Snowden Fan Club, Sorry, But Snowden Lied about the email to the NSA General Counsel

[berni_mccoy]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-releases-snowden-email-nbc-truth/story?id=23918598

From the interview, Snowden's own words:

I actually did go through channels, and that is documented. The NSA has records, they have copies of emails right now to their Office of General Counsel, to their oversight and compliance folks from me raising concerns about the NSA’s interpretations of it – legal authorities,” Snowden told NBC News in a wide-ranging interview. “I reported that there were real problems with the way the NSA was interpreting its legal authorities. And I went even further in this, to say that they could be unconstitutional, that they were sort of abrogating our model of government in a way that empowered presidents to override our statutory laws. And this was made very clear. And the response was, more or less, in bureaucratic language, was, ‘You should stop asking questions.’”

Except that is not at all what happened...

From the NSA:

Today the NSA posted online the email exchange to which the government agency says it believes Snowden is referring. The exchange released by the NSA took place in early April, months after Snowden reportedly contacted journalists in preparation to expose the secret programs.

According to the documents posted online, Snowden wrote to the NSA’s Office of General Counsel on Friday, April 5, 2013 asking for legal clarification about whether Presidential executive orders can supersede federal statute, and whether Department of Defense (DOD) or Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) regulations get “greater precedence.”

The response from the General Counsel’s office, dated Monday, April 8, says that while executive orders have the “force and effect of law,” they cannot override a statute. The response also said that DOD and ODNI regulations are afforded “similar precedence” and one may have more depending on subject matter or date. The respondent invites Snowden to “give [him or her] a call if [he] would like to discuss further.”

The NSA said in statement that Snowden’s email “did not raise allegations or concerns about wrongdoing or abuse, but posed a legal question that the Office of General Counsel addressed.”

“There was no additional follow-up noted,” the NSA said. “There are numerous avenues that Mr. Snowden could have used to raise other concerns or whistleblower allegations. We have searched for additional indications of outreach from him in those areas and to date have not discovered any engagements related to his claims.”

Link to actual email released by the NSA: http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/87218708448/edward-j-snowden-email-inquiry-to-the-nsa-office

[djean111]

1. Anti-Snowden Fan Club - it is what Snowden revealed that is important. None of the nit-picking

changes that, or deflects attention away from it.

[berni_mccoy]

4. What did Snowden reveal that wasn't already known?

Oh, right, only military secrets and damaging info that could harm Americans. Got it. Nothing illegal was revealed btw.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Quite a bit actually

like the violations of the 4th amendment in a systematic manner. At this point you either get it, or you don't.

And you don't.

[berni_mccoy]

70. Richard Clarke would disagree with you

You know, the same guy that said Bush was negligent for 9/11.. the same guy that just recently said Bush is a War Criminal...

Yeah, that guy says Snowden did not reveal anything illegal, that the NSA did no wrong. And that Snowden should be put away for a very very very long time...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025023981

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Richard Clark might disagree with me

but that is what he did, and why people like you are stuck on Snowden and the boxes in the garage, not what was revealed.

By the way, Richard Clark also disagreed with every other whistleblower, he has a history of doing that. There is a reason for that, and if you cannot figure it out, I really cannot help you. This is where independent thought and evaluation of evidence and not appeals to authority come in.

But what Richard Clark is currently saying about Snowden, he also said about Richard Tice, and William Bimmey. Care to ask WHY? The two latter ones tried to go through procedures and had their lives ruined by the US Government. They also revealed the same kind of violations and limit to our rights, as well as in one case, the listening to the phone calls of a certain Freshman US Senator. You might even have heard of him, Barack Obama I think is the name? Why I cannot wait for the list. I am betting that Freshaman Senator was not alone, and explains a lot of what goes on in Congress.

[berni_mccoy]

77. The fact is, what was revealed did more harm than good.

And that is a fact, emphasized by Richard Clarke. I know it pains you to realize this, but it's true.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. It did a lot if harm to those

In the circle of power that benefit from programs that have done nothing to deal with terrorism. None will argue that point with you.

Fusion centers were extremely effective against Occupy, which was engaged in lawful protected activities under the Bill of Rights. But that constitution, to quote Bush,"is a damn piece of paper."

[stevenleser]

6. You're wrong about that too. In order to claim he is a whistleblower and his actions were justified

it's absolutely necessary that he would have tried to make a serious effort to resolve whatever issues he had through normal channels.

It's becoming more and more clear that he didn't come close to doing that. That means he is definitely not a whistleblower.

[MohRokTah]

8. It's also clear that the journalists he initially contacted are accessories to the crime

Glenn Greenwald is as guilty as Snowden.

[stevenleser]

22. I'm waiting to see more evidence on that but it would not surprise me at all.

Greenwald had barely hidden agendas here from the beginning, not least of which was to try to hurt the administration. The only question is how far did he go in pursuit of that agenda and can it be proven.

He certainly deserves to go to jail for misinforming his readers. http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/06/transcript-of-nsa-surveillance-portion.html

[Sheepshank]

105. from the skimpy emails and the verbal justifications

my take away from this (which of course could change given some actual facts)...my take away is that Snowden and Greenwald walked a very fine line with regards to satifying any and all whistleblowers avenues.

Greenwald and Snowden colluded to designed and create the image that Snowden tried every possible avenue made available to whistleblowers, but failed. In that failure, Snowden felt justified in mass releasing documents that served Greenwald's agenda.

The reality is that Snowden made very basic half assessed, wishy washy attempts at whistleblowing, he barely attempted the rustle the process with unnoticable inuedos. In that "defeat" he could say, "There was a reason I finally had to steal info and do a mass distributrion".

[MADem]

15. He asked a question about a portion of a course he did not understand.

He got an answer and was invited to ask any questions he'd like.

He didn't "report" anything and no one gave him any guff, either.

It's not really a matter of being a fan or an anti-fan, let's look at the document, let's look at what he actually ASKED in that document, and then let's look at what he SAID he said.

There's a plain disconnect.

[KittyWampus]

48. Then why do so many DU'ers spend such a huge amount of time defending Snowden

and trying to rehabilitate his image after each decline?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

110. because its not about Snowden of course >.> nt

[B Calm]

2. You would think if Snowden is a whistle blower he would had saved his emails. .

The only thing Snowden is good at is supporting Tea Bagger candidates!

[berni_mccoy]

5. That's exactly what I thought when he brought this up in the interview.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. I have been saying that from the start....IF he was such a good Systems Admin....he would have

Definitely keep ALL emails related to his job for CYA and would KNOW to keep a papertrail....AND before he left he would have downloaded THOSE emails before he took anything else. The fact that he doesn't have them is quite condemning

[Cha]

135. Thank you, B.

[Major Hogwash]

140. Or posted them to his Facebook account by now.

I mean, they are spying on every single douchebag that ever signed up on their lameass corporatized shell game of a site, so what the hell would Snowden be afraid of, somebody actually reading them and then "liking" them??

Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

[uponit7771]

154. +++++++++++++DING DING DING+++++++++++++++++++++

[baldguy]

3. The fact is that Snowden is lying & has been lying all along.

He lied to get the job. He lied to his co-workers. He lied to his girlfriend (and abandoned her, incidentally). And since his escape, he has lied about his past, his service history in the armed forces, his work experience, and he has lied about what his job actually was & what he did and was able to do in that job.

All you supposed liberals supporting this asshole: Since when is lying a liberal attribute?

[thesquanderer]

14. Even if that's all true, it's ad hominem

and therefore irrelevant to the question of whether what Snowden did was good or bad for the country.

[berni_mccoy]

17. Richard Clarke, you know, the guy who DU Loves because he said Bush committed War Crimes

Says Snowden did not do any good and deserves to be in prison: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025023981

[thesquanderer]

33. Okay, that's a debate worth having

as opposed to debating his character.

And it is a debate that has points on both sides.

And just because you agree with someone about some things doesn't mean you have to agree with them about everything... whether that person is Richard Clarke or anyone else.

BTW, Clarke did not say that Snowden did not do any good. He admitted that some worthwhile things came to light. But he does feel that Snowden did more harm than good.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/week-year-snowden-23673590

[baldguy]

34. It's not ad hominem. It goes to his character.

Any statements made by a dishonest person are more likely to be untrue, and therefore must be scrutinized more closely. Most of the things said by Snowden that can be checked have turned out to be false, so the veracity of his statements that can't be checked must be suspect.

Is it good to question how & in what manner the govt gathers information? Certainly. But it's a moronic statement to say we do that because of Ed Snowden.

[thesquanderer]

40. What NSA accusations of his turned out to be false?

and p.s., attacks on his character are, pretty much by definition, ad hominem.

[baldguy]

57. Not ad hominem. If the question is whether or not he tells the truth, his truthfulness is at issue.

And all of Snowden's accusations are just re-hashes of paranoid RW libertarian fantasies. Do you really think that NSA can read your mind? Or that analysts like Snowden have no oversight at all, at any level, anywhere? That they could spy on & record anyone at anytime, up to & including The President of the United States? That just doesn't pass the smell test.

[thesquanderer]

74. Where did he say the NSA can read your mind?

I hadn't seen that.

Regardless, of course the NSA can't read your mind. But with enough gathered information, they could probably make a pretty reliable guess about what you think about many issues. So in a figurative sense, in a way, you could say they could read your mind. So without seeing the context of a statement like this to get a sense of whether he's talking literally or figuratively, it's hard to characterize it.

I also give people--especially non-professional speakers--a bit of a pass if they are using generalizations or sloppy speaking or poor metaphors or even a bit of hyperbole to make a point, it does not necessarily negate the point or paint the speaker as a liar.

Back to the topic at hand, I guess I misunderstood your point. IF indeed the question is whether or not he tells the truth, okay, his truthfulness can be an issue. I guess I didn't really see that as the question, though, because, from what I've seen, the things he has said that have really mattered have not been things he's asked us to take at his word, or they have turned out to be basically true.

[MADem]

96. Snowden said they can read our thoughts as we are formulating them, in the BW interview.

Ironically, GG sat there sucking up to, and FAWNING over BW, when two years ago, he wrote the nastiest, most insulting, and personally offensive article about him that a 'reporter' could possibly write. He accused Williams of being a fawner, and worse. He was nasty, personal, rude, dismissive, you name it--a real piler-oner, if you will. Salient review here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-greenwald-once-called-brian-williams-nbcs-top-hagiographer/

Amazing how where one stands depends on where one sits!

Funny how times change, and tastes change.... and now it's Greenwald, bowing, scraping, smiling, and fawning.

Gotta sell those books, strike while the iron is hot.

I will say BW was very professional in his interactions. I wouldn't have blamed him if he told GG to take his book and shove it.

[thesquanderer]

98. Did he mean that in the same sense of how Facebook works?

re: "Snowden said they can read our thoughts as we are formulating them"

Facebook knows (and "sees" the content) of notes you type, as you type them... even if you decide to never hit Send.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/12/facebook_self_censorship_what_happens_to_the_posts_you_don_t_publish.html

"Facebook...is analyzing thoughts that we have intentionally chosen not to share."

If the NSA likewise can "see" our unsent keystrokes when we type online, then arguably, yes, they can read our thoughts as we are formulating them. I do not think this is out of the realm of possibility.

Any time I've actually followed a reference to "Snowden is bonkers" to the actual source, it has turned out to be something like this, something not nearly as far-fetched as when taken out of context.

[MADem]

101. Yes, he specifically referenced editing a document, and expressed shock and dismay!!!!!!

I have to say, though, I had to smh at all that silliness.

Cheated upon spouses have had this capability for eons--it's called a keylogger, and they can see every keystroke that (place tongue firmly in cheek, now) miserable rotten cheating (name your favorite gender specific bee word) has typed to (his/her) goddamn (more swear) (more swear) so-and-so who has been (pick one or all: a) eating my supper; b) sleeping in my bed; c) watching my tee vee, d) using my towels; e) banging my spouse) etc., etc., and so forth! Call the divorce lawyer, print out the evidence!

I am not endorsing this product, I have never had need of one-- this is simply an example of one of these things--you don't have to work at NSA to get one: http://www.webwatcher.com/

[whathehell]

42. His revealing military secrets is not ad hominem, and I don't see the "good"

for the country there, do you?

[dballance]

44. I missed the fact that he revealed military secrets.

Could you enlighten me.

[whathehell]

79. Here's one instance..

He let Al-Qaeda know that Britain and the US were using their cell phones

to gather information -- Gee, thanks Eddie!


http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0130/More-Snowden-leaks-and-this-time-Al-Qaeda-is-the-surveillance-target-video

[dballance]

90. That's not exactly news for anyone who belives they may be tracked because they're a Terrorist

If one is a terrorist and doesn't use some common sense practices to avoid detection then one is not a very smart terrorist and deserves to be caught.

[whathehell]

133. Apparently, it was news for them.

[uponit7771]

155. This is false many low levels dont know what can be tracked

[dballance]

156. I'm having difficulty undersgtanding your point.

You need to provide some clarification because "Many low levels dont know what can be tracked" is not a provable statement. "Many" low levels quite well understand what they are doing. How that is in direct contradiction to our Constitution.

Otherwise, I doubt we'd be having such vigorous debate in light of Snowden's revelations.

[thesquanderer]

52. I did not say that all attacks against him were ad hominem,

but that attacks on his character were.

As for what good he did for the country, I think this is a worthwhile perspective:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/global/the-service-of-snowden.html

Whether on balance he did more bad than good is something I think is hard to be certain of at this point.

[whathehell]

81. I'd say a reputation for lying is highly relevant in his case n/t

[MADem]

16. This isn't a party line issue. It's not Liberals go this way, Conservatives go that way.

There's a team on Fox News that's cheering Snowden on...and they aren't liberal by any means.

You should think about deleting your offensive post, or at least editing it so that you aren't broad brushing.

[baldguy]

41. "There's a team on Fox cheering Snowden on..."

That's all you need to know.

This is a party line issue. The Republicans have made it so. And just like every other "controversy" ginned up by the GOP, it's designed to weaken the President and the Democratic Party. As long as so-called progressives are duped by it, it's successful.

[B Calm]

130. Exactly! +1

[Major Hogwash]

137. This week! Next week they'll be worrying if Brian Kilmeade got a cold sore from so much asskissing!!

Seriously, if someone needs entertainment, watch Fox and Fiends.

Otherwise, just stick to the real news sources.

[thesquanderer]

43. Correct, it's not a simple party division

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/06/snowden-clemency-sanders-nsa/4344467/

Ron Paul:

http://rt.com/usa/paul-petition-snowden-clemency-950/


Once you start talking about civil liberties, it's often not left versus right, but rather the farther wings versus the center.

[baldguy]

59. Advocating for Ron Paul does not help your cause.

It's sort of a big red flag, and exposes your hypocrisy.

[thesquanderer]

63. What hypocrisy?

I was not advocating for anyone. I was just pointing out that it's not a party thing. You can have either position, regardless of which party you are in. What's the hypocrisy in that?

[ozone_man]

89. The unifying attribute is having libertarian values.

There are left libertarians like Thomas Jefferson, Noam Chomsky, and right libertarians like Ron Paul. They are equally against war, spying on the public, civil liberties, and differ most on social programs. Both support Edward Snowden, and what he has revealed about our government, and that the dialogue has started.

By contrast, the authoritarian middle are best represented by the mainstream Democratic and Republican parties. They tend not to support Snowden, generally don't have an issue with the NSA, the MIC, or entering into more useless foreign wars.

At DU, there is a constant battle between the left libertarian and mainstream authoritarian viewpoints. This is generalizing of course, as there are probably plenty of authoritarians who support Snowden too.

[MADem]

95. I think it is maybe a bit more complex than that (with some, granted, not all).

There's a subset of people who don't have a problem with Snowden pointing out system failings, but they don't like the idea of him taking our business to China and Russia and the rest of the world, telegraphing our methods and abilities, and, worst of all, hanging around Hong Kong with that material, AND spending time at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, while still in possession of that material.

It beggars belief that he never slept before he handed that stuff over... and the people who took possession of the stuff likely had a nap too--the material was not secure. If Greenwald woke up in the morning feeling like he slept like a baby, he may well have done--with the help of drugs slipped to him in a variety of ways, to include gas under the door. His room might have been tossed and tidied while he snored, and he'd never know it.

Many view Snowden as a stupid though well-spoken and arrogant guy who thought he was smarter than he actually is. Or worse. That doesn't mean they "approve" of NSA's behavior. It is possible to hold two thoughts that don't converge, and remain consistent.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. He is either a chronic liar and a con-artist....

[baldguy]

45. Both.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. Yes that is what I meant to say....

[Tarheel_Dem]

104. Well damn baldguy, you should pipe up more often.

[caseymoz]

7. You believe the NSA?

The professional liars club??????

After saying they had no emails from Snowden? How did their initial search miss this one and only it found when prompted by an embarrassing NBC interview. And are we supposed to believe it's only email Snowden ever sent?

We've left them free to tell however much of their story they want, and to lie anyway they want. I'd say you're a little biased.

It would be nothing, by ethics or effort, to compose and tailor this one and only Snowden email, and I bet they have an internal task force just for dealing with Snowden "embarrassments" in just this way.

Read here Snowden's response to this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/30/1302996/-Edward-Snowden-responds-to-meaningless-email-that-the-NSA-suddenly-found

[berni_mccoy]

9. Did you forget that Snowden worked for the professional liars club?

BTW, he's been caught in many other lies besides this one. This one just happens to be doozy.

[caseymoz]

13. And repented. Same as any Whistleblower.

Which is the way you usually the only way to find out about massive, successful government conspiracies enabled by patriotically useful idiots.

And you're blocked. I'm not interested in anything else you have to say.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. It strains all creduality that Snowden ...

held such distrust of the NSA and did not save or retrieve a single one of the "many" emails that would demonstrate that he actually did attempt to raise his concerns internally, as required by law.

That is one of the things that gave me pause on the Snowden story from the start ... Who doesn't keep one's own CYA file?

I know ... I know ... it's not about what Snowden did or didn't do; it's all about what he revealed ... except in terms of his prosecution, it IS all about what he did or didn't do.

[MADem]

106. Really, he could have tossed a few copies up in "the cloud"--even as attachments to

his gmail or yahoo accounts!

I'm thinking he might not have written anything more than a course critique. That email was a "form" submission. He did not go and pull up the NSA email program, address an email to the OGC, and write an email the way you or I might write one to our Aunt Martha. He was filling in blocks on a form, of the sort you would find if you visited a website and clicked "Contact Us" or of the sort that comes at the conclusion of a web-taught course one might take. "How did we do? Fill in the survey questions by clicking the appropriate response. If you have any questions about the course, put your name, email, and subject in the form at the end of the survey, and your question will be referred to the appropriate internal oversight agency, and they will get back to you within a week." That kind of thing....

The DATE of that email, though, kills him. He was already stealing stuff hand over fist, he was already in touch with GG and LP. The game of theft was already afoot.

[MADem]

103. Jesus, the person you are speaking with has "blocked" you for expressing a differing opinion!

How...well, if I said what I thought, I'd probably get in hot water.

Unbelievable how some people can't bear a difference of opinion. I think that level of intolerance doesn't speak well of a person.

[ProSense]

10. Not believing Snowden,

"You believe the NSA?"

....who can't produce any evidence, doesn't automatically default to believing anyone else.

Snowden is making the claim. If he was stupid enough to not keep documented proof, then he just blowing smoke.

I mean, he's attacking the NSA and also relying on them to prove his BS claims? Pretty stupid position to be in.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. So ...

He could see what others were internet typing, in real time; but he could not retrieve his own "get out of jail free" email(s)? Okayyyy.

[stevenleser]

23. AND he took 1.7 million documents and used other peoples usernames/passwords to get them but...

the info that would prove he tried to do the right thing prior to violating his agreements not to engage in unauthorized transfers of classified information? That he didn't save.

Again, Suuuuurrreeee. Yeah, that makes sense... NOT!

[B Calm]

11. but the NSA is the only government agency that actually listens to us.

I believe the NSA, before believing Tea Bagger Snow den!

[caseymoz]

24. For all the wrong reasons.

To control us. To arrest us. Just what Founders had in mind!

Since you think that's funny, I'd believe Snowden faster than I'd believe your judgment about anything.

He's the rare tea bagger who could spell "moron" correctly, a young person (which is atypical of a tea bagger) who started politically uninformed, loaded with the patriotically biased history they teach in schools, but who had a learning curve rather than a flat line.

[B Calm]

29. Glad to see you admit that Snow den is a Tea Bagger.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. yes or he would have them himself....everyone in IT always saves emails especially those to

Superiors. They would have been the first thing he downloaded....either he is lying or he is the dumbest Systems Admin EVER!

[treestar]

132. How do you believe or not believe the NSA?

Every NSA employee is a liar? Yeah, right. This is getting ridiculous.

Of course the employees are secretive. They have to be.

[BenzoDia]

12. His e-mail looks like bait to pin any alleged abuses on the President and other higher up.

Alas, he failed. Definitely not a whistle blower unless he can provide more proof of his attempts to expose wrong doings.

[Fuddnik]

18. And you believe the NSA.

People with a vested interest in lying to you every day.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. And Snowden has no vested interest in lying? eom

[msanthrope]

25. Is it an either/or choice? Or can there be more layers to the onion? nt

[bahrbearian]

58. The swarm defends liars every day.I

[Fuddnik]

69. Blasphemy!!!!!!!

[sofa king]

26. Ha ha! It's a trap!

Here's a fine example of two untrustworthy authorities contradicting one another in public statements. We see this all the time and I'd like to share my own deeply cynical opinion as to what one can do with "dirty information"--lies, propaganda, doubletalk, and evasion between two untrustworthy parties.

The first thing to do is to set aside the debated facts and assume that both of them are lying about them. One cannot easily deduce factual information from a debate between two dishonest parties.

If you made a judgment call as to which one of them is telling the truth, you're automatically wrong! Unless of course you have some secret knowledge that the rest of us don't have--then you're a cult leader.

In this case, proof needs to come through corroboration from a more reliable third party--and neither of these entities, nor the three nuclear superpowers involved, can fill that role. I don't know who the corroborator could be, or how that would work.

So until then, it's safe to assume that most or all of the statements from both sides are heavily tainted with bullshit.

That does not make the statements useless, because there is a deeper truth at work here. Here's what's certainly true: each side's statement, regardless of fact, will represent something close to the best possible interests of the speaker.

So on the surface, it's possible to make some tentative guesses about the objectives of each side. They could still be double-crossing chess-moving ninja-style doublecrossing each other and us, but the statements wouldn't be issued if they were not self-serving in some way.

So here, I think, is what little we can conclude from the interview and the counter-statement:

1) Snowden really really REALLY doesn't want to be tagged as a spy.

2) NSA is using the backfire effect to draw support and erode Snowden's credibility.

NSA's position is easier to hold because by directly contradicting Snowden, they're fueling the backfire effect, a popular (with Republicans) form of psychological manipulation.

Here's some semi-prophetic stuff I wrote about this phenomenon back when Mitt Romney was trying to use it on President Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021469106

It bothers me some because I know that NSA knows what it is doing, and that it comes dangerously close to running a psyops on the American public, which is reputedly illegal.

As for Snowden, I've bored all of you elsewhere with my rantings about how the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Snowden is, in fact, a spy. So I won't repeat that.

(Edit #36: Okay, I will repeat it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4900311 )

Bottom line is both of 'em are dirtballs, both of 'em are lying, and neither can ever again be trusted.

[TM99]

39. You make some sense up to a point.

What fails to be mentioned in this email phase of the NSA/Snowden story is that Snowden has already said that all documents he had are now with journalists. He no longer has access to them. He can not whip out any email proof to counter this, and I believe that the apologists know this quite well. This will now be up to the journalists that have the documents.

Personally, I suspect that Snowden and Greenwald are playing a very long game on this one. The NSA denied any emails in December of 2013. Now in May 2014, lo and behold, they found some. Let's see if they find more in the coming weeks. Then expect releases of the documents to once more show that the NSA has and continues to lie about this whole mess. That has been what has occurred thus far.

[yodermon]

27. i haven't watched the interview; Did BW ask Snowden why he didn't keep copies of the emails? n/t

[berni_mccoy]

30. A good journalist would have.

And it's also important to follow up why didn't Greenwald publish that (Greenwald was in the interview as well, sitting right beside his puppet). If what Snowden said was true, and it isn't, they could have used that right up front as a disclaimer.

Just like changing his story from saying he was an analyst for a contractor to being trained as a spy. This guy did not provide full disclosure at the outset, something a whistleblower would naturally do.

[yodermon]

56. If snowden/greenwald were to release the emails tomorrow, would you believe them to be legit copies

of the emails? or would you assert that they were made up?

Same can be said for whatever the NSA releases.

Us folks here on the good ol' internets can't verify either way, so it reduces to ad-hominem arguments on the anti-snowden side and appeal-to-authority on the pro- side. Highly entertaining but rather tiresome after a while.

[berni_mccoy]

67. Why don't you ask Richard Clarke

You know, the same guy who said Bush is a War Criminal? He was part of the investigation into NSA wrong-doing...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025023981

[yodermon]

80. ..right after i mention "appeal to authority"

[Ikonoklast]

86. There is no fallacy when the appeal is to an actual authority on the subject being discussed.

Clarke is such a person.

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. that was probably on the DONOTASK or this Interview is over requirements..

[MADem]

97. Not that I saw. I understand NBC has done a FOIA.

The one email that has come out, thus far (and unknown if there are more) does NOT say what ES claimed he said.

It's not a "challenge to authority" about anything. It's a very politely worded question asking about precedence when it came to government documents. He got a politely worded response (that anyone taking high school civics could have answered, really--which makes me wonder if ES isn't a well spoken one-subject savant, frankly) and the OGC invited him to ask away if he had more questions.

Hardly a "Fuck you" by any means.

WORSE, the date of the inquiry was well after he started plotting with GG, et. al., to hand over all those documents he'd been stealing.

That email dealt a huge blow to ES's credibility, and it made GG and LP look like co-conspirators, not intrepid reporters.

[Ilsa]

32. I have stayed out of this discussion, but Snowden's

Inquiry is the type of email I would send if I wanted to alert the higher-ups and GC without looking antagonistic or like I'm accusing someone.

Maybe my thoughts on this are too naive, but I see it as reading between the lines.

[rgbecker]

35. So berni, we're going with the boy scouts at the NSA this time?

How is it I'm not surprised there is a group of NSA suporters on the DU.

[bahrbearian]

60. DLC inspired

[randome]

64. You don't need to be a supporter of anyone to recognize the utter worthlessness of this email.

If Snowden really thought he could convince the world that this email is proof of something, he is both more naive and more desperate to leave Russia than I thought.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. That's cool.

Let me know when the government actually refutes any of the information he's releasing, rather than just his faulty recollection of exactly when he had a specific email exchange a year or so ago.

[randome]

65. An email exchange that is dated after he met with Greenwald and Poitras.

After he began amassing his collection of stolen documents. Does that sound right to you?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Katashi_itto]

37. Gosh NSA says it has no emails. Imagine that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. and Gosh Darn IT Uber Spy Snowden didn't CYA by downloading those emails first...

Not a very smart spy or Sys Admin!

[Katashi_itto]

66. Yeah, just awful how he forgot to cover every single thing, being the uber spy he is.

Worse yet Snowden is still alive. Darn!

I mean wheres Jason Bourne when you need him?

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. If you ever worked in govt IT you would know that CYA is the first thing you think of...

If he was as "good" as he claims he is.....that he understands "logic" as is required by a profession in IT....then he would have CYA before he did anything else....

So do you think he is crazy or just stupid?

[Katashi_itto]

93. Weird, I happen to work in the Govt. He is neither crazy nor stupid.

I will not try to 2nd guess (Unlike some) his thoughts on how he went about things.

I would only say he was obviously under high stress, knowing he could end up dead in a ditch somewhere as he pulled this off.

No one can think of everything.

Next, realizing his life was over if he stayed, he was thinking about making sure he got out of the country alive.

It's pretty obvious he's no field operative. Am operative, with a dozen passports, money to burn and training to help him along.

At a certain point he was simply making up his escape as he went, sweating every second, wondering if he was going to get a bullet or a knife in some airport terminal.

What's amazing is he's still alive. Since he's making our glorious leader look so bad. Not to mention pissing you all off about that too.

"He merely exists in a long line of Americans who had enough of what their government was doing and decided to behave accordingly. Lacking the ability to revolt (like those law-breaking traitors, the Founders), he broke the law and engaged in civil disobedience, like unionized workers on an illegal strike, like civil rights lunch counter sitters, like bootleggers, like Vietnam War rioting protesters, like so many, right and wrong, in American history. " -Rude Pundit

[VanillaRhapsody]

108. Do you work in IT?

thats what I thought...

He is either crazy or incredibly stupid. He managed to set out to steal govt data....and he forgot to get his own emails that supports his contention that he is a whistleblower? And he did govt contracting for years? Not fucking possible! Crazy or stupid...

[Katashi_itto]

109. Lol, spin it however you like.

Snowden is still alive and is still revealing stuff you would prefer hidden about our glorious admin

[VanillaRhapsody]

111. LOL its not spin when I KNOW it to be true...

I HAVE worked Govt IT projects.....

[Katashi_itto]

112. Yes...I sure you've worked stuff like Stellar Wind...

Lol

[VanillaRhapsody]

113. You would actually be surprised...

I live in DC....just so you know...
And I have worked on a number of them. Even things not Stellar Wind.....teach you CYA above all else. Always keep a paper trail of ANY correspondence....in fact try to do ALL correspondence by email for THAT reason!

[Katashi_itto]

114. Gosh that makes all the difference, but considering the slant of your posts I would not be

to surprised on what your assignments might be.

Disinformation comes in all shapes and sizes

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. Actually you would....as I said...I do IT work.... as in a Developer....not content creation...

So yeah I do know what Govt IT contracting is about...

So this suggests you are ant-government....is that right?

[Katashi_itto]

116. So your Pro authoritarian then?

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. Is that the Black to your White in your world?

I happen to love the United States form of govt. If that makes me Authoritarian in your book oh well. I guess me and Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are ALL Authoritarians now!

[Katashi_itto]

118. Just reading your posts is all :)

[VanillaRhapsody]

120. I am in good company with those who love this country....by that I mean this form of Govt.

I am a Liberal Socialist Democrat neither an Authoritarian or a Libertarian or Anarchist....you are free to interpret that however you like...

[Katashi_itto]

121. Yes. It must be hard to view oneself in real terms.

Using long winded political descriptors must help.

Myself, if I was in such a situation, I would use "Good German" as a descriptor

[VanillaRhapsody]

122. Not hard at all....So now being a Liberal Socialist Democrat is == Nazi?

Are you seriously calling me a Nazi? Or do you just want to denigrate Germans who migh happen to be reading?

[Katashi_itto]

123. I didn't call you anything.

Nor would I ever call you a Nazis. That would be untrue.

But you have a cozy existence.

[elias49]

38. The day's anti-Snowden circle jerk has begun. nt

[Katashi_itto]

94. +1

[Pholus]

50. What I see the NSA showing what a sham their obedience of the law is....

Put yourself in the place of someone missing TWO souls, the prerequisite for simultaneously working for the NSA and as a lawyer.

That email beeps in.

Look at what it is asking -- whose laws take precedence. No specifics. Huge implications.

What dumbfucker let that pass I might ask? I mean if I try to answer that question I immediately have to wonder about the goddamned context -- but obviously they don't -- hell no afterall they're the goddamned fucking NSA and they are fucking God with a license to do whatever they want straight from two presidents and political parties. Obviously their shit don't stink and they knows it.

So they write a boilerplace CYA answer and go back to reading their Tom Clancy novels.

What that email demonstrates perfectly is that there is a culture of lawbreaking at the NSA. There was NO followup to that obviously loaded question. Obviously their lawyers' jobs have NOTHING to do with figuring out what is right or wrong or even what their employees are up to.

For that matter, spook lawyers getting suspicious questions NOT alerting spook central? I bet the memo has already been sent about NOT letting that happen again.

Snowden hacked the NSA? Only because their dumbfuckery is surpassed only by their arrogance.

[grasswire]

128. ^^^^^^^

For someone who understands the significance of that email and the strategic implications!

Those who simply call the email a "training matter" are either stupid, suspect, or duped.

And the NSA played right into it.

Outstanding post, thanks.

[Savannahmann]

51. And we can take the NSA's word on that

They have a long history of telling the truth about things in their possession. Or something.

[global1]

62. As Always Ed, Should You Or Any Of Your I.M. Force Be Caught Or Killed, The Secretary Will Disavow..

any knowledge of your actions.

Your right - we're talking the NSA here. Does anyone think that if the NSA is caught up in a situation like this - they would produce Snowden's - going through channels?

And as for him being a liar - don't spy's kind of lie or deceive the people they are around to protect their real identity as a spy?

[dawg]

54. "Snowden Fan Club"

Perhaps the finest example of projection that I have ever seen.

[laundry_queen]

71. LOL

I totally agree, that crossed my mind too.

[bobduca]

72. very clear example

Isn't everyone in a personality cult?

[bowens43]

55. It doesn't matter. He did what needed to be done. Period. End of story.

Keep smearing him though, I find your desperation amusing.

[berni_mccoy]

68. Richard Clarke would disagree with you

You know, the guy that said Bush was responsible for 9-11... the guy who just recently said Bush is a War Criminal...

Same guy thinks Snowden did harm and should be locked away:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025023981

But I guess Richard Clarke is just smearing Snowden.

[bobduca]

78. Argument settled!

If a former Republican National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism falls in line with the government's position on a whistleblower then I'm sold!

I believe the proper emoticon in this case is :



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

[neverforget]

107. Lol!

[MohRokTah]

73. He committed espionage. Period. End of story.

Once Putin no longer has propaganda value from him any longer, He'll throw Double Naught Eddie's ass out of Russia, Snowden will be returned to the US, he'll stand trial, he'll be convicted, and he'll spend time in prison.

Just like Manning.

[grasswire]

129. Does your nickname happen to be...

....Carnack?

[bigtree]

76. heavens knows we can trust the word of the NSA

. . . who had told us for months that zero emails existed.

The NSA told the Washington Post’s Bart Gellman that no evidence of a paper trail existed. “After extensive investigation, including interviews with his former NSA supervisors and co-workers, we have not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden's contention that he brought these matters to anyone's attention," said the agency in a statement.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/paper-trail-nsa-releases-email-snowden-sent-agency-officials-n117086


Snowden responds:

Just as when the NSA claimed it followed German laws in Germany just weeks before it was revealed that they did not, or when NSA said they did not engage in economic espionage a few short months before it was revealed they actually did so on a regular and recurring basis, or even when they claimed they had “no domestic spying program” before we learned they collected the phone records of every American they could, so too are today’s claims that “this is only evidence we have of him reporting concerns” false.

[berni_mccoy]

85. Given that the email released has nothing to do with Whistleblowing

I would think that the NSA was telling the truth before that no emails existed in regards to Snowden following proper channels.

While I don't put full faith in the NSA, I certainly don't give *any* credibility to Snowden, who has contradicted himself many times already as well as reveal info now that should have been disclosed at the outset.

[ProSense]

87. No one has to "trust" the NSA, but it's

fairly stupid that Snowden is now relying on them for his evidence.

Why didn't he keep any?

[Cha]

159. Excellent point, ProSense.. Snowden's a liar.

[Thinkingabout]

83. Snowden raising issues of legality? He did nit legally follow the chain, he stole,

He told, he gave information to foreign sources, what more proof does the DOJ need to convict Snowden.

[LanternWaste]

88. It seems to be down to three sides

It seems to be down to three sides; the side that uses "Snowden fan club", the side that uses "NSA fan club", and the side that points and giggles at the first two sides.

For full disclosure, I'm pointing and giggling.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. You forgot the fourth side.

Those of us who stand with the constitution.

We are damn comical, I know

[LanternWaste]

100. I rarely giggle at a reasoned argument

I giggle at the melodramatic pejoratives used. I rarely giggle at a reasoned argument, regardless of which ideological side it embraces (unless they use bumper-stickers to advertise their embrace-- which also elicits a giggle, because it is indeed, damned comical).

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. The problem is that I cannot giggle

at obvious tendentious attacks, such as comrade eddie. Those are not melodramatic, they are exactly what I said, tendentious 

[Javaman]

92. Meh. nt

[SidDithers]

99. This thread is all kinds of awesome...

The spittle-flecked outrage from Snowden's fans is hilarious.

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

102. "Spittle-flecked outrage" is an apt description.

[Major Hogwash]

138. Plus there's the foaming at the mouth, fawning section!

You know, when they get that small glob of white spit frothed up at the corner of their mouth, and you just want to gag!

[JDPriestly]

119. Feinstein's release of one e-mail this morning disproves the premise of your post.

Please remove your post. News has proved it to be mistaken. Thank you.

[ProSense]

126. Huh?

"Feinstein's release of one e-mail this morning disproves the premise of your post. Please remove your post. News has proved it to be mistaken. Thank you. "

Why are you demanding the OP "remove" the post based on Feinstein's release of the same e-mail mentioned in the OP?

Feinstein: Snowden never voiced NSA concerns

By Carla Marinucci

<...>

Snowden made the assertion during an interview with NBC News this week, his first ever on U.S. television. He said he had tried to raise concerns about NSA spying by going through channels at the agency before he leaked stolen documents.

But Feinstein showed Chronicle editors and reporters a copy of an April 2013 e-mail exchange between Snowden and the agency's general counsel, in which Snowden posed a question on NSA training regarding the relative authority of laws and executive orders.

Snowden referred specifically to an intelligence directive requiring that NSA activities be "conducted in a manner that safeguards the constitutional rights of U.S. persons." Agency training for following the directive, Snowden said, appeared to give equal weight to federal law and executive orders.

<...>

Feinstein said there appeared to be no additional evidence that Snowden "expressed concerns or complaints, in e-mail or any other form, about NSA's intelligence activities to anyone in a position of authority or oversight."

- more -

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Feinstein-Snowden-never-voiced-NSA-concerns-5514604.php

[Cha]

127. Why should berni "remove his post"? It proves Snowden's a fucking liar like I already knew.

[Jakes Progress]

146. So. Do you support the NSA collating records on you and your calls and correspondence?

Of course you wouldn't know about that if not for Ed Snowden.

But, given that you now know, do you think it is a good thing?

[Cha]

147. This is about Snowden being a stupid libertarian liar. He should have gone through the proper

channels. Thinks he fucking god. he's not.

[Jakes Progress]

149. I see you ducked. Probably a good idea

given that you don't seem to know much about the whole thing. Relying on the faux for your main source of info isn't really a good idea. But at least john mccain and sarah agree with you.

[Cha]

153. I don't have to answer to some anonymous GG/ES fan on the internet.. GG's making $$$$$$

off of poor stupid Eddie stuck in Russia.

[Jakes Progress]

157. Still ducking. Good idea.

When you can't defend yourself, just duck and hope your opponent moves on.

No. No one has to answer for their shit on the internet. You are just as anonymous as every one else here. You can throw out crap and never have to stand up for any position. Greenwald is not anonymous. Snowden is not anonymous. They said what they believe and stand behind it. As you said, you can duck and not have to answer for anything you write.

[Cha]

158. Still kicking this thread.. Good!

[Jakes Progress]

160. How do you define a coward?

I think it is someone who shoots off at the mouth and then runs away from an issue because they don't know shit and haven't the courage to admit their ignorance and boorish behavior.

You know. Someone who shits on a thread and then says things like "I don't have to answer to you" while pretending that they have some principle at stake. Someone who refuses to take a stand because when they snark on real Democrats elsewhere their words might be used against them. Some one who hides from discourse and ducks any question about their position. Because truly, they haven't a position until someone tells them what to think.

I think the NSA is overstepping its position and should be reigned in. IF it weren't for Edward Snowden, the NSA could keep on doing this without the light of day. So far the congress, the president, and the supreme court have agreed with Snowden, that the NSA surveillance actions should be restrained and restructured. If you had a thought of your own on this subject, what might that be.

I expect more mallards.

[Cha]

162. Edward Fuckng Snowden in Russia.

[Jakes Progress]

163. Again. Cowardly ducking.

You are the most uninformed person I have encountered on DU.

How is it cowardice to give up your life to help your country? You must think that medal of honor winners are real wimps.

Now someone who attacks someone who actually does something for the benefit of the American people and then hides in the internets, hoping that no one ever asked them to really think or do something noble. Cower away.

[GeorgeGist]

125. Bookmarked for future reference.

I expect that Snowden and Greenwald will eventually make fools of you and your fellow travelers.

[treestar]

131. And asking them one of the dumbest legal questions in the world

is not exposing any alleged wrongdoing.

[Jakes Progress]

134. Do you support the NSA surveillance program as we now know it stands?

Of course you wouldn't know how it stands if not for Ed Snowden.

But, given that you now know, do you think it is a good thing?

[randome]

142. Most people truly don't care about the NSA spying on other countries.

If you equate metadata storage with 'surveillance', well, that's a strange interpretation but one I can understand. But since we've known about that since 2006, what was the point of Snowden in the first place?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jakes Progress]

145. I didn't ask "most people".

I asked the OP. He hasn't bothered to reply.

How about you. Do you support NSA spying and collecting records on you, your writing, your correspondence, your habits?

[randome]

150. Not at all. I would be appropriately outraged if that was happening.

But since the NSA is the one intelligence agency forbidden by law from spying on citizens, I require evidence that they are breaking that law before I climb on the wagon.
[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]

[Jakes Progress]

151. If?

Look to your Cohen quote. Snowden is the crack.

[Major Hogwash]

136. Do those fan club members have to return their secret decoder ring now??

I wonder how many box tops of Corn Flakes they sent in to get it!!

[Number23]

139. He also lied about being "trained as a spy"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2643148/Susan-Rice-denies-Snowdens-claims-undercover-spy-working-CIA-hours-NSA-releases-one-inquiry-email-Ed-sent-leaking.html

But it's so precious and adorable watching his dwindling fans scream that he's "never been caught in a lie."

[B Calm]

141. Lying has always been a republican trait!

[Bobbie Jo]

144. Along with its associates...

Cheat and Steal.

[99Forever]

143. Given the choice between...

... the Professional Lying Liars and the Truth Telling Whistleblower?





Duh.

[Autumn]

148. What a dilemma, the NSA or Edward Snowden. Who to believe?

Oh fuck it, I'm gonna stick with Snowden.

[Zen Democrat]

152. I have no doubt that at certain levels no whistleblowing is allowed or tolerated.

When I heard McDonough say that the harm to the NSA was irreparable, I wasn't sure that was such a bad thing. What have we been doing since WWII and the tangled web of intelligence agencies gained secret powers? The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan and Operation Take Their Oil in Iraq. The Cold War culture dies hard. But it's time for mass surveillance and data mining to end. Let's evolve, people.

[Puzzledtraveller]

161. No worries, we have Bergdahl now to take us off Snowden.

How convenient.