View Full Version : Is Snowden a traitor?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/22/edward-snowden-us-china
tells china stuff... is that traitorous? or is he truly a "citizen of the world" and he should divulge these things?
ForTehNguyen
06-24-13, 19:10
have to be naive to think the US isnt hacking/spying China. So what exactly changed? China probably knew it too. Stuff like this needs to send a message to all govts not to do crap like this or risk being exposed.
Not a traitor
Yes We Scan!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130620/18182823551/obama-administration-has-declared-war-leakers-claims-any-leak-is-aiding-enemy.shtml
Obama Administration Has Declared War On Whistleblowers, Describes Leaks As 'Aiding The Enemy'
In 2008, now President Obama ran with the following as a key plank in his campaign:
Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled as they have been during the Bush administration. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.
None of that has happened. Instead, as we've discussed repeatedly, President Obama has been the most aggressive President ever in attacking whistleblowers and bringing the full weight of the law down on them. In fact, in 2012, rather than promote protecting whistleblowers in his campaign, the campaign bragged about how it cracked down on whistleblowers:
President Obama has done more than any other administration to forcefully pursue and address leaks of classified national security information.... The Obama administration has prosecuted twice as many cases under the Espionage Act as all other administrations combined. Under the President, the Justice Department has prosecuted six cases regarding national security leaks. Before he took office, federal prosecutors had used the Espionage Act in only three cases.
The above paragraph is true -- and we've pointed it out in the past as well -- but we thought it was shameful, not something worth bragging about. Furthermore, since he was elected, President Obama has never praised a single federal employee who was a whistleblower. When asked by a reporter from the Huffington Post for an example of President Obama supporting a whistleblower, the White House refused to respond.
Given all of that, it will come as little surprise to read a piece by reporters Marisa Taylor and Jonathan Landay of McClatchy's Washington Bureau, in which they reveal that the White House has a special attack program to deal with whistleblowers called Insider Threat Program (ITP). And, no, contrary to what the administration has claimed, it's not just about "national security" issues. It goes way beyond that:
President Barack Obama’s unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture departments.
And, as the reporters note, the program may emphasize classified material, but actually goes way beyond that to cover leaks of just about anything. Furthermore, it encourages the ridiculous view that leaks which expose questionable behavior to the public are the same as aiding the enemy.
“Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States,” says a June 1, 2012, Defense Department strategy for the program that was obtained by McClatchy.
Yes, informing the American public of misdeeds by the US government is considered "aiding the enemies of the United States." The reality, of course, is what they're saying is that they really mean "the current government" when they refer to "the United States," and "the enemies" are the American public.
And, part of the program seems to be to put pressure on anyone to snitch on their colleagues if they suspect potential leakers. Government employees who fail to report colleagues who exhibit "high risk" behaviors may be subject to criminal charges. Basically, snitch on anyone who acts suspiciously, or else... And, of course, it's not just the Defense Department. The Agriculture Department has an online tutorial teaching people how to spot potential whistleblowers, entitled "Treason 101."
As becomes obvious, this massively discourages whistleblowing. It massively discourages anyone raising any alarm about programs that might be out of control, for fear that they might be declared a "high risk" person or even guilty of espionage for trying to blow the whistle. President Obama not only has not supported the "courageous" whistleblowers he praised, he's made it so scary to report any malfeasance that when it eventually does come out, it takes the dramatic form of someone like Edward Snowden, rather than someone willing to go through all the "official channels." It's a complete failure and does little to promote good government.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/600743_669078256442296_802807240_n.jpg
Not a traitor, nor a Patriot. If he had stayed and fought on his feet might have differ opinion. I can see duckin and dodging till story gets out, but afterwards come back and stand by your word and finish the fight you started.
Not a traitor, nor a Patriot. If he had stayed and fought on his feet might have differ opinion. I can see duckin and dodging till story gets out, but afterwards come back and stand by your word and finish the fight you started.
Well stated...was hoping someone would ask as I was curious to what m4 thought. I personally would be living at with the Media for protection. :)
Skipping town to the places he did left a bad taste.
Well stated...was hoping someone would ask as I was curious to what m4 thought. I personally would be living at with the Media for protection. :)
Skipping town to the places he did left a bad taste.My main two arguing points. I would have been livin it up as a hero and enjoying the "public eye of protection" not slummin it in China like some defector.
if you don't consider it a misdeed to collect metadata then what snowden did was simply leak classified sensitive information to not just the american public, but everyone.
also the original article i posted is addressing his contact with china. is he a traitor for contacting china? why china? why not any other hack target of america?
surely everyone knows we hack everyone... we also knew that they collect metadata from everyone.
what's particularly offensive is china does the same or worse, no one leaks for them... simply putting the united states at a disadvantage at best. is it traitorous to do that? i don't know, but it's certainly not "fair."
i can't understand why people suggest the wikileaks from bradley manning didn't damage national security. would it be outlandish to suggest that a large part of national security is maintaining a large list of informants across the globe that are willing to send an email or a text message or a cable at the right time? where the **** are all those people gonna go when their identities and their cooperation are exposed? the press has tons of informants mostly on condition of anonymity. what kind of journalist outs all their sources? none, or no good journalist. who the hell else would want to join that list of people willing to aid america for money or for principle ever? after such an exposure? how many people were killed? demoted? families destroyed? how many? all you need is the name of a person and they're through.
even the npr interviews of people that were whistleblowers or high level officials in the associated groups said the same. all you have to do is read between the lines of their responses. the interviewers keep begging the question of how much damage is actually quantifiable. how do you quantify damage like that? and would you demand they list and enumerate all the people who were seriously screwed over by the leaks? so it can just be confirmed. so those people can seek no refuge anywhere? to further punish them for aiding the shining beacon nation? no good deed goes unpunished...
My main two arguing points. I would have been livin it up as a hero and enjoying the "public eye of protection" not slummin it in China like some defector.
i highly doubt he's going to slum it. i bet the information was monetarily valuable. i bet he will be living a healthy retirement in ecuador or whatever other place he decides to flee to.
does the american public believe that the united states should not be involved in spy games or information acquisition? keeping in mind that every single other nation is doing so...
yes i would concede that acquisition of information of its own citizens should be regulated. to my knowledge it is regulated and far beyond any other nation's regulations. but is it really the opinion of the citizens of the united states that we shall not be trying to acquire information from other nations?
the reason i pose this question is that glenn greenwald poses an interesting point in one of his talks on the rise of the surveillance state. he says as the surveillance state increases its capabilities to monitor it builds up walls of secrecy so that the surveillance state itself cannot so easily be monitored. this is certainly true. he cites the fact that many documents in the wikileaks are just benign communications, not of particular importance or of strategic value but were still labeled as confidential. we the people cannot so easily snoop into the state, but the state can snoop us. it is a fair criticism.
however the counterargument to this seemingly bootstrapping rise and accumulation of power is that the very goal of these operations is compromised when the operations are not secret. is this a paradox that the public is going to allow? or shall we the people abandon these goals that are compromised by leak for favor of whatever alternative goal(s) that is/are more important to us personally or at the small group level than at the national level?
Revealing the metadata collection was understandable and I would argue strongly that he should not be prosecuted for it.
He should be hung for speaking to Chinese or Russian intelligence.
Revealing the metadata collection was understandable and I would argue strongly that he should not be prosecuted for it.
He should be hung for speaking to Chinese or Russian intelligence.
My thoughts exactly.
MountainRaven
06-24-13, 20:32
He's a traitor who should have a medal pinned to his chest.
As for him talking to the Russians and Chinese, I don't blame him entirely. They're some of the few countries that would stand up to the US and have good reason to. I wouldn't expect protection from the US to be free, though, and Snowden is not some wealthy industrialist. He might have some money but certainly not enough to sway any country, let alone Russia or China. What he does have, though, is information.
Should he be hanged for it? I don't know. Depends on what he revealed. If, indeed, he revealed anything. Even then, he should have that medal pinned to his chest before his execution. And then we should change the title of chief executive from 'President' to 'Huangdi' and our motto from 'E Pluribus Unum' to 'All Under Heaven' when we do it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/22/edward-snowden-us-china
tells china stuff... is that traitorous? or is he truly a "citizen of the world" and he should divulge these things?
Yes, he's a traitor, its not like he contacted Woodward & Bernstein, he's touring a who's who of worldwide human rights abusers, spilling God knows what.
Its also entirely possible that he's acting on behalf of Obama, I've come that far, anything is possible with the regime in Washington, anything at all....
When the US government declares you an "enemy" it can create a situation where the only ones who will help you are the "enemies" of that government.
I don't want to make light of anyone telling anything to Russia or China, but if the NSA wasn't pulling some of this shit, they're would be nothing to tell.
I don't know what convenient definition to place Snowden in because there is so much we don't know.
montanadave
06-24-13, 23:21
Count me among those who don't know enough detail to characterize Snowden as patriot or traitor.
I do know his actions have initiated a serious debate regarding this country's security agencies surveillance and monitoring of its own citizens. Additionally, senators and representatives from both ends of the political spectrum have found common ground in calling for amendments to the Patriot Act providing for tighter judicial review and congressional oversight. In my opinion, these are both positive developments.
so far I would say NO
but we dont know if he said or sold things to China Russia ? and most likely never will so I dont think unless he says yes I did that he is a traitor
not sure if he came forward here I think it would have gotten burried along with him ! and we would still be blind to what has and is happening but now most of us who suspected have some proof that we were not wearing tin foil like some claimed !
cats out and it wont go back in ! what happens form here ?
and ditto others like one country does not spy on the other :) haahah please anyone who thinks countries dont spy on each other is a IDIOT beyond belief and KNOWING it ? other countries KNOW we spy on them
if anything it truly is sad cause when our gov says it stands behind the constitution and tries to spread so called Democracy to other countries by waging war on them and those countries now see our gov as liars even more so and can say YEAH sorry at least we know what our gov does openly dont want your gov style at all !!
it has massively weakened our position around the world
now we as Americans can not claim our gov is under our control with the constitution ? we can only say yes our gov is out of control and hope we get it back under control !
it lowers what we have or should say HAD and unless we get rid of the progressive communist socialists whatever you want to call them like clinton (she is a proud progressive) and obamas and most of the dems our constitution will for surely be a relic of the past
he just confirmed what most of us suspected !
Straight Shooter
06-24-13, 23:53
THIS Government calling almost anyone a traitor, after what they've been doing to us over the past couple decades, is a ****ing joke.
IMO, the Government of The United States of America is the greatest "traitor" extant.
Both.
He is a traitor because he exposed a useful govt espionage tool.
He is a hero/patriot/martyr for exposing a useful govt espionage tool that is also very likely unconstitutional despite whatever that FISA secret court might say....
Where you land on this one depends on what's more important to you. And we all must realize that any such exposure as done by Snowden is bound to be messy and raise moral conflicts.
Revealing the metadata collection was understandable and I would argue strongly that he should not be prosecuted for it.
He should be hung for speaking to Chinese or Russian intelligence.
This.
Yes he's a traitor.
Snowden: Yes, I took the job at Booz Allen to gather evidence on NSA surveillance
For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency’s secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.
“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told the Post on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”…
He also signalled his intention to leak more of those documents at a later date.
“If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country to make their own assessment, independent of my bias, as to whether or not the knowledge of US network operations against their people should be published.”
More here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/24/snowden-yes-i-took-the-job-at-booz-allen-to-gather-evidence-on-nsa-surveillance/
Grand58742
06-25-13, 05:51
A traitor for telling the American people about a program that most likely violated their Constitutional Rights? No.
A traitor for telling Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies we were snooping on their machines? Most likely no, they know we do it to them just as we know they do it to us.
A traitor for maybe giving away methods and sources? If he did then yes. But hinging on that "maybe."
What I've seen though is Mister Snowden does seem to have a flair for the melodramatic. While I have nothing concrete to contradict his claims that the US would use criminal gangs like the Triads to do their dirty work, I seriously doubt they would do such a thing especially in such a high profile case. If he's dead, he's a martyr for the cause and a rallying cry for more exposure on the US intelligence agencies programs. If he's alive and standing trial, he gets no more media exposure since the trial will undoubtedly be classified for national security purposes and he goes away for life never to be interviewed or seen again. The whole thing ends up being part of an OPSEC reminder poster on the pin boards in .gov and .mil offices worldwide that is forgotten over time.
His actions just seem a little over the top like he's enjoying the media attention while playing the lead role in "Where's Waldo" with the US right now.
A traitor for telling the American people about a program that most likely violated their Constitutional Rights? No.
A traitor for telling Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies we were snooping on their machines? Most likely no, they know we do it to them just as we know they do it to us.
A traitor for maybe giving away methods and sources? If he did then yes. But hinging on that "maybe."
I think your maybe has been answered, see his quote above, he always planned to do this and release the info he stole. He is just waiting for a safe place to live before he gives up all his info.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/06/officials-how-edward-snowden-could-hurt-the-u-s/
Yes he's a traitor.
Snowden: Yes, I took the job at Booz Allen to gather evidence on NSA surveillance
For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency’s secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.
“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told the Post on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”…
He also signalled his intention to leak more of those documents at a later date.
“If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country to make their own assessment, independent of my bias, as to whether or not the knowledge of US network operations against their people should be published.”
More here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/24/snowden-yes-i-took-the-job-at-booz-allen-to-gather-evidence-on-nsa-surveillance/
For these reasons, YES, he is a traitor. However, what he exposed is also unconstitutional and illegal. Regardless of what FISA approved it's scope was way too broad. The intent of the use of the information that was gathered is also illegal. Snowden's intent makes him a traitor but the practices that were exposed brings to light the illegalities that our Govt. has committed.
The_War_Wagon
06-25-13, 06:58
ANYONE who can tick off Der Kommissar Obamassar, Pe-lousy, and Frankenlurch simultaneously, MUST be a friend of We The People! ;)
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-25-13, 07:29
If a computer expert from China escaped to the US and told the world about China's system of internet monitoring and control and how it was cyber-attacking the US, what would we call him then?
Benedict Arnold was a traitor,
von Stauffenberg was a traitor too.
Revealing the metadata collection was understandable and I would argue strongly that he should not be prosecuted for it.
He should be hung for speaking to Chinese or Russian intelligence.
I agree with the first part, reserving judgement on the rest...
Alpha Sierra
06-25-13, 08:46
Both.
He is a traitor because he exposed a useful govt espionage tool.
He is a hero/patriot/martyr for exposing a useful govt espionage tool that is also very likely unconstitutional despite whatever that FISA secret court might say....
Where you land on this one depends on what's more important to you. And we all must realize that any such exposure as done by Snowden is bound to be messy and raise moral conflicts.
Individual rights uber alles.
If the USA gets to be a less secure place to live so that the rights of the individual are maximized, I'm down with that.
For these reasons, YES, he is a traitor. However, what he exposed is also unconstitutional and illegal. Regardless of what FISA approved it's scope was way too broad. The intent of the use of the information that was gathered is also illegal. Snowden's intent makes him a traitor but the practices that were exposed brings to light the illegalities that our Govt. has committed.
We should always make the distinction of him not being a traitor when he reveled the govt collecting on her citizens but is a traitor for revealing how we are collecting on foreign govts.
If a computer expert from China escaped to the US and told the world about China's system of internet monitoring and control and how it was cyber-attacking the US, what would we call him then?
.
Do you understand the difference? Do you not want to protect our govt while having advantages over other govts; or are you a citizen of the world?
Has he actually told the Chinese or Russians anything they don't already know?
I don't know what to think. He sure seems to have gotten a lot of high quality info in a very short time and quite easily. I don't know if I believe everything I'm being told.
When you are on the inside watching you country building massive data storage centers, who exactly can you trust? Who do you tell without getting thrown in prison or killed.
Crow Hunter
06-25-13, 09:55
Honestly?
My answer:
As a citizen of the United States of America, I have enough fear and distrust of my own government that I am afraid to voice my opinion on electronic media.
How is that?
:(
montanadave
06-25-13, 10:03
Honestly?
My answer:
As a citizen of the United States of America, I have enough fear and distrust of my own government that I am afraid to voice my opinion on electronic media.
How is that?
:(
Well, by god, these bastards aren't going to muzzle me and I'll say whatever the goddam hell I ...
Huh, that's odd, I didn't call the exterminators ... and why would their truck have .gov plates? Weird.
Anyway, like I was saying
sskdjufjjkk;aaaal980fr[83[f0h[qfn80fi[qjk94jfj9q]
fj9q9rf4kjkq
qi40f9k
qf9j4oqik
qekgt8bnwe9[gv[2j45]\
*****Fatal error****Connection terminated*****
.46caliber
06-25-13, 10:15
I've operated for the last 5 years or so that the Govt. can see anything I do on the web. That's how far my trust goes.
In my mind, guilt of treason depends on what he shared with whom beyond what we've learned from the media coverage.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-25-13, 10:36
Do you understand the difference? Do you not want to protect our govt while having advantages over other govts; or are you a citizen of the world?
What does reading my email, tracking my cell phone and scanning every piece of mail have to do with protecting our govt? Why does the govt need protecting from me?
I'm just saying that if someone from a country we consider not to be free told us that their govt was doing what our govt is doing we would all call that guy a hero and condemn that govt.
I don't want him revealing sources and means that we use against foreign govt, but how our own govt watches us? That is a different game.
I still don't understand how people say that what he is alleging is not true, but that he is still guilty of treason. If the govt isn't watching all of this stuff, that means he is lying. If the govt is actually doing everything he says, then he is guilty of treason, but the govt is lying about what it is doing domestically.
Nope.
Well, these days those willing to tell the truth about the Government are evil traitors (says .gov)
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
This isn't quite as complicated as people are making this out to be. He has no other choice - return here and be prosecuted for doing the right thing... or reveal lies that our government has been telling other governments in an effort to stay valuable and therefore alive.
The current administration is the real enemy first and foremost. Regardless of what Snowden is, he is truly the least of our concerns.
montanadave
06-25-13, 10:46
Why does the govt need protecting from me?
Good god, man! Do you read your own posts? :lol:
But don't worry those that believe he is a traitor spy. He'll be dealt with just like Breitbart, Swarts, Hastings, ect, ect, ect,
That's right, if you speak out, or announce you're about to speak out you are dealt with.
So he'll eventually end up in a body bag, sooner than later.
Just a dumbass.
I do not see anything he released that was not previously released by someone else. So there is little harm. He still violated his secrecy agreement though.
We should always make the distinction of him not being a traitor when he revealed the govt collecting on her citizens but is a traitor for revealing how we are collecting on foreign govts.
See above.
What does reading my email, tracking my cell phone and scanning every piece of mail have to do with protecting our govt? Why does the govt need protecting from me?
I'm just saying that if someone from a country we consider not to be free told us that their govt was doing what our govt is doing we would all call that guy a hero and condemn that govt.
I don't want him revealing sources and means that we use against foreign govt, but how our own govt watches us? That is a different game.
I still don't understand how people say that what he is alleging is not true, but that he is still guilty of treason. If the govt isn't watching all of this stuff, that means he is lying. If the govt is actually doing everything he says, then he is guilty of treason, but the govt is lying about what it is doing domestically.
He is a security risk. He also assisted terrorist organizations in learning how we track them, so they can better avoid detection.
If it was his intention to blow the whistle, then stand and fight that is one thing. He ran away and sought assistance from our adversaries, which is not what you would expect from someone who wants to protect U.S. citizens from unreasonable intrusion into their privacy.
Call him what you want, but I still think he should be held accountable to any non-disclosure agreements he signed.
If a computer expert from China escaped to the US and told the world about China's system of internet monitoring and control and how it was cyber-attacking the US, what would we call him then?
Benedict Arnold was a traitor,
von Stauffenberg was a traitor too.
^ this is where i'm going with this thread.
cyber attacks are in a new yet unexplored territory when it comes to acts of war. we use them in war. they are used against us and have not yet been categorized as acts of war, or don't yet present warlike action when deciding outcomes. they can do a lot of damage, they are a capability of our military.
if this guy leaks all the systems that were deliberately hacked by the united states and its best, china now knows the extent of our capabilities. there may have been systems that they did not know were hacked. there may be vulnerabilities in their systems that are now going to be patched up. they also now have leverage when it comes to negotiating because the united states has been hacked multiple times with things originating from china but the "untracable" nature of cyber attacks makes it difficult to pin the tail on the donkey. this guy giving up the list of hacked systems puts our nation at a disadvantage.
is this type of thing treasonous or not?
When the US government declares you an "enemy" it can create a situation where the only ones who will help you are the "enemies" of that government.
this argument doesn't make sense though. he was already planning to go to china. he was already in china when the united states got the leak.
are you saying he already knew he was going to be an enemy of the united states before his actions were executed?
so far I would say NO
but we dont know if he said or sold things to China Russia ? and most likely never will so I dont think unless he says yes I did that he is a traitor
not sure if he came forward here I think it would have gotten burried along with him ! and we would still be blind to what has and is happening but now most of us who suspected have some proof that we were not wearing tin foil like some claimed !
cats out and it wont go back in ! what happens form here ?
and ditto others like one country does not spy on the other :) haahah please anyone who thinks countries dont spy on each other is a IDIOT beyond belief and KNOWING it ? other countries KNOW we spy on them
if anything it truly is sad cause when our gov says it stands behind the constitution and tries to spread so called Democracy to other countries by waging war on them and those countries now see our gov as liars even more so and can say YEAH sorry at least we know what our gov does openly dont want your gov style at all !!
it has massively weakened our position around the world
now we as Americans can not claim our gov is under our control with the constitution ? we can only say yes our gov is out of control and hope we get it back under control !
it lowers what we have or should say HAD and unless we get rid of the progressive communist socialists whatever you want to call them like clinton (she is a proud progressive) and obamas and most of the dems our constitution will for surely be a relic of the past
he just confirmed what most of us suspected !
you bring up an interesting point. it would not be expected that anyone in a foreign nation would understand how the united states government tries to protect the rights of its citizens. even in the presence of surveillance on its own citizens, the united states government, to my knoweldge, has checks and balances in place to ensure the individual american is not unduly trespassed upon.
it is not the government's fault that most people don't have a working understanding of the legal system.
one example of the government's protection of the individual's right is seen everyday and people here complain about it. career criminals are given every benefit of the doubt under prosecution. evidence cannot be seen by a jury unless it is deemed sanitary.
let me pose another situation. someone's child here is molested and the act is filmed. the video is then distributed via multiple peer to peer file sharing sites or uploaded to any number of areas on the internet where it can be directly accessed by people who consume this type of stuff. someone has been truly harmed. who knows if this child will ever have a real chance at life.
what would you like the government agent assigned to the investigation to say? i am going to use the offender's ip address, cellphone number and credit card bills to find him, additionally use his email and his ip transaction records to show that he is the originator of the file. apply for a search warrant on the house so the camera that filmed the crime can be found. and at the end make sure that the offender's life is spent being punished for his crime? is this a good answer?
or should the agent answer, we the people value privacy and we don't use metadata and stuff stored on commercial systems to apprehend violators because that is somehow reprehesible.
i feel like the world full of the latter would only bring on vigilantism.
Traitor?
You mean like madelyn dunham? A member of american communist party and worked at Boeing during the 1950s. She gave the first prototype turboprop plans to russia for the B-52. From which they developed the Tu-95 bomber. All the while her and stan where under investigation by the FBI for being russian spies.
Who is the traitor?
Both of them should have been executed just like the rosenbergs.
justin_247
06-25-13, 12:54
You mean like madelyn dunham? A member of american communist party and worked at Boeing during the 1950s. She gave the first prototype turboprop plans to russia for the B-52. From which they developed the Tu-95 bomber. All the while her and stan where under investigation by the FBI for being russian spies.
What is your source for this? I keep hearing this all over the internet, but nobody has sources and the story changes with every new iteration. For example: first it was B-29 plans that became the Tu-4 (which is silly, since the Soviets reverse-engineered the B-29 after our pilots were forced to land in the USSR during WWII and they kept the aircraft), and now you're saying it was B-52 plans that became the Tu-95.
this argument doesn't make sense though. he was already planning to go to china. he was already in china when the united states got the leak.
are you saying he already knew he was going to be an enemy of the united states before his actions were executed?
I'm guessing he knew the Obama administration wouldn't be happy.
For revealing the Constitutional violations of this admin and those before him he is not a traitor. Not in my book. The rest is up to debate, but we will never get the facts only half truths from both sides of he coin. In the end history will be his judge (unless a 22 finds the base of his skull). Much like Washington was a traitor and terrorist in England's eyes, but turned into a hero over time. Snowden is in the same boat. Some will want to persecute him for daring to show that the emperor has no clothes while others will want to celebrate his stance. Final answer will be based on who wins the long term fight. The emperor or the rebels.
If he did in fact sell useful intelligence to the Chinese and Russians then on those counts he is a traitor. Doesn't change my stance in the previous counts though. IMO they are independent claims that need to be examined and judged separately.
Alpha Sierra
06-25-13, 15:06
He is a security risk. He also assisted terrorist organizations in learning how we track them, so they can better avoid detection.
If it was his intention to blow the whistle, then stand and fight that is one thing. He ran away and sought assistance from our adversaries, which is not what you would expect from someone who wants to protect U.S. citizens from unreasonable intrusion into their privacy.
Call him what you want, but I still think he should be held accountable to any non-disclosure agreements he signed.
Non disclosure agreements are null prima facie when they are used to cover crimes and unconsitutional activity.
If slipping the Chinese and Russians a mickey was the price to pay for Snowden to expose the totalitarian behavior of the USG, small price to pay indeed.
Dunno the thing that upsets me the most is that everyday we lose more & more rights. Period.. What would our founding fathers have said/done (as opinion or action)?? Because they were traitors too ya know. How would they act knowing what we allow everyday?
Dunno the thing that upsets me the most is that everyday we lose more & more rights. Period.. What would our founding fathers have said/done (as opinion or action)?? Because they were traitors too ya know. How would they act knowing what we allow everyday?
They would have been shooting people in the effing faces some time ago- that is pretty clear coming from a historical perspective of how they reacted then.
They would also be bitch-slapping us for not upholding the great gift they shed blood and died to give us.
It is quite sad and disgusting really, we allow treasures that great men fought and died for to be killed off in ****ing commitees of spineless hollow slaves...
We are enslaved by the very tax dollars (Unconstitutional taxes I might add) we pay to our out of control government. It makes me sick.
I'm actually surprised small protests/revolts haven't started breaking out here and there in the USA already...
Army Chief
06-25-13, 17:48
I have to presume that Snowden signed a non-disclosure agreement as a term of his employment; as such, his "act of conscience" strikes me as an incredibly arrogant and short-sighted breach of national trust.
Perhaps I would feel differently if we had any evidence that he had at least attempted to raise his concerns to senior leaders in our own government through discreet whistleblower channels; instead, it would appear that he decided (in a relative vacuum) that he had the full story, and he wasted no time in taking it directly to folks who would like nothing more than to embarrass and compromise us.
I've no idea where the legalities and moral boundaries lie on the actual eavesdropping issue, but I do know this: Snowden is no hero.
AC
CarlosDJackal
06-25-13, 20:25
Snowden is a traitor. While he may claim to have done these things for the greater good; how he did it was not so.
And him trying to gain asylum in all these countries that have indicated how they loathe us and want to destroy us is not helping his case.
Moose-Knuckle
06-25-13, 21:05
This circus has all the makings of a controlled leak.
Alpha Sierra
06-25-13, 21:51
he wasted no time in taking it directly to folks who would like nothing more than to embarrass and compromise us.
He embarrassed and compromised the US government. That's not us. That's them.
He's not a traitor. He made a huge personal sacrifice to unfold the lies of those in power. I wish the best of luck to him and God speed.
Alaskapopo
06-26-13, 00:10
I have to presume that Snowden signed a non-disclosure agreement as a term of his employment; as such, his "act of conscience" strikes me as an incredibly arrogant and short-sighted breach of national trust.
Perhaps I would feel differently if we had any evidence that he had at least attempted to raise his concerns to senior leaders in our own government through discreet whistleblower channels; instead, it would appear that he decided (in a relative vacuum) that he had the full story, and he wasted no time in taking it directly to folks who would like nothing more than to embarrass and compromise us.
I've no idea where the legalities and moral boundaries lie on the actual eavesdropping issue, but I do know this: Snowden is no hero.
AC
100% agree with this post.
Pat
With everything that this administration has done and continues to do I actually applaud him. I have little doubt that had he attempted to disclose this through other means he would have been fired and then discredited a la Clinton Style.
Having said that. The traveling to China and the rest of how he acted is not something in the interest of this country and I disagree with those actions.
Unfortunately I am losing any and all faith in this country and our elected leaders to get us back on track and fix things. The path we are heading down is scary.
GeorgiaBoy
06-26-13, 00:50
This circus has all the makings of a controlled leak.
Yep.
William Binney blew the whistle on the exact same NSA information that Snowden has a year ago, yet no one cared.
I agree with the sentiment that he has done nothing to harm the people of this country, only the .gov
If that remains true is yet to be seen.
He has helped the people see the flaws in the GOV and the Obama Administration.
The US gov no longer represents the interests of the people IMO. Betraying them is no crime. Only betraying the people is a crime.
for sure track him down when people have committed a crime the problem here seems to be they have been doing this to you for some reason massive database that way when if they want to target search folks who took a class watcher certain youtube videos about tea party folks they have you on the list !!
its the fact again they have been doing this on everyone who is not a criminal ! and yet the boston bombers got money from our gov and we were even warned about them from other governments !
yet we did nothing to stop them or deport them or watch them ? nope they were to busy targeting conservatives and protecting mosques and muslims
this is the problem as I see it !
you bring up an interesting point. it would not be expected that anyone in a foreign nation would understand how the united states government tries to protect the rights of its citizens. even in the presence of surveillance on its own citizens, the united states government, to my knoweldge, has checks and balances in place to ensure the individual american is not unduly trespassed upon.
it is not the government's fault that most people don't have a working understanding of the legal system.
one example of the government's protection of the individual's right is seen everyday and people here complain about it. career criminals are given every benefit of the doubt under prosecution. evidence cannot be seen by a jury unless it is deemed sanitary.
let me pose another situation. someone's child here is molested and the act is filmed. the video is then distributed via multiple peer to peer file sharing sites or uploaded to any number of areas on the internet where it can be directly accessed by people who consume this type of stuff. someone has been truly harmed. who knows if this child will ever have a real chance at life.
what would you like the government agent assigned to the investigation to say? i am going to use the offender's ip address, cellphone number and credit card bills to find him, additionally use his email and his ip transaction records to show that he is the originator of the file. apply for a search warrant on the house so the camera that filmed the crime can be found. and at the end make sure that the offender's life is spent being punished for his crime? is this a good answer?
or should the agent answer, we the people value privacy and we don't use metadata and stuff stored on commercial systems to apprehend violators because that is somehow reprehesible.
i feel like the world full of the latter would only bring on vigilantism.
Alpha Sierra
06-26-13, 04:37
even in the presence of surveillance on its own citizens, the united states government, to my knoweldge, has checks and balances in place to ensure the individual american is not unduly trespassed upon.
it is not the government's fault that most people don't have a working understanding of the legal system.
In the case we are talking about the "safeguards" are but a flimsy excuse and a mirage. And you'd be surprised at just how much so many know about the legal system.
what would you like the government agent assigned to the investigation to say? i am going to use the offender's ip address, cellphone number and credit card bills to find him, additionally use his email and his ip transaction records to show that he is the originator of the file. apply for a search warrant on the house so the camera that filmed the crime can be found. and at the end make sure that the offender's life is spent being punished for his crime? is this a good answer?
Start by getting warrants in open court BEFORE you go fishing for all that information and hardly anyone has a problem. Use threatening letters to compel compliance from ISP providers and other owners of such data, and we have a problem.
I see you defending this tripe at every turn. Why is that?
Perhaps I would feel differently if we had any evidence that he had at least attempted to raise his concerns to senior leaders in our own government through discreet whistleblower channels...
A sensible sounding statement, but how do we know he didn't? And more importantly perhaps, what based upon all of the senior level support and compliance we have seen for the programs makes you believe he wasn't well aware that he would not only be told to take a hike but even be targeted in some way for expressing discontent? Targeted in this case as in not necessarily death but by being blackballed or the like.
...he wasted no time in taking it directly to folks who would like nothing more than to embarrass and compromise us.
This is true. While it's easy to see how he would have felt out of reach of US authority there, surely he could have considered Equador or Iceland first instead of later in the process. But then again maybe that wasn't the most ideal way for him to go at the time and under the specific circumstances.
montanadave
06-26-13, 07:04
My understanding is that the programs exposed by Snowden (PRISM, etc.) were technically legal and had been authorized, therefore the "whistleblower" options were not available to him, as they are reserved for employees to report illegal actions. Had he attempted to voice his concerns through official channels, he would have been told the programs had been approved with both judicial and congressional review and he should shut up, do his job, or quit.
Ugg, I've attempted to type out a response a half dozen times now but I get waaaay too mad while doing it.
No, I do not believe Snowden is a hero. He is the same as Bradly Manning IMO.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 07:48
My understanding is that the programs exposed by Snowden (PRISM, etc.) were technically legal and had been authorized, therefore the "whistleblower" options were not available to him, as they are reserved for employees to report illegal actions. Had he attempted to voice his concerns through official channels, he would have been told the programs had been approved with both judicial and congressional review and he should shut up, do his job, or quit.
I agree in principle, Dave. Perhaps the whistleblower option itself is not the correct process, but I have little sympathy for these low-level leakers. They almost never have the full story (the very reason we compartmentalize sensitive information in the first place), and they rarely take their revelations to folks with our national interests at heart.
A pointed e-mail to whoever the equivalent Inspector General arm of the NSA might be may well have borne no fruit whatsoever; that fact doesn't absolve Snowden of the responsibility to at least make the attempt (perhaps he did, though if so, it is a curious omission on his part not to say so up front). Instead, as far as we can tell, he just walked away from his post, and aired his grievances -- in some detail -- to pretty much whoever would listen. Those actions have consequences. Good people die that way.
I'm no fan of all of this "Big Brother is watching" business, nor does the current administration seem (since we don't really know) to have as clear a purpose and direction with this program as We The People deserve; even so, this is not a situational ethics class, and the ends do not justify the means.
It seems to me that it would have been far more appropriate for this young man to take his burden to a high-ranking political opponent of the Obama Administration. Not that we need any more partisan witch hunts or politically-motivated scandals in Washington, but at least the information (and ensuing investigation) would have remained in the hands of officials who have sworn an oath to the Constitution.
Now, instead of getting some semblance of public accountability on the intelligence-gathering program itself, we're going to get a hush job with a renewed emphasis on plugging leaks and stopping men like Snowden before they can do any real damage. From the government's perspective, the problem is with the singer -- not the song. In other words, we're missing the whole point ... on purpose.
AC
montanadave
06-26-13, 07:56
Well stated, AC, and I can't disagree. Your observation about the emphasis being on "the singer, not the song" is spot on, unfortunately.
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 08:10
Sometimes you have to choose between betraying your country, and betraying your conscience.
I know which one I'd go with.
I suspect Klaus von Stauffenberg knew as well.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 08:29
Sometimes you have to choose between betraying your country, and betraying your conscience.
I know which one I'd go with.
I suspect Klaus von Stauffenberg knew as well.
Absolutely, though I for one am not ready to draw a line of moral equivalence between a warmongering dictator responsible for a campaign of open, industrial-scale genocide, and a Chicagoland organizer/politician who may be struggling to effectively discharge the office of the American Presidency.
I do see the parallels that some would care to make, but certainly not on anything approaching that same level of magnitude. Let's be cautious not to confuse buffoonery and misguided intent for malevolence and a rather deliberate bent on destructiveness.
Remember too that ...
"I swear by God this holy oath, that I will offer unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the commander-in-chief ..."
... is a far cry from
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ..."
Ideologically, we remain grounded to a very different code that those brave Wehrmacht dissenters of conscience.
AC
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 08:53
Absolutely, though I for one am not ready to draw a line of moral equivalence between a warmongering dictator responsible for a campaign of open, industrial-scale genocide, and a Chicagoland organizer/politician who may be struggling to effectively discharge the office of the American Presidency.
Ahhh but what if someone had spoken up and done something BEFORE he had become a warmongering, genocidal dictator?
I know that's what I was taught as the grandchild of a soldier who liberated Dachau, when he took me to see the re-release "Judgment at Nuremberg" when I was 10 years old. I think many people here quote Edmund Burke's famous line. "All that takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Those were the exact words of my grandfather.
Likewise I'm not sure it has to rise to that level, in order to become a choice of conscience. Is Hitler really the standard for standing up and saying "NO!"? Do I believe that Bush/Obama were/are totalitarian dictators? Nope, but I'm really appalled at the number of people who don't understand the technology in question and what can be done with that data.
It's created all the infrastructure needed, that if we do get someone who is less scrupulous, he/she can simply turn the key...boom, instant big brother, and please don't make me laugh about safeguards. Safeguards were supposedly in place with the IRS as well. This has been going on without the American people's knowledge for too long. All Snowden did was make us aware of the extent of government snooping.
Had the government, opened a public debate, put this on the table for all to see, and trusted the citizens with the knowledge of what was being done in their name, they might very well have gotten those powers, and I for one would be much less concern. I would have perhaps disagreed with the outcome, but I would be less troubled.
My sense though is that this was hidden from the American people, not because they were trying to keep it from the enemy (AQ certainly assumes that it's communications will be monitored), but because they knew there would be outrage if they did it publicly. The government has demonstrated that it both fears and distrusts the American public. That should be cause for great concern.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 09:14
John,
I smell what you're cooking, brother -- I really do. I'm not quite that far down the road myself, but I respect your words. I have to admit honestly that "I don't know what I don't know," so I have to focus on the actions of a man who appears to be disloyal at best. He promised to do one thing, and yet, he did another. Seems like that was his intent all along.
I guess the unspoken part of all of this that bothers me is that the Manning/Snowden types seem to be motivated more by their allegiances as "citizens of the world" than by any overt sense of loyalty to the nation. Perhaps this is to be expected with a generation that grew up with the Internet, but this particular strain of "global" thinking bothers me nonetheless. Our economies are surely intertwined, but don't think for a minute that China, Russian or even Ecuador wouldn't like to see good old Uncle Sam reduced to the role of an international panhandler. Good intentions aside, who among us really wants to play any role in that?
AC
montanadave
06-26-13, 09:19
The government has demonstrated that it both fears and distrusts the American public. That should be cause for great concern.
And this is not a red state/blue state, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat issue. It is a government/governed issue.
Our government was intended to possess only the powers entrusted to it with the consent of the people. The system quickly breaks down when the government conceals the extent of the powers which it seeks to utilize in performing its duties.
Again, I reserve judgement on Snowden's actions, as I do not have all the facts. But I welcome the debate regarding the government's actions in undermining our fundamental rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the name of national security.
I recall the Vietnam era quote by Peter Arnett, "It became necessary to destroy the village to save it." It's high time the American people set aside the siege mentality which enveloped the country in the aftermath of 9/11 when they essentially issued the government a carte blanche to fight the GWOT.
I do not deny there are bad actors in the world who seek to do this nation grievous harm. But if our response is to construct a national security state which is predicated on maintaining a perpetual state of war against a stateless, amorphous terrorist network, we might as well raise the white flag as our enemies have won. They will have forced us to destroy the very nation we set out to defend.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 09:38
Again, I reserve judgement on Snowden's actions, as I do not have all the facts. But I welcome the debate regarding the government's actions in undermining our fundamental rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the name of national security.
An informed and well-reasoned mindset, if I ever saw one. Thank you for this -- couldn't have put it any better myself.
AC
I firmily believe that regardless of Snowden's missteps our government placed itself in this position via blatant overreach. I don't want the Chinese or Russians getting anything from him either but this insanity wasn't going to be exposed any other way and I'm glad to know about it. In fact I'm glad we all now know.
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 10:30
John,
I smell what you're cooking, brother -- I really do. I'm not quite that far down the road myself, but I respect your words. I have to admit honestly that "I don't know what I don't know," so I have to focus on the actions of a man who appears to be disloyal at best. He promised to do one thing, and yet, he did another. Seems like that was his intent all along.
I guess the unspoken part of all of this that bothers me is that the Manning/Snowden types seem to be motivated more by their allegiances as "citizens of the world" than by any overt sense of loyalty to the nation. Perhaps this is to be expected with a generation that grew up with the Internet, but this particular strain of "global" thinking bothers me nonetheless. Our economies are surely intertwined, but don't think for a minute that China, Russian or even Ecuador wouldn't like to see good old Uncle Sam reduced to the role of an international panhandler. Good intentions aside, who among us really wants to play any role in that?
AC
I appreciate that AC and likewise I understand where you're coming from.
First I would say that you shouldn't take at face value what the media and/or the powers that be are claiming vis-a-vis Snowden's motivations. I don't think anyone can claim to know what a person's motivations may or may not be. I would say that the "citizen of the world" claims are misunderstood at best, and propaganda at worst. The media, just like most people have very little understanding of the technology, as well as hacker culture. People often think of hackers as nerds in their mom's basement or cyber-mafia types. This stereotype is simply not true and vastly oversimplified. Most "hackers" are actually professionals who help entities secure their networks against malicious attacks.
Generally Hackers fall under 3 categories: White hats, Black hats, and Grey hats. The symbology of white/black hats should be obvious. The Grey Hat is far less clear, the Grey Hat may break the law, but ultimately his goal isn't selfish but rather one of conscience. My professional career involves the use of hacking systems (White Hat), and accordingly the main adversary I face are malicious intruders (Black Hats). Some Grey Hats do consider themselves "citizens of the world", many, many others do not. They do however operate under a mantra that tyranny flourishes in darkness/secrecy and that people have to be "informed" in order to make informed decisions and so you have the phrase "information wants to be free." This is vastly different than the "citizen of the world" claim often repeated.
Second, there is ZERO evidence that Snowden was ever a hacker of any stripe. The irony of course is that the government is using all of these computer networks to hack other nations in ways that could ostensibly be considered Black Hat. Any information on any network will eventually get out, but it takes people (hackers) who know where and how to it out. I would also say that there are pretty strong inconsistencies between what we know and what the government/media is saying. For instance, Snowden was an avowed Libertarian, who supported Ron Paul's candidacy, so it strikes me as a bit inconsistent for the call him a "citizen of the world." What is consistent is that he supported a candidate who strongly advocates for the Constitution, and protections against Federal encroachment.
Lastly, I don't really care what his motivations are, I care that I now know what my government is up to. Forgive the Nazi comparison, but Nazi doctors gave the world much medical knowledge while torturing and murdering people by the millions. It has often been an ethical dilemma as to whether that knowledge should be used, despite the evil "motivations" of those that gave it to us. The ultimate conclusion was that future lives saved are more important than past lives lost. So again, much good can come from bad motivations, that said I do not believe these motivations were selfish, given how much he has had to lose in order to bring those motivations to light: his family, his country, his livelihood, his girlfriend, his freedom, a life on the lam. He took no money from anyone, and instructed the media to be careful about what it released.
It seems to me that whatever his motivations, he lost far more personally than he gained. I think that's worth considering before people start calling him a traitor.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 10:41
Fair enough. I am grateful for the informed perspective from someone who actually operates in this realm to some degree.
I have to agree that the snippets we've been given cannot possibly begin to tell the whole story; I just see something wrapped in crumpled newspaper that smells like old fish, and draw the requisite inferences. I have no idea what is actually in there, of course, but I know it isn't very appetizing.
At best, we have been shown a grainy black and white image here, and until the colors are revealed in clear focus, all we can do is approach it with gut-level reactions, based upon where we've been and what we've seen in life to this point.
AC
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 10:51
Please understand that I'm not saying that only people who work within this sphere have a right to an opinion.
I'm just saying that others should view media reports and government claims with a healthy bit of skepticism.
Likewise I reserve the right to change/modify my opinion as more facts regarding Snowden become known.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 10:59
Please understand that I'm not saying that only people who work within this sphere have a right to an opinion.
Thank goodness, because I have all kinds of opinions about things that I happen to know little-to-nothing about. :D
AC
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 11:04
Thank goodness, because I have all kinds of opinions about things that I happen to know little-to-nothing about. :D
AC
I have no idea what you mean. :sarcastic:
Army Chief
06-26-13, 11:16
Pay attention, boys ... THIS is how to argue on M4C. ;)
AC
Pay attention, boys ... THIS is how to argue on M4C. ;)
AC
BORING!!! :D
J/K...
Sent via Tapatalk
Pay attention, boys ... THIS is how to argue on M4C. ;)
AC
Fantastic. Now if John will continue to adhere to this practical and effective strategy rather than taking part in epically senseless dog-chasing-his-tail arguments loaded with comments meant to diminish other members then we'll see the positive trend continue.
(John gets mad at me when I say that but knows I still have a lot of respect for him ;) )
Army Chief
06-26-13, 11:34
BORING!!! :D
J/K...
[searches for bifocals ...]
Now where is that elusive little "ban" button? ;)
AC
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 11:37
I give as much respect as I am given.
At the risk of putting words into AC's mouth, I think that's what he was driving at.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 11:48
I give as much respect as I am given.
At the risk of putting words into AC's mouth, I think that's what he was driving at.
Almost. Perhaps a bit more along the lines of "I give as much respect as I can possibly stand to give" captures it just a little bit more succinctly.
Ideally, our responses remain consistent, no matter what the other guy does, but therein lies the discipline. It is hard not to respond in-kind when provoked, but it is much wiser to just acknowledge another's views as valid, and dispassionately examine how/where they do or do not square well with one's own.
Note that this is ever-so-slightly different from the usual "that's stupid, and you're a complete dick" approach, which, as we all know, always promotes harmony and good will. ;)
AC
I give as much respect as I am given.
Most of the time but not always. Regardless when AC was sick I mentioned you specifically as one of the only members here who can hold a candle to the man intellectually, one of the members from whom I actually learned back as a newcomer to the forum. Not just historical things or government workings but also about how to communicate with others.
Then we had a falling out over something I can't even remember now and it is what it is I guess. Still think you're worthy of my respect but also see you pushing the envelope a bit at times. Anyhow let's leave it at that, take what positives I had to offer and get back to the thread at hand. Certainly no hard feelings on this end.
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 11:53
Indeed I like your standard better.
Indeed I like your standard better.
I fully expected as much. Have a good day.
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 12:00
Most of the time but not always.
I'm really not sure why you felt it necessary to interject yourself and call me out specifically when I'm far from the worst offender here, but...
you're absolutely right, I'm not perfect, I'm human, I do get angry, and sometimes I say things I shouldn't but I almost NEVER start down that road, unless someone went there first and that includes you.
As for the falling out we had, I'm not sure where it went, but I do remember you explicitly calling me your "enemy." So while your perception may be different, I'd worry less about what I do, and more about your own words and actions as they are the only things under your control. I will endeavor, to the best of my ability, to extend you the same courtesy.
Fair enough?
Fair enough?
Absolutely. And as far as why I commented on AC's example it was not to judge you or point a finger although I can see how the true context of my comment was lost. This because as I did when complimenting you in the AC thread I also jokingly included how it seemed that despite their intelligence some of the smartest people tend to get into elongated, back and forth bickering. But that was said in jest and of course I have ribbed you about it before, usually in a light hearted manner from what I recall.
As far as the "enemy" comment, my hand to The Lord I have no idea what you are referring to. I do have some old PMs saved and if I find it I'll PM you. I certainly couldn't have said it when we spoke over the phone because we were only internet combatants. :D
Ok, back to Snowden. Sorry for the inadvertent sidetrack.
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 12:36
Water under the bridge. No need to rehash it.
Thank you for clarifying.
Now back to our regularly scheduled internet drama...
Army Chief
06-26-13, 13:32
Can anyone shed some light on how Snowden can continue to hold out and/or move from country to country without a valid Passport? Do these countries just waive the documentation requirement for entry?
AC
I would think that the country's he's traveling through are giving him safe passage regardless of his voided passport. China, Russia, Cuba?, Venezuala and finally Equador are all at least ambivalent or relatively hostile to the US. They would like nothing more than to poke a stick in our eye.
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 13:46
Ecuador gave him a "refugee document of passage"
CarlosDJackal
06-26-13, 13:51
Can anyone shed some light on how Snowden can continue to hold out and/or move from country to country without a valid Passport? Do these countries just waive the documentation requirement for entry?
AC
If you or I were to try the same thing, what are the chances one of these countries would have detained us indefinitely? Now with that in mind, why do you think they have not (to our knowledge) done the same to this traitor?
Snowden may have had a valid reason for doing what he did (IE: exposing the government's activities that are in violation to our Bill of Rights); but how he is doing it is very much suspect. IMHO, he could have informed the country of this activity without leaking classified information by using certain venues like his elected officials and such.
IMHO, if his intent were as honorable as he says they are, what better venue to expose the details than a court of law? If it were me I would welcome the chance to defend my actions here in the US as a US Citizen and not as a National Security Threat/Terrorist. Why is he trying to gain political asylum in China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela? JM2CW.
IMHO, if his intent were as honorable as he says they are, what better venue to expose the details than a court of law? If it were me I would welcome the chance to defend my actions here in the US as a US Citizen and not as a National Security Threat/Terrorist. Why is he trying to gain political asylum in China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela? JM2CW.
If he'd went to a "friendly" country, they'd have had him on the first thing that rolls, flies, or sails back to the U.S., which he obviously does not want. If he'd stayed here, he'd be in solitary confinement in a hole somewhere, classified as a national security threat, until they could figure out how to get him into a secret court or classify him in such a way that they could hold him indefinitely without trial.
justin_247
06-26-13, 18:06
If he'd went to a "friendly" country, they'd have had him on the first thing that rolls, flies, or sails back to the U.S., which he obviously does not want.
This is absurd. New Zealand, Germany, Austria, or Spain would have probably have allowed him to stay in their countries for a significant amount of time, if not give him amnesty outright. Yet the first place he goes to is China?
Also, he's not a "whistleblower." He has been pretty straightforward in saying that he took this specific job at the NSA intentionally to gain access to classified information.
And let's not forget: he's also stolen classified government property. This isn't just about information... this is about actual hardware, as well.
This is absurd. New Zealand, Germany, Austria, or Spain would have probably have allowed him to stay in their countries for a significant amount of time, if not give him amnesty outright.
That's purely speculative. Government authorities in New Zealand broke many of their own laws in carrying out an armed raid on one of their own legal residents at the behest of the U.S. (Megaupload case). And that case was over alleged copyright infringement, of all things. In Snowden's case, he'd have been a fool to run to anywhere that is cozy with the U.S.. Some folks are just mad now because he was at least smart enough to run to somewhere he was reasonably sure wouldn't immediately send him back. And they're really mad because the Chinese and Russians are having a good laugh at our expense.
Can anyone shed some light on how Snowden can continue to hold out and/or move from country to country without a valid Passport? Do these countries just waive the documentation requirement for entry?
A passport is just a standardized document that governments have agreed to use to certify the identity and nationality of their citizens. Any country can choose to admit whomever it wants, regardless of whether or not they have a passport. Likewise, they don't have to admit anyone just because they have a passport. The revocation of Snowden's passport is symbolic.
justin_247
06-26-13, 19:22
That's purely speculative. Government authorities in New Zealand broke many of their own laws in carrying out an armed raid on one of their own legal residents at the behest of the U.S. (Megaupload case). And that case was over alleged copyright infringement, of all things. In Snowden's case, he'd have been a fool to run to anywhere that is cozy with the U.S.. Some folks are just mad now because he was at least smart enough to run to somewhere he was reasonably sure wouldn't immediately send him back. And they're really mad because the Chinese and Russians are having a good laugh at our expense.
I'm going to throw this right back at you, because you're the one who is speculating as to how you think he would have been treated had he taken the standard "whistleblower" approach. So, honestly, your analysis is as shoddy as mine. If you're going to attack me for being "speculative," then I ask that you take a look in the mirror and do the same with yourself.
What'll be most interesting about this is that Wikileaks has stated that he will be going to a "democratic" country. Soon, we'll know exactly what kind of "democracy" Wikileaks really wants.
ENOUGH. Nobody's attacking you. If you want to stay in this thread, lower your temperature. - SeriousStudent
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 19:37
Well AC, it worked for a while...
The notion of blowing the whistle on a top secret government program, of which certain members of Congress were already aware, is a bit of a joke. What was said Congress critter going to do? Tell the American people that there's this top secret program that Congress knew nothing about? Please, the hypothetical critter would be breaking the law in revealing said information and would have quashed it, while letting the NSA know that they had a trouble maker. At best it would have been investigated quietly, while Snowden in question lost his job, income, and was otherwise surveilled, nothing would have been done, and the American people wouldn't have known anything. I can't believe people don't know that "whistleblower protections" in government are largely a farce, especially when it relates to spy programs.
You blow the whistle due to a lack of Congressional oversight, yet multiple Republicans and Democrats already have said that there was ample oversight, albeit top secret squirrel oversight. The real people who needed to be made aware were the American people. As for endangering national security, do you really believe that AQ has no idea that we can monitor their communications? Really? What wasn't known was that in addition to AQ, the NSA is collecting information on otherwise innocent Americans with no known links to terrorism or enemy powers.
Don't you think the American people have a right to know they're government is surveilling them and collecting huge amounts of their personal data? Do you have any clue what can be done with that?
If you're going to attack me for being "speculative," then I ask that you take a look in the mirror and do the same with yourself.
I didn't realize that I was attacking anyone. :blink:
justin_247
06-26-13, 19:54
Well AC, it worked for a while...
The notion of blowing the whistle on a top secret government program, of which certain members of Congress were already aware, is a bit of a joke. What was said Congress critter going to do? Tell the American people that there's this top secret program that Congress knew nothing about? Please, the hypothetical critter would be breaking the law in revealing said information and would have quashed it, while letting the NSA know that they had a trouble maker. At best it would have been investigated quietly, while Snowden in question lost his job, income, and was otherwise surveilled, nothing would have been done, and the American people wouldn't have known anything.
You blow the whistle due to a lack of Congressional oversight, yet multiple Republicans and Democrats already have said that there was ample oversight, albeit top secret squirrel oversight. The real people who needed to be made aware were the American people. As for endangering national security, do you really believe that AQ has no idea that we can monitor their communications? Really? What wasn't known was that in addition to AQ, the NSA is collecting information on otherwise innocent Americans with no known links to terrorism or enemy powers.
I can't believe people don't know that "whistleblower protections" in government are largely a farce, especially when it relates to spy programs.
Yes, it appears there was ample oversight. Remember the Church Committee? Ever since then major programs have required congressional approval. We're not a direct democracy - the American people don't have a need to know about every government program.
As for whistleblowers, there are plenty of left-wing and libertarian people in Congress who are probably not read into these programs who he could have approached.
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 19:56
Yes, it appears there was ample oversight.
Because some congressperson told you so?
the American people don't have a need to know about every government program.
You don't think the American people are entitled to know when the government is collecting all kinds of data on otherwise law abiding citizens? Without a subpoena or a warrant?
Really? Come on.
I can't believe people don't know that "whistleblower protections" in government are largely a farce...
There are quite a few people formerly of BATFE and DoS who would certainly agree.
justin_247
06-26-13, 20:04
Because some congressperson told you so?
Being that the American people are pretty outraged about this, there is very, very little incentive for them to lie about this sort of thing. If they didn't know, they would be using this in an attempt to ride a tidal wave, if anything.
Because some congressperson told you so?
Well, them and the rubber-stamp..., er, FISA courts.
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 20:10
Being that the American people are pretty outraged about this, there is very, very little incentive for them to lie about this sort of thing. If they didn't know, they would be using this in an attempt to ride a tidal wave, if anything.
Sigh, whatever dude.
SeriousStudent
06-26-13, 20:13
I didn't realize that I was attacking anyone. :blink:
You weren't attacking anyone. Someone else needs to calm down.
justin_247
06-26-13, 20:18
You weren't attacking anyone. Someone else needs to calm down.
"Attack" was the wrong word. My apologies. I should have said "criticize."
Being that the American people are pretty outraged about this, there is very, very little incentive for them to lie about this sort of thing.
It's not about them choosing to lie. The issue is that they apparently have over time become complacent with a level of survellience far surpassing anything in history, this while still having failed to produce any evidence that such vast operations have thwarted a single terror event. Do I think it may have stopped a couple? Maybe, but where is substantial general evidence regarding the "dozens" of attacks thwarted according to recent testimony?
I think congress has perhaps inadvertently succumbed to a groupthink mentality, overlooking the specifics while being cool and going with the program. Speculation but something let it get this far.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 20:19
Well AC, it worked for a while...
The notion of blowing the whistle on a top secret government program, of which certain members of Congress were already aware, is a bit of a joke. What was said Congress critter going to do? Tell the American people that there's this top secret program that Congress knew nothing about?
I haven't given up hope quite yet. ;)
Back on topic, I'm not sure that I view a whistleblower attempt as a likely or particularly-effective solution to the actual problem, but rather, as a moral obligation for anyone preparing to take information like this public. Perhaps that is naïve on my part, but I would feel differently if a leaker could point to an abortive attempt to action his concerns through appropriate channels prior to the decision to go rogue. Doesn't change the outcome; just gives me a different view of the transgressor.
Wikileaks and the media should be a refuge of last resort when it comes to an issue with the kinds of second- and third-order repercussions that this one obviously has. If trying to still believe in the good guys makes me something of a wide-eyed Boy Scout, well, there are certainly worse things to be. Like a leaker of classified data, for example. ;)
AC
justin_247
06-26-13, 20:24
It's not about them choosing to lie. The issue is that they apparently have over time become complacent with a level of survellience far surpassing anything in history, this while still having failed to produce any evidence that such vast operations have thwarted a single terror event. Do I think it may have stopped a couple? Maybe, but where is substantial general evidence regarding the "dozens" of attacks thwarted according to recent testimony?
I think congress has perhaps inadvertently succumbed to a groupthink mentality, overlooking the specifics while being cool and going with the program. Speculation but something let it get this far.
I think a lot of the problem here resides in the fact that we still know practically nothing about the program. There's a lot of completely unsourced information out there alleging that the NSA was doing certain things, but there has been little to no evidence to support those claims. Due to the classified nature of it, I'm sure things will likely remain this way, but I fear that this has become quite a fish story in and of itself. Every new iteration of it is laced with some new unsourced "fact."
If he'd went to a "friendly" country, they'd have had him on the first thing that rolls, flies, or sails back to the U.S., which he obviously does not want. If he'd stayed here, he'd be in solitary confinement in a hole somewhere, classified as a national security threat, until they could figure out how to get him into a secret court or classify him in such a way that they could hold him indefinitely without trial.
Agreed. These secret courts and stripping of constitutional 4th, 5th and 6th amendments is treasonous. Snowden a avoiding this invisible shadow government we somehow allowed in the US at all costs is his only bet. Else he will probably end up dead (probably as a staged suicide). I do not have an argument against what he is doing.
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 20:33
Do I think it may have stopped a couple? Maybe, but where is substantial general evidence regarding the "dozens" of attacks thwarted according to recent testimony?
Exactly...
Let me put it this way - what's the point of all this surveillance, when they can't even stop the Boston bombers even after the Russian government EXPLICITLY told our intelligence network to watch these guys?
If all this surveillance guaranteed that no more terror attacks would ever take place, that might be something. But if you're telling me that there is no way to stop every attack, how is this any different than September 10, 2001? Only one needs to get through.
A skeptical cynic might come to the conclusion that this surveillance apparatus isn't really looking at terrorists.
justin_247
06-26-13, 20:39
Let me put it this way - what's the point of all this surveillance, when they can't even stop the Boston bombers even after the Russian government EXPLICITLY told our intelligence network to watch these guys?
If all this surveillance guaranteed that no more terror attacks would ever take place, that might be something. But if you're telling me that there is no way to stop every attack, how is this any different than September 10, 2001? Only one needs to get through.
This is a legitimate question. I think the answer is less actual problems with surveillance than it is political correctness running amok.
A skeptical cynic might come to the conclusion that this surveillance apparatus isn't really looking at terrorists.
Do you really think the military is out violating their oath to the Constitution? Because, realize, this is the military we're talking about... not the IRS, not the FBI... the military. I think people are taking quite a leap here.
I didn't realize that Ray Odierno worked for the NSA? How is this military again?
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 20:49
There's a lot of completely unsourced information out there alleging that the NSA was doing certain things, but there has been little to no evidence to support those claims.
Incorrect. Google PRISM and tell me what you find.
Numerous government officials, the head of NSA and even the President of the United States have acknowledged that so-called metadata is being kept on all Americans without the use of warrants.
Did you not see the head of the NSA on Capitol Hill defending the surveillance?
How about the myriad congresscritters, even those defending the program, who've gone on national TV to lament that this program was made known to the American people.
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 20:51
Do you really think the military is out violating their oath to the Constitution? Because, realize, this is the military we're talking about... not the IRS, not the FBI... the military. I think people are taking quite a leap here.
Right, because the military has never been party to a coverup of its actions?
Google the name Daniel Ellsberg.
That said, I'm really not concerned about the current practitioners of the program, I believe they're mostly operating in good faith, but I don't believe for a second that they kept this secret because of national security (the erstwhile excuse), it seems pretty clear that they knew there was going to be outrage and wouldn't be able to do it if they did so openly...so they kept it secret.
The problem is when you get someone in the bureaucracy who is far less scrupulous. My "skeptical cynic" comment was to point out that this program, operating in secret, without the knowledge or consent of the American people, only engenders cynicism of a government that both distrusts the public and apparently fears them.
Factor in the IRS, Benghazi, Gunrunner, the list goes on...and tell me why I should trust this governments claims that there is ample oversight?
Back on topic, I'm not sure that I view a whistleblower attempt as a likely or particularly-effective solution to the actual problem, but rather, as a moral obligation for anyone preparing to take information like this public. Perhaps that is naïve on my part, but I would feel differently if a leaker could point to an abortive attempt to action his concerns through appropriate channels prior to the decision to go rogue. Doesn't change the outcome; just gives me a different view of the transgressor.
I've thought about this, too. Going through a whistle-blower process would have allowed the .gov to "control the message" and maintain the initiative. Given this administration's track record, coupled with recent examples of how farcical the whistle-blower process and protections are, I can see how Snowden likely came to the conclusion that the "nuclear option" was the way to go.
Wikileaks and the media should be a refuge of last resort when it comes to an issue with the kinds of second- and third-order repercussions that this one obviously has.
Perhaps it's my turn to be naive but, I still believe in the role of the media as watchdogs (no, I don't consider Wikileaks to be media). None of these recent scandals had any legs until the media either broke the stories or picked up on them.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 21:04
None of these recent scandals had any legs until the media either broke the stories or picked up on them.
True enough. I guess you're just hearing the ruminations of a guy with a higher-level clearance who was taught to take the associated obligations very, very seriously. Not that I would be worth a darn as a leaker anyway, since I can't even remember what I had for breakfast; that said, some secrets deserve to be kept. Some obviously do not, and I guess that is really what we are trying to figure out with all of this.
AC
A skeptical cynic might come to the conclusion that this surveillance apparatus isn't really looking at terrorists.
Eventually it will be used to look at other things. The data is no good unless it's being used. And someone, somewhere is going to come up with some interpretation to "mission creep" this thing to justify its existence once they figure out the cost/benefit ratio isn't sustainable.
How about the myriad congresscritters, even those defending the program, who've gone on national TV to lament that this program was made known to the American people.
They're mad because they got pinched.
...I don't believe for a second that they kept this secret because of national security (the erstwhile excuse), it seems pretty clear that they knew there was going to be outrage and wouldn't be able to do it if they did so openly...so they kept it secret.
My thoughts as well.
The problem is when you get someone in the bureaucracy who is far less scrupulous.
Nobody ever seems to think that far down the road (Patriot Act, anyone?). Kind of like corporate America has a hard time seeing beyond the next fiscal quarter.
justin_247
06-26-13, 21:20
Incorrect. Google PRISM and tell me what you find.
Numerous government officials, the head of NSA and even the President of the United States have acknowledged that so-called metadata is being kept on all Americans without the use of warrants.
Did you not see the head of the NSA on Capitol Hill defending the surveillance?
How about the myriad congresscritters, even those defending the program, who've gone on national TV to lament that this program was made known to the American people.
What I'm saying is that there is very little info available about PRISM. There really is not much known about it... maybe your standards for detail are much lower than mine?
Right, because the military has never been party to a coverup of its actions?
Google the name Daniel Ellsberg.
That said, I'm really not concerned about the current practitioners of the program, I believe they're mostly operating in good faith, but I don't believe for a second that they kept this secret because of national security (the erstwhile excuse), it seems pretty clear that they knew there was going to be outrage and wouldn't be able to do it if they did so openly...so they kept it secret.
The problem is when you get someone in the bureaucracy who is far less scrupulous. My "skeptical cynic" comment was to point out that this program, operating in secret, without the knowledge or consent of the American people, only engenders cynicism of a government that both distrusts the public and apparently fears them.
Factor in the IRS, Benghazi, Gunrunner, the list goes on...and tell me why I should trust this governments claims that there is ample oversight?
I just think you hate the government and everybody who works for it. There seems to be no rationalism at all in anything you say, since you lace invective against anything that's related to the government.
Also, you need to reread your history on the "Pentagon Papers." It was an attempt by the military to find problems and develop solutions. They hadn't even had much time to digest anything in it before Ellsberg leaked the whole thing.
I guess you're just hearing the ruminations of a guy with a higher-level clearance who was taught to take the associated obligations very, very seriously. Not that I would be worth a darn as a leaker anyway, since I can't even remember what I had for breakfast; that said, some secrets deserve to be kept. Some obviously do not, and I guess that is really what we are trying to figure out with all of this.
I hear you. History will be the judge, I suppose.
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 21:26
Whatever dude.
I'd look up the word invective. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
justin_247
06-26-13, 21:42
I didn't realize that Ray Odierno worked for the NSA? How is this military again?
... what?
NSA = DoD agency run by Gen Keith Alexander.
CarlosDJackal
06-26-13, 21:45
If he'd went to a "friendly" country, they'd have had him on the first thing that rolls, flies, or sails back to the U.S., which he obviously does not want. If he'd stayed here, he'd be in solitary confinement in a hole somewhere, classified as a national security threat, until they could figure out how to get him into a secret court or classify him in such a way that they could hold him indefinitely without trial.
Could he not gone to a neutral country instead? My point being, if it were me I would insist in a very public trial right here in the US where I can prove that my intent was not to divulge any Classified information to our enemies.
Who knows what type of damage he had done to our National Security at this point. So are you and the other members of his cheering squad still going to stand by him if it turns out the information he divulged is used by some terrorist to attack and kill our Soldiers or other US Persons?
People who have never held a Security Clearances do not have a clue on what is expected of those who do. You are briefed so much that there is absolutely no doubt on what is expected of you. Snowden broke the law and leaked information that could possibly be used to bring down another World Trade Center. His reason for doing so is not relevant and he knows it. He knew what he was doing and what the possible outcome of what he was doing. If his real purpose for doing so is Patriotism, then he needs to face up to it in a court of law.
You and anyone else can come up with as many excuses as you want. But in the end we all know he broke the trust that was expected of a half million other Contractors and in the process has endangered our Soldiers and our National Security in the process - PERIOD.
Unless someone can prove that he had exhausted all the legal means that was at his disposal before taking this final course of action; he is in the same traitorous category ass Hanson and all the other leakers in history.
Gutshot John
06-26-13, 21:48
Who knows what type of damage he had done to our National Security at this point...Snowden broke the law and leaked information that could possibly be used to bring down another World Trade Center.
Again this claim. What damage are you talking about?
Do you not think AQ and every other enemy of the US doesn't already assume, if not know, that we can monitor their communications?
The only "news" that really came out of this was that they US wasn't only monitoring AQ and other enemies...but the communications of every US citizen as well.
You talk about people who don't have a clue about having a clearance (I do have a clue), but yet you really need to educate yourself about the technology, how it's used and how it can be used.
Here's a clue, it can't be used to bring down a building with an airplane.
HERO. Obama and most of the politicians are the traitors.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 22:00
I can see the peace pipe being passed around, but let's remember to inhale, gents.
Deeply.
AC
Army Chief
06-26-13, 22:01
HERO. Obama and most of the politicians are the traitors.
Some might consider this to be tossing a hand grenade into the room and running. Not really all that informative or persuasive as a one-liner, brother.
AC
Could he not gone to a neutral country instead? My point being, if it were me I would insist in a very public trial right here in the US where I can prove that my intent was not to divulge any Classified information to our enemies.
...
People who have never held a Security Clearances do not have a clue on what is expected of those who do. You are briefed so much that there is absolutely no doubt on what is expected of you. Snowden broke the law and leaked information that could possibly be used to bring down another World Trade Center. His reason for doing so is not relevant and he knows it. He knew what he was doing and what the possible outcome of what he was doing. If his real purpose for doing so is Patriotism, then he needs to face up to it in a court of law.
I'm not getting the correlation of being a patriot meaning you have to want to let yourself be tried in court. Then again, I'm not much for martyrdom, either. Personally, if I'm going to whack a beehive, I'm running like hell!
Who knows what type of damage he had done to our National Security at this point. So are you and the other members of his cheering squad still going to stand by him if it turns out the information he divulged is used by some terrorist to attack and kill our Soldiers or other US Persons?
...
You and anyone else can come up with as many excuses as you want. But in the end we all know he broke the trust that was expected of a half million other Contractors and in the process has endangered our Soldiers and our National Security in the process - PERIOD.
I'm not buying into the arm-flailing and hyperbole about how much damage he may have done to national security. "National security" has gradually and unfortunately become the "sky is falling" lament over the past 12 years. He exposed a program that, in my opinion, shouldn't exist in the first place. To me, that trumps everything else.
Alaskapopo
06-26-13, 22:54
When I first heard about the NSA scandal I was disturbed. But after learning more information such as they were not monitoring American citizens directly unless they happened to have had contact with a foreign national it does not bother me so much. We live in a dangerous world and we need to be able to gather Intel on terrorists. I am glad this information came out as things need to be more transparent. However the way it came out is disturbing. That it was so easy for one man to give away secrets is also disturbing. What if this information had the potential to get undercover operatives killed. Not so good. Lots can be learned form this. Is Snowden a traitor yes. He took an oath and broke it. There are other ways to handle the situation if he had valid concerns.
Pat
When I first heard about the NSA scandal I was disturbed. But after learning more information such as they were not monitoring American citizens directly unless they happened to have had contact with a foreign national it does not bother me so much. We live in a dangerous world and we need to be able to gather Intel on terrorists. I am glad this information came out as things need to be more transparent. However the way it came out is disturbing. That it was so easy for one man to give away secrets is also disturbing. What if this information had the potential to get undercover operatives killed. Not so good. Lots can be learned form this. Is Snowden a traitor yes. He took an oath and broke it. There are other ways to handle the situation if he had valid concerns.
Pat
so holder and obama and clinton also broke theirs by lying to us ? so in your eyes they are traitors to !!!
and F&F and Benghazi is not a cover up ! and IRS did not target folks
Snowden was apparently active for several years on an IRC channel at the tech site Ars Technica starting about 2007. Here's a link to an interesting article that focuses on the changes between then and now: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/
"TheTrueHOOHA's last known logon to #arsificial was in May 2009, just over four years ago. The Snowden seen in these chats is not the man we see today. Snowden clearly had to cross some kind of personal Rubicon in order to leave his life behind. His chats reveal his strident beliefs in individualism and a generally libertarian aesthetic, but they also showed real support for the security state."
Gutshot John
06-27-13, 08:13
But after learning more information such as they were not monitoring American citizens directly unless they happened to have had contact with a foreign national it does not bother me so much.
This argument, generally "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" rings hollow with me.
First, the same argument could be used for anything. Why should I be concerned about illegal or improper search warrants if I've done nothing wrong? Why should I worry about the illegal wiretapping of my phone if I've done nothing wrong?
Second, I have family that lives overseas and are foreign nationals. I work with foreign nationals regularly and do work for foreign companies as part of my job. So forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by that response.
Third, no one is completely 100% legal, the sheer complexity of laws on the books means that in obeying one law there is a real chance you're breaking another.
Fourth, the information doesn't have to rise to the level of criminality, it simply has to be embarrassing. Medical conditions, infidelity, etc. could all be used by the government against a citizen.
Fifth involves a completely misunderstanding of the technology, and what you can do with so-called metadata. All kinds of things can be gleaned from that information, for a clue, look at what the Obama campaign did with metadata to microtarget voters. THe notion that just because they aren't listening to the conversation, that they can't do a lot of serious analysis on your behavior, your habits, your interests, your medical conditions etc is deeply, deeply flawed.
To illustrate I had a professor who used a computer program that analyzed publicly available data/metadata to correctly identify/guess people's SSNs with an 85% accuracy (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/10/social.security.numbers/) . He then tied it in to facial recognition and was able to bring up all kinds of data by scanning publicly available photographs tied to social media and other online information. http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2011/august/aug1_privacyrisks.html. And he doesn't even work for the NSA or have any access to their systems like PRISM.
We have search warrants for a reason, and that reason is EXACTLY TO PREVENT THIS TYPE OF STUFF.
I just think you hate the government and everybody who works for it. There seems to be no rationalism at all in anything you say, since you lace invective against anything that's related to the government.
How on earth did you come to this conclusion? Flat out wrong from top to bottom from all I know of GSJ and certainly without evidence in this thread.
justin_247
06-27-13, 10:51
How about you make a rational argument instead of one liners
Voodoochild.
Traitor? Maybe. But then all the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were by the law of the land that governed them, traitors.
Has what he did, (be his motives commendable or contemptible) served the cause of freedom and liberty in these United States? At this point it seems to me that the main weight of that which we know tilts noticeably in his favor.
justin_247
06-27-13, 11:32
Read my lips. Either your come up with some solid participation and info or see your way out of this thread.
Voodoochild
Gutshot John
06-27-13, 11:37
Not worth it...nevermind.
Army Chief
06-27-13, 11:53
Fair warning.
AC
justin_247
06-27-13, 12:02
Roger, I'm out. The entire thread is non substantive.
Alaskapopo
06-27-13, 13:00
This argument, generally "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" rings hollow with me.
First, the same argument could be used for anything. Why should I be concerned about illegal or improper search warrants if I've done nothing wrong? Why should I worry about the illegal wiretapping of my phone if I've done nothing wrong?
Second, I have family that lives overseas and are foreign nationals. I work with foreign nationals regularly and do work for foreign companies as part of my job. So forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by that response.
Third, no one is completely 100% legal, the sheer complexity of laws on the books means that in obeying one law there is a real chance you're breaking another.
Fourth, the information doesn't have to rise to the level of criminality, it simply has to be embarrassing. Medical conditions, infidelity, etc. could all be used by the government against a citizen.
Fifth involves a completely misunderstanding of the technology, and what you can do with so-called metadata. All kinds of things can be gleaned from that information, for a clue, look at what the Obama campaign did with metadata to microtarget voters. THe notion that just because they aren't listening to the conversation, that they can't do a lot of serious analysis on your behavior, your habits, your interests, your medical conditions etc is deeply, deeply flawed.
To illustrate I had a professor who used a computer program that analyzed publicly available data/metadata to correctly identify/guess people's SSNs with an 85% accuracy (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/10/social.security.numbers/) . He then tied it in to facial recognition and was able to bring up all kinds of data by scanning publicly available photographs tied to social media and other online information. http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2011/august/aug1_privacyrisks.html. And he doesn't even work for the NSA or have any access to their systems like PRISM.
We have search warrants for a reason, and that reason is EXACTLY TO PREVENT THIS TYPE OF STUFF.
This targeted foreign nationals and the only US citizens in contact with them got caught in the web as I understand it. If you are surveil someone you are going to get intel on the people they deal with just that simple and no it does not bother me. Now if they were targeting US citizens without warrants that is different. Its like having wire taps on mob bosses and hearing their mundane conversations with people outside of organized crime. Just a cost of doing business. What the government does with that information is the real concern.
Pat
QuietShootr
06-27-13, 14:31
Almost. Perhaps a bit more along the lines of "I give as much respect as I can possibly stand to give" captures it just a little bit more succinctly.
Ideally, our responses remain consistent, no matter what the other guy does, but therein lies the discipline. It is hard not to respond in-kind when provoked, but it is much wiser to just acknowledge another's views as valid, and dispassionately examine how/where they do or do not square well with one's own.
Note that this is ever-so-slightly different from the usual "that's stupid, and you're a complete dick" approach, which, as we all know, always promotes harmony and good will. ;)
AC
In the words of Bill Cosby, "But what if you're an asshole??":lol:
QuietShootr
06-27-13, 14:36
Sigh, whatever dude.
The Horsemen of the Apocalypse are surely nigh, because I've read through this thread up to this page and I agree with 95% of what you said.
QuietShootr
06-27-13, 14:40
This is a legitimate question. I think the answer is less actual problems with surveillance than it is political correctness running amok.
Do you really think the military is out violating their oath to the Constitution? Because, realize, this is the military we're talking about... not the IRS, not the FBI... the military. I think people are taking quite a leap here.
Some of them, certainly. If you're in a position that is covered by the IO laws, and you're collecting intelligence on US citizens, and you are in the US military, you are (with only rare exceptions) in violation of a shit-ton of established law, certainly in violation of the law and the spirit of the Constitution, and we won't even mention you're personally a contemptible asshole unless you're doing something to stop it or mitigate it. Like Snowden did.
QuietShootr
06-27-13, 14:49
True enough. I guess you're just hearing the ruminations of a guy with a higher-level clearance who was taught to take the associated obligations very, very seriously. Not that I would be worth a darn as a leaker anyway, since I can't even remember what I had for breakfast; that said, some secrets deserve to be kept. Some obviously do not, and I guess that is really what we are trying to figure out with all of this.
AC
Yeah...well, I had one too, and I assure you I took those obligations very seriously. BUT (and I'm sure this will do in any future ability for me to get another clearance, but screw it) right is right, and wrong is wrong, and an educated person is supposed to be able to discern the difference and take appropriate action, regardless of what you swore to whom. I'm very glad I was not faced with a decision like Snowden had to make (if the facts are as we are given) and I hope I'd have the balls to do the RIGHT thing in that situation, as it appears he did.
*Notice I said 'if the facts are as we currently understand them'. And the bottom line is that his motivations really don't matter. This shit that he exposed is immoral, repugnant to the Constitution, and out-and-out scary, so I really don't care if he spilled it because the Chinese promised him free teenage boys for the rest of his life...the shit needed to be dragged out into the light.
All the shit about Snowden personally is just that: Shit and fog. You guys saying "HANG HIM!!" are reacting like the neighborhood kid whose response to being caught pumping the neighbor's cat is to blame the person who caught him for being such an asshole. At the end of the day, you were still ****ing the neighbor's cat, and that's the behavior that needs to be addressed, not the kid who told everybody about it.
Army Chief
06-27-13, 15:41
Two quick issues with this ....
... right is right, and wrong is wrong, and an educated person is supposed to be able to discern the difference and take appropriate action ...
No argument there, though if you are going to go as far as Snowden did, you had better be very intelligent indeed (which he does not appear to be, per any of the usual metrics), and you had better make sure that you are truly seeing the big picture, and not just some potentially misleading snippet of it (which we don't really know about here one way or the other, though it seems unlikely that he was afforded as full a view as he claims).
This shit that he exposed is immoral, repugnant to the Constitution, and out-and-out scary ...
Likely right, but do we really even know the true scope and reach of the problem, much less how it was used -- and under what controls? What we have is a picture painted in very broad strokes, and likely missing a lot of relevant context. I'm not suggesting that I support the idea of warrantless data mining, but if we are to be honest about this, our collective rage against the machine isn't based upon anything very specific as far as I can tell. We're just pissed at the idea that the government would do this in secret.
AC
ForTehNguyen
06-27-13, 17:20
http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/27/congress-killed-our-privacy-and-empowere
Congress Killed Our Privacy and Empowered the NSA
The very people in whose hands we have reposed the Constitution for preservation, protection, defense and enforcement have subverted it.
Andrew Napolitano | June 27, 2013
Which is more dangerous to personal liberty in a free society: a renegade who tells an inconvenient truth about government law-breaking, or government officials who lie about what the renegade revealed? That's the core issue in the great public debate this summer, as Americans come to the realization that their government has concocted a system of laws violative of the natural law, profoundly repugnant to the Constitution and shrouded in secrecy.
The liberty of which I write is the right to privacy: the right to be left alone. The Framers jealously and zealously guarded this right by imposing upon government agents intentionally onerous burdens before letting them invade it. They did so in the Fourth Amendment, using language that permits the government to invade that right only in the narrowest of circumstances.
The linchpin of those circumstances is "probable cause" of evidence of crime in "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." If the government cannot tell a judge specifically what evidence of crime it is looking for and precisely from whom, a judge may not issue a search warrant, and privacy -- the natural human yearning that comes from within all of us -- will remain where it naturally resides, outside the government's reach.
Congress is the chief culprit here, because it has enacted laws that have lowered the constitutional bar that the feds must meet in order for judges to issue search warrants. And it has commanded that this be done in secret.
And I mean secret.
The judges of the FISA court -- the court empowered by Congress to issue search warrants on far less than probable cause, and without describing the places to be searched or the persons or things to be seized -- are not permitted to retain any records of their work. They cannot use their own writing materials or carry BlackBerries or iPhones in their own courtrooms, chambers or conference rooms. They cannot retain copies of any documents they've signed. Only National Security Agency staffers can keep these records.
Indeed, when Edward Snowden revealed a copy of an order signed by FISA court Judge Roger Vinson -- directing Verizon to turn over phone records of all of its 113,000,000 U.S. customers in direct and profound violation of the individualized probable cause commanded by the Constitution -- Vinson himself did not have a copy of that order. Truly, this is the only court in the country in which the judges keep no records of their rulings.
At the same time that Vinson signed that order, NSA staffers, in compliance with their statutory obligations, told select members of Congress about it, and they, too, were sworn to secrecy. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden was so troubled when he learned this -- a terrible truth that he agreed not to reveal -- that he mused aloud that the Obama administration had a radical and terrifying interpretation of certain national security statutes.
But he did more than muse about it. He asked Gen. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, who was under oath and at a public congressional hearing, whether his spies were gathering data on millions of Americans. Clapper said no. The general later acknowledged that his answer was untruthful, but he claimed it was the "least untruthful" reply he could have given. This "least untruthful" nonsense is not a recognized defense to the crime of perjury.
After we learned that the feds are spying on nearly all Americans, that they possess our texts and emails and have access to our phone conversations, Gen. Keith Alexander, who runs the NSA, was asked under oath whether his spies have the ability to read emails and listen to telephone calls. He answered, "No, we don't have that authority." Since the questioner -- FBI agent turned Congressman Mike Rogers -- was in cahoots with the general in keeping Americans in the dark about unconstitutional search warrants, there was no follow-up question. In a serious public interrogation, a committee chair interested in the truth would have directed the general to answer the question that was asked.
Since that deft and misleading act, former NSA staffers have told Fox News that the feds can read any email and listen to any phone call, and Alexander and Rogers know that. So Alexander's "no," just like his boss's "no," was a lie at worst and seriously misleading at best.
This is not an academic argument. The oath to tell the truth -- "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" -- also makes those who intentionally mislead Congress subject to prosecution for perjury.
President Obama is smarter than his generals. He smoothly told a friendly interviewer and while not under oath that the feds are not listening to our phone calls or reading our emails. He, of course, could not claim that they lack the ability to do so, because we all now know that he knows they can.
These Snowden revelations continue to cast light on the feds when they prefer darkness. Whatever one thinks of Snowden's world-traveling odyssey to avoid the inhumane treatment the feds visited upon Bradley Manning, another whistleblower who exposed government treachery, he has awakened a giant. The giant is a public that has had enough of violations of the Constitution and lies to cover them up. The giant is fed up with menial politicians and their media allies demonizing the messenger because his message embarrasses the government by revealing that it is unworthy of caring for the Constitution.
Think about that: The very people in whose hands we have reposed the Constitution for preservation, protection, defense and enforcement have subverted it.
Snowden spoke the truth. Knowing what would likely befall him for his truthful revelations and making them nevertheless was an act of heroism and patriotism. Thomas Paine once reminded the Framers that the highest duty of a patriot is to protect his countrymen from their government. We need patriots to do that now more than ever.
Likely right, but do we really even know the true scope and reach of the problem, much less how it was used -- and under what controls? What we have is a picture painted in very broad strokes, and likely missing a lot of relevant context. I'm not suggesting that I support the idea of warrantless data mining, but if we are to be honest about this, our collective rage against the machine isn't based upon anything very specific as far as I can tell. We're just pissed at the idea that the government would do this in secret.
Very succinct. This is pretty much where I'm parked, as well.
Likely right, but do we really even know the true scope and reach of the problem, much less how it was used -- and under what controls? What we have is a picture painted in very broad strokes, and likely missing a lot of relevant context. I'm not suggesting that I support the idea of warrantless data mining, but if we are to be honest about this, our collective rage against the machine isn't based upon anything very specific as far as I can tell. We're just pissed at the idea that the government would do this in secret.
AC
No, we're pissed that the Federal Government would to it AT ALL.
Some of us actually believe we have a right to privacy. Its apparent the Federal Government does not feel the same way. They continue to spew the failed idea "well if you got nothing to hide......whats the problem". Im sorry, but that is pure bullshit. And anyone that actually believes that nonsense, is mindless.
If their "if you have nothing to hide" idea isn't flawed, how about Eric Holder hand over all of this emails that detail the fact HE KNEW ABOUT AND ORDERED OPERATION FAST AND FUROUS. Also, how about coughing up all the emails and memos about Benghazi, all of which would detail that they ALLOWED the attack to happen in order to cover up the shipments of weapons they were shipping AQ in Syria and Libya (not to mention the CIA torture facility down the street).
HOW ABOUT THAT? IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, WHY NOT JUST SHOW US ALL THOSE EMAILS, MEMOS, ECT????? WHY NOT HAVE THE NSA HACK THEIR EMAIL????
I'll tell you why.......because the Federal Government and their corrupt globalist henchmen don't want their illegal activities out in the open, but the avg. joe dirtbag its perfectly ok....bullshit.
Littlelebowski
06-27-13, 17:33
Likely right, but do we really even know the true scope and reach of the problem, much less how it was used -- and under what controls? What we have is a picture painted in very broad strokes, and likely missing a lot of relevant context. I'm not suggesting that I support the idea of warrantless data mining, but if we are to be honest about this, our collective rage against the machine isn't based upon anything very specific as far as I can tell. We're just pissed at the idea that the government would do this in secret.
AC
We have 2 Senators who have been basically screaming that this is illegal for over 2 years so far. That to me is a hint that we are seeing the tip of the iceberg.
I suppose some think it takes guts to "protect America" by surveilling us. It takes even more guts to say "we won't compromise our Constitutional principles because of fear."
Gutshot John
06-27-13, 18:50
This targeted foreign nationals and the only US citizens in contact with them got caught in the web as I understand it.
Define targeted, because what I object to is collecting data on EVERYONE. Not only is it bullshit from a constitutional perspective, but that much data can't be mined in a reasonable amount of time to prevent an imminent attack, so functionally it's counterproductive, barring some other intelligence...intelligence like the Russians gave us before Boston...and they still couldn't figure it out.
Again, I have no problem with surveilling terrorists, but you're not going to identify maybe a dozen individuals, searching through mountains of data collected on 300 million Americans. It's completely and utterly moronic....unless you're doing something else with that data.
If you are surveil someone you are going to get intel on the people they deal with just that simple and no it does not bother me. That's just it, they're not getting any independent intel on those people, they're simply collecting everything and mining the data.
Now if they were targeting US citizens without warrants that is different.
Define targeting? Because it sure seems like that's exactly what they're doing.
Its like having wire taps on mob bosses and hearing their mundane conversations with people outside of organized crime. Just a cost of doing business. What the government does with that information is the real concern.
Pat
Except we're not talking about mob bosses. What it's more akin to is wiretapping everyone in the state where the mob boss lives on the off chance he calls someone.
You really, REALLY need to understand the technology.
Are you ok with police using improper or illegal search warrants?
Gutshot John
06-27-13, 18:53
We're just pissed at the idea that the government would do this in secret.
AC
Exactly correct, and from my perspective, there is an awful lot there to be pissed about.
Preferred User
06-27-13, 19:09
At what point does Snowden go from whistleblower to traitor?
(Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-usa-security-snowden-russia-idUSBRE95O1DG20130625)) - Edward Snowden's disappearance from view has heightened speculation that the former U.S. spy agency contractor may be talking to Russian secret services, which see him as a "tasty morsel" that is too good to miss.
Also there are conflicting stories about his carrying four laptops and various USB "thumbdrives" full of classified data to China and now Russia.
If those items did indeed travel to PRK and the former USSR it is as certain as the sun rising that every bit of data on those devices is now in the hands of nation states that are not our friends (no matter how much bowing the current administration does).
And that unfortunately means that perhaps more information than he planned to leak is now in the wild.
Gutshot John
06-27-13, 19:31
Also there are conflicting stories about his carrying four laptops and various USB "thumbdrives" full of classified data to China and now Russia.
Conflicting stories? Source?
Let me guess...the NSA?
You do realize that since Bradley Manning, virtually all classified computers have USB ports and other external media drives disabled?
Likewise you can't just walk in and out of a SCIF with even a smart phone, never mind CDs, thumb drives etc.?
So either they're completely incompetent and learned nothing from Manning (not entirely unbelievable), or someone is spreading some disinformation. Either way it says more about the accuser than it does about the accused.
Color me skeptical of "conflicting stories."
QuietShootr
06-27-13, 19:37
At what point does Snowden go from whistleblower to traitor?
(Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-usa-security-snowden-russia-idUSBRE95O1DG20130625)) - Edward Snowden's disappearance from view has heightened speculation that the former U.S. spy agency contractor may be talking to Russian secret services, which see him as a "tasty morsel" that is too good to miss.
Also there are conflicting stories about his carrying four laptops and various USB "thumbdrives" full of classified data to China and now Russia.
If those items did indeed travel to PRK and the former USSR it is as certain as the sun rising that every bit of data on those devices is now in the hands of nation states that are not our friends (no matter how much bowing the current administration does).
And that unfortunately means that perhaps more information than he planned to leak is now in the wild.
Focus.
Who gives a shit?
As our rulers from Chicago are fond of saying, you don't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. And I'm okay with that, as a former egg, so don't give me any horseshit about "but terrrrirsts" "US servicemen will be killed because of him" and the rest of it.
How many people would be killed or their lives ruined if he HADN'T?
Forget about Snowden's motives. Forget about the other shit. It doesn't matter. Focus.
Gutshot John
06-27-13, 19:44
How many people would be killed or their lives ruined if he HADN'T?
I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
And I saw, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. :smile:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.