General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGive Edward Snowden the Same Deal General Petraeus Got for Leaking Info
Katrina vandenHeuvel ?@KatrinaNationLet’s Give Edward Snowden the Same Deal General Petraeus Got for Leaking Info |@jonwiener1 The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/201761/lets-give-edward-snowden-same-deal-general-petraeus-got-leaking-info …
____True, their crimes are different: Petraeus gave classified info to his biographer and girlfriend, Paula Broadwell. Snowden gave classified info to the American people.
There’s another difference: as The Washington Post reported, Petraeus “initially lied to FBI investigators”—he told them he “had never provided Broadwell with classified information.” That was in an interview at CIA headquarters. Snowden in contrast told the truth about what he did, and why he did it. That was in an interview in Laura Poitras’s Oscar-winning film Citizenfour.
And there’s one more big difference: Snowden has done a lot more to defend Americans’ freedom than Petraeus ever did. In fact you might say Petraeus made America weaker as US commander in the Iraq war starting in 2007, a war that created more enemies for the US.
Petraeus’s deal, as The New York Times noted, allows him to “focus on his lucrative post-government career” as “a worldwide speaker on national security issues.” A similar deal for Snowden would probably make him a worldwide speaker on national security issues, but without the “lucrative” element.
And while we’re giving Snowden the same deal that Petraeus got, let’s release Stephen Kim, who’s serving thirteen months in prison for talking to a Fox News reporter about a single classified report on North Korea. Let’s apologize to, and compensate, former CIA agent John Kiriakou, who served almost two years in federal prison from 2013 to 2015 for disclosing the name of a covert CIA officer to a freelance reporter—a name that was not published. While we’re at it, let’s punish the torturers, not the people who leaked information about torture.
read: http://www.thenation.com/blog/201761/lets-give-edward-snowden-same-deal-general-petraeus-got-leaking-info
related:
State secrets just a Petraeus blowjob away from leaking
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026379881#post44
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Octafish
(55,745 posts)And Manning, Brown, etc etc etc.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Petraeus also did not run off to Russia to avoid arrest. Petraeus also has not been charged with thief. Snowden has been charged with espionage. This is like speeding and getting a ticket for speeding and someone else getting a speeding ticket, running a red light and causing an accident. The one who was only speeding will get a fine and the other one in the accident will be charged with something else.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)"Petraeus gave classified info to his biographer and girlfriend, Paula Broadwell. Snowden gave classified info to the American people"
You're analogy supposes harm was done by Snowden. Given the focus it put on govt. surveillance and other US govt. abuses - and given that his leaks were the ONLY impetus for calls for reform of the intelligence services from the WH on down - he did the nation a service.
Petraeus was servicing himself.
marym625
(17,997 posts)But some people refuse to believe that outing government overreach, even after trying to do something about it internally first, isn't whistleblowing and that going to jail for life is just a cross he should bear for doing the right thing.
Great post
George II
(67,782 posts)bigtree
(85,986 posts)...that's the standard for smearing those who dare to reveal our government's misdeeds, crimes, and abuses - most often coming from anonymous sources. It amounts to nothing more than a lie, without actual proof.
The extraordinary claim that China had drained the contents of Snowden's laptops first appeared in the New York Times in a June 24 article. The paper published the claim with no evidence and without any attribution to any identified sources.
In lieu of any evidence, the NYT circulated this obviously significant assertion by quoting what it called "two Western intelligence experts" who "worked for major government spy agencies". Those "experts" were not identified.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/snowden-denies-information-russia-china
avebury
(10,952 posts)does not mean that he did not commit a theft. Petraeus was treated differently because of who he is. Had he been someone else he would not have gotten away so lightly. Snowden did not fly to Russia with the idea of staying there the rest of his life. He was on the move looking for somewhere that would not agree to extradite him back to the US. Had he been smarter, he would have agreed to the release of his documents to the media after he had relocated to a country with no extradition treaty to the US. In that regard, he didn't really think far enough ahead.
I have a hard time getting upset over Snowden given all the Republican Right Wing hacks (including Cheney) who get a pass for all of their actions.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Snowden has done, he went to where ever because he did not want to be arrested, he does to want face the charges, somewhere he just might think he has broken laws of the US and would probably get some type of punishment. I have never claimed others should not be charged with crimes or serve their punishment so that argument does not work for me.
avebury
(10,952 posts)in numerous places around the world, have had no problem holding (in some cases innocent people) in black sites and Guantanamo Bay, use torture as the norm - why on earth would anybody in the situation of Snowden (or a whistle blower) stick around to go through the legal system? First of all they might not actually face the legal system (there are black sites) and if they do the US legal system is hardly a fare and balanced system. Look at how many Government officials who have committed crime with no consequence. Look at how many actual whistle blowers who tried to go through the system to report wrongdoings cannot find anybody in the system to listen to him/her and they are the people who are forced to go public and get prosecuted for it.
I would rather have people shine the light on the dirty little deeds and get it made public because that is the only chance of achieving change. You cannot trust the system to police itself for the good of the people. Because the wrong doers who have enough connections can do as they please, whistleblowers, not so much.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)2008? The dirty little deed he chose to shine a light on was himself, and he did this in 2013. You think his reasoning was sane?
George II
(67,782 posts)....he didn't run away from his responsibilities.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Ask Binney, Drake, Kiriakou etc if running might have been a better option than exposing government malfeasance....
Manning's treatment alone would be enough reason to run
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)If you think it is too long don't consider doing the crime. I don't feel sorry for those who have committed the crimes.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)There are no crimes here - they're exposures of government malfeasance. Like Ellsburg.
WTF?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[4] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of confidential documents ever leaked to the public. Manning was sentenced in August 2013 to 35 years' imprisonment, with the possibility of parole in the eighth year, and to be dishonorably discharged from the Army.
The crime was espionage, releasing confidential documents, not whistle blower.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I don't agree he should have committed the crime but not it is time to do the time.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...it wasn't done for profit or some subversive act to undermine or harm US security.
It's gratuitous to cite the government's charges to describe what he did. We can all see that he intended to reveal instances where our government acted illegally or inappropriately. Casting that as 'espionage' and calling Petraeus' actions little more than misguided is elevating his opportunistic dalliance over what was, essentially, a patriotic act by Manning.
Daniel Ellsberg:
... the current state of whistleblowing prosecutions under the Espionage Act makes a truly fair trial wholly unavailable to an American who has exposed classified wrongdoing. Legal scholars have strongly argued that the US supreme court – which has never yet addressed the constitutionality of applying the Espionage Act to leaks to the American public – should find the use of it overbroad and unconstitutional in the absence of a public interest defense. The Espionage Act, as applied to whistleblowers, violates the First Amendment, is what they're saying.
We saw this entire scenario play out last summer in the trial of Chelsea Manning. The military judge in that case did not let Manning or her lawyer argue her intent, the lack of damage to the US, overclassification of the cables or the benefits of the leaks ... until she was already found guilty.
Without reform to the Espionage Act that lets a court hear a public interest defense – or a challenge to the appropriateness of government secrecy in each particular case –
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)need lawyers anymore, we could empty the prisons and jails, just claim whistle blower, it negates all crimes.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...basically, an essential element in the disinformation which accompanied her prosecution and enables the government to posture as if they've thwarted some dangerous criminal; instead of doing little more than covering their corrupt, criminal, and immoral asses and attempting to discourage others from revealing truths about what our government is actually up to.
Interesting that none of the crimes, abuses, or ethical lapses revealed in the documents appear to have been followed up by the government for prosecution or redress; nor have they been the subject of any of the handwringing and finger-pointing of critics of Manning.
randome
(34,845 posts)You mean the video of soldiers requesting permission to fire? Granted, it was a horrible situation but...um, war is a horrible situation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...as the Nuremberg Tribunal put it, "the supreme international crime differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Bush ordering warrantless surveillance of Americans' domestic communications without involving the courts; violating constitutional and statutory law.
Bush's torture regime violating international law and the domestic 'convention against torture' signed by Ronald Reagan stating "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever... may be invoked as a justification of torture."
Sickening to see you defend the war crimes highlighted on the 'Collateral Murder' video which outlines the slaughter of civilians in Iraq, including journalists and rescuers.
caption for the video:
It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well.
an account from The Guardian:
"A video showing a US helicopter crew laughing as they launched an air strike killing a dozen people in Baghdad in July 2007, including a photographer and driver working for the Reuters news agency. The footage was recorded on one of two Apache helicopters which were hunting for suspected insurgents. They encounter a group of men on the ground, who do not immediately appear armed, and there is no sign of gunshots. But one helicopter crew opens fire, with shouts of "Hahaha. I hit 'em," and "Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards". As the wounded are helped, one of the helicopters opens fire again, with armour-piercing shells.
from Huffpost:
One State Department cable revealed to the world for the first time that U.S. special operations forces raided a house in Iraq in 2006 and summarily executed one man, four women, two children, and three infants -- all shot in the head. Although Phillip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, brought the incident to the attention of then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Bush administration failed to respond.
Manning's leaks also revealed the fact that the Obama administration colluded with the Yemeni dictatorship of Ali Abdullah Saleh to execute a secret war without the consent of Congress and systematically lie about it. Yet Manning, who blew the whistle on this criminality, is the only one facing legal prosecution.
more...
During the Iraq War, U.S. authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape, and murder by Iraqi police and soldiers, according to thousands of field reports.
There were 109,032 “violent deaths” recorded in Iraq between 2004 and 2009, including 66,081 civilians. Leaked records from the Afghan War separately revealed coalition troops’ alleged role in killing at least 195 civilians in unreported incidents, one reportedly involving U.S. service members machine-gunning a bus, wounding or killing 15 passengers.
The U.S. Embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country that opposed genetically modified crops, with U.S. diplomats effectively working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto.
British and American officials colluded in a plan to mislead the British Parliament over a proposed ban on cluster bombs.
U.S. special operations forces were conducting offensive operations inside Pakistan despite sustained public denials and statements to the contrary by U.S. officials.
A leaked diplomatic cable provided evidence that during an incident in 2006, U.S. troops in Iraq executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence. The disclosure of this cable was later a significant factor in the Iraqi government’s refusal to grant U.S. troops immunity from prosecution beyond 2011, which led to U.S. troops withdrawing from the country.
A NATO coalition in Afghanistan was using an undisclosed “black” unit of special operations forces to hunt down targets for death or detention without trial. The unit was revealed to have had a kill-or-capture list featuring details of more than 2,000 senior figures from the Taliban and al-Qaida, but it had in some cases mistakenly killed men, women, children, and Afghan police officers.
The U.S. threatened the Italian government in an attempt to influence a court case involving the indictment of CIA agents over the kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric. Separately, U.S. officials were revealed to have pressured Spanish prosecutors to dissuade them from investigating U.S. torture allegations, secret “extraordinary rendition” flights, and the killing of a Spanish journalist by U.S. troops in Iraq.
In apparent violation of a 1946 U.N. convention, Washington initiated a spying campaign in 2009 that targeted the leadership of the U.N. by seeking to gather top officials’ private encryption keys, credit card details, and biometric data...
more...
randome
(34,845 posts)As for the others, why didn't Manning bring them to anyone's attention? All he did was hand over as much as he could get away with to Wikileaks and hope something would stick to the wall and exonerate him.
And there is no 'secret war' under the current Congress when they give the President virtually unlimited power to pursue terrorists.
The execution incident in Iraq is, I agree, troubling. So why didn't anything come of it? Probably because Bush and Rice didn't give a damn. What would come of it now? Tracking down the soldiers and putting them on trial? I guess that would be a possibility but it takes someone to keep pushing this, not let it languish like it has.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...I don't know who its intended to appeal to, but you'll get nowhere with people who actually care about the humanity involved, accountability in our government and military, and the upholding of the rule of law.
You throw your hands up and claim nothing could or should be done...go dilly-dally on some other thread then and leave this discussion for people who give a damn.
randome
(34,845 posts)The first two, there is nothing illegal with firing rockets on suspected insurgents. There is nothing illegal with pursuing terrorists in other countries, thanks to Congress.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...maybe this human rights thing isn't your bag.
randome
(34,845 posts)We had no business being in Iraq in the first place, much less imposing curfews, but that was the situation. No soldier should be prosecuted for doing his/her job when that job was to shoot at anyone violating curfew.
It's heart-rending, it's inhumane but it wasn't illegal in a time a war. If Manning had any sense as a soldier, she would have understood that.
The executions, as I said, are less defensible but Manning didn't even know that was in her release so she still deserves to be sentenced. (Although not for 35 years.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...and Manning insists she read the cables. At any rate, she wasn't allowed any reasonable defense of that point in her trial, given that the cables weren't allowed to be presented as evidence because of their classified nature, and that intent isn't allowed as a defense in prosecution of the espionage act.
Her opening statement at her pretrial hearing gives a clearer picture of what she was collecting from the databases and her understanding of the content...
excerpt:
On several occasions during the month of March, I accessed information from a Government entity. I read several documents from a section within this Government entity. The content of two of these documents upset me greatly. I had difficulty believing what this section was doing...
I read more of the diplomatic cables published on the Department of State Net Centric Diplomacy. With my insatiable curiosity and interest in geopolitics I became fascinated with them. I read not only the cables on Iraq, but also about countries and events that I found interesting.
The more I read, the more I was fascinated with the way that we dealt with other nations and organizations. I also began to think the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity that didn't seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world.
Up to this point,during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general...
The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.
I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.
I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations.
In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip...
full statement: http://www.ibtimes.com/bradley-manning-news-transcript-soldiers-personal-statement-pretrial-hearing-1109173
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... he had selected specific pieces of information that were clear indicators of some crime.
What he did instead was blast everything he could lay his hands on. This included diplomatic cables, the mean by which diplomats and embassies communicate.
In doing so, he actually made the security of the world a little bit worse because if diplomats don't think they can talk freely then their governments move onto force that much faster.
He actually released so much that it was physically impossible for him to have read it all. That's a big part of the 35 year sentence.
One doesn't get to claim whistleblower status just because they happen to have blown their security clearance out of the water. There are requirements to be met and Manning didn't.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...which doesn't give her the opportunity for a defense about content or intent, so it's disingenuous for you to claim she didn't know what was in the cables (or the government for prosecuting her for not knowing) when she wasn't even allowed to review and present them as evidence in her defense.
from Democracy Now:
Manning acknowledged he gave the classified documents to WikiLeaks and explained what he wanted people to learn from his revelation...
BRADLEY MANNING: I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan were targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure-cooker environment of what we call "asymmetric warfare."
...Manning wasn't just some uneducated grunt handing over info that she had no way of discerning. She was an advanced system analyst. Her opening statement at her pretrial hearing gives a clearer picture of what she was collecting from the databases.
excerpt:
On several occasions during the month of March, I accessed information from a Government entity. I read several documents from a section within this Government entity. The content of two of these documents upset me greatly. I had difficulty believing what this section was doing...
I read more of the diplomatic cables published on the Department of State Net Centric Diplomacy. With my insatiable curiosity and interest in geopolitics I became fascinated with them. I read not only the cables on Iraq, but also about countries and events that I found interesting.
The more I read, the more I was fascinated with the way that we dealt with other nations and organizations. I also began to think the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity that didn't seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world.
Up to this point,during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general...
The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.
I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.
I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations.
In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip...
full statement: http://www.ibtimes.com/bradley-manning-news-transcript-soldiers-personal-statement-pretrial-hearing-1109173
Oktober
(1,488 posts)bigtree
(85,986 posts)...but that point wasn't open to defense in her trial, so, as I said, it's disingenuous to claim that.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Are you claiming that Manning read nearly 500,000 documents?
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...or something which discredits her defense.
You don't have proof of your claims; just speculation which is a slippery slope to a smear.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Do you know how much 500,000 multipage reports adds up to?
There is no 'if' or 'maybe'... It is physically impossible...
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...Manning was acquitted of 'aiding the enemy' and conviction under the Espionage Act doesn't make a bearing on intent.
At any rate, she had enough knowledge of the nature of the files to know whether they had the potential of containing sensitive or classified information. Furthermore, there's no evidence that a single US soldier or civilian has been harmed as a result of her leaks.
your point is even more obtuse:
"...he actually made the security of the world a little bit worse because if diplomats don't think they can talk freely then their governments move onto force that much faster."
...proof, or just speculation?
Oktober
(1,488 posts).... with a mass dump of information just because maybe there is something that might be in there?
He was a bad Soldier who lashed out at the organization that he had failed so spectacularly at and now is paying the price. Didn't even have the ethical fortitude to be an actual whistleblower...
bigtree
(85,986 posts)MANNING:
"I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan were targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure-cooker environment of what we call "asymmetric warfare."
You call Manning a 'bad soldier,' without presenting any proof of that, at all. Disillusioned, frustrated with her job, perhaps a fair reflection of her own words - but 'bad soldier' is nothing more than a judgment you've made; an unfair and callous one, I think. Judgments about 'ethical fortitude' are better reserved for those who have actual power over the decisions, policies, and events highlighted in their conversations which were revealed. It's always interesting to me how little, if any, conversation, focus, or heed is given to those revelations by critics of Manning and others revealing abuses, crimes, and ethical misdeeds committed by our government.
As for whether she was a 'whistleblower,' I prefer the judgment of another famous whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg...
The Freedom of the Press Foundation, an organization that I co-founded and of which I'm on the board, has published an audio recording of Bradley Manning's speech to a military court from two weeks ago, in which he gives his reasons and motivations behind leaking over 700,000 government documents to WikiLeaks.
Whoever made this recording, and I don't know who the person is, has done the American public a great service. This marks the first time the American public can hear Bradley Manning, in his own voice explain what he did and how he did it.
After listening to this recording and reading his testimony, I believe Bradley Manning is the personification of the word whistleblower...
Critics have alleged that a major difference between my case and Manning's is that I was discriminating in what I leaked, while Manning wasn't. He just dumped some material that doesn't need to be out, they say. This is simply false.
First, it's important to point out most of the material he put out was unclassified. The rest was classified 'secret,' which is relatively low level. All of the Pentagon Papers was classified top secret.
But in a fact no one seems to observe from his statement, Manning was working within a "SCIF," which stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. To get into a SCIF, a soldier needs a clearance higher than top secret. This means he had access to the highest classified material, such as communications and signals intelligence. This means he could've put out information top secret and higher, and purposely chose not to do so...
read Manning's statement: http://www.ibtimes.com/bradley-manning-news-transcript-soldiers-personal-statement-pretrial-hearing-1109173
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Do you consider punching his superior NCO (a woman by the way) to be the hallmark of a good Soldier?
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...I realize that you believe attacking her character discredits her efforts. Perhaps, in some minds, but not in my own - not in many others whose judgment I respect and admire.
I believe Chelsea Manning is a good American, a good citizen, and a good person. That's more important to me.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)I totally understand...
Facts and logical explanations about why Manning's actions don't fall under the category of whistleblower or reminders that it's more likely that this was the attempt by a disgruntled Soldier to get back at the Army are uncomfortable...
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...ignoring her own words and rationale for her actions is essential in perpetuating the myth of a vengeful soldier, and essential in denying the service she did for the nation - all that obfuscation and distortion, I suppose, to divert from all of the important revelations of crimes, abuses, and ethical misdeeds you and the government refuse to acknowledge or discuss.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Everything I've referenced is clearly sourced and easily referenced...
Your belief that 'it's all for some greater good' remains to be proven in any significant way...
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...there's a very clear reflection of the government's case in your view.
Your view that she "actually made the security of the world a little bit worse" is even less apparent or proven in any way.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)claim nothing else they have to say has much credibility.
So once again, the facts. Due to the persecution of Whistle Blowers in this country, and despite those risks, Whistle Blowers continue to expose corruption and crimes against the US Constitution.
Whistle Blowers from countries where they are being persecuted, have traditionally sought Polititical Asylum in other countries.
That has now become necessary in this country and Snowden won't be the last US Citizen who cares enough about his country to risk having to live elsewhere to expose the threats against its Constitution.
He sought political Asylum in Equador and his request was granted.
Seeing what happens to sympathetic leaders and other friends of Whistle Blowers IF they fly over our Imperial Colonial Allied nations, he chose a route that would be safest from that kind of threat.
Stop overs on his way to S. America included Hong Kong and Moscow Airport. Hong Kong refused US demands to hand him over and he headed for what would have been his next stop over, Moscow Airport.
The US Government rescinded his passport before he could take his next flight OUT OF MOSCOW, stranding him in Russia. Without the interference of the US Govt, he would have reached his destination in S. America.
IF you want to defe defend the brutal treatment of Whistle Blowers in this country, then at least stick to the facts.
randome
(34,845 posts)...be unable to land a gig there and then take a plane to Russia as the U.S. was revoking his passport. The U.S. did not 'interfere' with him, they did what any self-respecting government would do when someone steals national security documents and flees the country. You call that 'interfering' with him? When no one at the time had any idea how many documents he had stolen?
I guess he didn't really 'flee the country', either, right?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)he and his advisers chose a route safer for Whistle Blowers than flying over Western Allies of the US. The reason for that was the disgraceful treatment of Bolivia's President, Glenn Greenwald's Partner, among others who were harassed and illegally detained for no reason other than an attempt to scare Whistle Blowers.
The route he took included stopovers in Hong Kong and Moscow airports.
After the US request to Hong Kong to hand him over was refused, he was allowed to continue to his next stopover, Moscow Airport.
The US Govt rescinded his passport stranding him in Moscow Airport.
Your Conspiracy Theory, I see you've switched from Russia to China, first put forth by Republican Rep. Rogers, has been challenged even by the normally complicit MSM.
Rogers hasn't provided the 'proof' requested of him for HIS Conspiracy Theory and appears to have gone silent on the issue.
Republicans are notorious for making stuff up, but at least that one time, Rogers didn't get away with it.
You should stick to facts. They are easier to remember. Jumping from one CT to another doesn't create a whole lot of credibility.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Snowden pulled his caper in 2013. He does not have any creditability. Anyone who says Snowden is a whistle blower does not present creditability. Now you may base this on what you have read but you also know working for the NSA a person is excluded from the Whistle Blower ACT. If one does not want to do the time for the crime, then don't do the crime. I worked under the Espionage law for years, I respected the law, I knew how to handle situations without running to the press. I have never been charged under the Espionage law, why, because I did not commit the crime. I knew what the sentence would be in case I decided to commit espionage mostly because I respected the confidence place in me.
Now you should stick to the facts, I know you think he is innocent and running and refusing to return the US to face justice but I am sticking to the facts.
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #150)
bigtree This message was self-deleted by its author.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...you've gone off the deep end.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)You replied. Perhaps you should locate others who might be off in the deep end.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)you:
"Anyone who says Snowden is a whistle blower does not present creditability."
I don't care who you think you were talking to, you're spouting cheap pablum in your attempt to discredit Snowden as a whistleblower. Your posts in this thread are pedantic and betray a complete disregard for the issues behind the revelations.
Take some time to read what a person who most people recognize as a whistleblower has to say about Snowden...
Daniel Ellsberg:
In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden’s release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden’s whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an “executive coup” against the US constitution.
Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.
In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:“I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”
The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America’s intelligence gathering capability – which is today beyond any comparison with what existed in his pre-digital era – “at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left.”
That has now happened. That is what Snowden has exposed, with official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former “democratic republic” of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of. Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.
...with Edward Snowden having put his life on the line to get this information out, quite possibly inspiring others with similar knowledge, conscience and patriotism to show comparable civil courage – in the public, in Congress, in the executive branch itself –
more...
....there’s no question in my mind that he is a whistle-blower in the best, complete sense. And he left the country and he did it for good reason.
In my case, as I said, there was a different country 40 years ago, where I was able to speak for so long. The things that were done against me, which included trying to “incapacitate me totally” at the orders of the White House, in other words, assault me or kill me, those were illegal then. And in fact they faced President Nixon with impeachment proceedings and led to his resignation. That’s very different. All the things that were done to me then including CIA profile on me, a burglary of my former psychiatrist’s office in order to get information to blackmail me with, all of those things were illegal, as one might think that they ought to be. They’re legal now, since 9/11, with the Patriot Act, which on that very basis alone should be repealed. In other words, this is a case right now with Snowden that shows very dramatically the dangers of that Patriot Act used as it is. So the fact is that all these things are legal. And even the one of possibly eliminating him.
more...
I definitely have a new hero in Edward Snowden, the first one since Bradley Manning, and I’m glad it didn’t take another 40 years. People who respect or admire what I did, they may not realize it right now, but before this is over, they’ll recognize that he deserves great admiration. And people who hate what I did, can hate.
...babbling on this thread like a government mouthpiece makes you look foolish alongside men like Daniel Ellsberg. You've lost all credibility here, despite insisting that Snowden has none.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)bigtree
(85,986 posts)...it's not working.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Facts are those who works in security such as NSA are exempt from the Whistle Blower Protection Act.
Fact: He released some information which was known in 2006, law enacted on in 2008 and he went running off at the mouth in 2013.
If you do not like dissembling then stop trying to disguise his crimes with personal feelings, it does not change the fact Snowden is still wanted on warrants for espionage and theft. BTW, his passport was revoked because of the charges, this is a fact.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...it's certainly a desire and a goal to have government allow more leeway under the espionage act to allow for a defense on intent, but the present government is far too defensive and determined to punish whistleblowers; defining these actions as some dangerous breach of national security. Most criminal acts (other than prosecutions under the espionage act), up to murder, allow for consideration of intent, so it's bullshit to try and ridicule because someone may 'feel' that Snowden deserves the same consideration that government insiders have received; insiders like Petraeus, Panetta, Libby and others who've been granted reprieves for their criminal acts based on consideration of their intent.
Most of us can see that their punitive reactions to the crimes, abuses, and ethical misdeeds revealed in the disclosures amounts to retribution for their embarrassment and a defiance against addressing their own transgressions. It may well disturb you to find that most Americans view Snowden as a whistleblower, including great men like Daniel Ellsberg. You'll just have to live with being a lesser person with no apparent regard for the issues behind the revelations.
You'll have to live with all of your dissembling and disinformation - one irrelevance piled onto another - in a weak attempt to deny what many outstanding Americans agree on: That Edward Snowden is a patriot and a hero for his actions. I know that hurts. Too bad.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I can live with the truth, I do not have to redefine a crime, I know lots of very outstanding Americans who see Snowden charged with espionage and theft, who left the US to avoid facing justice, who refuses to return to face justice.
On most Americans viewing Snowden as a whistleblower under the Whistleblower Act, need more than your word on this. Your declaration is not sufficient. Give me a valid link on this.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...fuck the present whistleblower act (an unjust law).
my quote (not what you said):
"Most of us don't require a government act to define who we feel are whistleblowers"
Word.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)So who you mean by 'Snowden has no credibility' is anyone's guess.
No Whistle Blower from now on will do what Drake and Binney did, seek protection under the law. They did everything according to the book, AND HAD THEIR LIVES DESTROYED. Both are viewed now as heroes, and both support Snowden NOT doing what they did, because our government can no longer be trusted.
He did exactly the right thing. The goal of Whistle Blowers is to expose corruption and law breaking to the PEOPLE.
By remaining free he, rather than subject himself to what Chelsea Manning and all the other Whistle Blowers went through, torture and wrongful imprisonment for exposing TORTURE and WAR CRIMES, the people now have the information they have a right to have. The fact that their government is unconstitutionally spying on them.
Snowden, and Whislte Blowing in general, has major support from everyone who matters.
Cheney and his minions are OUTRAGED since it is their policies he exposed.
Why any Democrat would oppose the exposure of Bush/Cheney illegal policies which afairc, Democrats VEHEMENTLY opposed during their administration, is beyond me.
As for NSA employees not being covered under the Whistle Blower Protection Laws, where did you get that from? Drake was with the NSA and WAS covered, though all his rights were violated anyhow.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)from Whistle Blower Protection. This is a fact. I have ask for a believable link on "most Americans view Snowden as a Whistle Blower" but the information did not arrive. Whether you believe he is a whistleblower he WILL NOT receive protection under the act.
Was this incident done in order to bring attention to the fact security employees are exempt from the Whistleblower Act? We already knew about the collection of data, you know there was a law passed in 2008 correcting some of the events which was not occurring as they should. Why in the hell did he wait until 2013 to "reveal", this gives shaky ground to Snowden's defense of breaking a law which has been on the books for years.
I knew for a while employees in security agencies are exempt:
Whistleblower protection laws and regulations guarantee freedom of speech for workers and contractors in certain situations. Laws, like the Ethics in Government Act, cannot be enforced if the free speech of individuals that report workplace corruption or crime is not protected. The difficulty with the free speech rights of whistleblowers, particularly those in national defense, is that work-related reports associated with classified information can have a negative impact on national security and the public debt. The Supreme Court has limited the constitutional protections guaranteed to Americans under the aegis of the First Amendment in the areas of national defense and government employment.
Civilian employees and military personnel in the intelligence gathering and assessment field are required to sign non-disclosure agreements, a practice upheld by the Supreme Court in Snepp v. United States. The High Court ruled that secrecy agreements circumscribing an individual's disclosure of classified information did not violate their First Amendment rights. Non-disclosure agreements signed by employees create similar conflicts in private business.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...yet you keep coming back, as if you're obtuse or lacking any reading comprehension, with this arcane, authoritarian law which is little more than window dressing for the government's need to show they respect the fourth amendment while they zealously guard their embarrassing and corrupt secrets under the guise of 'national security.'
You keep pointing to this flawed whisleblower law as if there's some supreme logic or imperative for Americans to define whisleblowing by how their government defines it. Most Americans, including prominent whisleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg, believe that Snowden is a prime and relevant example of 'whistleblowing,' no matter whether the corruptly secretive government (or your own co-opting view) agrees with that characterization.
We can all see from you posts that you fall right in line with the government on this issue. It's a fawning and sickening display, but that's certainly your right to define whistleblowing under the strict and self-serving terms of the flawed act.
What the poster is expressing, however, is how most Americans regard the term; that most Americans who are concerned with holding our government accountable regard Edward Snowden as a classic whistleblower; not a spy, a felon, or a threat to national security as defined under the espionage act. That's also our right; to dissent from flawed legislation which enables criminal and unethical behavior to flourish without accountability and justice.
Asked whether Snowden is more of a whistleblower or more of a traitor, those polled split 55 percent to 34 percent for whistleblower, according to a Quinnipiac survey...if you can find something which says differently, then YOU post it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Is the reason why facts are distorted and now posters has a right to express their opinion. That one doesn't fly, I am not the one with reading comprehension. Poster should state "this is my opinion" rather than accusing others of having reading comprehension. If the plan was to "expose laws mot to one's liking, why it required commission of crimes then expect those people to be charged with those crimes.
Don't downplay my posting the facts when the facts are distorted and now it becomes an opinion.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)again. I have concluded that anyone who is genuinely interested in the facts, already has the information. Thanks for posting the link anyhow.
You are right on with your comments on the 'new' definitions of just about everything, and what is stunning to me is how DU at one time did not fall for the Bush protection acts, eg, the Fisa Bill Amendment.
We elected Dems to set all this straight, instead we now see defenses of what we elected them to FIX on DU.
It's disturbing beyond belief.
Great post and thank you for relentlessly countering the propaganda. 
malaise
(268,913 posts)Rec
randome
(34,845 posts)The guy who didn't know PRISM was a secure FTP server. The guy who said he could read the President's email if he wanted. The guy who said he "saw things" but won't ever say what that means.
Make him an adviser to Scott Walker to put the final nail in that fucker's coffin.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
malaise
(268,913 posts)Figure that out.
randome
(34,845 posts)We don't need more idiots in the tent.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I can't figure out HOW these guys keep Failing Upwards.
BTW: I am DELIGHTED that the Move On Add in the NY Times calling him "Betrayus",
that got Move On "officially sanctioned" by the Democratic Party
turned out to be literally TRUE!!!
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Maybe Petraeus should advise Scott Walker.
randome
(34,845 posts)I hope there's a good reason for that but I don't see any.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Why would he want to return, even if he got the same deal.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 18, 2015, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"Snowden gave classified info to the American people. "
If that was all there was to it I might, possibly, agree.
But he leaked sensitive data on legitimate NSA intelligence activities to the Chinese. And he did it for no better reason than to get on their good side so they'd hopefully cover his own ass. Even Greenwald admits he did it.
Sorry, no excuses, no appeal to patriotism, no "oh he's such a noble whistleblower" excuses cover that shit. He belongs in a cell.
Petraeus got off far too easy, but that is not an argument for letting Snowden off even easier. His crime was greater and it was committed knowingly and deliberately.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...without those leaks, the American people would know NOTHING about the spying abuses and the scope and reach of NSA snooping and phone metadata collection which involved millions of innocent citizens.
Reforms offered in response to the revelations by President Obama (albeit, tepid and weak), and efforts in Congress to eliminate funding for the phone surveillance programs makes a lie out of the notion that Snowden's 'crimes' were more consequential or damaging than Petraeus'. Snowden's performed a service to the nation with his leaks, much like Ellsberg did in the '70's with his leaks of the Pentagon Papers.
Complaining about revelations which were advantaged by countries like China is laughable and sad when we consider our own government's response to Snowden's efforts; Kafkaesque to the extreme and more in line with the way communist regimes treat their citizens that our democracy should operate.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)But he DIDN'T leave it at that.
And you don't just get to declare that something you like came out of this one thing he did so we should just ignore this other thing he did that was a truly massive crime and betrayal for which he deserves to rot in a cell.
He released specific information that was of interest only to the Chinese, to the Chinese, ON PURPOSE, to get them on his side.
That makes him a traitor. Period.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...generalizations like yours to what harm he supposedly did and outright indifference and omission of the impetus to reform that his revelations sparked in America.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Straight from Grreenwald's mouth. He handed over data on specific IP addresses in China being targeted by the NSA in order to ingratiate himself with the Chinese. He sold out sensitive national security information to a foreign power for his own gain.
There is no "generalization" involved here. That's what he did. And you could put that in the dictionary next to the word "betrayal" as an illustrating example of the concept.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...pablum
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)That's the freaking harm done. You can't possibly not comprehend that, so I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid dealing with a reality you find uncomfortable.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)What the hell else do you need? Greenwald and Snowden don't deny he did it. You do realize that right? Or is your head buried *that* deep in the sand?
bigtree
(85,986 posts)by Glenn Greenwald
SA whistleblower Edward Snowden, in an interview on Saturday and then again Tuesday afternoon, vehemently denied media claims that he gave classified information to the governments of China or Russia. He also denied assertions that one or both governments had succeeded in "draining the contents of his laptops". "I never gave any information to either government, and they never took anything from my laptops," he said.
The extraordinary claim that China had drained the contents of Snowden's laptops first appeared in the New York Times in a June 24 article. The paper published the claim with no evidence and without any attribution to any identified sources.
In lieu of any evidence, the NYT circulated this obviously significant assertion by quoting what it called "two Western intelligence experts" who "worked for major government spy agencies". Those "experts" were not identified. The article then stated that these experts "said they believed that the Chinese government had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong" (emphasis added).
So that's how this "China-drained-his-laptops" claim was created: by the New York Times citing two anonymous sources saying they "believed" this happened. From there, it predictably spread everywhere as truth.
Shortly thereafter, the New Yorker – under the headline "Why China Let Snowden Go" - told its readers: "His usefulness was almost exhausted. Intelligence experts cited by the Times believed that the Chinese government 'had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong, and that he said were with him during his stay at a Hong Kong hotel.'" It was then repeatedly cited to demonize Snowden in venues such as DC gossip sheets, right-wing outlets, and diaries at Democratic Party sites.
But there was never any evidence that this was true. The NYT decided to publish this incendiary claim in a news article based purely on rank speculation from two anonymous sources.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/snowden-denies-information-russia-china
...now, whose head is buried where?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)He's playing word games. He never handed it to some government official or something, no. He released it in the fucking South China Morning Post instead. Which of course is a distinction that isn't one.
Which makes denying that it happened pretty fucking pointless doesn't it?
And here's Greenwald flat out point blank saying what he did and why he did it:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html
Greenwald said he would not have published some of the stories that ran in the South China Morning Post. “Whether I would have disclosed the specific IP addresses in China and Hong Kong the NSA is hacking, I don’t think I would have,” Greenwald said. “What motivated that leak though was a need to ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China.”
Bolded section 1? The criminal betrayal.
Bolded section 2? The selfish motivation for it.
It's not a matter of rational debate. He did it. Period.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...I'm at a loss as to where our national security was compromised or harmed by that.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)He told them the points the NSA had penetrated their networks.
We're not talking about hacking some kids e-mail in Hong Kong to find out what he got on his math test, you do realize that right? We're talking about the sources of a large percentage of the hostile intrusions into sensitive US networks. Defense contractor breaches. Etc.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...to get all exercised about China's actions when our own government was doing the exact same thing, predating the Chinese program.
from "Inside the NSA's Ultra-Secret China Hacking Group."
A highly secretive unit of the National Security Agency (NSA) ... called the Office of Tailored Access Operations, or TAO, has successfully penetrated Chinese computer and telecommunications systems for almost 15 years, generating some of the best and most reliable intelligence information about what is going on inside the People's Republic of China.
TAO mirrors China's methods by first hacking into computer networks, then protecting themselves from being identified, and finally copying ALL communications and files from within that network.
If that sounds familiar, its because the process nearly matches the description Mandiant — the company that caught Chinese hackers red-handed — gave to explain the method the PLA uses to steal American information.
Except America's system pre-dates that of China...
It's not just China in the mix either — it's Israel, Singapore, Japan, Switzerland, the U.K. and others, British intelligence analyst Glenmore Trenear-Harvey told InfoSec.com.
"This is not just conventional military powers. Put bluntly, everyone’s at it. It is a game anyone can play. But do remember that we – the U.S. and UK – are doing this in reverse and we are very successful," said Trenear-Harvey.
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-nsa-unit-tao-hacking-china-for-years-2013-6
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Seriously, is this some kind of performance art piece you're putting on? Yes, the US spies on China and China spies on the US.
Which changes not one iota the fact that Snowden helping China defeat US intelligence efforts is betraying the US.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...but you inflate Snowden's revelations as some major betrayal. You've not provided one piece of evidence that 'Snowden's helping China defeat US intelligence efforts,' just hyper-inflated rhetoric designed to cast him as a traitor.
And you call my posts 'performance art.' Your own are reflective of all of the sly misinformation on Snowden put out by our government, embarrassed by revelations of their own abuses and crimes. You studiously avoid discussing those - inflating info Snowden revealed of what the US is doing - claiming to be unsurprised by it, in one instance, then outraged about revelations about it in another.
NSA cyber spying on China not a surprise, but it's not ho-hum, either
___Snowden said the documents reveal the agency has been hacking computers in mainland China and Hong Kong since 2009. They show, he said, specific dates and IP addresses of computers in Hong Kong and on mainland China hacked by the NSA over a four-year period – all civilian computers that show no sign of being affiliated with Chinese military systems.
"I don't know what specific information they were looking for on these machines, only that using technical exploits to gain unauthorized access to civilian machines is a violation of law. It's ethically dubious," Snowden said in the South China Morning Post interview published Friday.
Snowden also claimed that the NSA has conducted more than 61,000 hacking operations worldwide, according to Wednesday editions of the South China Morning Post. He disclosed the information, he said, to show “the hypocrisy of the US government when it claims that it does not target civilian infrastructure, unlike its adversaries.”
"The primary issue of public importance to Hong Kong and mainland China should be that the NSA is illegally seizing the communications of tens of millions of individuals without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing," Snowden elaborated in the Morning Post interview that appeared Friday online. "They simply steal everything so they can search for any topics of interest."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2013/0614/NSA-cyber-spying-on-China-not-a-surprise-but-it-s-not-ho-hum-either-video
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You do know what intelligence agencies exist for right? You cannot possibly pretend it is some kind of revelation that nations conduct intelligence operations directed at other nations.
And you also cannot possibly pretend that you don't comprehend the fact that when the citizen of one country aids a DIFFERENT country in defeating either the intelligence or counter-intelligence operations conducted by their own country they have a word for that person. and that word is not "patriot" or "whistleblower".
And as for "civilian infrastructure" showing no signs of being "affiliated with Chinese military systems". Yeah... you do understand that when there are malicious intrusions into sensitive US systems from China they tend to NOT come from computers officially affiliated with their freaking military right? Because that would be... what's the word..... FUCKING IDIOTIC.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You're the big man with all the answers. Let's see what you've got.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)This is a matter of public record. Denying it happened is ridiculous.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)from the article:
Greenwald said he would not have published some of the stories that ran in the South China Morning Post. “Whether I would have disclosed the specific IP addresses in China and Hong Kong the NSA is hacking, I don’t think I would have,” Greenwald said. “What motivated that leak though was a need to ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China.”
However, Greenwald said that in his dealings with Snowden the 30-year-old systems administrator was adamant that he and his newspaper go through the document and only publish what served the public’s right to know. “Snowden himself was vehement from the start that we do engage in that journalistic process and we not gratuitously publish things,” Greenwald said. “I do know he was vehement about that. He was not trying to harm the U.S. government; he was trying to shine light on it.”
Greenwald said Snowden for example did not wish to publicize information that gave the technical specifications or blueprints for how the NSA constructed its eavesdropping network. “He is worried that would enable other states to enhance their security systems and monitor their own citizens.” Greenwald also said Snowden did not wish to repeat the kinds of disclosures made famous a generation ago by former CIA spy, Philip Agee—who published information after defecting to Cuba that outed undercover CIA officers. “He was very insistent he does not want to publish documents to harm individuals or blow anyone’s undercover status,” Greenwald said. He added that Snowden told him, “Leaking CIA documents can actually harm people, whereas leaking NSA documents can harm systems.”
Greenwald also said his newspaper had no plans to publish the technical specifications of NSA systems. “I do not want to help other states get better at surveillance,” Greenwald said. He added, “We won’t publish things that might ruin ongoing operations from the U.S. government that very few people would object to the United States doing.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The release of the specific IP addresses is a matter of public record, and Greenwald gave up why Snowden did it.
There's no arguing the facts here. It happened.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...and your description of it is a good measure of the rest of your disinformation.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)i understood you to say that he had given the IP's to the Chinese government. After you posted the link, I went back and saw that no, you never said the Chinese government, just the Chinese. So I was wrong and you were right. Obviously, the Chinese government had that information as soon as Snowden gave it to the local press. Anyway, I was wrong in my assumption about your claim.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....to his squeeze? What do you suppose she did with that info?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Snowden is a hero to some of these posters.
The truth doesn't matter to them as long as they can cheer for Snowden.
Much like the cheerleaders for Hillary.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And besides, other people read this stuff. 
Logical
(22,457 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Just said Snowden's was, and it was more serious than Petraeus's.
Leak to girlfriend bad.
Leak to not exactly friendly foreign power known to be responsible for large percentage of hostile intrusions into US networks WORSE.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Comrade Snowden hadn't taken all his secrets to Putin and skipped the country......
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...so the weak attempt to discredit Snowden by highlighting his flight to freedom is lost on those Americans who expect better from our democracy.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)would this be a better answer?
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...that's absurd.
But you know that.
Snowden should receive the same deal that the govt. insiders get; the same sweetheart deal that Petraeus got.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)bigtree
(85,986 posts)...designed to appeal to who?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)bigtree
(85,986 posts)...of being imprisoned for dozens of years and tortured, like Chelsea Manning.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)guess what I did not commit espionage, it was a choice, Snowden made the choice to commit espionage, should I have to do his time or would you agree to do his time? So the answer to your question I was at risk of being imprisoned. Sometimes you have to make better decisions.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)
You continue with the red baiting. Why?
It's childish and makes you sound like an out of touch neocon.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)That's my take anyway.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)you really want to open the "childish, out of touch" can of worms.....?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)So you address your 'friends' with a pejorative? Nice.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)But Petraeus actually presented himself to the court for prosecution. Snowden is a fugitive from justice. He should receive no guarantees until he presents himself to the court.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)instead of the mooks representing him now...
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)They aren't any closer to one than when this whole sideshow began...And their negotiating position has to be a little stronger than "Throw out all the charges and give Snowden a ticker-tape parade!"
But hey -- I'd just as soon let him stay in Moscow since he loves it there so much...
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)to use just two examples, there's nothing to discuss other than run. Run. Now.
Besides, there are actually expats who LOVE Russia...as a Russian history major, it's a fascinating culture (although Snowden admits to being a recluse by nature).
http://www.expatinfodesk.com/expat-guide/deciding-on-the-right-country/top-expatriate-destinations/russia/
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)But the point remains that if Snowden's lawyers want the same sweetheart deal, they're going to have to grind for it (might also help if Snowden had some leverage in his corner)...The deal isn't just going to be "offered" on a silver platter, and the "But so-and-so only got a slap on the wrist!" as a legal argument is flimsy and weak, imo...It didn't work with my parents when I was an eight-year-old, it didn't work in the principal's office as a middle schooler, it didn't work in traffic court as an adult...
Hey, I've heard great things about expats in Russia over the years...Eastern Europe still has a very serious problem with certain complexions, so I won't be visiting for the foreseeable future, personally...
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . an egregious bit of law that allows for no defenses on the grounds of exposing wrongdoing or serving the public's right to know what is being done in its name, and does not allow the defendant access to the governments evidence against him or her. It is intellectually dishonest in the extreme to suggest that anyone can get a fair trial when charged under that law.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)his legal advisers. His only declared lawyer is an FSB agent.
American lawyers would be obligated to advise a fugitive to return.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)since it's been told to you over and over...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/10/how-aclu-attorney-ben-wizner-became-snowdens-lawyer/
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)as Mr. Snowden's attorney in the matter of his criminal complaint, unless I missed something.
If he's Mr. Snowden's criminal attorney, then he has an ethical obligation to the court to not aid in his fugitive status.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)since Wizners not doing it the way an anonymous poster at DU says he should.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Greenwald, who hung him out to dry.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and isn't telling him to come back to the U.S like anonymous internet discussion board participants insist must happen. Maybe you can file a complaint for him.
Lol.
This is getting pathetic...
blackspade
(10,056 posts)
obxhead
(8,434 posts)something we don't believe in.
7962
(11,841 posts)So, no.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)No speculation about what happened to all that top secret info? Codes, etc.
7962
(11,841 posts)And a lot more damaging to a lot of people working in cover as well. I seem to remember everyone getting rightfully upset at the Plame incident; Snowden didnt have just ONE name.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)to his lover. Snowden didn't have access to covert agents name and information. That's human intelligence and VERY few people have access to that information. Snowden was in Signals Intelligence. Do you have anything to back up that claim that he had access to covert agents information?
Key to the investigation are a set of notebooks Petraeus kept during his time as commander of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, beginning in June 2010. These “Black Books,” court documents alleged, encompassed the entire period of Petraeus’ Afghan command and contained a wide variety of top-secret information, including the identity of covert officers and details of discussions with the president.
On Aug. 4, 2011, after Petraeus had returned permanently from Afghanistan, he told Broadwell about the Black Books, which remained in his possession. He told her, “They’re in a rucksack up there somewhere” and when Broadwell alluded to the content of the notebooks, Petraeus responded, “they are highly classified, some of them … there’s code word stuff in there.”
Then, on Aug. 27, Petraeus told Broadwell in an email that she could see the Black Books. He brought them to a private residence where Broadwell was staying in D.C. sometime around Aug. 28, and then retrieved them from her a few days later, returning them to a non-secure area of his home in Arlington, Virginia.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Who owned the "private residence where Broadwell was staying in D.C."?
Who came and went from that residence during the time the black books were there?
Was anyone monitoring Broadwell's communications during that time?
And so forth.........
7962
(11,841 posts)She hasnt even been charged with a crime & probably wont be. According to the cops, this isnt a spying case.
I think Russia & China having total control of Snowden is quite a bit different.
And I'll remind you Snowden said he "didnt want to live in a country that spied on its own citizens" before going to two of the MOST repressive countries.
Also, I am not suggesting that Petraeus should get off easy either. He SHOULD be in jail. So should Snowden
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...when it is abundantly clear that Petraeus is already being protected from accountability for his own unlawful actions. If they are already shielding him, they would most certainly not charge her. The reasons for that should be apparent.
And yes, I am sure the authorities know exactly what she did with the secrets.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Take away a big chunk of his pension--he sure didn't serve honorably in his last paygrade.
He shared four binders of material with a girlfriend/biographer who did have a clearance. Snowden shared hundreds of thousands of pages of material with the Chinese and the Russians.
They both screwed up. Maybe they can do their time in the same cell, compare notes? Kind of like "The Odd Couple" of a federal penitentiary? Petraus as Oscar, the slob, Snowden as Felix, the neatnik? They could make it a reality show! It would be better than the retread airing on network TV...
blackspade
(10,056 posts)"Snowden shared hundreds of thousands of pages of material with the Chinese and the Russians."
But I never see a source cited.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Often it turns out that the people accusing Snowden of lying are themselves inveterate liars. To be clear, I'm referring to people outside of DU. The DUers who spread misinformation about Snowden aren't worthless lying fucks--they're just confused, I'm sure.
MADem
(135,425 posts)There's no such thing as a free lunch.
7962
(11,841 posts)Anyone who believes the Russians & Chinese would do SO much with nothing in return, is someone who needs to learn a lot about Russia & China and the way they do things.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)His giving info to the Chinese and Russians is mere supposition on your part.
That's fine, and it's ok to make that supposition, just not pass it off as fact.
7962
(11,841 posts)There has to be a chance, right?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)What I think the odds are is irrelevant.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...Petraeus impressed his girlfriend and lied about his actions to the FBI.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Otherwise Manning and Snowden should get the same deal
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)I totally disagree with the sentence length though for Manning and think that at most it should have been a 5 year one rather than the 35 they gave.
Edit: BTW typing on a nexus 7 can at times be a bit of a pita especially if you have fat fingers 
lol
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Manning, Patreus, and Snowden are all traitors. None should suffer any consequence worse than any other. All should have the same sentence as the one with the lightest sentence.
Otherwise, justice is non-existent.
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)information directly to a foreign government as part of a deal for something like money or asylum for example and no I'm not saying Snowden did that because the fact is that there is not any evidence to prove that he did that at all.
Second Manning shouldnt be given a reduced sentence because of Patreus rather Manning should get a reduced sentence because its the right thing to do.
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)
midnight
(26,624 posts)cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)Obama could commute her sentence on his last day kind of like Libby had his commuted after he took the bullet to protect Bush and Cheney but the odds of that are slim.
She could try to appeal the sentence i assume but her lawyers would have to have a compelling reason why Manning deserves a lesser sentence for the crime and trying to get one based on the fact that Petraeus was given a light sentence probably wont work with the court.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)he just won't take it.
DoJ would demand at-least the following four things from him:
1.) He surrender all information still in his possession.
2.) He disclose what information he was in possession of and disclosed to Wikileaks and foreign entities.
3.) He publicly admit wrongdoing unconditionally and subject to future continuing compliance. (That is, he can never say that he wasn't in the wrong or explain it away or defend his actions...under threat of prosecution.)
4.) He provide testimony against Julian Assange sufficient to result in indictment, extradition and ultimately life-imprisonment or capital-sentence. That's the real goal here. Assange and Wikileaks publicly discredited, destroyed and/or dead.
Basically, he'd have to give up everything he still has, admit what he did was wrong and condemn the Wikileaks founder while materially damaging Wikileaks beyond functioning as well as setting an example to dissuade future Snowdens, Mannings and Assanges. I doubt DoJ cares about Snowden personally as much as they care about making an example.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)thank you for a rare bit of DU insight. I appreciate it.
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)US when Snowden sent him the documents I fail to see how he would fall under US jurisdiction plus the UK in general doesnt extradite someone who would face the death penalty so he is safe from that.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)1.) Espionage, which is likely the path the USDoJ intends to take with Assange, doesn't require him to have ever set foot in the US or to be a US citizen. Receiving stolen classified files would suffice.
2.) British law still statutorily (though unused and probably never again will be) allows for execution of foreign nationals for treason and espionage committed during wartime, so there would be likely little impediment to his extradition beyond public outcry. It's within their laws and treaty-compliance to surrender a person accused by an ally of intelligence-related crimes. Even under UK's Official Secrets Acts of 1911 & 1920, he would be facing up to 14 years per classified document received...which is thousands or millions of years of jail-time.
The US might actually have to agree to not execute him, but certainly life-imprisonment remains on the table here or there and being sent to ADX Florence is as good as dead. (When was the last time you heard much about Hanssen, Gowadia or Nicholson?) He has few actual protections as a US non-citizen against prosecution, it would lay with the embassy of his country of citizenship to assert those concerns on his behalf and Australia washed their hands of him...they likely have no objection to his prosecution or sentencing.
I agree to some extent with msanthrope...DoJ may not care so much now as they did at one time, Assange has done plenty to destroy his own credibility.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Assange has already made himself irrelevant, and Wiki leaks is embarrassingly incompetent.
He's actually done the US a favor holing himself up in that embassy.
The thing is, Snowden doesn't have many bargaining chips. He's also not in a position where he can freely leave Russia.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I watched an appeaser try their best to pretend the Good General is now on the up and up and everyone should leave him alone now.
I swear if there are people here that still fall for that crap, then I truly pity them.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And don't get me wrong---I think Petraeus deserved jail. But I think he skated because he had more to bargain with, and because the case against him would have been a big, steaming pile of unprosecutable mess.
Let's not forget the added wrinkles of the FBI screw-ups and Broadwell herself. This case would have been a nightmare to try. And heck---I've had clients skate not because they were innocent, but because the DA could not put together a coherent prosecution.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Snowden would get his day in civilian court, but the Good General would face the music at a military tribunal like Manning, yes?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)The CIA seems to be untouchable as of late.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)as long as the question of how much "assistance" Snowden gave to his counterparts in China and Russia remain unanswered...And it is naive to ask for one...
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . and you gotta love it when you see people here who, on other topics, have no problem discussing how corrupt our judicial system has become, yet, in this context, expect Snowden to hand himself over to that same corrupt system.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)It's in their nature.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Not only that, but this would not be a public trial.
840high
(17,196 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)It's who you ARE when you do it.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Patraeus cashes in on his position and apparently his knowledge that the State wants to use. Unfortunately for Snowden, he doesn't have the specific skills the State wants.
2banon
(7,321 posts)and I'm heartened to hear that evidence frequently reported in the news.
Patreaus has done nothing to benefit American Citizens in so as I'm concerned. .
Demeter
(85,373 posts)---Nathan Hale, updated for this time of NSA
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)to set the pro security state jackals frothing.
