell, or earlier?? One of the things I was hoping to have by now was a clear, definitive timeline of when and where Snowden worked, along with what he found at each stop...

He knows if there is gross incompetence/corruption/wrongdoing at the top, it's perfectly legal to out them, right?

[randome]

11. He's talking out his ass.

On the bright side, today is Employee Appreciation Day and I get to go home early! Too bad about Snowden, though.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[KoKo]

50. His Lawyers are not going to let him give names. He has a sealed indictment

against him here in the USA. He would have to be put on trial if he came back. He has legal protection who would not want him divulging that info. The people he spoke to would have to give testimony and until there is a trial...there's no reason to name names for their own protection and Snowden's.

[Blue_Tires]

82. I'm pretty sure he isn't planning to come back for the foreseeable future

and if he did come back to face trial, why wouldn't he take as many criminally corrupt/evil/inept superiors down with him if he truly has the goods on them?? And why on Earth would he ever want to 'protect' them? To say nothing of the fact that IF the Justice Dept. starts arresting some mid-to-high level NSA folks, they might blow the whistle on even bigger, unknown crimes in an effort to make a deal...

There's still also the 0.1% chance that he gets a full pardon and all charges are dropped (I have a hunch Snowden is betting big on that longshot outcome becoming a reality) so there's still no downside to outing the bad guys...

This has to be the first time in recorded history that an organization/entity/whatever this large has this much evidence of global illegalities against them, and for some mystical reason it's verboten to try and piece together who knew what, who answered to who and who signed off on which orders...We're damn near a year into this and no closer to figuring that out whatsoever...I mean, I don't even have a timeline yet(!) It's like Snowden is hiding more than he's revealing...

It just boggles the mind...

[OilemFirchen]

89. You responded to an unbelivable non-sequitor.

I'll add that any testimony he can offer about this would be useful in his defense, should the unlikely event of a trial ever come to pass, to at least mitigate his sentence.

[KoKo]

94. It's up to Congress & EU Countries Parliaments to Open Investigations

and then propose and pass proper legislation to stop it. Will need much pressure from the Citizens of all these countries to get follow through.

[Blue_Tires]

98. Why isn't it up to the Justice Department?

All Snowden has to do is out a couple of people overstepping their bounds or involved in a cover-up (he has thousands of signed documents and memos as proof of lawbreaking) and Justice will pretty much have to act...

I understand him wanting to spare some low-level peons or mindless cogs in the machine, but at least give Justice a toehold so they can get a little momentum...

If anything, I'd thought he'd do it just for the sake of getting the media scrutineers off his back... Because it's clear by now he does have something he wants to keep hidden...The funny part is when the story first broke, there was a clear, definite "force the issue and keep the defenders off-balance" strategy while they were getting the ball rolling (and in case anyone missed it, there was a very clear pattern to the stories last summer and fall being timed for maximum exposure, maximum outrage from citizens and maximum embarrassment for Washington)...But after almost a year of building a case of illegal acts, only now do they get conservative?

[treestar]

109. True why not identify them all if they did such terrible things?

Keeping their identities back due to his own interests proves once again, his reasons for doing it are not what he claims.

[Blue_Tires]

137. I think Snowden in his mind has the notion (rightly or wrongly)

that this cleanup campaign can be completely antiseptic, painless, and trouble-free by making sure the story only focuses on institutional wrongdoing while keeping the details and particulars behind the veil...

Yeah, he can point at some old, ugly garbage dumpster overflowing with trash, roaches and rodents and let us know how filthy it is, how much it stinks, and point out how much of an environmental danger it potentially is to everyone around it -- But if he's serious about cleaning it out he's going to need to get neck-deep in the shit, get his hands dirty and put some muscle and sweat into it...

[KoKo]

176. I have no idea.........

Their track record is to have cases brought to them then they let Wall Street Criminals off with Fines which they can well afford.

So...sorry...don't know why.

[merrily]

431. MIght not be his choice.

Russia gave him a year, and only if he made no more disclosures (a side deal with the US, I imagine, negotiated while he lived in the airport until Russia gave permission)

You saw the trouble he had before that. Even if another country agrees to grant him asylum, how is going to get there? I don't think he has a valid passport at this point.

[Blue_Tires]

464. Who says he has to fly under a U.S. passport?

I have to go back and check, but I think it was announced that the yearlong time frame was extended to 'indefinite', so I don't think there are any problems there...

[merrily]

466. No one, including me, said that, but I don't think

he has any passport. And that's not even counting whether he makes it to the destination.

When it comes to Snowden vs the world's last remaining super power, the one that is cooperating with all nations, including Russia, in the war on TERRA, I wouldn't place a bet. That's all I'm saying.

Even if there was an indefinite extension, that means only that the guillotine will always be over his neck. Could be welcome/tolerated there a year and a day, could be for the rest of life. But, every morning he wakes up until then, he will have to wonder if today's the today his troubles begin all over again.

If pushkin comes shove, will Russia defy the US over him? I don't think so. From that, I assume that the US was okay with the extension. That may or may not continue to be the case. I hope it is. Meanwhile, Clapper and the rest of the USG rests and wakes easy peasy. And most Americans are walking around convinced they actually have rights.

[Blue_Tires]

468. He couldn't apply for RU citizenship?

Given the circumstances, I'm thinking the Russian gov't would fast-track it...

And then fly direcly to Brazil on a Russian passport, since that is clearly what he wants?

Seems simple to me, unless there is something more going on behind the scenes and the Russian gov't is 'discouraging' him from leaving...

[struggle4progress]

224. The only lawyer with access to Eddie is that guy from Russian intelligence, Anatoly

[msanthrope]

264. Look--if his lawyers had any control over him, they would have stopped him from talking to the EU

Parliament because it serves his criminal case no earthly good.

[geek tragedy]

15. did he keep copies of the emails? nt

[msanthrope]

23. You know--you'd think he would. nt

[merrily]

432. Knowing what he knew about emails, I'm amazed he emailed.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. In govt work...you DON'T just delete emails.....you keep a paper trail of all communication because

CYA is very important. If there were digital communications of his doing this....he DEFINITELY would have kept a copy of them....even if he had to mail a copy of them to himself.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

18. I'm sure he has email records of having raised issues. Right? Otherwise, it is hard to prove

If he did the smart thing a sys admin and someone considering breaking the law by fleeing with unheard of amounts of classified data would do....he should have those emails somewhere. Or some other provable document trail.

[merrily]

424. Did he say he raised issues about revealing top secret stuff via email?

In his shoes, I would have met the people in a location I knew was secure and, even then, whispered in their ears.

Besides, you can falsify the time and date of an email, so why trust an email? (I did it once by accident.)

[woo me with science]

21. Thank you, Edward Snowden.

Cue the bat signal!

Seventeen techniques for trolling and truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741

The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

[msanthrope]

25. Asking if he kept copies of his complaints is "truth supression?" nt

[Cali_Democrat]

43. Stasi!!!

or something like that.....

[msanthrope]

46. My criminal clients need to try this strategy....I had a guy whose alibi

was a pharmacy receipt and videotape that clearly showed he was 40 blocks away when the murder he was accused of committing went down.

Instead of presenting this evidence, he just should have produced a Greenwald column.

[Number23]

150. How DARE you come in here with your years of legal knowledge and experience and stuff!

This is why I laugh so hard when I see folks toss out "bots" and worshipers, swooners etc about the president's supporters. 'Cause if ANYONE exhibits that behavior around here....

I'd like to see proof of this as well. And like other smart people, I am genuinely confused why this information wasn't front and center in every single story about Snowden -- until now. Hell, he could have even tossed it into his Christmas Greeting from last year.

[msanthrope]

174. This is a crop circle thread. The lack of proof of aliens means....

it was aliens.

The lack of proof from Snowden means.....it's true.

These are the posters I desperately pray for during jury selection.

[Number23]

216. A crop circle thread. By George, you've nailed it

But they're soooo pretty though...

[woo me with science]

229. Oh my. (Seventeen techniques for truth suppression)

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 06:00 AM - Edit history (1)

What a perfectly illustrative subthread...and thread.

Let's see....3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13....It goes on and on.

Yet it's all *still* about mass, unconstitutional spying and abuse of power, all this diligent effort notwithstanding.

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression*
http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.&quot

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

_____________________________________________________
*Thanks to Matariki for reposting this list recently.

[Number23]

231. It's a vague improvement over your usual sentences of noun, verb and "PROPAGANDA!1!" but not

by much.

Your bewildering decision to brand every single person here who disagrees with you as "Orwellian propagandists" or "truth suppressors" is probably one of the most eye rollingly predictable and still unintentionally hilarious things on this web site. PLEASE carry on. We are all enjoying the chuckles.

Edit: And besides, I think this List is more apt http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023707888

[woo me with science]

234. I know! How *unrealistic* the concepts of advertising and propaganda are.

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)

It's good to have that conspiracy theory pointed out by the posters invoking crop circles, appealing to authority, and trying desperately to change the subject from the criminal NSA.

Funny how attempts to invoke wild conspiracy theories at DU invariably come from corporatist posters trying to push the absurd suggestion that governments and corporations do not spend millions to advertise, propagandize, and shape public opinion.

How wild-eyed and conspiratorial to suggest that those imposing policy against the will of the people would attempt to use their deep pockets to shape public opinion or disrupt dissent. Certainly those with a political agenda, and especially corporatists in this country, have *never* attempted to use their deep pockets to propagandize media before.

How *much* more logical to believe that political boards across the internet experienced a radical and bizarre influx of corporatism-spouting participants all within the space of a few years for no reason whatsoever and during a time when polling data clearly show the mood of the country moving the opposite way. It's obviously just a bizarre fluke that the number of corporate mouthpieces, and their ratio to other incoming posters, keeps increasing relentlessly, weirdly, and steadily...and that they all use the very same talking points and tactics including starting threads well out of proportion to their presence in the community, *never* letting a thread critical of the administration go unanswered, and demanding the last word in nearly every exchange.



In all seriousness, Snowden exposed vast and ongoing abuse of power by our government against its own citizens. The by now predictable and relentless slinging of trivia and smear you have brought to this thread serve only to highlight through comparison the grave seriousness of the criminality you are trying so hard to obscure.




States that build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines:

Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796

Salon: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal: Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting posters is blatant and unnatural.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

The government figured out sockpuppet managment but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454

Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741

Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351

The influx will continue
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4216987

[Number23]

235. I should probably be surprised a photo of crop circles set you off like this but for some reason

I'm not.

[woo me with science]

238. "set you off like this"

Number 5.

See how simple it is?

[Number23]

245. Everything is simple when you see enemies and conspiracies around every corner

Continue to show us all how it's done.

[woo me with science]

246. Still Number 5. Trying desperately to invoke crop circles and "conspiracy" theories,

to divert from very real, serious crimes by our government against its own citizens:

DEA Covers Up Use of NSA Surveillance and Fabricates Evidence Trails to Convict Americans
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/dea-surveillance-cover-up_n_3706207.html

[Number23]

247. Spoken like a true #19

[merrily]

421. For eleven year olds anyway.

[msanthrope]

252. Apparently the crop circles have numbers, now. I suppose it got tiring to write

"cryptofascistcorprademauthoritarianstasi," every single time.

But these are crop circle threads....to ASK for proof is proof that you are (insert number, here.) To express skepticism is proof that you wish to deny the TRUTH.

The supporters of Snowden have made a tactical mistake here: the grandiosity of the claim indicates that Mr. Snowden's utility is fading. Not the star to hitch your wagon to.

[Number23]

346. Yes and many others have noted the same thing. That asking for proof of Snowden's claims

makes you an "authoritariancryptofacistObamabootlicker" but taking the man's word with not a shred of proof defines the real pursuers of truth and justice. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so stupid, embarrassing and more than a little sad.

As I said before, I have no idea why this is just now coming out and why if Snowden had actually done what's he's now saying he did, why this wasn't front and center in every single Snowden story. If he did this, it totally changes the narrative and the majority of Americans who believe that he committed treason (because no matter how much certain DUers bray and moan that he is the manifester of all truth, the real truth is a significant majority of Americans want him jailed) would probably never have felt that way.

[msanthrope]

351. It's coming out now because Greenwald's book is out at the end of the month. It's part of a larger

narrative to attempt to generate sympathy and support for Snowden because he hasn't been able to mount an effective defense to the charges against him. The DOJ has effectively laughed at Radack, and her attempts to represent Snowden. (She's decided she is his 'legal advisor' now.) The next couple of months are going to be pretty interesting.

[woo me with science]

232. Psst.

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:41 AM - Edit history (2)

Appeals to authority don't work very well (That's a Number 7, btw.)...even when the attorney *isn't* an anonymous poster on the internet and even when he or she *can* spell the word, "suppression."

[Number23]

233. When she misspells "Orwellian" I'll be sure to let you know

As you are the master speller of that word. Probably comes with using it 4000 times a day.

[woo me with science]

248. Yes, it's certainly tempting to make the allusion to that great novel

when you wake up to find that the United States government is aggressively engaged in:

*mass surveillance of its own citizens and storage of their activities and words for later use
*online disinformation, propaganda, manipulation, and smear campaigns against its own citizens,
*surveillance of protesters and militarized suppression of dissent,
*fabrication of evidence trails to arrest Americans
*surveillance of sexual activities for smear campaigns
*use of national security apparatus for corporate espionage
*surveillance of Congress
*assaults on journalism, to the point that the country has fallen to #46 in press freedom
*persecution of whistleblowers

Making the allusion to the novel becomes nothing short of irresistible when the government doubles down in the face of overwhelming evidence of these crimes and starts dispensing doublespeak like:

Drone murders are Legal, Ethical and Wise.(War is Peace.)
Surveillance Tools should Empower the People. (Freedom is Slavery.)
There is no Spying on Americans. (Ignorance is Strength.)

I'm afraid Third Way accusations of hysteria don't work so well when corporate money has infested our government to the point that our Constitutional protections are being dismantled through deliberate law and policy, all around us.

[bvar22]

444. What was that wonderful piece of "Newspeak" used by General Clapper?

Oh Yeah.
Clapper framed his bald faced LIE to The Senate as "the least untruthful".
I'm sure Orwell was laughing from his grave.

Perjury By Permission: Clapper Apologizes For False Testimony And The Congress Remains Silent

<snip>

When National Intelligence Director James Clapper appeared before the Senate, he was asked directly, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.”

We now know that was a lie. Moreover, many of the senators who heard that testimony knew it was a lie because they admitted later to knowing about the NSA program to gather data on every citizen. Later, Clapper said that his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make. Yet, of course, that would still make it an untrue statement — which most people call a lie and lawyers call perjury. Indeed, when Roger Clemens was prosecuted for untrue statements before Congress, he was not told of the option to tell the least untrue statement on steroid use.

<more>

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/03/perjury-by-permission-clapper-apologizes-for-false-testimony-and-the-congress-remains-silent/

Orwell was a prophet,
and 1984 was a warning
NOT a Blue Print.

[merrily]

434. But even 60 years in law school wouldn't tell her if he has evidence or not.

So, it's beside the point for purposes of her main point.

[Number23]

460. Whatever the hell this is even supposed to mean

Not that anyone cares, including the 11 year olds that you felt the need to refer to in your other equally baffling post

[merrily]

461. Obviously, many care, including her, or this thread wouldn't be this long.

[Whisp]

209. haha, Respect our Authoritay! Signed: Authoritarians of da BOG.

[woo me with science]

236. Nope, it's a shameless Number 13.

Here's the *relevant* information:


"working harder than a cat trying to bury shit on a linoleum floor"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4625224

Mass spying on its own citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014560257#post7

Fabrication of evidence trails to arrest citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023406605

Surveillance of sexual activities
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014658585

Lying to Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023491179
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014525329

Spying on Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4620624

Spying on foreign citizens and pressuring foreign govts to adopt mass surveillance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024622978

Spying on political "enemies" and to suppress dissent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12527904

Corporate espionage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014709203
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023923016

That's a hell of a mountain of corruption to try and bury.

[WillyT]

27. LOL !!!

[Mojorabbit]

28. LOL nt

[L0oniX]

385. LMFAOROTFLOL

[TwilightGardener]

24. Riiight. So he takes a shitload of classified documents/military secrets and

runs to China and then Russia, and now want to live in Brazil, because dammit, they just wouldn't LISTEN to him. Of course he's a spy, sometimes things are exactly as they appear. It's amazing to me how people will believe spin and propaganda about someone, instead of making judgments via observable facts.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

31. Too bad we live in a country in which he HAD TO flee

what's ammattah with you people???

[Whisp]

212. Snowden said he ran because he was afraid, now he is saying he was not afraid

and wrote those emails while employed?

Now which is it? Why is this obvious 180 degree turn not bothersome to you?

I'm embarassed for some of you.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

213. lol

You really don't know.

[frylock]

45. this is nothing but observable opinion..

and it sucks at that.

[TwilightGardener]

69. Fact: He took the B/A/H job to access the material (he said this).

Fact: He worked there all of three months, downloaded whatever he could, and left the country with it, went to China.

Fact: From there he went to Russia, and is still there (though he offered US info to Greenwald's Brazil in exchange for asylum--BRICS nations seem to be offering him a good deal of support, for some reason--wonder why, LOL).

Actions speak louder than words--in this case, they're everything.

[merrily]

435. It may appear to you that he is a spy, but it does not appear to everyone that way.

I have no idea if he is a spy or not or if he spoke to anyone or not.

A lot of what he disclosed has been discussed and shared between governments anyway in the common effort in the war against Terra.

I think people who claim to be certain of any of that are speaking from one bias or another. (not that that's a bad thing on a message board. Humans tend to have biases.)

Personally, I don't care what he's guilty of. I am grateful for the disclosures, but he knew what risks he was taking. So, if he has to pay the price, so be it. And that is what he had to have decided before he went ahead with the disclosures and whatever else he may or may not have gone ahead with.

[struggle4progress]

35. Oh? South China Morning Post on 12 June 2013 reported that Snowden told them

he had taken the BAH job specifically because “My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked”

[Cha]

77. LIke I said. snowden's a fooking liar. Anyone who believes his shit..

needs to look at the GWB real estate deals.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. It's kinda like a mafioso reporting to the Godfather that the Mafia is doing illegal stuff.

And, asking for "protection" rather than a ride to the NJ swamps.

[msanthrope]

39. Comparing Snowden to a rat is pretty apt. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. As is comparing the NSA to the Mafia.

[msanthrope]

42. Without a doubt. Some of us don't think in terms of good and evil. nt

[BlueCheese]

152. Exactly.

"Excuse me, Don Corleone. I've found out that our family is engaged in racketeering, money laundering, and other illegal activities. I trust you'll do whatever it takes to put an end to this."

[Maedhros]

37. One thing is certain:

The motivations and actions of one individual are far more important, and require much more analysis, than the serial abuse of the Constitution by a mammoth Federal agency.

[msanthrope]

40. So you say on a thread about Snowden. nt

[azureblue]

47. All you do is throw bombs

you admitted already that you know little about this matter. Somehow, you feel you are allowed to talk about something you know nothing about. If you want to continue to make an ID10T of yourself by attacking the messenger, and refusing to talk about the message, then, by all means, governor, please proceed.

[msanthrope]

49. Excuse me? Look, if you've got proof that he actually complained, please post it. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

70. It's always a moving target for you and your type

Sure, you'll believe a piece of dogshit like Clapper, who we know lied to Congress, but now you need proof of Snowden's claim. None of us know if Snowden is telling the truth on this score. To argue completely and vociferously either one way or another is deceitful.

[msanthrope]

72. Actually, it's not a moving target at all. He says he complained 10 times. Any proof? As for

Clapper, well, of course he lied. So what? If any member of Congress thought it was perjury, they are free to file for contempt.

But no one has. Not even Wyden.

[Caretha]

270. So What So What So What

I noticed earlier in the thread you claimed to be an attorney. For an attorney you certainly display complete contempt for the law - in fact more contempt than the ambulance chasers we all love and respect - and especially in such small matters such as perjurying oneself to Congress. You know.......so what - so what - so what.

You have more in common with this guy than you do Democrats....."Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

As for Clapper, well, of course he lied. So what? If any member of Congress thought it was perjury, they are free to file for contempt.

[msanthrope]

274. We attorneys tend to know the difference between lying and perjury. And if you

don't think I am an attorney, then I suggest you do what I have said to other posters---

Tell admin. Because I have claimed to work for the Obama campaign as an election monitor. That's a pretty serious claim, and one that I can prove to admin by giving them my name and bar number. PA has an online database.

Clapper lied...so what? Given that there's not a single member of Congress seeking to hold him accountable for that action, what does that tell you about the nature of the untruth he told?

[randome]

284. Funny someone wants to question your bonafides after having proven them over many years.

'Funny'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

287. It's the same reaction criminal clients have when you tell them something they don't want to hear.

I'm used to it. You tell them the law, and their chances, and then they question where you went to school.

[merrily]

462. No one questioned her bona fides.

Everyone agrees she is a lawyer and entitled to post on DU. Rightly or wrongly, her posting tactics have been questioned.

[Puglover]

290. Just a FYI.

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Admin would say........"we're not the truth police" as they have said 20,000 times in the past.

It isn't their job and they don't give a crap.

If anyone actually was silly enough to present this to them the silence would be deafening.

I should add, unless something has changed. Which is always possible.

[merrily]

416. Speaking of grandiose claims, that's just funny. Attorneys get fooled all the time.

Some have a good grasp of the law, but they get no special truth divining rods.

People in general get told the truth and get lied to all the time. That's why juries test guilt or innocence and credibility of witnesses, even if it means execution.

[bvar22]

445. Attorneys are not the sole owners of some special kind of Lie Detector.

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 04:23 PM - Edit history (2)

Attorneys are fooled everyday by Liars,
because they don't really care about The Truth.

Attorneys do whatever it takes to defend their clients
even if it means protecting and enhancing a known LIE.
(At least the few good ones do.
The others just care about increasing the Billable Hours)

One of the last people I would depend on to tell the truth is an attorney.

It is clear from your posts that one or both of the following deductions is true.

Case 1) You weren't able to detect that General Clapper was LYING

OR

Case 2) You believe that it is OK for our government to LIE to us.

[merrily]

463. In fairness,

msanthrope posted elsewhere on this thread that Clapper lied to Congress, but then seem to imply that Congress did not think it was perjury. I emphasize implied, because she did not say it. I don't remember the post number, but my reply 248 was in reply to that post of hers.

But, if attorneys had special lie detectors, only attorneys would serve on juries, especially in death penalty cases. (They used to exclude them, but not because of lie detectors.)

All humans lie and therefore all humans have lots of experience with separating lie from truth. Each human does not do that perfectly, including attorneys, but all of us, after a certain age, have had tons of experience in making the attempt.

Check's in the mail.

Honey, I swear I'm leaving my spouse and children for you, just give me a little more bunga bunga time.

All the meat in that case is fresh. Look how red it is.

Of course, GMOs are good for you.

[merrily]

458. Whether they filed has nothing to do with whether they

thought it was perjury.

Failure to prosecute, in itself, indicates about whether the prosecution thinks you committed a crime. Being a lawyer, you know that better than anyone else on this thread. Yet, your post implies otherwise to someone who is probably not a lawyer.

Apart from that, there is no question Clapper lied to Congress. None. He did it on national TV. And, when Congress called him back, he admitted it to Congress on national TV. Lying to Congress is perjury. Lying to all of Americans about government spending massive amounts of their money to violate their constitutional rights is far worse.

[merrily]

459. Please see post 458. Thanks.

[Maedhros]

54. Umm...where else would I post it?

Authoritarian pearl-clutchers flock to Snowden threads to grace us with their extensively-researched " 's" and " 's".

[Rex]

118. ...

[Blue_Tires]

88. Which is his own fault, to be fair...

Until he starts outing some other players in this game and giving the media (and DU) some other targets to chew on, everything he says is going to boomerang right back at him...Which must be how he prefers it...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

153. Some others? He's already outed a good portion of the whole government.

The NSA and those who enable it.

[bvar22]

44. Oops!.. There goes another irrelevant Talking Point favored by the Snowden haters.

They will be working harder than a cat trying to bury shit on a linoleum floor
doing damage control from this new disclosure.
It really doesn't matter at this point IF Snowden did indeed report these transgressions to his superiors.
I tend to believe that he did, but this is not really relevant anymore.

Snowden has been EFFECTIVE,
and that is what the anti-democracy authoritarians hate.

All the others, ESPECIALLY those who stayed In-the-System (whistleblowers like Wiebe, Binney, and Drake) were easily countered and punished BY The System.
THAT is what The System DOES.
That is WHY The System was created and Staffed BY those The System was designed to protect.

"Snowden should have reported to his superior!!!"


Snowden stepped outside The System,
and blew the fucking TOP off of the Governmental Excesses and abrogations of the Constitutional Limitations imposed ON The System.
The System didn't like that,
and is STILL working desperately to find anything to discredit him.
But it is too late.

*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.


Thank You, Whistle Blowers.
You are patriots and defenders of our democracy!

[msanthrope]

48. Can you provide proof that he complained? nt

[bvar22]

52. Did you read my post?

Try again.

[msanthrope]

58. Oh, I read your post. I'm just wondering if you actually have any proof that he complained. If he

did....please post it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Can you provide proof that he didn't? Can you provide proof that Clapper didn't lie?

I can provide proof that he did.

[msanthrope]

56. The person making the claim provides the proof. Otherwise, I can claim I'm the Empress of Russia,

and tell you to prove it otherwise. See how logic works?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Yet you seem inclined to believe what the NSA and the regime tell you.

And, you're "making the claim" that Snowden lied. So, prove it.

[msanthrope]

66. What? Kindly cite where I've done that? Further, I'm not claiming that

Snowden is lying. I am waiting for the proof.

[GoneFishin]

74. Ouch.

[randome]

80. Why believe what the NSA tells us?

Why believe what Snowden tells us?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. Well, I'm a helluva lot more inclined to believe Snowden than the NSA.

See Clapper testimony for reference point.

[randome]

87. Understandable.

But Snowden comes across to me as wanting to sell us something. He reminds me of me when I was in 2nd grade. I was sent home with a letter for my mother to see and sign. I forget the offense. I faked her handwriting and claimed she had sprained her wrist.

What a lame excuse! But hey, I was only 6 or 7. Snowden comes up NOW with this idea that he exhausted all avenues before deciding to steal whatever he could and leave the country. And this is side-by-side with his contention that he only joined the NSA in the first place in order to steal documents!

Sorry, he's starting to contradict himself in my opinion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

155. I rather doubt that you did anything near as devastating as the NSA has done.

[treestar]

114. Why?

There's no good reason for that. You're only telling us you prefer to think the NSA is in the wrong at all times.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

154. I imagine in it's history it must have (maybe) done something beneficial.

I mean, with the billions of our dollars it uses to fuck things up around the planet, it must have slipped up somewhere and accidently done some good.

[bvar22]

99. So far, Snowden has a MUCH better record of Telling the Verified TRUTH than the NSA.

Remember Clapper the Liar?

Who ya gonna believe?

Today's disclosure that Snowden DID go to his supervisors is just a minor tidbit with little relevancy.
That doesn't matter anymore.
That fact that Snowden was effective and successful at blowing the lid off of the extent of Governmental Surveillance of American Citizens and complete disregard for our Constitutional Guarantees is what matters.
Had he gone through The System, I don't believe that would have happened.
The System would have Slapped him down as it is designed to do.
(SEE: Chelsea Manning)

At this point I don't really care if he provides documentation for his claims today.
That is a minor issue at this point,
but I wouldn't be surprised if Snowden does provide that documentation.
He has already proved that he is much smarter than his attackers.

[840high]

207. I'd rather believe Snowden.

[ucrdem]

291. If you believe, wherever you are, clap your hands and he'll hear you . . .

?t=59s

[merrily]

465. The NSA has been proven to have lied to us.

Clapper admitted it to Congress on national TV.

Snowden hasn't been proven to lie.

That doesn't mean he's telling the truth--and I don't much care if he is or not--but there's not even a shred of doubt about the NSA.

P.S. Snowden has no duty to be truthful to the American public and, according to msanthrope, was not under oath (although I disagree there is evidence he was not under oath).. The NSA did have a duty to be honest with Congress and the American people.

So, in all, it's a very false equivalency.

[L0oniX]

388. There may be DU members who work for the NSA.

[zeemike]

90. Funny how that works

Absolute and incontrovertible proof is required to defend him.
But to attack him all that is required is boxes in the garage to declaim him guilty as charged.

That to me is very revealing and makes me far more confident that I am on the right side.

[randome]

93. The only people who mention boxes are the Snowden defenders.

It was a minor point made last year when it clearly indicated his move to Hawaii had more to do with his planning ahead of time to steal and run.

For you to keep bringing that up means, to me, that you're losing faith in The Snowy One.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[zeemike]

96. For me "boxes in the garage" is a metaphor for

Convicting people with irrelevant information and speculation.
Which I have seen the Snowden hating crowd do time and again right here on DU...and those same people will require really hard evidence to defend him...
Again, it only gives me confidence on who to side with.

[bvar22]

139. +1000

"Convicting people with irrelevant information and speculation."

[woo me with science]

300. Yup. It's called flinging shit

and hoping something sticks, or at least distracts from the real crimes being revealed here.

Mass spying on its own citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014560257#post7

Fabrication of evidence trails to arrest citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023406605

Surveillance and storage of records of sexual activities
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014658585

Lying to Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023491179
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014525329

Spying on Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4620624

Spying on foreign citizens and pressuring foreign govts to adopt mass surveillance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024622978

Spying on political "enemies" and to suppress dissent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12527904

Corporate espionage for the One Percent using tax dollars
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014709203
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023923016

[font size=7]BINGO![/font size]

[L0oniX]

331. My mother ...drunk or sober.

[xiamiam]

102. yep..nt

[treestar]

116. He admits that he was guilty!

[Maedhros]

124. There it is!

One of those impeccably-researched " 's".

[treestar]

127. He admits it

That's why he left the country and why he "can't" come back. He said he did it. If he had not, we would never have heard of him.

[Maedhros]

131. Then post that, rather than some stupid smilie that belongs on a middle-school twitter feed. [n/t]

[treestar]

134. You don't like that smiley?

It appears inappropriate for DU in your opinion? Why can't be laugh when we think something is so absurd, that is makes us laugh?

[Maedhros]

148. No reason, other that a desire to see the level of discourse improve [n/t]

[rhett o rick]

221. It would be a waste of time. It seems some of you must see Snowden discredited at any cost.

It seems very, very important to you. And I wonder why. He has already pulled the curtain back. Lynching him now wont undo that. So I can only guess that it's revenge motivated. He upset the applecart and must be punished. Maybe it will deter others that may think about speaking truth to power.

[KoKo]

51. Fantastic Post! Recommend!

[WillyT]

57. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!!

[Catherina]

64. +1000! n/t

[woo me with science]

68. " than a cat trying to bury shit on a linoleum floor"

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 04:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Mass spying on its own citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014560257#post7

Fabrication of evidence trails to arrest citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023406605

Surveillance of sexual activities
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014658585

Complicity in "Kill List" assassinations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024474152

Lying to Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023491179
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014525329

Lying to the Supreme Court
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/terrorism-suspect-challenges-warrantless-surveillance/2014/01/29/fb9cc2ae-88f1-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

Spying on Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4620624

Spying on foreign citizens and pressuring foreign govts to adopt mass surveillance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024622978

Spying on political "enemies" and to suppress dissent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12527904

Corporate espionage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014709203
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023923016

That's a hell of a mountain of corruption to try and bury.

[questionseverything]

304. woo please add solicitor general lying to sc to list

or presenting false info..however one sees it

Muhtorov’s challenge has its roots in the case rejected by the Supreme Court last year. In deciding to dismiss, the Supreme Court relied upon the assurance by the U.S. solicitor general that the government would notify criminal defendants when it had used evidence from the surveillance.

But the solicitor general at the time did not know that the Justice Department had a policy to conceal such evidence from defendants. He learned of it only after some criminal defendants sought clarification of remarks that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) made in late 2012 that the government had used evidence from warrantless monitoring in certain cases. The department reversed its policy last year.
/////////////////////////////////////////////

so the solicitor general presented false info to the supreme court????? because he did not know that justice department was (illegally) concealing evidence???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/terrorism-suspect-challenges-warrantless-surveillance/2014/01/29/fb9cc2ae-88f1-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

[woo me with science]

353. Thank you for adding this.

You are right. Yet another pattern of deliberate lies resulting in gross violation of Constitutional protections. I should not have missed it. I will add it to the list.

Thank you.

[Blue_Tires]

91. I'm not even a hater...

I just have about a hundred unanswered questions since this thing started, and the 10+ months of conversations haven't come close to answering them...If anything, they've only raised more questions...

But I get it; I've been on DU a long-assed time and most of us here can't resist keeping 'scorecards' and playing the "one-up" game (I'm admittedly guilty of it myself, from time to time)

[treestar]

112. Questioning Snowden is now questioning democracy

oh my!

[DeSwiss]

133. 1000+

[L0oniX]

390. ^^^THIS^^^ ...should be its own op. + a billion bvar

[Rex]

55. Snowden!? Look out a chemical reaction has started!

[spin]

62. I might be wrong but I tend to believe Snowden more than my own government. ...

That's sad.

[WillyT]

63. Me Too... Well Said...

[BlueJac]

97. No kidding..

so sad but true!!!!

[woo me with science]

100. [phone]

[bvar22]

147. Snowden has a better track record of telling the truth:

Clapper Lying to The Senate

President Obama: There is no spying on Americans

[woo me with science]

240. Indeed.

[L0oniX]

395. + another billion

[840high]

208. ...^

[SoapBox]

67. Spare me your tales, Comrade Eddie.

What an idiot.

[woo me with science]

106. Ooh, accusation of *Russkie* sympathies.

I almost have a Bingo here.

[frylock]

128. WOLVERINES!!12

[fascisthunter]

442. Time to Crawl Out from that Nuclear Bunker

it's no longer the 50's McFly.

[ProSense]

76. This is simply

"Snowden: I Raised NSA Concerns Internally Over 10 Times Before Going Rogue - WaPo"

...Snowden changing his story again. All along he and his defenders have claimed he couldn't go through the proper channels out of fear. Now, he's claiming he did. Also, what was the BS about fear?

ROFLMAO !!! - 'NSA Watchdog: Snowden Should Have Come To Me' - Politico
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024565506

VI. THERE IS A CLEAR HISTORY OF REPRISAL AGAINST NSA WHISTLEBLOWERS.

By communicating with the press, Snowden used the safest channel available to him to inform the public of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, government officials have been critical of him for not using internal agency channels – the same channels that have repeatedly failed to protect whistleblowers from reprisal in the past. In many cases, the critics are the exact officials who acted to exclude national security employees and contractors from the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012.

Prior to Snowden’s disclosures, NSA whistleblowers Tom Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe, all clients of GAP, used internal mechanisms – including the NSA chain of command, Congressional committees, and the Department of Defense Inspector General – to report the massive waste and privacy violations of earlier incarnations of the NSA’s data collection program. Ultimately, the use of these internal channels served only to expose Binney, Drake and Wiebe to years-long criminal investigations and even FBI raids on their homes. As one example, consider that Tom Drake was subjected to a professionally and financially devastating prosecution under the Espionage Act. Despite a case against him that ultimately collapsed, Drake was labeled an “enemy of the state” and his career ruined.

http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/44-2013/2760-gap-statement-on-edward-snowden-a-nsa-domestic-surveillance

[Cha]

78. Snowden's a whiny liar.

[treestar]

120. Good catch

Eddie should have kept his mouth shut. In his quest for more attention, he winds up contradicting himself and lowering his credibility even more.

In his conscience he knows he violated the law, dodged the WPA with excuses, and now it occurs to him to claim he did do all the right things. Trouble is, the only right thing is to face the charges. He can't undo his flight to China and that's where his insincerity showed.

[SomethingFishy]

121. Changing his story again? Try reading this from 4 months ago:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/snowden-and-greenwald-the-men-who-leaked-the-secrets-20131204

I know you won't because it might upset your mantra but it's quite revealing especially in it's depiction of Snowden as a patriot who hated whistle blowers until he uncovered the truth and became one himself.

I find it hard to believe that after all that has been revealed that people still think he's "lying"...

I also find it hard to believe that anyone actually thinks that the NSA helping the brits spy on private chat rooms is a good use of our tax dollars.

[ProSense]

143. Yes,

"Changing his story again? Try reading this from 4 months ago:"

...his story keeps changing. The information from GAP and the piece you posted refutes his latest talking point.

Snowden came to be bothered by much of what he saw in the CIA. He would later cite an operation to recruit a Swiss banker as an asset that involved getting the man arrested on drunk-driving charges. He also recalled, in an interview with The New York Times' Risen, the retaliation from a senior manager whose authority he'd once questioned. The incident arose over a flaw Snowden found in some CIA software, which he pointed out to his superiors. Rather than praising his initiative, however, one manager, who didn't appreciate such enterprising behavior, placed a critical note in his personnel file, effectively killing Snowden's chance for promotion. He eventually left the agency, "experiencing a crisis of conscience of sorts," as Anderson remembered. But Snowden also learned a valuable lesson: "Trying to work through the system," he told Risen, would "only lead to punishment."

Also, the reports about how he was able access the information cast doubt on his claim that he tried "10 times." In fact, he appeared to have gained unauthorized access (borrowing or duping a coworker out of his/her password) to steal the information.

An NSA Coworker Remembers The Real Edward Snowden: 'A Genius Among Geniuses'

•Snowden’s former colleague says that he or she has slowly come to understand Snowden’s decision to leak the NSA’s files. “I was shocked and betrayed when I first learned the news, but as more time passes I’m inclined to believe he really is trying to do the right thing and it’s not out of character for him. I don’t agree with his methods, but I understand why he did it,” he or she says. “I won’t call him a hero, but he’s sure as hell no traitor.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/12/16/an-nsa-coworker-remembers-the-real-edward-snowden-a-genius-among-geniuses

Exclusive: Snowden Swiped Password From NSA Coworker
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014726232

[Whisp]

200. Flawless Victory, Prosense.

The little slithereen is changing his story, again and lying again.

[merrily]

436. But he didn't go through proper channels and is not claiming he did.

He is claiming that he went to some people in the chain, who would not work with him. That is not enought to be considered "proper channels."

He did not go all the way the NSA or an appropriate member Congress. He admits that.

He might be lying. Or telling the truth. I have no idea.

But before we ponder that, let's figure out what he is claiming.

[GoneFishin]

79. Same old BS. No matter how many times he is proven right, and them wrong. It is the same

old vacuous shit.

[randome]

81. To ascend to that 'proven' dimension, one needs 'proof'.

Snowden can claim anything he wants. Believability lies in corroborating evidence. Anything will do.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[GoneFishin]

104. I'll let time do the talking. It has and will continue to do so. Meanwhile no one here is fooled

by the character assassinations of a whistle-blower who has pulled back the curtain on a bloated budget spy network. What else would anyone expect?

[Enthusiast]

83. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch.....nt

[randome]

84. Thank you, Edward Snowden.

For bringing some life to GD once more. God, it's been boring lately.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

117. This ^^^^^^^^^

if anything, is the main thing he's good for

[Whisp]

211. guffaw...

Snowden and GG are always good for a laugh.

[ucrdem]

85. Oh? What concerns? That tyranny is coming?

The problem is he never had jack except a boatload of Libertarian banana oil supplied by Greenwald and Poitras who prepped him for weeks before his debut on the Libertarian hogwash circuit. And he still doesn't.

[woo me with science]

108. I was waiting for this smear! He's a dirty LIBERTARIAN!!!!!11!

I win in NSA apologism BINGO!

[ucrdem]

119. Not a smear. Snowball forked over $500 to Ron Paul in 2012:

According to campaign finance reports, Snowden donated $250 to the libertarian's presidential campaign twice in 2012.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-ron-paul_n_3414992.html

You didn't know that?

[woo me with science]

140. Bwah!

Why you keep returning to arguments that have not only humiliated you but clearly exposed your smear agenda is beyond me....

...but in a way it *is* reassuring, sort of like the sunrise, that the propaganda remains this diversionary, pathetic, and predictable even months and months later.

Are we questioning "Civil Libertarian" ideas now?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023115867[/div class="excerpt"]


Oh, and let's leave this revealing little subthread with a reminder of the *real* reason you are here slinging shit on a remarkably reliable, one might even say "full-time," basis:

Mass spying on its own citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014560257#post7

Fabrication of evidence trails to arrest citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023406605

Surveillance and storage of records of sexual activities
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014658585

Lying to Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023491179
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014525329

Spying on Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4620624

Spying on foreign citizens and pressuring foreign govts to adopt mass surveillance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024622978

Spying on political "enemies" and to suppress dissent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12527904

Corporate espionage for the One Percent using tax dollars
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014709203
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023923016

[font size=7]BINGO![/font size]

[ucrdem]

166. I'm a bot like Snowball is a journalist. nt

[GoneFishin]

296. Nice. I bookmarked that collection of links. Thanks.

[Maedhros]

130. Oh, so Poitras is a "Libertarian" now? Do you even realize how clueless that makes you appear?

Some background on Poitras:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Poitras

After finishing high school, Poitras moved to San Francisco to take classes at the San Francisco Art Institute, where she studied with experimental filmmaker Ernie Gehr. In 1992, Poitras moved to New York to pursue filmmaking. She graduated from The New School for Public Engagement in 1996.[5][6]

Laura Poitras co-directed, produced, and shot her 2003 documentary, Flag Wars, about gentrification in Columbus, Ohio. It received a Peabody Award, Best Documentary at both the 2003 South by Southwest (SXSW) film festival and the Seattle Lesbian & Gay Film Festival, and the Filmmaker Award at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival. The film also launched the 2003 PBS POV series. It was nominated for a 2004 Independent Spirit Award and a 2004 Emmy Award.[2]

Poitras' other films include Oh say can you see... (2003) and Exact Fantasy (1995).[2] Her 2006 film My Country, My Country about life for Iraqis under U.S. occupation was nominated for an Academy Award. Her 2010 film The Oath, about two Yemenis men caught up in America's War on Terror, won the "Excellence in Cinematography Award for U.S. Documentary" at the 2010 Sundance film festival.[7] The two films are part of a trilogy. The third part will focus on how the War on Terror increasingly focuses on Americans through surveillance, covert activities and attacks on whistleblowers.

On August 22, 2012 The New York Times published an Op-doc in a forum of short documentaries produced by independent filmmakers that was produced by Laura Poitras and entitled, The Program.[8] It is preliminary work that will be included in a documentary planned for release in 2013 as the final part of the trilogy. The documentary is based on interviews with William Binney, a 32-year veteran of the National Security Agency, who became a whistleblower and described the details of the Stellar Wind project that he helped to design. He states that the program he worked on had been designed for foreign espionage, but was converted in 2001 to spying on citizens in the United States, prompting concerns by him and others that the actions were illegal and unconstitutional and that led to their disclosures. The subject implies that the facility being built at Bluffdale, Utah is a facility that is part of that domestic surveillance, intended for storage of massive amounts of data collected from a broad range of communications that may be mined readily for intelligence without warrants. Poitras reported that on October 29, 2012 the United States Supreme Court would hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that were used to authorize the creation of such facilities and justify such actions.

Doesn't really read like a Libertarian curriculum vitae. After all, I suspect few Libertarians study with experimental film makers and devote their working life to documentaries exposing the MIC.

Poitras can't win - with fools on the "left" calling her a Libertarian, and fools on the right calling her a "leftist":

http://leestranahan.com/the-nsa-scandal-the-anti-american-alliance/

[ucrdem]

180. Let's just say her horizons expanded when she joined the Koch crowd. nt

[Maedhros]

230. You, sir or madam, are out of your mind.

How did you escape the ignore list?

[ucrdem]

242. You don't seem very good at figuring things out.

For example, you could probably figure out the whole Snowden-Greenwald deal if you thought about it for five minutes, which is about how long it took me last June. So could most people here. But they won't.

Why is that I wonder?

[Hippo_Tron]

144. You don't think it's concerning that some junior analyst at the NSA...

Can just type your name into a search engine and read your e-mails? I do, quite frankly. Before Snowden I was under the impression that they at least had to go through at least some bureaucratic process to show they suspected I was a threat. I never suspected this was a real check on their power, but now I know they can just do it for shits and giggles.

[randome]

149. He's never offered any proof he could do that.

It's all been a lot of allegations without evidence. And now suddenly he's rewriting history to tell us he went through channels after all. And this is after he said he joined the NSA for the sole purpose of stealing documents.

Makes one wonder what he means when he says he went through channels.

It's getting to be tiresome.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[GoneFishin]

122. Only 10 times? Obviously 11 times would have been the correct number, but he did not raise his

concerns 11 times, by his own admission. Did he? DID HE?!??

[ReRe]

125. This is the reason for all the...

... subcontracting out of government jobs. To eliminate whistleblower protections.

K&R

[KoKo]

215. Interesting thought...isn't it.

[ReRe]

218. They've been stacking the deck for decades...

... and here we are. Everyone's criminals!

[DeSwiss]

136. K&R

- The Fed's whistleblower programs are as much use as this sign:

[Ichingcarpenter]

138. K&R

LOL ... nice sign

[LittleBlue]

145. He just blew a gigantic hole right through the "why didn't he do this officially" crowd

What's left for them? Pole dancing girlfriend?

[Blue_Tires]

179. Well, we know at least he didn't go to the Inspector General

So who did he go to? Did he go to ten different people, or the same 2-3 people multiple times?

I'm not too keen to readily believe something unverifiable (ala, that LOL "assassination" story on Buzzfeed in December)...

I'm not saying Snowden is a liar, but he has had a habit of saying something mostly true and then several weeks later making little after-the-fact 'corrections' to his official story...

[woo me with science]

239. +1 The talking points have become sad parodies of themselves.

The propaganda would actually be funny, if the criminals didn't have power over human lives.

[BlueCheese]

151. It seems obvious to me.

After Snowden's revelations about government surveillance run amok, what was the administration's response from President Obama on down? A loud vehement defense of the programs and their necessity, with a lot of references to 9/11 thrown in for good measure.

The people at the top support these programs. What is this strange fantasy that telling Obama or Clapper about programs that they support would cause those programs to be curtailed or ended?

[idendoit]

160. Unlike those valiant citizens mentioned by name, Snowden ran.

[WillyT]

186. And Yet They Support Snowden..

Curious that.

[idendoit]

198. They didn't say they supported him running away.

[truebluegreen]

280. They support what he did. And are grateful.

William Binney, Thomas Drake, Kirk Wiebe--former NSA:

Drake: Well, I feel extraordinary kinship with him, given what I experienced at the hands of the government. And I would just tell him to ensure that he's got a support network that I hope is there for him and that he's got the lawyers necessary across the world who will defend him to the maximum extent possible and that he has a support-structure network in place. I will tell you, when you exit the surveillance-state system, it's a pretty lonely place — because it had its own form of security and your job and family and your social network. And all of a sudden, you are on the outside now in a significant way, and you have that laser beam of the surveillance state turning itself inside out to find and learn everything they can about you.

Wiebe: I think your savior in all of this is being able to honestly relate to the principles embedded in the Constitution that are guiding your behavior. That's where really — rubber meets the road, at that point.

Drake: I actually salute him. I will say it right here. I actually salute him, given my experience over many, many years both inside and outside the system. Remember, I saw what he saw. I want to re-emphasize that. What he did was a magnificent act of civil disobedience. He's exposing the inner workings of the surveillance state. And it's in the public interest. It truly is.

Wiebe: Well, I don't want anyone to think that he had an alternative. No one should (think that). There is no path for intelligence-community whistle-blowers who know wrong is being done. There is none. It's a toss of the coin, and the odds are you are going to be hammered.


full article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

More recently: http://rt.com/usa/nsa-obama-whistleblowers-letter-337/

[idendoit]

294. Still don't see any support for him running away.

He claims to have told 10 higher ups how he felt. He never got stripped of his security clearance. All the other REAL whistleblowers either retired or were reassigned. You don't wonder why? Seems to me he stole classified info, gave it to someone else, and ran. He's a thief.

[truebluegreen]

349. "All the other REAL whistleblowers either retired or were reassigned."

In other words, they tried to work inside the system and totally failed. But since you are privy to the inner workings of the NSA, please tell us what exactly they did, and with whom, and how many times? before those "REAL whistleblowers" were ignored, attacked, marginalized. You imply that loss of security clearance, retirement or reassignment was the best they/we could hope for...which is why they understand what Snowden did and are glad he did it. So am I.

eta: re: still don't see any support for him running...since the article was about Snowden, they already knew who he was and that he had run. QED.

Enjoy your stay.

[idendoit]

359. Just can't accept your boy being what he is.

A Fraud. Won't prove what he has. The blogger he handed to thinks it's his info. It doesn't belong to either him or Greenwald, anymore than it belongs to the feds. REAL whistle blowers prove they have evidence, not hide it away and censor what they do show. What's Greenwald hiding by partly covering documents? Snowden is not taking responsibility for his thieving consequences. A hero to slackers everywhere.

[truebluegreen]

366. Your concern is noted.

[underthematrix]

214. Really? Before or after 2009?

[MisterP]

228. puhleese, the generals and Fearless Defenders will just respond by asking "but why didn't he go

through official channels?"

they're literally the sort of person who thinks asking the same question louder will change the answer

(also they're flat-out authoritarians)

[JoeyT]

241. People outside the intelligence community know what happens to whistleblowers too.

No one has ever believed the talking point about using official avenues. Even the people that make it don't actually believe it, they're just hoping everyone else is dumb enough to do so. It's just one more attempt at obfuscation. Anything to make people talk about anything but the actual NSA and what they do and whose fault it is that it's still happening.

It was such a stupid talking point it came way after stripper girlfriends, abandoning stripper girlfriends, boxes in garages, abandoning boxes in garages, not being liked by his neighbors, abandoning the neighbors, him looking like someone you can't trust, him sounding like someone you can't trust, message board posts from a decade ago, looks like a nerd, WHY U RUN TO CHINA?!, WHY U RUN TO RUSSIA?!, and a bunch of other silly trivial shit absolutely no one gave a fuck about. It was the talking point so dumb that makes the user look so credulous it was the one to go to when all else failed.

So now they're stuck bouncing between the "Official channels" one and pretending to be enraged that he didn't stick around for the Manning treatment. Which requires the same people that spent years screaming about what an awful person Manning is to suddenly pretend they totally don't hate her, which they do without the slightest hint of irony, as if no one can remember the flame wars over Manning.

[KoKo]

279. Recommend!

[GoneFishin]

295. +1000. They're desperate and full of shit, and they know it. All because they could not just

admit that our fucking tax dollars should not be pissed away to spy on ourselves.

It's what happens when you tenaciously dig in your heels defending the indefensible instead of confronting the awful truth that we have been screwed by people we would like to trust.

[woo me with science]

298. You nailed it. What a great summary of the relentless, irrelevant diversion

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:02 PM - Edit history (3)

being flung here by the full-time flingers. The crimes of the NSA and our government are deep and grave and assaulting the very foundations of our representative nation. All this bullshit does not change the revelations of serious, entrenched criminality one iota.

And spot on observation about Chelsea Manning there at the end.

[bvar22]

303. Excellent encapsulation!

Rec for post #241 by JoeyT.

[Zorra]

324. How can people who do things like that believe that anyone but a conservative

moron could take them seriously?

Half the reason sincere DUers believe this place has more than a few corporate trolls is that some posters repeatedly engage in the type of bullshit illustrated in your post.

Because it is hard for us to believe that anyone could repeatedly spout obvious shameless bullshit and make total fools out of themselves without getting paid to do it.

I mean, yeh, republicans do that kind of stuff all the time, but we're all (ostensibly) Democrats here.

[WillyT]

350. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[Douglas Carpenter]

244. he still criticized the policies of a sitting Democratic president and that will NEVER,NEVER NEVER

be acceptable or forgivable - no matter what the excuse!!

[DCBob]

253. and why should we believe this without hard evidence??

Funny he never mentioned this before.

[randome]

261. "Oh, and by the way, I saved President Obama's life once."

"And Putin's. And I once took a bullet for General Clapper. Must have forgotten to mention those earlier. That's why they all hate me. Hold on a second, let me look at my notes."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

272. You've summed it up the most succinctly

[mimi85]

327. Absolutely. nt

[tridim]

278. CYA works better before "going rogue", Snowjob. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

299. Ummmm....WTF?

You'd think he'd mention this before....

[L0oniX]

315. Our government wants to be totalitarian and fascist.

The NSA wants it ...the DHS wants it ...the military wants it ...the police force wants it. Prove that they don't! Keep carrying their bullshit and making excuses for them cause they love the little mindless patriot.

[hrmjustin]

329. Did he say this before or is this new?

[msanthrope]

343. New, apparently. You'd think he might have mentioned this before. nt

[hrmjustin]

354. Then this is suspect if he never mentioned this before.

[Pholus]

332. Whatever it takes to get our TLA's to actually do their jobs instead of "collect it all."

Maybe if they did we'd be out in front of the next Crimea instead of playing catch up.

But then again, identifying millions of naked webcam users probably is hard work...

[wildbilln864]

355. K & r! n/t

[uponit7771]

367. *****SHOW PROOF NOT JUST A THEIVES WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!*************

[think]

400. Perhaps you meant "thief's" /nt

[Puglover]

441. I was gonna say I before E except after C.

[Pholus]

447. Yeah...Make CLAPPER give some!

[uponit7771]

449. Clapper an admitted thief too?

[merrily]

455. What's your point?

Did Snowden perjure himself in Congress, too?

Point is, each of them committed a crime. Why does it have to be that Clapper has to commit two crimes before it should matter?

Double standards?

Clapper's an admitted perjurer--lied to Congress and all America--about the USG spending massive amounts of Americans' money to violate the Constitutional rights of Americans.

And he's doing fine.



Amazing how the issue is the man who told Americans the truth about that same subject and not what the government has to doing to Americans and the Constitution.

[Pholus]

457. Nope, he gave the "least untruthful" answer to avoid admitting it.

[merrily]

469. "Least untruthful" = gobbledegook speak for "huge lie."

[Octafish]

368. Another NSA Whistleblower, Russell Tice, was ignored by ABCNNBCBSFakeNoiseNutworks.

No matter how its spun, covered up, or ignored, a government spying on its people existential problem for the nation and democracy.

TRANSCRIPT: Another NSA Whistleblower, Russell Tice

By Liu Wei on Jan 16, 2014
WhoWhatWhy.com

Edward Snowden and his revelations are a very big deal. But he isn’t the only NSA whistleblower. One who has not gotten anywhere as much attention as he deserves is Russell Tice. Wait ‘til you hear what he has to say.

We transcribed the following July 10, 2013 interview with Russell Tice, NSA Whistleblower, by Abby Martin on RT’s Breaking the Set:

Abby: As the ongoing NSA revelations [bring out] more information on the government’s secret spying program, the man who leaked the story, Edward Snowden is in [the] spotlight.

However it’s important to remember that this is far from the first time someone has come forward to expose the overreach of the NSA. Before Edward Snowden, it was Thomas Drake, a former senior executive, and before him, it was Bill Binney, a former intelligence official.

But before Binney, the very first person to claim the title of NSA whistleblower is a man you probably heard the least about. His name is Russell Tice, and he served twenty years within various government intelligence agencies, including the NSA. In 2005, Tice blew the whistle on the NSA engaging in unlawful and unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens. He’s here to tell his story and why he thinks that Snowden’s leaks are just barely scratching the surface.

Russ Tice, thank you so much for coming on.

Tice: Thanks for having me on.

Abby: What did you see that made you come and blow the whistle initially?

Tice: Well, the first thing I saw was … I’m a satellite systems specialist, so with the things I was doing with satellites, I found out sort of inadvertently, that American citizens were being spied upon by our base capabilities. So that was my first sort of heads up as to what was going on and I was just shocked because NSA was not supposed to do this, it was against regulation, it was against the law, it was against our Constitution. So it was sort of a come-to-Jesus moment for me.

CONTINUED...

http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/01/16/transcript-another-nsa-whistleblower-russell-tice/

As WillyT's remarkable thread shows, when it comes to spying on its people, the government of the United States has shown zero interest in following the law and the Constitution. Seems to have lots of defenders, too.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

387. Let's be totally blunt here.

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:58 PM - Edit history (1)

If Bush had been the one exposed in this manner, DU would have been on FIRE and the whistleblower been hailed a hero, no matter how they'd gotten the info out.

But Snowden was exposing a Democrat/the first African American president -- so he is evil incarnate/a traitor/full of shit.

The utter vilification of Snowden here cemented for me the bankruptcy of Party/gender/race politics -- I am left with nothing but contempt for those here who play that particular game.

[woo me with science]

407. +1

It really does require a moral bankruptcy to do that type of work.

[GoneFishin]

418. Agreed. How true.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

440. agreed. nt

[bvar22]

446. Agreed.

"If Bush had been the one exposed in this manner, DU would have been on FIRE and the whistleblower been hailed a hero, no matter how they'd gotten the info out."


"The utter vilification of Snowden here cemented for me the bankruptcy of Party/gender/race politics"



Well stated.

[uponit7771]

450. BULL FUCKIN SHIT!!! If an idiot haphazardly puts folks lives in danger (per Der Spiegel) NEEDLESSLY

...then of course no one is going to say the ends justified the means

[merrily]

456. The disclosures have not been haphazard.

I am not sure that I agree that lives have been put in danger, but, either way, the disclosures have not been haphazard.

[uponit7771]

467. I'll take Der Spiegels word for it, they said he handed over items that could put peoples lives in

...danger and I'm sure they're a more honest broker in this than the Chinese

[Baitball Blogger]

397. I hear you, Snowden. I hear you.

[Jefferson23]

401. Highly recommend. n/t

[SidDithers]

417. I. Don't. Believe. Him...nt

Sid

[merrily]

437. Kudos.

You said one of only two things that can honestly be said about this story.

Either "I believe it" or "I don't believe it."

There's no proof of anything on either side, but it was an interesting thread to me.

[Pholus]

448. I.don't.believe.CLAPPER.neither.

Sadly, that Republican fuckup was placed where he could cause way too much damage.

[merrily]

452. Clapper admitted he lied to congress and the American people, but

he'll never go on trial. Snowden told Americans the truth and he'll be on the run or in jail all his life.

And that's the perfect justice system in which we're supposed to have 100% confidence would have worked perfectly if Snowden followed the statute.

BTW, the NSA and the Senate intel committee didn't know this was happening? Is that why Snowden was supposed to be okay if he went to them?

Anyway, good point.