Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Edward Snowden is a whistleblower, not a spy – but do our leaders care?
Legislators and journalists alike have been cavalier in their condemnations of the man responsible for the NSA leaks
"According to US legislators and journalists, the surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden actively aided America's enemies. They are just missing one essential element for the meme to take flight: evidence."
"When asked directly if there was any evidence that Snowden had cooperated with any intelligence service or American adversary, the administration and Congress declined to provide any. The office of the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, declined to comment for this story. The Justice Department and the House intelligence committee didn't even respond to inquiries.
By all means, consider Snowden a hero, a traitor or a complex individual with a mixture of motives and interests. Lots of opinions about Snowden are valid. He is a necessarily polarizing figure. The information he revealed speaks to some of the most basic questions about the boundaries between the citizen and the state, as well as persistent and real anxieties about terrorism.
What isn't valid is the blithe assertion, absent evidence, that the former NSA contractor actively collaborated with America's enemies. Snowden made classified information about widespread surveillance available to the American Public (Those documents were provided to the Guardian and the Washington Post). That's a curious definition of an enemy for US legislators to adopt."
The whole article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/05/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-spy
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
"So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor."
Got it, kiddies? Those are NSA whistleblowers, calling him a traitor.
Joe, you certainly did cherry pick that one. Did you watch all the program? And read the transcript? You pick one quote out of the debate (okay, the quote before as well), when there was more to it than that. Disingenuous... you should be a tabloid journalist.
From what I got from the program, was that these three whistleblowers believe Snowden initially did the correct thing, though one of them expressed that he may be crossing the line now.
As for me, I am still not sure what to think of Snowden, but I am not going to jump on any bandwagon either way.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
You keep blathering on about the one spy that was missed.
Jeez Rily Wyna, I trust you are not aiming that comment to me. I have hardly even contributed to this thread, and certainly never blathered.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
seems likly that this loser traitor is going to end up in a country with much worse human rights record than the USA.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Riley,
I'm no expert, but could it be that you wanna quarrel? A little bit of drama on an ordinary day?
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
I have been following this stuff for years.
The experienced and nasty terrorists know that if you use a cell phone, you may go up in a puff of smoke.
There were no phone lines into Bin Laden's house. We caught him by following his courier, who would deliver info on thumb drive.
There is a history of Snowdens who were never successfully prosecuted:
Google Thomas Drake, William Binney, J. Kirk Wiebe. The New Yorker had a great article about Drake that was the topic of a thread here a few years ago. A must read:
Here is a short interview of Drake and Binney:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/
These days, there is no place to hide.99.99999999% of the people who are snooped on have no reason to be suspect.
Another really interesting guy to follow is Jacob Applebaum, who is into stopping snooping of your data and wikileaks. He gets his computer searched every time he re-enters the country, and he is doing nothing wrong.
Here is the New Yorker story. It is a MUST READ.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1
Since Supertopo can be read overseas, it is searched and goes into NSA computers.
The danger here isn't terrorism anymore. That causes far fewer deaths than bicycles.
This information gets stored. So, you say, "I have nothing to hide."
Well, yeah, maybe you don't, but maybe an important political figure of yours is targeted. It is rife for abuse and you need to look no further back than J. Edgar Hoover, Director for life of the FBI. He spied on everyone, and had so much dirt on politicians and business leaders that nobody dared cross him.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The fact that you have no current examples
The abuses, blackmails, assassinations, murders, etc etc to these fact are everywhere well documented.
You are one stupid moron Hedge because you can't for the life of you research anything beyond your govt, spoon fed garbage that you continually obsessively project.
Take a vacation Hedge you've reached and are the extreme pinnacle of stupidity ....
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Gotta love how the NSA's secret government spies completely vacuuming up and analyzing all of Americans' communications did squat to stop the Boston Marathon terrorists.
Then it took only four whole days to catch them...
...and in order to accomplish that, they only had to shut down an entire major American city.
What an effective, precise, and efficient law enforcement terrorist-catching-tool this NSA totalitarian spying-on-American-citizens is!
Quite amazing logic:
You have a program that is designed to do one thing, in terms of intel, and they you assign bizarre roles to it.
The NSA had nothing to do with Boston. They didn't shut the city down. They didn't carry on the search for him.
Sort of like complaining about our secret mole in the Chinese Govt: obviously a complete waste, because he didn't prevent Boston.
Duh!
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Legislators and journalists alike have been cavalier in their condemnations of the man responsible for the NSA leaks
"According to US legislators and journalists, the surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden actively aided America's enemies. They are just missing one essential element for the meme to take flight: evidence."
"When asked directly if there was any evidence that Snowden had cooperated with any intelligence service or American adversary, the administration and Congress declined to provide any. The office of the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, declined to comment for this story. The Justice Department and the House intelligence committee didn't even respond to inquiries.
Well, what do you expect from a newspaper? They don't talk about evidence AT TRIAL, they want to do the trial in the media, where they don't have to follow rules of evidence, they don't have to give the other side the ability to rebut, nor have to be fair in any way.
And let's say Snowden gave information that allowed China to track down 2 out of 20 of our covert agents. This FOREIGN PAPER would happily publish that, letting the Chinese know that they had 18 left to discover!
THANKS A LOT!
No, the evidence they are talking about would definitely be classified, and OF COURSE no one is going to disclose that publically. It will have to be behind closed doors, just as is being done with Manning.
Why would America's intelligence apparatus disclose classified information to any newspaper, much less a newspaper that is FOREIGN?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Joe, you certainly did cherry pick that one. Did you watch all the program? And read the transcript? You pick one quote out of the debate (okay, the quote before as well), when there was more to it than that. Disingenuous... you should be a tabloid journalist.
From what I got from the program, was that these three whistleblowers believe Snowden initially did the correct thing, though one of them expressed that he may be crossing the line now.
As for me, I am still not sure what to think of Snowden, but I am not going to jump on any bandwagon either way.
Patrick, the point is that just because he does something that the whistleblowers consider legitimate, it DOES NOT give him a pass on then doing something traitorous.
It is as thought Daniel Ellsberg, in leaving the pentagon, killed a guard to walk out with his papers. Does the nature of the Pentagon Papers give him immunity to murder? NO!
That is what the 3 previous "whistleblowers" are pointing out. He may have been ok in making the revelation about the surveillance (in their eyes), but EVEN IN THEIR EYES, he has gone on to commit what THEY consider traitorous actions, and not whistleblowing.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
And what Snowden did was far worse than what was done to Plame.
Oh you would really love to think another such a stupid white washed assumption.
If you really knew the whole truth and publicity gave it you'd be mysteriously dead in a couple of days.
Man are you ever stupid Joe ......
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Well, what do you expect from a newspaper? They don't talk about evidence AT TRIAL, they want to do the trial in the media.
So? You and some others are conducting a trial here in the town square. Got the rocks all piled up and ready to go, as well.
Sorry, buddy.
I'm not immune most slander and libel, like the media.
I'm not immune to US law, like the Guardian.
I didn't publish the US secrets, like the Guardian.
I don't make money by fanning the flames over this, like the Guardian.
The trial judge and jury will not read what we write, unlike the Guardian.
We are not personally, first person, involved in this, unlike the Guardian.
And let's say Snowden gave information that allowed China to track down 2 out of 20 of our covert agents.
Let's presume he exposed 0 of 20 James Bonds. Let's presume he exposed 5 of 20. Let's presume he exposed them all.
And then admit we will never know, ever, unless someone else spills the beans. Your presumptions are therefore worthless.
As are yours. but we don't get to decide. A judge and jury get to decide.
is your strategy to taint the evidence so it can't be used?
is your strategy to cause so much damage to US security that we can't tell what Snowden did?
is your strategy to prevent a fair trial?
Nice American!
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
The question of whether or not these programs are unconstitutional is a very slippery one.
First, to remind you, here is the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There have been several attempts to sue the federal government over this, and they were tossed out due to lack of standing. Standing means that you have to show that you were harmed. Since it is top secret, and you have no idea if you are being harmed, it won't make it to court.
A federal judge did recently say that the "Security Letters" were unconstitutional. It will be very interesting to see how the supreme court looks at that. Security letters are where an agency makes you comply with some secret request, but you can't disclose its existence..ever.
The Fourth amendment is under attack, and has been since the Patriot Act was passed.
Hedge should have been born in East Germany. He would have made a great tyrant.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
The NSA is struggling not to explain with precision what they are not allowed to explain with precision
"She has posted a recording of the session on Soundcloud, which you can hear above, and posted a rough transcript on her blog, The Mob and the Multitude. Here are some highlights.
The session begins ...
Tahir: "Do you consider Germany and the countries that the NSA has been spying upon to be adversaries, or are you, right now, not speaking the truth?"
Recruiter 1: "You can define adversary as 'enemy' and, clearly, Germany is not our enemy. But would we have foreign national interests from an intelligence perspective on what's going on across the globe? Yeah, we do."
Tahir: "So by 'adversaries', you actually mean anybody and everybody. There is nobody, then, by your definition that is not an adversary. Is that correct?"
Recruiter 1: "That is not correct."
Recruiter 2: "… for us, our business is apolitical, OK? We do not generate the intelligence requirements. They are levied on us ... We might use the word 'target'."
Tahir: "I'm just surprised that for language analysts, you're incredibly imprecise with your language. And it just doesn't seem to be clear."
Later ...
Tahir: "... this is a recruiting session and you are telling us things that aren't true. And we also know that the NSA took down brochures and factsheets after the Snowden revelations because those factsheets also had severe inaccuracies and untruths in them, right? So how are we supposed to believe what you're saying?"
Even later ...
Tahir: "I think the question here is do you actually think about the ramifications of the work that you do, which is deeply problematic, or do you just dress up in costumes and get drunk?" [A reference to an earlier comment the recruiter made about NSA employees working hard and going to the bar to do karaoke.]
Recruiter 2: "... reporting the info in the right context is so important because the consequences of bad political decisions by our policymakers is something we all suffer from."
Unnamed female student: "And people suffer from the misinformation that you pass along so you should take responsibility as well."
Later still ...
Male student: "General Alexander [head of the NSA] also lied in front of Congress."
Recruiter 1: "I don't believe that he did."
Male student: "Probably because access to the Guardian is restricted on the Department of Defence's computers. I am sure they don't encourage people like you to actually think about these things. Thank God for a man like Edward Snowden who your organisation is now part of a manhunt trying to track down, trying to put him in a little hole somewhere for the rest of his life. Thank God they exist."
And finally ...
Recruiter 2: "This job isn't for everybody, you know ..."
Tahir: "So is this job for liars? Is this what you're saying? Because, clearly, you're not able to give us forthright answers. I mean, given the way the NSA has behaved, given the fact that we've been lied to as Americans, given the fact that factsheets have been pulled down because they clearly had untruths in them, given the fact that Clapper and Alexander lied to Congress – is that a qualification for being in the NSA? Do you have to be a good liar?"
Recruiter 1: I don't believe the NSA is telling complete lies. And I do believe that you know, I mean people can, you can read a lot of different things that are, um, portrayed as fact and that doesn't make them fact just because they're in newspapers."
Unnamed female student: "Or intelligence reports."
Recruiter 1: "That's not really our purpose here today and I think if you're not interested in that ... there are people here who are probably interested in a language career.""
I don't know what the moral is, but maybe: if you want a language career in the US, imprecision and the ability to ignore embarrassing imprecisions are two requirements.
I guess they are studying Cialdini - the art of influence - or maybe better: the art of manipulation.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Hedge. Have you read that New Yorker article?
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
From the NewYorker article:
"Jack Balkin, a liberal law professor at Yale, agrees that the increase in leak prosecutions is part of a larger transformation. “We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimization of a national-surveillance state,” he says. In his view, zealous leak prosecutions are consonant with other political shifts since 9/11: the emergence of a vast new security bureaucracy, in which at least two and a half million people hold confidential, secret, or top-secret clearances; huge expenditures on electronic monitoring, along with a reinterpretation of the law in order to sanction it; and corporate partnerships with the government that have transformed the counterterrorism industry into a powerful lobbying force. Obama, Balkin says, has “systematically adopted policies consistent with the second term of the Bush Administration.”"
This is what is growing and is now made discussible because of Snowden's actions. I thank him for that. The institutional side of this should be discussed a lot more in depth and much more critically in the open.
Riley:
It's quite simple: The recruiters were given an opportunity to clearify and they didn't and they didn't say that they couldn't clearify. The imprecisions seem undiscussible for them and I doubt they are willing to discuss the undiscussibility. They are practising organizational defensive routines.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!