Edward Snowden

[dre]

Why would that be great? Frankly I sent thousands by way of the CPC, CSSA and NFA to help get rid of the LGR, and as many party members voiced their concern over Bill C-30 at their local riding & constituency level I too was among them........

What didnt you like about c-30?

[kimmy]

Yes, I think that the President's announcements of reforms is a vindication of Edward Snowden.

What makes us different from other countries is not simply our ability to secure our nation. Its the way we do it, with open debate and democratic process.

And it is completely obvious that this open debate has only occurred because of the actions of Edward Snowden.

The President claims otherwise. He claims "we would have gotten to the same place", but the President is (to put it as politely as possible) being disingenuous.

He's had almost 5 years to "get to that place", and yet it is only in the past 2 months that any "open debate" on what NSA is actually doing has occurred.

Congressmen from both parties have been demanding more information about these programs for years, and have been stonewalled or lied to. Just a few months ago Intelligence Director James Clapper lied to Congress in response to questions about what kind of data the NSA actually collects. The administration knew he was lying, said nothing. Open and honest debate? Only after Snowden's leaks did The Clapper admit that "my statement was in error, lol, k thx bai".

Until Snowden came along, the President and the NSA and the few politicians in the know showed no interest at all in an "open and honest debate" about surveillance. Just the opposite. And the President is (to put it as politely as possible) full of shit when he claims otherwise.

If the President feels that these reforms will help safeguard the rights of Americans, then Americans should thank Edward Snowden for helping safeguard their rights. It's as simple as that.

-k

[Hudson Jones]

If the President feels that these reforms will help safeguard the rights of Americans, then Americans should thank Edward Snowden for helping safeguard their rights. It's as simple as that.

-k

It still baffles me how so many Americans have turned on him the way they have instead of turning on their government for having this secretive program.

[Shady]

It still baffles me how so many Americans have turned on him the way they have instead of turning on their government for having this secretive program.

I disagree. Like I've said before. I like the leak, but I'm not all that fond of the leaker. I'm not sure why the pro-Snowden types can't accept that. They insist you MUST love him too. It's turning into a cult like following.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Shady

[kimmy]

What does it matter if you "like" Snowden? He's not running for office.

-k

[ReeferMadness]

I disagree. Like I've said before. I like the leak, but I'm not all that fond of the leaker. I'm not sure why the pro-Snowden types can't accept that. They insist you MUST love him too. It's turning into a cult like following.

I'm sure it comes as a great disappointment to Mr. Snowden that you're not fond of him. Perhaps you'd rather he hung around like Bradley Manning to be put in isolation and have a show trial? You'd prefer that he sacrificed his entire life so that you could have your leak and be fond of him as well?

It must have been a very difficult choice on his part - your admiration or his freedom.

[Guest American Woman]

It must have been a very difficult choice on his part - your admiration or his freedom.

I'm sure he'll find the "freedom" in Russia that he didn't in the United States.

[kimmy]

I'm sure he'll find the "freedom" in Russia that he didn't in the United States.

The freedom to come back and spend 90 years in prison like Bradley Manning? I suspect he'll find Russia preferable.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

The freedom to come back and spend 90 years in prison like Bradley Manning? I suspect he'll find Russia preferable.

Yes, so much more preferable to living in the United States, because we know Russia would never, ever do what he "outed" the U.S. government for. But as long as he behaves himself in Russia, he'll escape any charges. Of course he could have gone the legal route.... but Russia is a much better choice, I'm sure.

Edited August 10, 2013 by American Woman

[jacee]

Exactly, hence due process.......With that said, if one takes the perspective that nobody owns the internet or the airwaves that ones cellular phones sends and receives signals, one has to ask, what should the expectations of individual privacy be? I mean, if youre in McDonalds discussing a criminal act and a police officer overhears from the table beside you, is the officer invading your privacy?

What I find funny is that many suggest that your 2nd amendment is now outdated due to advancements in technology, yet the 1st amendment is somehow a living document..Having your cake and eating it to perhaps?

I'm glad you feel that way because I'm listening in on your phone calls and reading your texts and emails. Pretty boring so far, but it's a slow day anyway. I assume you don't object?

[dre]

Yes, so much more preferable to living in the United States, because we know Russia would never, ever do what he "outed" the U.S. government for. But as long as he behaves himself in Russia, he'll escape any charges. Of course he could have gone the legal route.... but Russia is a much better choice, I'm sure.

There IS no legal route. This is a total red herring. Previous NSA whistle blowers (I already posted quotes from a bunch of them) tried to go up the chain of command and to congress and it was a total waste of time. Most of them got charged with espionage anyways.

Once he decided to take the side of the American people against the government and release this information, any course of action besides fleeing would have been an act of monumental stupidity.

[Guest American Woman]

There IS no legal route.

Yes, there is.

[dre]

I'm sure he'll find the "freedom" in Russia that he didn't in the United States.

Yup this is a no brainer... In Russia hes free... in the US he would rot in prison for the rest of his life. Gosh! Tough choice.

[dre]

Yes, there is.

No there really isnt. Like I said... previous whistle blowers have tried it, and either got nowhere at all or were charged with espionage anyways. Theres no way this information would be public if he had not done what he did.

[Guest American Woman]

No there really isnt. Like I said... previous whistle blowers have tried it, and either got nowhere at all or were charged with espionage anyways. Theres no way this information would be public if he had not done what he did.

So you keep saying, and I'll keep pointing out that he should have tried the legal route first - before running off with sensitive information to countries who do much worse than the country whose security he's jeopardizing.

Yup this is a no brainer... In Russia hes free... in the US he would rot in prison for the rest of his life. Gosh! Tough choice.

He had other choices at one time. That's a no brainer. But I think it's ironic that he is going to live as "free" as Russia allows - if Russia decides to keep him.

[kimmy]

"The legal route", "the proper channels"... hilarious. We've already discussed at length why that's a non-response. Dan Ellsberg, everybody's Model Whistleblower, scoffed at the idea that "the proper channels" were a viable option.

Snowden could have leaked the information, or he could have kept his mouth shut and lived the good life.

The only reason that this "open and public debate" has happened is because Snowden made it happen. The only reason that these "meaningful reforms" have happened is because Snowden made them happen.

That Snowden himself is permanently exiled for creating "open and public debate" and "meaningful reforms" is unfortunate, I'm sure that he himself would agree with that much. Clearly he would have things better from a personal standpoint if he had just kept his mouth shut, but he chose not to. I think the word for this is "sacrifice".

-k

[dre]

So you keep saying, and I'll keep pointing out that he should have tried the legal route first - before running off with sensitive information to countries who do much worse than the country whose security he's jeopardizing.

He had other choices at one time. That's a no brainer. But I think it's ironic that he is going to live as "free" as Russia allows - if Russia decides to keep him.

Heres my post again... the one you completely ignored before showing that there is no real legal route.

Perhaps he likes the attention/fame/notoriety.

But it doesn't really matter if you can't see how he could have worked within the law; the fact is, he could have, and being in the position he was, he understood how he could have. As I've pointed out, and backed up with sources, had he done that and failed and then gone to the media, he would have a stronger case for his actions than he does now. As it is, he chose to simply bypass the law, and in doing so, is in other countries with laptops full of sensitive information. That's not something that I support or see as a positive thing for the country, ie: Americans.

It would have been a GIGANTIC mistake for Snowden to try to work within the law. Numerous other whistle blowers have tried this, and were threatened, prosecuted, fired, and harrassed.

Like Thomas Drake... He went up the chain of command, then to congress. He was prosecuted for espionage.

For example, when NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake tried to blow the whistle on fraud and corruption within the NSA – based upon the NSA spying on all Americans instead of targeting only suspected criminals – he was prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

Drake notes:

I differed as a whistleblower to Snowden only in this respect: in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, I took my concerns up within the chain of command, to the very highest levels at the NSA, and then to Congress and the Department of Defense. I understand why Snowden has taken his course of action, because he’s been following this for years: he’s seen what’s happened to other whistleblowers like me.

By following protocol, you get flagged – just for raising issues. You’re identified as someone they don’t like, someone not to be trusted. I was exposed early on because I was a material witness for two 9/11 congressional investigations. In closed testimony, I told them everything I knew – about Stellar Wind, billions of dollars in fraud, waste and abuse, and the critical intelligence, which the NSA had but did not disclose to other agencies, preventing vital action against known threats. If that intelligence had been shared, it may very well have prevented 9/11.

But as I found out later, none of the material evidence I disclosed went into the official record. It became a state secret even to give information of this kind to the 9/11 investigation.

Or Russel Tice...

When NSA whistleblower Russel Tice (later a key source in the 2005 New York Times report that blew the lid off the Bush administration’s use of warrantless wiretapping) questioned spying on innocent Americans, NSA tried to have him labeled “crazy”, and fired him.

Or William Binney...

When the head of the NSA’s global digital communications program – William Binney – disclosed the fact that the U.S. was spying on everyone in the U.S. and storing the data forever, the Feds tried to scare him into shutting up:

[Numerous] FBI officers held a gun to Binney’s head as he stepped naked from the shower. He watched with his wife and youngest son as the FBI ransacked their home. Later Binney was separated from the rest of his family, and FBI officials pressured him to implicate one of the other complainants in criminal activity. During the raid, Binney attempted to report to FBI officials the crimes he had witnessed at NSA, in particular the NSA’s violation of the constitutional rights of all Americans. However, the FBI wasn’t interested in these disclosures. Instead, FBI officials seized Binney’s private computer, which to this day has not been returned despite the fact that he has not been charged with a crime.

NSA whistleblower J. Kirk Wiebe didn’t get anywhere through proper channels either.

John Kiriakou went to congress and blew the whistle on CIA torture. He was prosecuted for espionage.

The Government Accountability Project notes:

By communicating with the press, Snowden used the safest channel available to him to inform the public of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, government officials have been critical of him for not using internal agency channels – the same channels that have repeatedly failed to protect whistleblowers from reprisal in the past. In many cases, the critics are the exact officials who acted to exclude national security employees and contractors from the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012.

The bottom line is that WERE no real legal options available for Snowden. If he went up the chain of command he would have been muzzled and fired. If he went to congress he would have been prosecuted for espionage.

Edited August 10, 2013 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

"The legal route", "the proper channels"... hilarious. We've already discussed at length why that's a non-response. Dan Ellsberg, everybody's Model Whistleblower, scoffed at the idea that "the proper channels" were a viable option.

Snowden could have leaked the information, or he could have kept his mouth shut and lived the good life.

The only reason that this "open and public debate" has happened is because Snowden made it happen. The only reason that these "meaningful reforms" have happened is because Snowden made them happen.

That Snowden himself is permanently exiled for creating "open and public debate" and "meaningful reforms" is unfortunate, I'm sure that he himself would agree with that much. Clearly he would have things better from a personal standpoint if he had just kept his mouth shut, but he chose not to. I think the word for this is "sacrifice".

What's "hilarious" depends on one's opinion, and your opinion that he couldn't have gone the legal route is just that, your opinion, because some of us here have already discussed at length why he should have gone that route. But here's the thing - he's going to live his life in Russia "keeping his mouth shut."

[dre]

What's "hilarious" depends on one's opinion, and your opinion that he couldn't have gone the legal route is just that, your opinion, because some of us here have already discussed at length why he should have gone that route. But here's the thing - he's going to live his life in Russia "keeping his mouth shut."

No its the opinion of every significant intelligence whistleblower in history, from Woodward to Thomas Blake and Russel Tice, and its the opinion of the government accountability project as well. Previous whistle blowers that attempted your precious "legal route" faced either firing, or campaigns to discredit them and label them as mentally ill, or were charged with espionage anyways. One guy even stepped out of the shower to find a gun to his face in front of his family.

Snowden is not operating in a vacuum here. There are a number of other people who have tried to blow the whistle on this before him, and he knows full well what happened to them.

Again... From Drake

I differed as a whistleblower to Snowden only in this respect: in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, I took my concerns up within the chain of command, to the very highest levels at the NSA, and then to Congress and the Department of Defense. I understand why Snowden has taken his course of action, because he’s been following this for years: he’s seen what’s happened to other whistleblowers like me.

Edited August 10, 2013 by dre

[kimmy]

What's "hilarious" depends on one's opinion, and your opinion that he couldn't have gone the legal route is just that, your opinion, because some of us here have already discussed at length why he should have gone that route.

It's my opinion, as well as many others, including Dan Ellsberg who has first-hand experience with trying to go "the legal route".

But here's the thing - he's going to live his life in Russia "keeping his mouth shut."

Yes, he has taken a big hit to his own personal well being to do something important for United States citizens. As I said, he made a sacrifice.

-k

[cybercoma]

That's just your opinion, dre. And you should keep your opinions to yourself. But only when it comes to US policy.

[Guest American Woman]

It's my opinion, as well as many others, including Dan Ellsberg who has first-hand experience with trying to go "the legal route".

And it's the opinion of others that he could have, and should have, tried the legal route first. We can go around in circles all day, but at the end of the day, there was a legal route - and he didn't try it, so we'll never know how that would have turned out.

Yes, he has taken a big hit to his own personal well being to do something important for United States citizens. As I said, he made a sacrifice.

And as I said, that's a matter of opinion and this citizen of the United States doesn't feel that way.

[Smallc]

And it's the opinion of others that he could have, and should have, tried the legal route first.

Others? What others? Sean Hannity?

[cybercoma]

AW, precedents have been set.

[dre]

And it's the opinion of others that he could have, and should have, tried the legal route first. We can go around in circles all day, but at the end of the day, there was a legal route - and he didn't try it, so we'll never know how that would have turned out.

Ahhhh yes we do know it would have turned out because we have a whole myriad of examples... of "how it turns out". You know... those ones you keep ignoring.