Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Snowden: I Raised NSA Concerns Internally Over 10 Times Before Going Rogue - WaPo [View all]JJChambers
(1,115 posts)398. We do agree
Because secretly you agree with me.
Evidence is evidence. It matters not if the evidence is relevant or irrelevant, if it is admissible or inadmissible, if it benefits the defense or prosecution, or neither or both. Evidence is evidence.
This isn't an agree or disagree discussion. You may as well try to argue that water isn't wet.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
469 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Snowden: I Raised NSA Concerns Internally Over 10 Times Before Going Rogue - WaPo [View all]
WillyT
Mar 2014
OP
This has been said repeatedly. That private security contractors have no whistleblower avenues
riderinthestorm
Mar 2014
#10
Taht is simply untrue--the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#17
Disclosing the identity of who you complained to to federal prosecutors, or the judge assigned to
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#250
Indeed...he had the Act available to him, chose not to conduct himself under it, and now,
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#249
But it would have protected him--all he needed was an "urgent concern" of what *he* believed was
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#283
Apparently YOU didn't read it. All Snowden needed to do was to go to his hero Rand Paul, who has
MADem
Mar 2014
#302
Too bad the law protecting the PEOPLE rather than CORPORATIONS, was tampered with
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#293
He didn't have to go to a lawyer--he could have gone to the OIG, or any member of certain
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#321
Is it authoritarian to note that Mr. Snowden hasn't provided documentation of this claim? nt
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#8
Does he have to? Wouldn't that "ruin" another NSA person's career as he's already been accused of?
riderinthestorm
Mar 2014
#16
Well, yes. FYI--Snowden was protected under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#20
Of course....had he used the Act, he would have been shielded. But he didn't use the Act, did he?
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#165
Oh--I think had he followed the proper channels and gone to Sanders or Warren, he would have been
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#259
The problem with your hypo is that the law that would have shielded Snowden was not in existence
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#325
He should have stayed because of his faith. Otherwise, his motive was purely malicious.
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#336
The problem with your assertions is that several Whsitle Blowers who abided by the letter of the law
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#422
Did they go to Warren, Sanders, or otherwise take action as directed by the whistleblower
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#396
Says he tried. Doesn't matter now. This is NSA v. 4th Amendment. That matters.
merrily
Mar 2014
#184
If he has to prove it, it's to the country, if any, that entertains his request
merrily
Mar 2014
#189
I included a nation who takes his application for amnesty, if they request it.
merrily
Mar 2014
#360
This is a crop circle thread--the lack of proof confirms the truthiness of the claims.
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#277
For reasons stated in my reply to treestar and others, the real crop circle may be
merrily
Mar 2014
#402
What does it matter? Well, first of all, it's a claim in mitigation of the criminal
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#170
But the thread isn't about the NSA...it's about his claim of reporting 10 times to his superiors.
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#173
No, my friend, no. First, you have to clear the hurdle of relevancy. Explain to me
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#285
Perhaps, initially, you intended to address the admissibility of this evidence?
JJChambers
Mar 2014
#292
No, we are not in agreement. And you seem to be ducking a very precise question I posted
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#308
Yes, we are in agreement, unless you contend that evidence isn't evidence. Good day. Nt
JJChambers
Mar 2014
#310
I asked you a very specifc question about what you think is evidence, and it seems you cannot answer
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#313
Yes. Exactly. You are claiming this statement is "evidence." That is an apriori
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#323
No--I'm really serious--you are claiming this is "evidence." Of what, exactly, pray tell? nt
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#328
Okay--forum discussions do not work constantly shifting the focus of the discussion.
JJChambers
Mar 2014
#344
No--you still haven't answered the question--what is this evidence of, precisely? nt
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#357
Oh dear, sweet Christ....if he's confessing to the crimes he's charged with, then
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#370
So now this is evidence for a forum, but not a court? Yeah...I can see why you'd back down. nt
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#372
No--again, when confronted with the illogical nature of your claims, you've backed down. nt
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#374
Yes....and I think any defense lawyer who tried to get this submitted would
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#369
I didn't call it "evidence," did I? And I do think that a defense attorney who
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#383
Secretly I agree with you? I think you've spent a little too much time trying to figure out my
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#399
So just when will he "provide this documentation to us"? Aren't we important enough to see it?
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#205
No actually it is NOT this is about the truthfulness of Snowden again saying something
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#220
NO in this thread we are discussing the fact that SNOWDEN again SAYS he has done something
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#223
so are you saying that just the name Snowden is synonymous with the 4th Amendment?
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#226
No but blindly believing Republicans Clapper and Alexander could be considered authoritarian. nm
rhett o rick
Mar 2014
#227
That's simply not true. I admit I haven't followed the Snowden debates that closely
fried eggs
Mar 2014
#22
There is no prohibtion on naming NSA employees. Perhaps you could cite the law you
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#257
WHAT???? Kindly cite the actual subsection of the law you are referring to. You know, the one
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#275
Indeed--where is the documentation proving this claim? I would have saved an email or two. nt
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#6
Kindly cite the law you are referring to, please? I am quite serious about this---kindly cite the
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#258
True...but since you are around lawyers all the time, why not ask them if it's a crime to
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#276
Which part? Your not really trying to say nobody at the NSA is doing convert/secret work? nt
1awake
Mar 2014
#289
Again....point me to the law you think precludes you from naming an NSA employee, even if they
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#307
I'm asking you this in all seriousness....you've made a claim, kindly provide the law you think this
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#311
If they're doing covert work, wouldn't that come close to the Plame situation.
merrily
Mar 2014
#419
I don't know, but I don't think that would have stopped the debates in the least.
cui bono
Mar 2014
#19
This was made public, but if you think it would have avoided what you saw on DU...
MrMickeysMom
Mar 2014
#375
Yes--I do. She provides a link to testimony, but not to actual evidence...like emails, or copies of
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#32
Um...this was unsworn--as you can see by your link provided. And where's the link to the evidence
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#38
Enough for what? He says he complained! Okay....show proof of that. It's pretty simple. nt
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#65
Good lord....I don't want to hear about your sexual fantasies towards me. How uncouth. nt
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#378
I await the proof of a single email. And enjoy reading the reasons why it can't be produced. nt
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#73
So, because his proof might be treated with skepticism, that's the reason there is no proof?
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#167
He's a liar? We have plenty of documentary evidence that NSA is pakced with liars.
DisgustipatedinCA
Mar 2014
#162
So Snowden must be telling the truth because James Clapper lied? I don't think that's a logical
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#254
Again--not a very logical test for candor. I am dismayed to hear you echo a RW talking point:
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#256
I'm saying that your concern over the Exec. branch echoes a hot CPAC topic--much like your Benghazi
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#263
"You're not CPAC... BUT YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN PLANT OF SOME KIND, DAMMIT!!!"
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2014
#266
You seem upset. I am merely noting the various concerns you raise, and the sources
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#267
It cracks me up that in the thread you refer to, you refuse to look at links I supplied
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2014
#269
The only lawyer with access to Eddie is that guy from Russian intelligence, Anatoly
struggle4progress
Mar 2014
#224
Look--if his lawyers had any control over him, they would have stopped him from talking to the EU
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#264
In govt work...you DON'T just delete emails.....you keep a paper trail of all communication because
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#33
I'm sure he has email records of having raised issues. Right? Otherwise, it is hard to prove
Pretzel_Warrior
Mar 2014
#18
How DARE you come in here with your years of legal knowledge and experience and stuff!
Number23
Mar 2014
#150
It's a vague improvement over your usual sentences of noun, verb and "PROPAGANDA!1!" but not
Number23
Mar 2014
#231
I know! How *unrealistic* the concepts of advertising and propaganda are.
woo me with science
Mar 2014
#234
I should probably be surprised a photo of crop circles set you off like this but for some reason
Number23
Mar 2014
#235
Everything is simple when you see enemies and conspiracies around every corner
Number23
Mar 2014
#245
Still Number 5. Trying desperately to invoke crop circles and "conspiracy" theories,
woo me with science
Mar 2014
#246
Apparently the crop circles have numbers, now. I suppose it got tiring to write
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#252
Yes and many others have noted the same thing. That asking for proof of Snowden's claims
Number23
Mar 2014
#346
It's coming out now because Greenwald's book is out at the end of the month. It's part of a larger
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#351
Yes, it's certainly tempting to make the allusion to that great novel
woo me with science
Mar 2014
#248
Riiight. So he takes a shitload of classified documents/military secrets and
TwilightGardener
Mar 2014
#24
It may appear to you that he is a spy, but it does not appear to everyone that way.
merrily
Mar 2014
#435
Oh? South China Morning Post on 12 June 2013 reported that Snowden told them
struggle4progress
Mar 2014
#35
It's kinda like a mafioso reporting to the Godfather that the Mafia is doing illegal stuff.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#36
Excuse me? Look, if you've got proof that he actually complained, please post it. nt
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#49
Actually, it's not a moving target at all. He says he complained 10 times. Any proof? As for
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#72
We attorneys tend to know the difference between lying and perjury. And if you
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#274
Funny someone wants to question your bonafides after having proven them over many years.
randome
Mar 2014
#284
It's the same reaction criminal clients have when you tell them something they don't want to hear.
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#287
Speaking of grandiose claims, that's just funny. Attorneys get fooled all the time.
merrily
Mar 2014
#416
Some others? He's already outed a good portion of the whole government.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#153
Oops!.. There goes another irrelevant Talking Point favored by the Snowden haters.
bvar22
Mar 2014
#44
Oh, I read your post. I'm just wondering if you actually have any proof that he complained. If he
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#58
Can you provide proof that he didn't? Can you provide proof that Clapper didn't lie?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#53
The person making the claim provides the proof. Otherwise, I can claim I'm the Empress of Russia,
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#56
Yet you seem inclined to believe what the NSA and the regime tell you.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#60
Well, I'm a helluva lot more inclined to believe Snowden than the NSA.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#86
I rather doubt that you did anything near as devastating as the NSA has done.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#155
I imagine in it's history it must have (maybe) done something beneficial.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#154
So far, Snowden has a MUCH better record of Telling the Verified TRUTH than the NSA.
bvar22
Mar 2014
#99
Then post that, rather than some stupid smilie that belongs on a middle-school twitter feed. [n/t]
Maedhros
Mar 2014
#131
It would be a waste of time. It seems some of you must see Snowden discredited at any cost.
rhett o rick
Mar 2014
#221
Same old BS. No matter how many times he is proven right, and them wrong. It is the same
GoneFishin
Mar 2014
#79
I'll let time do the talking. It has and will continue to do so. Meanwhile no one here is fooled
GoneFishin
Mar 2014
#104
Oh, so Poitras is a "Libertarian" now? Do you even realize how clueless that makes you appear?
Maedhros
Mar 2014
#130
Only 10 times? Obviously 11 times would have been the correct number, but he did not raise his
GoneFishin
Mar 2014
#122
He just blew a gigantic hole right through the "why didn't he do this officially" crowd
LittleBlue
Mar 2014
#145
puhleese, the generals and Fearless Defenders will just respond by asking "but why didn't he go
MisterP
Mar 2014
#228
People outside the intelligence community know what happens to whistleblowers too.
JoeyT
Mar 2014
#241
+1000. They're desperate and full of shit, and they know it. All because they could not just
GoneFishin
Mar 2014
#295
You nailed it. What a great summary of the relentless, irrelevant diversion
woo me with science
Mar 2014
#298
he still criticized the policies of a sitting Democratic president and that will NEVER,NEVER NEVER
Douglas Carpenter
Mar 2014
#244
Whatever it takes to get our TLA's to actually do their jobs instead of "collect it all."
Pholus
Mar 2014
#332
Another NSA Whistleblower, Russell Tice, was ignored by ABCNNBCBSFakeNoiseNutworks.
Octafish
Mar 2014
#368
BULL FUCKIN SHIT!!! If an idiot haphazardly puts folks lives in danger (per Der Spiegel) NEEDLESSLY
uponit7771
Mar 2014
#450
I'll take Der Spiegels word for it, they said he handed over items that could put peoples lives in
uponit7771
Mar 2014
#467