Question: Is any NSA revelation by Snowden discredited by his candor (or lack of)?

[bigtree]

I think that Snowden's explanations and reasoning given by him about his motivations for his info grab and dump may well be important when considering his ultimate fate. However, I don't think that any of those differences folks have with his explanations of intent discredit the importance, relevance, or truthfulness of the NSA info provided.

Why then, I'm left to wonder, is Snowden's candor about his actions regularly presented by critics in perfect tandem with their dismissals about the extent and seriousness of the NSA's behavior?

It looks like an effort to distract from the truth contained in the disclosures. Is the information provided correct, or not? That would seem to be the most relevant standard for anyone actually concerned with the surveillance laws and in the actions of our government's spy agencies.

The manner in which Snowden gathered the info and the manner in which he allowed it to be released is certainly important to his own character, but I'm not seeing where that credibility about his intent and actions affects the information provided, at all - not from the standpoint of someone who is amazed and disturbed by the extent we've been lied to by successive administrations about the government's spying activities.

Where else were we going to get this information about the NSA? When?

[grasswire]

1. his critics here dismiss that as narcissism.

Or something.

Any distraction will do.

Obviously, he's terrifying.

[mike_c]

2. No (that's my answer to your question)

I'm convinced that much of the Snowden hate is posted by DUers who are desperately trying to distract from the NSA revelations themselves. Oh look, a squirrel....

[bigtree]

7. this email thing doesn't look to have a thing to do with the info he's leaked

. . . more to the questions about his motivation; fate.

[Leme]

3. Where else were we going to get this information about the NSA? When?

just not going to happen, they are a secret organization. secret to all.

[KansDem]

4. Any NSA "revelation" is suspect, at best.

I don't trust it.

[bigtree]

5. have the documents provided been independently proven as false or incorrect?

. . . any of them?

[randome]

8. No. Not a single one.

The NSA does spy on other countries. The NSA does store copies of phone metadata. The NSA does use all the technological tools at its disposal to monitor foreign suspects.

And the Sun does come up in the East.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[KansDem]

10. The NSA has a history of providing false documents.

Remember the second Gulf of Tonkin incident?'

It was originally claimed by the National Security Agency that the second Tonkin Gulf incident occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead may have involved "Tonkin Ghosts"[6] (false radar images) and not actual NVN torpedo boat attacks.

The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression." The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[7] that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese naval vessels present during the incident of August 4.

and --

According to Raymond McGovern, a retired CIA officer, CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990, and in the 1980s chairman of the National Intelligence Estimates, the CIA, "not to mention President Lyndon Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy all knew full well that the evidence of any armed attack on the evening of Aug. 4, 1964, the so-called “second” Tonkin Gulf incident, was highly dubious....During the summer of 1964, President Johnson and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were eager to widen the war in Vietnam. They stepped up sabotage and hit-and-run attacks on the coast of North Vietnam". The Maddox, carrying electronic spying gear, was to collect signals intelligence from the North Vietnamese coast, and the coastal attacks were seen as a helpful way to get the North Vietnamese to turn on their coastal radars. For this purpose, it was authorized to approach the coast as close as eight miles and the offshore islands as close as four; the latter had already been subjected to shelling from the sea.[31]

and --

In October, 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the U.S. National Security Agency, concluded that NSA deliberately distorted intelligence reports passed to policy-makers regarding the August 4, 1964 incident. He concluded the motive was not political, but rather to cover up honest intelligence errors.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Second_Alleged_Attack

That was 50 years ago.

[bigtree]

14. right. Do we have any proof that determines the NSA info Snowden provided is false?

. . . that the documents he revealed are deliberate 'fakes'?

[KansDem]

16. I'm not saying his info is false...

I'm saying the NSA may try to cover its ass with bogus documents discrediting Snowden.

[ProSense]

6. No

". Question: Is any NSA revelation by Snowden discredited by his candor (or lack of)?"

...but Snowden's candor is not off limits. No one has to agree with him when he makes bogus or inconsistent statements. His first Q&A was filled with unsubstantiated claims that are still unproven. His attempt to apply the Constitution to foreign surveillance is naive at best. In fact, some allies questioned his move to release information overseas, indicating that he was stepping over the line. For me, fleeing the country and releasing the information in the way he did makes me suspect his motives.

As for the domestic surveillance issues, many people who oppose NSA overreach and recognize the value of the debate, but they also don't approve of Snowden's actions that go beyond sparking the debate about the NSA's domestic activities.

The damage is not base on the information related to domestic surveillance. Snowden, as he indicated in his NBC interview, believes the information is potentially damaging enough to have made a deal (very strange) to keep it out of the public domain. Yet he has no control over what happens to that information.

Assange threatens to release Snowden info that Greenwald says could endanger lives
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0520/Assange-threatens-to-release-Snowden-info-that-Greenwald-says-could-endanger-lives

Jimmy Carter:

Carter: Snowden's leaks 'good for Americans to know'

Susan Page

NEW YORK -- Former president Jimmy Carter defended the disclosures by fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden on Monday, saying revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies were collecting meta-data of Americans' phone calls and e-mails have been "probably constructive in the long run."

<...>

Does he view Snowden, now granted asylum in Russia, as a hero or a traitor?

"There's no doubt that he broke the law and that he would be susceptible, in my opinion, to prosecution if he came back here under the law," he said. "But I think it's good for Americans to know the kinds of things that have been revealed by him and others -- and that is that since 9/11 we've gone too far in intrusion on the privacy that Americans ought to enjoy as a right of citizenship."

Carter cautioned that he didn't have information about whether some of the disclosures "may have hurt our security or individuals that work in security," adding, "If I knew that, then I may feel differently." And he said Snowden shouldn't be immune from prosecution for his actions.

"I think it's inevitable that he should be prosecuted and I think he would be prosecuted" if he returned to the United States, the former president said. "But I don't think he ought to be executed as a traitor or any kind of extreme punishment like that."

- more -

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/24/usa-today-capital-download-jimmy-carter-edward-snowden-probably-constructive/6822425/

Bernie Sanders:

<...>

BLITZER: What about Snowden? Do you think that he committed a crime or he was simply a well-intentioned whistle-blower?

SANDERS: Well, I think what you have to look at is -- I think there is no question that he committed a crime, obviously. He violated his oath and he leaked information.

On the other hand, what you have to weigh that against is the fact that he has gone a very long way in educating the people of our country and the people of the world about the power of private agency in terms of their surveillance over people of this country, over foreign leaders, and what they are doing.

So, I think you got to weigh the two. My own belief is that I think, I would hope that the United States government could kind of negotiate some plea bargain with him, some form of clemency. I think it wouldn't be a good idea or fair to him to have to spend his entire remaining life abroad, not being able to come back to his country.

So I would hope that there's a price that he has to pay, but I hope it is not a long prison sentence or exile from his country.

BLITZER: You wouldn't give him clemency, though, and let him off scot-free?

SANDERS: No. BLITZER: All right, Senator, thanks very much for joining us.

<...>

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1401/06/sitroom.02.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024292659

I stand with anyone who recognizes that one doesn't have defend Snowden, Putin's tool, to be on the "right side of history."

Senator Blumenthal: prosecute Snowden, overhaul FISA courts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023425884

Rep. John Lewis: "NO PRAISE FOR SNOWDEN-Reports about my interview with The Guardian are misleading"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023427908

“What Mr. Snowden did is treason, was high crimes, and there is nothing in what we say that justifies what he did,” said Richard Clarke, a former White House counter-terrorism advisor and current ABC News contributor. “Whether or not this panel would have been created anyway, I don’t know, but I don’t think anything that I’ve learned justifies the treasonous acts of Mr. Snowden.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/white-house-nsa-panel-member-snowdens-leaks-treasonous/story?id=21277856

From the beginning, it was clear that Snowden broke the law (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439290). There was a point where even Snowden supporters accepted that he knew he broke the law. Snowden said it himself.

Fleeing the country and releasing state secrets did not help his case.

His actions since then have only made the situation worse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035550

Some of Snowden's fans are now attacking Kerry for stating the obvious, what many others have said, which is basically that Snowden is a fugitive from justice and he has the choice to return to the U.S. to be held accountable.

Former Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke: Snowden Should Be In Prison
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025023981

[bigtree]

9. and the rest?

. . . where, when would we have uncovered the things that Carter says is 'good for Americans to know', without Snowden?

[ProSense]

11. As I said

"and the rest?. . . where, when would we have uncovered the things that Carter says is 'good for Americans to know', without Snowden?"

...Snowden could have released the relevant information and remained in the country. He decided to flee with information he deemed damaging and decided to release that information.

Again, no one is opposed to having that debate. Sparking a national debate on domestic surveillance did not require him to release unrelated and, as he admitted, potentially damaging information about foreign surveillance activities.

[bigtree]

13. could have, would have . . .

. . . again, Snowden may have a need to defend all of that; but not to me. Were his transgressions deliberate, or, just carelessness or clumsiness?

For instance, I'm prepared to accept that the administration's outing of a CIA agent was an inadvertent mistake in the process of something that was likely important in the larger scheme of their foreign or security policy.

[ProSense]

15. Yes, the

"could have, would have . . . again, Snowden may have a need to defend all of that; but not to me. Were his transgressions deliberate, or, just carelessness or clumsiness?

For instance, I'm prepared to accept that the administration's outing of a CIA agent was an inadvertent mistake in the process of something that was likely important in the larger scheme of their foreign or security policy."

...point of whether or not he should have fled is moot. He chose to do so. He activley revealed information he thought was damaging, making a deal is not cover. As I said, he has no control over what happens to that information.

None of that changes the consequence, which he should have been fully aware of.

Bruce Schneier:

Edward Snowden broke the law by releasing classified information. This isn't under debate; it's something everyone with a security clearance knows. It's written in plain English on the documents you have to sign when you get a security clearance, and it's part of the culture. The law is there for a good reason, and secrecy has an important role in military defense.

But before the Justice Department prosecutes Snowden, there are some other investigations that ought to happen.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/prosecuting_sno.html

[joshcryer]

12. No.

The lack of meaning reform is.