Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Everyone in US under surveillance incl Congress - NSA whistleblower [View all]Catherina
(35,568 posts)27. Proof is hidden away which explains why Snowden took such drastic steps,
The proof is hidden away which explains why Snowden took such drastic steps, first to go get enough proof and then to alert the public, without the predictable obstruction, to bring this corrupt house of cards down. I agree with you about how great it would have been.
Thomas Drake was also not in a position to access the highly classified documents about this. The documents Snowden leaked are only accessible to very few people. So all previous leakers had was their *word* and when they took their *word*, their integrity, their courage to the only channels they were allowed to, like the Intelligence Committee, nothing was done. Wanna know why?
[hr]Question:
User avatar for AhBrightWings
AhBrightWings
17 June 2013 2:12pm
My question: given the enormity of what you are facing now in terms of repercussions, can you describe the exact moment when you knew you absolutely were going to do this, no matter the fallout, and what it now feels like to be living in a post-revelation world? Or was it a series of moments that culminated in action? I think it might help other people contemplating becoming whistleblowers if they knew what the ah-ha moment was like. Again, thanks for your courage and heroism.
[hr]
**The current Gang of Eight**
Background
The President of the United States is required by 50 U.S.C. § 413(a)(1) to "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States." However, under 50 U.S.C. § 413b(c)(2), the President may elect to report instead to the Gang of Eight when he thinks "it is essential to limit access" to information about a covert action.[not verified in body]
...
The individuals are sworn to secrecy and there is no vote process
The term "Gang of Eight" gained wide currency in the coverage of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program, in the context that no members of Congress other than the Gang of Eight were informed of the program, and they were forbidden to disseminate knowledge of the program to other members of Congress. The Bush administration has asserted that the briefings delivered to the Gang of Eight sufficed to provide Congressional oversight of the program and preserve the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.[1]
Members of the Gang of Eight (intelligence)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_%28intelligence%29
User avatar for AhBrightWings
AhBrightWings
17 June 2013 2:12pm
My question: given the enormity of what you are facing now in terms of repercussions, can you describe the exact moment when you knew you absolutely were going to do this, no matter the fallout, and what it now feels like to be living in a post-revelation world? Or was it a series of moments that culminated in action? I think it might help other people contemplating becoming whistleblowers if they knew what the ah-ha moment was like. Again, thanks for your courage and heroism.
Answer:
I imagine everyone's experience is different, but for me, there was no single moment. It was seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials to Congress - and therefore the American people - and the realization that that Congress, specifically the **Gang of Eight**, wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act. Seeing someone in the position of James Clapper - the Director of National Intelligence - baldly lying to the public without repercussion is the evidence of a subverted democracy. The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.
[hr]
**The current Gang of Eight**
Background
The President of the United States is required by 50 U.S.C. § 413(a)(1) to "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States." However, under 50 U.S.C. § 413b(c)(2), the President may elect to report instead to the Gang of Eight when he thinks "it is essential to limit access" to information about a covert action.[not verified in body]
...
The individuals are sworn to secrecy and there is no vote process
The term "Gang of Eight" gained wide currency in the coverage of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program, in the context that no members of Congress other than the Gang of Eight were informed of the program, and they were forbidden to disseminate knowledge of the program to other members of Congress. The Bush administration has asserted that the briefings delivered to the Gang of Eight sufficed to provide Congressional oversight of the program and preserve the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.[1]
Members of the Gang of Eight (intelligence)
United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:Mike Rogers (R): (Chair)
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D): (Ranking member)
United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:Dianne Feinstein (D): (Chair)
Saxby Chambliss (R): (Ranking member)
Leadership in theUnited States House of Representatives:John Boehner (R): (Speaker of the House)
Nancy Pelosi (D): (Minority leader)
Leadership in the United States Senate:Harry Reid (D): (Majority leader)
Mitch McConnell (R): (Minority leader)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_%28intelligence%29
And now they're revving up for full obstruction mode.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
73 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Everyone in US under surveillance incl Congress - NSA whistleblower [View all]
Catherina
Jun 2013
OP
You nailed it. And this is precisely what the professional weasels, whose paychecks depend
Catherina
Jun 2013
#16
Blackmail is one explanation. Another is that they can discover what it takes to buy the politician
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2013
#38
"So I take this comment, the last words he spoke on the chat, with a grain of salt. "
ProSense
Jun 2013
#10
I already said I was confused. By your comment. I'm not at all confused about the threats to
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#12
Well you still haven't said whether you believe Snowden or Binney. I will assume you believe
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#14
So you believe Binney then? But both are saying the same thing, so that means you must
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#17
Well, we DUers who you so disdain, are having a problem with the logic here. Could YOU perhaps
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#37
Why, when I read your posts here on the wholesale spying on American citizens, I think of
RC
Jun 2013
#57
Thanks for watching. These refute the professional nonsense being spammed on these boards
Catherina
Jun 2013
#22
It's crap that they are spying on Congress? See Binney's and then Snowden's seeming contradiction
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#9
it isn't a "seeming" contradiction. It is a contradiction. And are we talking about the NSA tapping
KittyWampus
Jun 2013
#20
The only difference is, is Snowden's claim the the NSA has granted Congress immunity from their
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#42
What grabs me- all 3 gentlemen say they could develop a system with built in safeguards but were not
KittyWampus
Jun 2013
#18
Agreed Kitty. One of the whistle-blowers said they tried to but were shot down everytime
Catherina
Jun 2013
#32
The NATO doctrine... "If we're losing... we will blow up the world" - Halperin
Catherina
Jun 2013
#66
Clapper has a lot on his mind also. Like maybe whether he should go back to that multi million
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#45
Not exactly. If you know that politicians can be bought, if you can uncover what it takes to buy
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2013
#46