Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

Kal'Stang · Jun 13, 2013

Mathematician said:
That's a pretty ignorant statement.

No actually its not. He didn't say that ALL things that were top seceret was illegal goings on. Just that illegal and top-seceret go hand in hand. And you can't tell me that the government won't ever try to do something illegal and not keep it top-seceret.

cpwill · Jun 13, 2013

Kal'Stang said:
You used the wrong term here. No one in the NSA was elected. They were appointed and hired by people that lied to American citizens. And for that, yes, Snowden, and every other American Citizen, has a right to overturn that system and get it changed.

That is incorrect - the NSA leadership were appointed and these programs were approved by our elected representatives in both the Legislature and the Executive. Snowden does not have a right to do what he did, simply because he disagrees with those representatives.

cpwill · Jun 13, 2013

Kal'Stang said:
No actually its not

Yes, actually, it is. You can tell because everyone who actually knows what they are talking about thinks that it is.

He didn't say that ALL things that were top seceret was illegal goings on. Just that illegal and top-seceret go hand in hand. And you can't tell me that the government won't ever try to do something illegal and not keep it top-seceret.

To say that things go hand in hand implies a unique and special relationship between the two. Yes, the government might do something illegal and label it top secret. It might also do something in another country and call it top secret. It might also have someone put a thumbdrive in a computer and call it Top Secret. Saying that illegal and top secret go hand in hand is thus no better than saying that thumb drives and Top Secret go hand in hand.

cpwill · Jun 13, 2013

upsideguy said:
The real Obama birth certificate (in .pdf, of course)?

More likely access to the information in his head and/or the ability to use him as a media weapon against the US.

Kal'Stang · Jun 13, 2013

cpwill said:
That is incorrect - the NSA leadership were appointed and these programs were approved by our elected representatives in both the Legislature and the Executive. Snowden does not have a right to do what he did, simply because he disagrees with those representatives.

How can it be incorrect when you basically said the same thing that I just said just with different words? And just because the NSA leadership was appointed by our politicians does not mean that the actions of the NSA, the legislature, executive, and judicial were not done illegally and against peoples rights. Every US citizen has a right and obligation to make sure that is not done and expose it when it does happen.

Thoreau72 · Jun 13, 2013

Kal'Stang said:
From what I can tell there is a huge difference between Manning and Snowden. Manning leaked all of that information indiscriminately and did so for the sole purpose of hurting the US. Snowden actually leaked just enough information to let the public know that the people of this country are being investigated without good reason and no probable cause and did so with the intent to make America a better place. Snowden might not be a hero...but he sure as hell is not a criminal imo.

By this post, you reveal an abysmal ignorance of Manning's motives. Those motives were revealed to the Court 2 months ago.

Are americans too fearful and prejudiced to inform themselves?

Thoreau72 · Jun 13, 2013

OldWorldOrder said:
??? That doesn't make sense logically at all.

No Americans were being harmed by PRISM, but by disclosing that it exists, he decreases the level of protection afforded them, which harms them.

Does it matter to you if the US Constitution was being harmed? Does it matter to you that long-held legal principles were being harmed? Do principles and law have any standing at all in today's Amerika?

Kal'Stang · Jun 13, 2013

cpwill said:
Yes, actually, it is. You can tell because everyone who actually knows what they are talking about thinks that it is.

:roll:

cpwill said:
To say that things go hand in hand implies a unique and special relationship between the two. Yes, the government might do something illegal and label it top secret. It might also do something in another country and call it top secret. It might also have someone put a thumbdrive in a computer and call it Top Secret. Saying that illegal and top secret go hand in hand is thus no better than saying that thumb drives and Top Secret go hand in hand.

Wrong. It does not imply, nor require, a special relationship between the two. It is simply something that is done often enough to be recognized as happening almost all the time. Now what happens if that thumb drive of yours gets plugged into that computer of yours (as a private citizen with no ties to the governemnt) without probable cause by the government and without your knowledge or permission? Was it done illegally? Yes. Was it done secretly? Yes. The government does this quite a bit. Can you honestly deny that?

Kal'Stang · Jun 13, 2013

Henry David said:
By this post, you reveal an abysmal ignorance of Manning's motives. Those motives were revealed to the Court 2 months ago.

Are americans too fearful and prejudiced to inform themselves?

Manning revealed it himself when he claimed that he was upset at the government for not allowing him to openly admit that he was gay.

And for whatever its worth, I have no problem with the fact that those documents were released. I believe in full transparency of the government in all but national security issues.

Thoreau72 · Jun 13, 2013

Kal'Stang said:
Manning revealed it himself when he claimed that he was upset at the government for not allowing him to openly admit that he was gay.

And for whatever its worth, I have no problem with the fact that those documents were released. I believe in full transparency of the government in all but national security issues.

Your second sentence partially redeems you, but a definition of "national security" is in order.

As for your statement about Manning's anger about DADT, that is a peripheral issue only. Without having the transcript of his statement in court by my side, I do not recall that it was even mentioned in that statement to the court.

He primary motivation was the same as Snowden's--a young man becoming greviously disillusioned by the reality of government crimes.

donsutherland1 · Jun 13, 2013

My view remains that Mr. Snowden should have shared his concerns with Congress rather than releasing them to the media. The issues concerning surveillance are legitimate and should be examined by Congress.

Subsequent developments appear to suggest that Snowden chose his route, possibly on account of perceived or actual grievances against the U.S. government with a desire to "punish" the U.S. Since he revealed the existence of the surveillance programs (telephony and PRISM), he also revealed that the U.S. has "hacked" Chinese interests. That such "hacking" occurs is not surprising, as it is something one would expect in the gathering of foreign intelligence for any major power where priority is given to the collection of military and strategic industrial information. That he disclosed it and the possible methodology involved suggests that his actions probably have much less to do with protecting the privacy of ordinary Americans and more to do with damaging U.S. interests. Almost certainly, that aspect will lead to his facing a tougher sentence should he be prosecuted and convicted than would otherwise have been the case.

OldWorldOrder · Jun 13, 2013

Henry David said:
Does it matter to you if the US Constitution was being harmed? Does it matter to you that long-held legal principles were being harmed? Do principles and law have any standing at all in today's Amerika?

Is the constitution a holy document to you or something? Cause I try not to get in arguments about what's good for the US with religious zealots, I've spent enough time around Salafists.

The Prof · Jun 13, 2013

the affable, gaffe-able, laughable veep in the w-stands-for-what's-his-name years:

In 2006, then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) blasted the Bush administration's domestic spying and called for a congressional investigation into the warrantless collection of millions of Americans' phone records.

BIDEN:If it’s true that 200 million Americans phone calls were monitored, in terms of not listening to what they said but to whom they spoke and who spoke to them -- I don't know, the Congress should investigate this.

This idea that no court will review, no Congress will know and we’re going to trust the president and the vice president of the United States, that they’re doing the right thing, don’t count me in on that.

Biden In 2006: NSA Collection Of Phone Records Violates Privacy | RealClearPolitics

if not snowden, who?

franz kafka?

The Prof · Jun 13, 2013

As the story of the National Security Agency secret surveillance program exploded, sales of George Orwell’s “1984” - about a totalitarian state and government monitoring - have shot up on online book seller Amazon.

As of Wednesday morning, four different editions of the book are in the top 40 of Amazon’s “Movers and Shakers” list with the highest ranking at 17. At one point, the Centennial Edition’s popularity was up nearly 10,000 percent and clocked in at third most popular on the list.

Boom in '1984' sales in NSA wake - Hadas Gold - POLITICO.com

Hard Truth · Jun 13, 2013

OldWorldOrder said:
Right. And the whole point is 'here' isn't a problem- although so many people hilariously think it is. Well, it wasn't until the hero of the ignorant and unwashed, Snowden, started talking.

Maybe you think the plumbers and construction workers should be in charge of things. They can team up and make an organization. Call it a 'Soviet' or something.

I think that the people, as a whole, (which includes plumbers etc.) should make our government's policy decisions through their elected representatives. Call it representational democracy. Where to draw the line when security measures conflict with our right to privacy is a decision that should be guided by the constitution and should be made openly.

Hard Truth · Jun 13, 2013

OldWorldOrder said:
Is the constitution a holy document to you or something? Cause I try not to get in arguments about what's good for the US with religious zealots, I've spent enough time around Salafists.

The protections from government excesses in the Bill of Rights are at the heart of our system and have kept the USA one of the least oppressive nations for over two hundred years.

Thoreau72 · Jun 13, 2013

donsutherland1 said:
My view remains that Mr. Snowden should have shared his concerns with Congress rather than releasing them to the media. The issues concerning surveillance are legitimate and should be examined by Congress.

Subsequent developments appear to suggest that Snowden chose his route, possibly on account of perceived or actual grievances against the U.S. government with a desire to "punish" the U.S. Since he revealed the existence of the surveillance programs (telephony and PRISM), he also revealed that the U.S. has "hacked" Chinese interests. That such "hacking" occurs is not surprising, as it is something one would expect in the gathering of foreign intelligence for any major power where priority is given to the collection of military and strategic industrial information. That he disclosed it and the possible methodology involved suggests that his actions probably have much less to do with protecting the privacy of ordinary Americans and more to do with damaging U.S. interests. Almost certainly, that aspect will lead to his facing a tougher sentence should he be prosecuted and convicted than would otherwise have been the case.

Consider the fate of Thomas Drake and a few other NSA whistleblowers who followed the rules and went up the chain of command. Drake writes about it today at Common Dreams.

They followed the rules and were prosecuted. Sibel Edmonds' story is similar.

Follow the rules and be demonized.

Snowden did the right thing.

Thoreau72 · Jun 13, 2013

OldWorldOrder said:
Is the constitution a holy document to you or something? Cause I try not to get in arguments about what's good for the US with religious zealots, I've spent enough time around Salafists.

No, I'm not religious so it's not really a holy document.

But I'm biased in its favor because I took an oath to defend it, back at Fort Bragg in 1969, so I have this sentimental view in favor of it.

That there are so many like you who do not respect or understand the document and its principles is ONE of the reasons we are in such a mess today, 200+ years after it was adopted.

The rule of law in governance is important, but I'm sure you disagree with that idea. :roll:

Fenton · Jun 13, 2013

MaggieD said:
Whistle-blowing is revealing illegal acts. It's not about revealing top-secret information.

According to Jim Sensenbrenner, the author of the Patriot Act, none of what the NSA is doing is allowed under article 215 of the Patriot Act.

Therefore Obama took it upon himself to increase the scope of NSA targeting and data collection.

I read a article today that Mosque have been off limits to FBI snooping since 2011 as honest everyday Americans have been targeted.

You have to remember, this is the administration who allowed the targeting of Conwervatoves by the IRS.

He has no credibillity left period.

Thoreau72 · Jun 13, 2013

Fenton said:
According to Jim Sensenbrenner, the author of the Patriot Act, none of what the NSA is doing is allowed under article 215 of the Patriot Act.

Therefore Obamq took it upon himself to increase the scope of NSA targeting and data collection.

You have to remember, this is the administration who allowed the targeting of Conwervatoves by the IRS.

He has no credibillity left period.

Sensebrenner is trying to walk it back. IMO he is a statist dirtbag for having authored it. It is perversely humorous to see him squirm. I don't believe a word he says.

Kal'Stang · Jun 13, 2013

Henry David said:
Your second sentence partially redeems you, but a definition of "national security" is in order.

As for your statement about Manning's anger about DADT, that is a peripheral issue only. Without having the transcript of his statement in court by my side, I do not recall that it was even mentioned in that statement to the court.

He primary motivation was the same as Snowden's--a young man becoming greviously disillusioned by the reality of government crimes.

I'm not going by what was said in a court room for the simple fact that in this case it was nothing more than prepared statements. I'm going by what he said before the courtroom which has a greater chance of being more honest than him trying to shimmy his way out of trouble, or at least less trouble.

As for "national security", things like armament, troop deployment, and technology for the most part. Lets put it this way, my definition of "national security" would be FAR stricter than our current "leaders" definition of it.

Kal'Stang · Jun 13, 2013

donsutherland1 said:
My view remains that Mr. Snowden should have shared his concerns with Congress rather than releasing them to the media. The issues concerning surveillance are legitimate and should be examined by Congress.

Subsequent developments appear to suggest that Snowden chose his route, possibly on account of perceived or actual grievances against the U.S. government with a desire to "punish" the U.S. Since he revealed the existence of the surveillance programs (telephony and PRISM), he also revealed that the U.S. has "hacked" Chinese interests. That such "hacking" occurs is not surprising, as it is something one would expect in the gathering of foreign intelligence for any major power where priority is given to the collection of military and strategic industrial information. That he disclosed it and the possible methodology involved suggests that his actions probably have much less to do with protecting the privacy of ordinary Americans and more to do with damaging U.S. interests. Almost certainly, that aspect will lead to his facing a tougher sentence should he be prosecuted and convicted than would otherwise have been the case.

It would have been worthless to go to congress since the NSA also had congressional approval for this. The only way that they (congress) would have actually examined it is if it was forced to do so. And the only way to force Congress to do an investigation of any kind is by involving the media and citizens.

Thoreau72 · Jun 13, 2013

Kal'Stang said:
I'm not going by what was said in a court room for the simple fact that in this case it was nothing more than prepared statements. I'm going by what he said before the courtroom which has a greater chance of being more honest than him trying to shimmy his way out of trouble, or at least less trouble.

As for "national security", things like armament, troop deployment, and technology for the most part. Lets put it this way, my definition of "national security" would be FAR stricter than our current "leaders" definition of it.

I know it's rare, but sometimes the truth does come out in court proceedings.

Keep in mind that Manning has pleaded guilty to all the charges except aiding the enemy. So with the exception of trying to avoid a life sentence, he's not trying weasel out of anything.

He tried to get his story to NYT and WaPo, but it wasn't meant to be for reasons beyond his control. Wikileaks was the only option, and probably the correct option, all things considered.

Exposing the crimes of government is never wrong.

Kal'Stang · Jun 13, 2013

OldWorldOrder said:
Is the constitution a holy document to you or something? Cause I try not to get in arguments about what's good for the US with religious zealots, I've spent enough time around Salafists.

No, its not a holy document. It is however The Highest Law of the United States of America. No law, edict, order or anything aside from an amendment passed by Congress can trump the Constitution.

donsutherland1 · Jun 13, 2013

Henry David said:
Consider the fate of Thomas Drake and a few other NSA whistleblowers who followed the rules and went up the chain of command. Drake writes about it today at Common Dreams.

They followed the rules and were prosecuted. Sibel Edmonds' story is similar.

Follow the rules and be demonized.

Snowden did the right thing.

Revealing details about intelligence gathering that is separate from the surveillance issues and has nothing to do with surveillance of U.S. citizens is not the "right thing."