General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSnowden and NSA Go Tête-à-Tête over Internal Emails--Incomplete Leak Shows NSA Has Something to Hide
Whistleblower says government's "strangely tailored and incomplete leak only shows the NSA feels it has something to hide."- Jon Queally, staff writer--Friday, May 30,2014
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/30
Following Snowden's reassertion in his Wednesday interview with NBC that he did, in fact, attempt to voice objections over U.S. surveillance practices using internal channels with superiors, the NSA responded on Thursday afternoon by releasing a single—and they say "only"—email exchange they can find.
Though the agency has previously said that it could find no record of any such emails, Thursday's disclosure—made through the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, came less than twenty-four hours after the NBC interview in which Snowden boldly repeated his claim that such documentation did exist.
---snip---
In the statement from the NSA that accompanied the release of the redacted email exchange, the agency rejected the idea that this proves Snowden was raising a serious challenge to the legality or constitutionality of any programs. The statement read, in part:
The email did not raise allegations or concerns about wrongdoing or abuse, but posed a legal question that the Office of General Counsel addressed.
There are numerous avenues that Mr Snowden could have used to raise other concerns or whistleblower allegations.
We have searched for additional indications of outreach from him in those areas and to date have not discovered any engagements related to his claims.
Following the release of the email exchange, Snowden himself responded via an email interview with the Washington Post:
Q: How do you respond to today’s NSA statement and the release of your email with the Office of General Counsel?
The NSA’s new discovery of written contact between me and its lawyers - after more than a year of denying any such contact existed - raises serious concerns. It reveals as false the NSA’s claim to Barton Gellman of the Washington Post in December of last year, that “after extensive investigation, including interviews with his former NSA supervisors and co-workers, we have not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden’s contention that he brought these matters to anyone’s attention.”
Today’s release is incomplete, and does not include my correspondence with the Signals Intelligence Directorate’s Office of Compliance, which believed that a classified executive order could take precedence over an act of Congress, contradicting what was just published. It also did not include concerns about how indefensible collection activities - such as breaking into the back-haul communications of major US internet companies - are sometimes concealed under E.O. 12333 to avoid Congressional reporting requirements and regulations.
If the White House is interested in the whole truth, rather than the NSA’s clearly tailored and incomplete leak today for a political advantage, it will require the NSA to ask my former colleagues, management, and the senior leadership team about whether I, at any time, raised concerns about the NSA’s improper and at times unconstitutional surveillance activities. It will not take long to receive an answer.
Ultimately, whether my disclosures were justified does not depend on whether I raised these concerns previously. That’s because the system is designed to ensure that even the most valid concerns are suppressed and ignored, not acted upon. The fact that two powerful Democratic Senators - Ron Wyden and Mark Udall - knew of mass surveillance that they believed was abusive and felt constrained to do anything about it underscores how futile such internal action is -- and will remain -- until these processes are reformed.
Still, the fact is that I did raise such concerns both verbally and in writing, and on multiple, continuing occasions - as I have always said, and as NSA has always denied. Just as when the NSA claimed it followed German laws in Germany just weeks before it was revealed that they did not, or when NSA said they did not engage in economic espionage a few short months before it was revealed they actually did so on a regular and recurring basis, or even when they claimed they had “no domestic spying program” before we learned they collected the phone records of every American they could, so too are today’s claims that “this is only evidence we have of him reporting concerns” false.
Now that they have finally begun producing emails, I am confident that truth will become clear rather sooner than later.
Q: Were there others?
Yes, and not just on this topic. I’m glad they’ve shown they have access to records they claimed just a few months ago did not exist, and I hope we’ll see the rest of them very soon.
Q: Were you wrong to say that you reached out to multiple peers and supervisors to express your legal and policy concerns?
No, not at all. The bottom line is that even though I knew the system was designed to reject concerns raised, I showed numerous colleagues direct evidence of programs that those colleagues considered unconstitutional or otherwise concerning. Today’s strangely tailored and incomplete leak only shows the NSA feels it has something to hide.
-----------
COMMENTS SECTION on the article AT "COMMON DREAMS" is an interesting read:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/30
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It was bullshit in the last twenty threads, and it's still bullshit.
Snowden LIED about emails. Snowden mentioned one where he claimed to have sent it to a specific office, that office produced the ONLY email Snowden ever sent them and it had nothing to do with anything other than a question about training.'
Snowden has lied consistently throughout this thing. The number of inconsistencies in his various stories is astounding.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
'sMohRokTah
(15,429 posts)you learn to recognize the same story being reference by yet another blog.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Cause . . . . I did, and many others will do.
There is simply no excuse for the NSA's constant lying to the American people.
Who is in charge here? The NSA or the American people? That's what this whole matter is about.
Snowden points to several instances in which the NSA simply outright lied to the world and to the American people.
How can the NSA expect us to trust it?
If we lied to the government like the government lies to us, we would be in jail.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)No reason to read the same lies again.
Snowden is the liar here.
frylock
(34,825 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Though there are at least five threads on the first two pages of DU with exactly the same bullshit.
frylock
(34,825 posts)"I'm not your search engine" is just another way of saying you don't have jack shit. prove me wrong.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I am not your web browser. IT's right there.
frylock
(34,825 posts)quit wasting my time and provide a fucking link already. it should be super easy to do. IT's right there, after all.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)when a DU made an assertion, they backed it up. Funny how they can get away with 'look it up yourself' now. That never would've stood before.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Who can ever forget THIS example of the Government Lying Through its Teeth?
You can stand with the KNOWN LIARS.
We already know you went All-In to try to protect them.
I'll stand with the Truth Tellers and the Patriots!
*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.
*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.
You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It's just wrong is all.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)It is observable reality that you are standing with a self-admitted LIAR and international Laughingstock.
Nothing to do with "opinion".
It IS what it IS.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)If this topic so disturbs you, it seems only rational that you'd void it. Please do. You're not constructive at all.
Sincerely.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I don't know for sure but I suspect there are people on DU who work for the NSA.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to made sure the Senate opened a prosecution?
ask...the answer might surprise you.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...are walking around Free?
For the same reason that the Wall Street Criminals are walking around free?
Yes.
The answer to that question is indeed frightening.
There ARE Two Americas,
and neither on them is a representative Democracy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)in question thought it was perjurious, he could initiate action.
Why hasn't he?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)There ARE conservative Democrats who, like yourself, support LIAR Clapper
and would prevent a Senate charge against LIAR Clapper.
Yes, Virginia,
there ARE Two Americas!
I doubt YOU are a member of the other (1%) America.
Why do you carry so much water for them?
You don't really believe they are going to let YOU into the Rescue Helicopter?
You're going to be stuck in THIS America long after the 1% have closed the gates to their protected enclaves.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)hasn't. Why not?
MADem
(135,425 posts)he knew couldn't be answered except in closed session.
I think that is the reason no one is going after Clapper. It's not about Two Americas or One Percenters. Wyden pulled a boner. He asked a question that, no matter what, put the respondent (like him, or not) in jeopardy:
A NO answer was a flat-out lie but it didn't reveal classified information.
A YES answer would reveal classified information--and Clapper, UNLIKE WYDEN and any other Senator, doesn't have "protection" like Senators do when they speak on the Senate floor.
People forget how we got a LOT of the Pentagon Papers--a guy named Mike Gravel read it into the Congressional Record...and no one could touch him, because he had legislative prerogative.
On the night of June 29, 1971, Gravel attempted to read the papers on the floor of the Senate as part of his filibuster against the draft, but was thwarted when no quorum could be formed.[69] Gravel instead convened a session of the Buildings and Grounds subcommittee that he chaired.[69] He got New York Congressman John Dow to testify that the war had soaked up funding for public buildings, thus making discussion of the war relevant to the committee.[70] He began reading from the papers with the press in attendance,[69] omitting supporting documents that he felt might compromise national security,[71] and declaring, "It is my constitutional obligation to protect the security of the people by fostering the free flow of information absolutely essential to their democratic decision-making."[71]
He read until 1 a.m., until with tears and sobs he said that he could no longer physically continue,[71] the previous three nights of sleeplessness and fear about the future having taken their toll.[8] Gravel ended the session by, with no other senators present, establishing unanimous consent[70] to insert 4,100 pages of the Papers into the Congressional Record of his subcommittee.[40][65] The following day, the Supreme Court's New York Times Co. v. United States decision ruled in favor of the newspapers[65] and publication in The Times and others resumed. In July 1971, Bantam Books published an inexpensive paperback edition of the papers containing the material The Times had published.[72]
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Man.
There is NO place you guys won't go,
no line you won't cross,
no lie you won't claim is truth.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"aggrieved attitude" on?
What I said is simple truth. So just cut the drama.
Clapper didn't get bagged for his comments simply because it's CONGRESS--not you, not me, but CONGRESS-- that elects to do--or not do-- the bagging. And when you ask for classified material in OPEN session, that's a procedural no-no. It's bad form. It's the equivalent of entrapment.
Any legislator could have gotten complete, forthright and true answers from that guy in closed session. No grandstanding required.
It's no fun, though, if no one can see it.
This shit happens on both sides of the aisle. I don't care for it when either team does it--it makes for good copy, but it makes for shitty and divisive governance. Fix the problems, don't score the points and assign blame.
840high
(17,196 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)
G_j
(40,372 posts)that Snowden LIED about emails?
Yea prove those negatives!
G_j
(40,372 posts)they can expect others to ask for the evidence.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)there are some right-wing authoritarian shitheads who don't like it, but fuck right wingers anyway.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Yet his lawyer is an old KGB hand and a personal friend of Putin's, and he appeared on Russian State Television throwing a softball question to Putin. He also stayed in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong for several days, and celebrated his birthday there.
That seems like a pretty good lie to me.
When you descend to calling people with whom you disagree some right-wing authoritarian shitheads and then you sign off with a nasty fuck right wingers anyway, you've lost the argument. You've become very much akin to that which you decry.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a right wing authoritarian shithead. Some people just think ES went about his mission in a pigheaded and stupid way, and the end result was that he endangered national security.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the registration of bloggers. He is no easier on the Russian government than he is on the NSA.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He put his head on their pillow.
He celebrated his BIRTHDAY there.
And he played softball with Putin on Russian state television.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)email.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)He needs to put up or shut up....
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)seem to have 'found something'. Great, now they can look further, seeing as how they 'overlooked' this one for so long.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)It was a question about the law v. executive order. How is that about training?
A very clever question, too, strategically.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The email asked for clarification on a point of law directly from the training he had recently attended about the legalities involved in the work.
Do try to keep up with the facts.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Even the NSA characterized it yesterday as a point of law.
But I think I'm done with your rude style.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)IT had nothing to do with raising concerns about anything anybody was doing in the NSA. IT had everythign to do with asking for clarification on a point of law from training he had recently been given related to the law.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)to NSA lawyers, namely a concern about the NSA's interpretation of its legal authorities. The concern was that the NSA thought it could regard classified executive orders as overriding federal law passed by Congress. It is a very serious concern about the constitutionality of the NSA's understanding of its legal authorities.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)But you can keep believing it if you want. Won't change a thing when he eventually goes to prison.
Just like Chelsea Manning, who also was no whistleblower.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)What Snowden said: "I am not entirely certain, but this seems incorrect, as it seems to imply that Executive Orders have the same precedence as federal law. My understanding is that EOs may be superseded by federal statute, but EOs may not override statute. Am I incorrect in this? Between EOs and laws, which have precedence?"
It is painfully obvious that this expresses a concern about the NSA's understanding of its legal authorities, but go ahead and deny the obvious if it suits your purposes.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The subject line deals with a question about course content, and it raises NO concerns--it just asks about an order of precedence that a high school kid could answer. Hell, he could have Googled that. Yep, statutes do take precedence over EO's--golly gee!
And he was asking this question at the SAME time he was communicating with GG and LP, AND stealing files.
And, far from being rebuffed, he was invited to "Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further."
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/snowden-email-to-nsa/
Vattel
(9,289 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)You said:
Sorry--I don't think ANYONE can come to that conclusion. What I read from Snowden's email, which is about a specific, MANDATED course, is that either the instructor was not clear or he didn't pay attention at one phase of the instruction, and he was verifying something that was confusing to him. It short, it expresses a concern about SNOWDEN's understanding of written material from the course (an excerpt of which he provided in the email)--NOT the NSA's.
In any event, he got the answer he could have gotten from Google, quickly, too, along with a polite and very welcoming "open door" to ask about anything else that 'confused' him.
This is not an "Ah ha!" moment, no matter how hard anyone tries to make it so.
Were it an "Ah ha!" moment, Snowden would be saying "See? Ya see? There it IS! BAM!!! I toldja I was griping!" Instead, he's saying "Oh no, that's not it, that's not what I was talking about...there are others, there really are! That's not what I meant, I made OTHER complaints!"
Now's the time for Ed to cough up those emails he wrote. Hopefully, they are dated BEFORE he started conspiring to steal items with GG and LP. Surely, if he could copy hundreds of thousands of files, he could also take the time to copy ten lousy emails.
It's put up or shut up time for Ed.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)The Snowdenistas are claiming the email in question is 'proof' of Snowden having written of his concerns - while Snowden himself is denying that it deals with the concerns he (allegedly) raised in any way, but that there are other emails that DO prove his point.
In other words, Snowden's fan base are in effect telling Eddie to STFU, because THEY know more about what's going on here than he does.
So sit down and keep your mouth shut, ES - your fans apparently know what you meant by that email, even if you don't. So stop fuckin' around with THEIR version of the facts!
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Hey, Nance, how you dooin'? Nice to see you!!!
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)I just can't resist the entertainment value of the Snowden Chronicles (as told on DU)!
"No, that's not the email where I raised my concerns," says Snowden.
"Oh, yes, it IS!!!," say his fans.
I wonder how long it will be before Eddie gets thrown under the proverbial bus, because he's contradicting the people who KNOW what's what - and they aren't going to allow him to screw up THEIR narrative.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)"The NSA’s new discovery of written contact between me and its lawyers - after more than a year of denying any such contact existed - raises serious concerns. It reveals as false the NSA’s claim to Barton Gellman of the Washington Post in December of last year, that 'after extensive investigation, including interviews with his former NSA supervisors and co-workers, we have not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden’s contention that he brought these matters to anyone’s attention.'
Today’s release is incomplete, and does not include my correspondence with the Signals Intelligence Directorate’s Office of Compliance, which believed that a classified executive order could take precedence over an act of Congress, contradicting what was just published."
Can you at least see that in the released email Snowden asked NSA lawyers a question about the NSA's legal authorities? Or is that too hard for you to grasp?
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... this email is proof of Snowden having raised concerns about the NSA's 'illegal' activities, why is HE not saying so?
It is his fans who are saying it's proof of something - Snowden himself isn't. The email is, on its face, a query specifically about training material. Snowden KNOWS that, and is not trying to pass it off as anything more.
"Today’s release is incomplete, and does not include my correspondence with the Signals Intelligence Directorate’s Office of Compliance ..."
If the man himself is saying it is a completely different exchange that supports his story, why are his fans insisting otherwise?
If this email was proof of ANYTHING - other than, as Snowden himself said, proof of "contact" with NSA's lawyers - why would Snowden himself not be touting it as "proof" of having raised his concerns?
I don't think Swowden is the 'genius' he's been made out to be - but I do believe he is smart enough to know that if he insists that this email is "proof" of his claims, he will look ridiculous. That's why he is asking for further emails, and dismissing this one as irrelevant. If the NSA fails to produce them (because they don't exist), Snowden will insist that they are hiding the evidence of his "proper channels" efforts. And his fans will believe him - just as they have believed everything else he has alleged and produced no evidence to support.
That will leave him back at Square One, the BIG question: How could you NOT have made copies of your own CYA emails, and secured them so that they could be released to the public to prove you took the actions you now say you did?
Snowden himself: "Ultimately, whether my disclosures were justified does not depend on whether I raised these concerns previously."
IOW, If there are no emails showing that I DID raise my concerns, it really doesn't matter anyway.
Does that sound like someone who KNOWS there are emails that serve as proof of his actions - or someone who is already, out of sheer necessity, moving the goalposts to the "whether I raised concerns in writing or not really isn't the issue here" field?
Again in the same interview: "The bottom line is that even though I knew the system was designed to reject concerns raised, I showed numerous colleagues direct evidence of programs ..."
The goalposts get moved yet again. If it turns out that I didn't actually commit my concerns to writing, there's always the 'fact' that I did so verbally among my colleagues - something the NSA cannot prove nor disprove.
I don't know about you, but when the goalposts require that much maneuvering, I take it that the team doing the moving is in trouble - and know it.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Do you agree that in the released email Snowden asked NSA lawyers a question about the NSA's legal authorities?
I am not saying that in the released email Snowden claimed that the NSA was doing something illegal or unconstitutional. Obviously his specific question was about the training materials he had received. His specific concern was whether they correctly characterized the NSA's legal authorities. Why was he concerned about that? He says he was worried that top NSA officials believed that an executive order could override federal law. Do you deny that he had such a concern? Or that his motivation for sending the released email was in all probability motivated by that concern? I don't see why anyone would deny that.
He also claims that the Signals Intelligence Directorate’s Office of Compliance believed "that a classified executive order could take precedence over an act of Congress." Do you think he is making up the claim about the position of the Signals Directorate's Office of Compliance? If so, do you have any proof that he is making it up?
I anxiously await your answers to my questions.
MADem
(135,425 posts)can figure out what a statement in a course syllabus meant. The "legal authorities" were already spelled out in the coursework that Snowden quoted. He just wanted details on "which came first" because he apparently wasn't paying attention to the instructor at the time when they covered that bit, or the instructor assumed, like most people might, that he got that information in high school civics, not realizing that Snowden never took the course as he was a dropout. He didn't say he was "worried" about what "NSA officials" were thinking in that email--he was clearing up HIS OWN confusion.
It's not NSA's call, either, as to "which comes first." Google could have answered his question.
His motivation for sending the email? To appear as a good, concerned mid-level analyst? To try to catch the OGC in a fuckup (about as stupid as trying to get a wrong answer for "What's two plus two?" out of a mathemetician)? Who knows?
And the OGC very helpfully told him that he could call and talk if he was still confused about "which comes first."
This is not a smoking gun. It's not even a smoking cigarette butt. It's a question submitted on a form email that could have been answered by a simple Google of the order of authorities.
Most significantly, though, if he wants to call this a "J'accuse!" email (and near as I can tell, he does NOT want to do that), he shouldn't have been conspiring with GG and LP for months before he sent it....and he was doing that. This doesn't help, it hurts--it makes it look as if he's trying to set up justification for his actions AFTER he's set up the mechanism of betrayal.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... and did an excellent job in doing so.
I've cited Snowden's own statements - that's hardly 'speculation'.
And it still boils down to the same question, one that Snowden refuses to answer: "Why did you not keep copies of the emails you allegedly sent raising concerns about illegal activity?"
If you want 'speculation', just peruse the many current DU threads on ES - his fans are profferring all kinds of 'reasons' why he doesn't have those emails, and they range from the sublime to the ridiculous. (My personal favourite is "he probably didn't realize they were important at the time"!)
Snowden has consistently made all kinds of claims that he has never backed up with any proof. He has talked incessantly about what 'could be done' by the NSA, but has not offered any proof of what IS being done. There is a vast difference between the two.
"Do you think he is making up the claim about the position of the Signals Directorate's Office of Compliance? If so, do you have any proof that he is making it up?"
This is, pathetically, what the Snowdenistas rely on in defence of their hero: insisting that those who don't find him credible prove that he is 'making things up'.
Snowden made the allegations re the NSA - ergo, the onus of proof is on him, no one else.
To be perfectly candid, the only reason I have followed the Snowden/Greenwald story on DU is to watch - with utter fascination - how the True Believers (TM) have accepted Snowden's every word as the truth, despite the fact that he has never proven a single thing he has alleged. The lengths they will go to in order to "explain" his lack of providing said proof is mind-boggling. Any questions raised about Snowden's credibility is instantly dismissed with, "It's not about the messenger, it's about the message."
Well, when the messenger himself can't provide any proof to back up his claims, it would seem obvious that the messenger is probably lying.
In my view, here's what happened on DU: The day Snowden's name was revealed, many DUers lauded him as a national treasure, a hero of the people who was willing to speak truth to power. No one knew anything about the man at the time; but they accepted his "word for it" because they wanted to believe he was who they thought he was.
It was only when Snowden's true personality was revealed - particularly via his "True Hoo-Ha" posts - that the "it's not about the messenger, it's about the message" meme was born. The True Believers (TM) have consistently raised this meme whenever a question about their hero arises, e.g.: Why can't he provide proof for his allegations? Why did he reveal details about international spying when he said his only mission was to reveal domestic spying? Why did he not retain copies of the emails that prove he raised concerns through proper channels, as he now claims to have done? Why did he not release his "info" AFTER establishing sanctuary in a safe country, instead of winding up in Russia? Why did he release sensitive documents to third parties without knowing what their content was, or what the consequences of their disclosure might be?
There are a myriad of "whys" surrounding Snowden's actions and, to date, none of those questions have been answered with a simple, straightforward "here's why". The answer is always the same: "It's not about the messenger, it's about the message."
To each their own. If the gullible want to believe that their hero-de-jour is telling the truth - despite being unable to produce any proof of that 'truth' - so be it. For those of us who live in the reality-based world, "I believe it because somebody said it" is not sufficient - especially when the "somebody who said it" cannot be questioned nor scrutinized on the basis that "it's not about him, it's about the message."
What is truly remarkable is that those who profess a 'healthy skepticism' when it comes to anything that the gov't has to say have so readily embraced what Snowden has to say - without any skepticism at all.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I am afraid I will limit myself to only one piece of nonsense. You say:
"Well, when the messenger himself can't provide any proof to back up his claims, it would seem obvious that the messenger is probably lying."
As everyone knows, that is false. Not being able to prove something does not make it obvious that one is probably lying.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)Snowden hasn't provided an iota of proof to back up anything he has said so far - and he has said a lot.
When someone holding himself out to be the heroic patriot - who allegedly sacrificed everything and put his very life on the line to 'inform' the public - can't point to a single shred of evidence to back up his claims, it would seem that those possessed of common sense might wonder why - and come to the obvious conclusion.
It is certainly your prerogative to put your faith in such a person - as it is the prerogative of the reality-based to call bullshit when they see it being peddled to the gullible.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)You say: "Snowden hasn't provided an iota of proof to back up anything he has said so far - and he has said a lot."
Documents he has released have provided proof of things he has said.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)They're on the "It's not about Snowden" bus already, many of them.
"It's about the overreaches that he EXPOSED!!! Yeah, that's the ticket!!!!"
Would that he might have exposed them without also hanging our sources, methods, and systems, to say nothing of specific resources, out to dry, as well. The guy is just dumb as burnt toast. He does ONE thing very well, but he doesn't think shit through. His hubris got the best of him.
I would not be at all surprised if this entire mess came about because he didn't get that promotion to SES that he was angling for, and some other disliked and "less deserving" (read: able to interact socially with others without coming off like a smarmy blowhard) individual got it instead. I think the guy has a petty aspect at the core of his being, that he has swaddled in high-minded platitudes.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)"Snowden says the NSA is engaging in illegal activities, and I believe him."
"Who is Snowden, and why do you believe him?"
"It's not about the messenger, it's about the message."
"What's the message?"
"The message is that the NSA is engaging in illegal activities."
"Who said that?"
"Snowden."
"Who is Snowden, and why do you believe him?"
"It's not about the messenger, it's about the message."
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)That email is down right PATHETIC for the all of NSA hates Humanity crowd.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Others do.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)is that the NSA lied about the emails. It received at least one, and if you think it's the only one, I've got some property to sell you. How in the world would you know it is the ONLY email Snowden ever sent them when the NSA claimed there were none?
The NSA just proved it lied when it released the one email.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Snowden alleged the NSA had emails where he raised concerns. The NSA said it has no such emails. Snowden then revealed an agency he claims to have sent the emails to. The NSA searched that agency's email and found a single email where Snowden asked for clarification about a point in training he had recently attended. The email raised no concerns about the legalities of what he was doing or what anybody else in the NSA was doing.
Snowden lied.
Yeah, I so trust the NSA....I always trust people who spy for a living.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)HE did claim t be a super duper secret double naught spy, you know.
But only after he claimed he wasn't.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)he was a super duper secret double naught spy.
The NSA lied about the metadata, it lied about the email, it lies about most everything.
Snowden, however, released info knowing it was going to screw up his life. You can believe what you want but I appreciate what he did. I don't think he's a hero, I don't worship him, I just think he is a man who did the right thing.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Which one of us do you think the law agrees with?
elias49
(4,259 posts)Been here since April I see...of this year...huh! Methinks you're running a racket. Clearly we all can, without guilt, disregard what you have to say on thus topic. Take a well-deserved vacation. Govt benefits are pretty good.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)wrong and just plain bullshit, I don't really care.
You're a good little citizen, though.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Tell us why you think Manning is scum. And please, don't spare us any (inadvertently revealing) details.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)She is right where she belongs, though I will agree the sentence is a bit harsh. Snowden will probably only get 20 years but that's the difference between a civilian selling out their country and a military person selling out their country.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Snowden's claims were made in a television interview to be broadcast Wednesday evening by NBC News. They added a new twist to the year-long public relations battle between the administration and Snowden, who is living under asylum in Moscow to escape prosecution for leaking thousands of classified files detailing extensive U.S. surveillance programs at home and abroad.
"I was trained as a spy in sort of the traditional sense of the word in that I lived and worked undercover overseas — pretending to work in a job that I'm not — and even being assigned a name that was not mine," Snowden told Brian Williams of NBC News, in an excerpt released in advance of the full interview.
A traditional spy, too--like 007!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)someone who has made all kinds of serious allegations about the NSA - and has yet to provide an iota of proof supporting any of those allegations.
This is the fascinating part of the Snowdenista mindset: I don't believe a thing the gov't says, but I am willing to believe anything Eddie says, proof not required.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Not to mention I worked for federal law enforcement and I know how they are.
840high
(17,196 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to Congress, now that should be a big deal. What is Clapper and the CIA up to? But you Snowden-haters dont care what the NSA/CIA are up to because you have given up your right to privacy for an authoritarian promise of security. You've been had. They lie.
Your choice of the authoritative surveillance/security state over our Constitutional right to privacy puts us on the opposite sides in this class war and makes me wonder how you can call yourself liberal.
elias49
(4,259 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Just like the Bush Liars like Gonzales lied to Congress and we on the Dem Left carried on about it over and over. And, Gonzales is a free man wherever he is...probably living off paybacks from the Bushies for his lies. Colin Powell...and the rest are also liars who suffered no consequences. It's all documented..with Bush Administration how many lies came out of the mouths of those people.
Clapper lied...and got away with it. What can we tell the children? "Our Government Lies and so you should all be good kids because you can't lie...but, our Government Can? Or, "If You Lie...Make sure you are "in good with your Teacher" so that you can get away with it.." 
MADem
(135,425 posts)CONGRESS.
You'll want to ask them why they didn't bother to bring charges.
Perhaps it had something to do with an elected legislator demanding answers to classified material in open session.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And you know who needs to charge Clapper with a crime?
CONGRESS.
Why didn't they?
My guess--it's not cool to ask people questions for the cameras that a legislator KNOWS should ONLY be asked in closed session.
Anyway, you want Clapper frog-marched, talk to Congress. It's their call.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)oh, ok
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)ONE. That seems to be proof that he was correct, and they were not. That there were emails after all.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)The ones I've seen from the NSA on the subject do not support that "every avenue" was pursue by Snowden. A cursory attempt to clarify chain of command doesn't do squat.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)did express his concerns to his colleagues and superiors.
Why did they deny there was any correspondence when there clearly was?
Who knows, maybe he is giving them enough rope to hang themselves with? Or maybe because he did not take anything with him when he left the country for reasons which he has explained and did so again in this interview.
Manning expressed her concerns to her superiors also and was told to be quiet about them. Seems like a pattern whenever anyone does that. 'Just be quiet'. Most take that advice, but thankfully not everyone.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
dawg
(10,625 posts)I'm pretty sure the NSA doesn't use Yahoo! Mail.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)dawg
(10,625 posts)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Plain and simple...
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)Wouldn't be very wise to carry all kinds of files/notebooks with him around the city... cripes!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Thumb drives....I think he claimed to use them extensively
MADem
(135,425 posts)chip on his shoulder!
He sure acts like he's smarter than the average bear...but I don't know if he's got the right stuff to best his good buddy Pootie and his fearless steed!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)badly for those that "cant handle the truth" so attack the messenger. You no longer are in Kansas Dorthy (you are no longer living in a Democracy Dorthy). You can pretend and deny all you want, but it doesnt change the reality we live in today.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)If he didn't download those emails first.....he IS an idiot or a liar...simple as that!
First rule of govt contracting....CYA! Do all conversations in email so as to create a papertrail......if he didn't he is a moron.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)those emails to back up his claims. Obviously he isn't as smart as you think he is....OR he is a liar...
Which is it....
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)If he forgot to keep his evidence he is as dumb as 14 bags of hammers.
Now I don't think he is the sharpest knife in any drawer, but am confident he has the required amount of brain cells to keep documents proving his claims.
He's a liar. This whole scam has been rife with lies and deceit but the Greenwald PTL Club is still raking in money from the deludeds and their wallets.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)how about you provide a link to Snowden's statement that he forgot to save and take his own email with him?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)To be honest, I didn't expect one.
As for Snowden's having access to his emails, he has addressed this issue many times and did so again in this interview. He does NOT have access to any material relating to his job. A very wise decision on his part.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Them......they they don't exist.....and he is a liar....or he is a numbskull.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)To be honest....I don't expect them...
He doesn't NEED access to get his emails....he SHOULD have been intelligent enough to preserve them....IF the ever existed.....which I highly doubt.
He can steal govt property....BUT forgets to back up his own emails to that thumbdrive....
Either they exist and he is too stupid for words...OR they didn't and he is a stone cold liar!
Take your pick!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)and with good reason. It erodes NSA credibility every time they say "He sent no email" and out pops an email. Like "We do not spy on Americans" and then out jumps evidence that they spy on Americans.
He's letting them hang themselves with their own lies. It's actually pretty damn awesome.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)If he says there were emails, and NSA says "no"...then he should just release them and prove the NSA wrong.
He asks the NSA to release email and non of them have to do with whistleblowing. It just made Snowden look stupid...the email were just questions regarding chain of command, nothing that bubbled to the top as whistleblowing concerns. If there are more whistleblowing, qualifying e-mails, he should just release them and again, hel proves that the NSA was lying or withholding info.
Why is he waiting? Snowden can prove The NSA wrong/liars right now...he can prove that he actually delineated the problems he mentioned in the interview...why all the cat and mouse games. It's just dumb.l
Aerows
(39,961 posts)That irritates the shit out of the NSA, and those that support their right to surveil everything the American people do.
No, he does it one by one, so that when the crowd comes to say "all of these are bunk", instead, all they have is "this one is bunk". Then they get another. Then they get another, and then they get another, steadily eroding their credibility, which I am sure, is pretty terrifying.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Either the emails exist and he is a complete and total mental midget....or he is a complete and total liar;....
Take your pick.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)... lets stop.. the NSA is full of liars...
Snowden is supposed to stand for something and the amount of sophistry coming out of GG and Snowden these days belies whatever they're standing for.
Who in the world would take 1.7 million documents and just leave their emails showing they tried everything before going a route that would place agents in greater danger like Der Speigel said it would
Aerows
(39,961 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)"That was the least untruthful answer we could give, because that one was ambiguous and others will make us look bad."
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)He shouldn't have been smart enough to take THOSE when he decided he was smart enought to take govt property....(by the way....he had a dot gov email that was required to be used for CYA purposes)....and now he expects the govt to provied HIM with it?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)thinking.
I don't mean to hurt your feelings. I make mistakes too. We all do.
But think about it. Snowden is in Russia and stated that he does not have access to his NSA materials because he did not take them with him.
Snowden would not in any case have the e-mails that he sent to others at NSA. The NSA has them. The NSA lies to the American people. That is their habit. We have seen it before. And here it is again. I bet that Snowden also talked to people. The NSA will not admit it. The NSA is embarrassing itself as are its apologists.
How can anyone have confidence in our government which claims to be so high-minded and tolerates an NSA that lies when lying is not necessary.
The NSA's lies are simply to save its face. That is just so low that I feel sorry for it.
We cannot pretend to have a representative government when the government that is supposed to represent us lies to us instead.
What an insult to our Founding Fathers. What an insult to the men and women who left their families to come here and build a country that would remain free and honest. What an insult to all the many people who have died for our country. What a travesty.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to the issue and from making completely uninformed comments.
Here's a short version for you. Snowden has no access to his emails. The NSA does, OBVIOUSLY, since they have now produced one, which they originally denied having.
Hope that was short enough?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He does not have his NSA internal e-mail account.
He did not take documents related to NSA into Russia.
Did you listen to his NBC interview. He did a great job. He is a very bright, very conscientious, very humble guy considering he had the courage to come forward with this information about the NSA.
His grandfather worked in some capacity for the FBI.
It took me a long time to finally listen to the interview. I was even more impressed by Snowden's integrity and thougtfulness than I expected to be.
I hope you will watch it.
It's really sad to see the numbers of people who support the NSA in this. I blame it on the fact that so many people who are on DU were educated since the Nixon administration.
I was born during the war. The WWII and Cold War issues were of great importance when I was growing up.
I remember in high school that my very conservative government teacher bragged that in Russia people could not travel freely, but . . . . in America we don't have to have permits to travel. We can travel freely.
Well, as long as you don't fly. Even on the train you can't really travel anonymously or freely.
In a car -- maybe but your license will be easily traced by the police.
It's probably harder to sneak past authorities as you travel in the US than it was in Russia in the 1950s when I was in high school.
Not that I would want to sneak past authorities. My children ridicule me because I am so law-abiding. I do occasionally jay-walk but only if there are no crosswalks laid out.
I lived in Europe on the edge of Eastern Europe during the Cold War. The surveillance reminds me of the towers we saw on the borders of Czechoslovakia and Hungary -- with gun turrets mounted. Those were the old days. Young people nowadays don't understand that the NSA surveillance is the equivalent of those gun turrets.
The NSA program from what I can figure will eventually have only one purpose if that is not already the purpose: to discourage free communication about new and creative political ideas.
Americans are not inclined toward terrorism or have not been. That is precisely because we have in the past enjoyed the great freedom to communicate, to learn, to travel, to create new things, to make our dreams and new ideas into realities.
The NSA surveillance is just one symptom of the loss of that freedom. But it should wake us up. I am sorry that you are defending the NSA. The NSA is wrong on this one.
I could understand the quarrel with Snowden's exposure of the NSA's foreign surveillance. But apparently, the NSA is doing espionage of commercial secrets, trade secrets. That is beneath the US. Really beneath us. The Chinese may do it. The Russians may do it. But what do you expect of them. We supposedly believe in competition, free enterprise, patents, law. We should not be stealing trade secrets.
So sad to see that freedom, personal freedom is not valued by the youth of today.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)If he does not have them he is either a complete moron or a liar.
There is no other option. One or the other. Complete moron or liar.
elias49
(4,259 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Delete emails....NEVER. He would definitely use a govt issued email to do this.....if they existed....the first thing he would have done was save the emails that exonerated him as a whistleblower....this leads me to believe either he is lying...or is completely stupid and should NEVER have been placed in the positions he was....
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He does not have any e-mails from the NSA. He did not bring them with him.
The NSA is lying.
In addition, Feinstein released an e-mail this morning from Snowden regarding the legal basis for the NSA spying or some aspect of the NSA spying.
The question asked in the e-mail is quite sophisticated. The wording and nature of the question strongly suggest that it was a follow-up question and that some either verbal or written communication about the issue of the legal authority for the NSA's intrusive programs had been raised and possibly discussed with superiors prior to the question in the e-mail that Feinstein released.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Or incredibly stupid. As I said....you CYA when you do Govt Contracting work...you NEVER delete emails. You always try to converse in email so as to leave a paper trail.
If the first thing he did wasn't to download those conversations...he is either lying about them or stupid.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I have explained why he does not have e-mails from the NSA. He did not take them with him into Russia. If you watched the interview, then you know why he did not bring them. To paraphrase him, he explained he did not want to carry NSA materials with him because if he did he would make himself a target as he traveled through Russia.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)denial is not a river in Egypt. Emails ARE CYA for everyone in Govt IT....it is drilled into your head. You have to constantly provide EVIDENCE of things that were said. Emails provide that proof.
If Snowden forgot the emails he is a complete fool. Otherwise they don't exist and he is a complete liar!
Take your pick!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Listen to his interview and you will understand why he brought nothing with him.
Do you trust an agency, a government, to read your e-mails and review and analyze your metadata if that government cannot track the e-mails from its employees or, alternatively, is not honest enough to produce them when challenged about their existence?
There are probably people within the NSA and the contracting companies who are just keeping very quiet about their conversations and contacts with Snowden least some of the "cooties" on Snowden be found on them. There are probably a lot of people working at the NSA and in contracting companies who fear for their jobs because they worked with or associated with Snowden.
That is why the e-mails are hard to find. He probably spoke to people although he does not strike me as a very talkative fellow. His every word is carefully considered. He does not strike me as a liar either although my opinion on that is subjective.
Did you watch the interview?
It's quite informative. You get a better idea of who he is and what he is thinking. It's always good to know what you are talking about, and watching the interview gives you a better idea of what you are talking about. He is a very calm, intelligent person -- very thoughtful. I was surprised by his extremely quiet, conscientious personality. He is better educated than I expected.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)...the emails that would prove he went through proper steps to show that something wrong was going on in the NSA!?!?
BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SHIT!
Now it comes out he meet with GG et al BEFORE he sent the email!?
Come on!!!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Snowden did not take any of the NSA materials with him into Russia. He explains in the interview that he was trained as a spy and knew that if he took any of the materials with him, he would be like Tweety bird to a (Russian) Sylvester, a tasty morsel. He explained that he does not have the capacity to get into the NSA computers or the documents he gave to journalists (not just Greenwald and Poitras; quite a few newspapers received documents).
Again, before you jump to conclusions, please listen to the interview.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm pretty certain that everyone "defending" Snowden can put their hands on their own CYA emails from 5 years ago when their boss/employer asked/directed them to do something that was illegal/wrong or just ill-advised ... Yet they want to act all brand new on this! 
baldguy
(36,649 posts)You say if the NSA can't produce them, they must be lying. But you don't place the same onus on the guy who supposedly sent them.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Snowden explains that he did not take any of the NSA electronic materials with him to Russia because he would be a target, a Tweety bird with Sylvester catching him.
Snowden does not have any of that electronic material.
My opinion: Snowden was trained as a spy. He knew better than to take anything with him into Russia that could incite or encourage the Russians to try to shake him down.
If you watch the interview, you will realize that Snowden is an intelligent and very rational young man. He is no hothead. He is even less of an angry hothead than I expected him to be, and I always figured that he was smart and levelheaded.
Further, his vocabulary, syntax and speech would cause one to believe that he has at least a college degree if not a graduate degree. Surprising in a high school graduate.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)A handful of his own emails wouldn't have made any difference.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Whistleblower....the guy that took the job at Booz Allen to actually pull this caper....was'nt smart enough AFTER he and GG came up with this plot....he wouldn't think.....maybe I should take those emails too?
A liar or a fool.
randome
(34,845 posts)...when he didn't seem to understand that PRISM was a secure FTP server transfer point.
And when he said "I am not here to hide from justice" from his undisclosed location in Hong Kong.
I'm uncertain at this point which one of the 'dynamic duo' of Greenwald and Snowden is Tweedle Dee and which one is Tweedle Dum.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Show us records of recorded calls. Show us anything. But you can't just say "there are more" and then play on the people's paranoia to suggest that the government is "hiding" these emails.
It's up to Snowden to bring proof of the emails. Saying they exist does not make it so. My advice: put up or shut up, because it's looking worse every time you say it.
G_j
(40,372 posts)or maybe not, but someone else may: (very well stated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5022539
KoKo
(84,711 posts)lots of layers left. We probably only have the outer skin at this point. But, that's a start.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"Give us the papers" like you are Edward Snowden and can produce the email. It really pisses some people off when the government is criticized (and rightly so!). Never mind that they lied and said they had none, then they came up with the "least undamaging" one they could come up with.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I'm confused.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)and can't produce a single one of them.
frylock
(34,825 posts)flat out fucking lied. denied any existence of aforementioned email, then lo and behold, here's an email! and still, you feel compelled to believe the lying ass mutherfuckers at NSA.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)They said they had not received emails that expressed concerns about NSA surveillance programs. The released email displays no such concerns: it's merely a legal question about governing authorities, written after a training course (and after he'd already contacted reporters).
If Mr. Snowden wrote such emails, he needs to produce them. It's reeeaaaaal simple, folks.
elias49
(4,259 posts)He didn't bring his fucking laptop through the fucking airport security when he flew to Russia. Jesus!
frazzled
(18,402 posts)copies/a thumb drive/paper printouts with friends. He could have sent them to Poitras/Greenwald/anybody.
You people really aren't thinking. We're talking about someone who is supposed to be smart. Who knew he was doing something huge enough and dangerous enough to know he needed to flee the country. So you're saying he went to the trouble to make sure to pre-discuss his concerns with the higher-ups upon whom he was going to whistleblow ... and then DIDN"T DOCUMENT IT?
That's crazy. And no, I don't need "links" to the crazy. This place has gone mad.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)or 450 hotmail and gmail accounts.
man the thickness here is frustrating and entertaining all at once.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
And this surly is a time of universal deciet...
baldguy
(36,649 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)And sense we know NSA will never lie to you it must be Snowden that is the liar?
What incredible logic that is...it is like saying the accused says he did not commit the murder so the witness must be lying.
randome
(34,845 posts)Even Snowden said in the NBC interview that he knows of no illegalities committed by the NSA. I find that statement to be number 10 on the WTF scale. Right up there with "I am not here to hide from justice."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
zeemike
(18,998 posts)What is moral is not same as what is legal.
And this was also explained by the secret law that made immoral and unconstitutional actions legal...and it is not as if that was a new thing in our history.
But if there is no body, only blood hair and a bloody knife does that mean the murder never happened?
My point is that there is evidence...but you chose to explain it away with speculation about the one who presents it.
randome
(34,845 posts)I have opinions, too, but I don't steal millions of national security documents to try and make my opinion worth more than anyone else's. If Snowden knows of no illegalities, he does not fit into even the most expansive of definitions of 'whistleblower'.
Which means he is nothing but a thief. A thief who badly wants us to think kindly -even heroically- of him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
zeemike
(18,998 posts)He had evidence that the NSA was violating the 4th amendment of the constitution...You call it just his opinion because you have accepted the opinion of the Bush legal team that gave a legal opinion it was OK to spy on us all.
There is no nuance in the 4th amendment it is quite clear...
And it is clear from the evidence he has presented that the government violate every part of that ammendment...and did so shamelessly, and expected us all to ignore it because they said it was to keep us safe.
randome
(34,845 posts)"I am not here to hide from justice." Said from his undisclosed location in Hong Kong. That one always cracks me up.
Come on, be honest. That was a dumb thing for him to say, don't you think?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)Not generic concerns.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)All in due time.
It's a cat and mouse game. Snowden has all the power at this time. ALL the power.
I know that's infuriating, but it is so.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I know it's maddening to you, but nobody but the fanboyz on DU are really interested in this story. In the two days since the interview, for instance, the New York Times ran one small, several-paragraph article buried on page 19. Today, they let their TV critic comment on Brian William's performance. That's it: nobody cares about Edward Snowden much.
Second: it IS incumbent on the accuser to bring proof of charges he is making. He keeps saying there are emails, and it's up to him to show his copies of them. If he didn't keep copies, he's dumber than sh*t.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)He's been trashing the POTUS.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)that your "boredom" with this post allows you to KEEP POSTING...with out links to verify when others have given you links which you don't seem to want to discuss.
It's frustrating seeing your anger and yet hard to know where it comes from when you can't support your posts with "LINKS."
Seriously...can you please explain your position with BACK UP..?? How can we have a DISCUSSION if the opposition doesn't give LINKS to Back Up their Statements in Oppostion to a view? 
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)It's a grown-up thing.
840high
(17,196 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)He's stuck in Russia, watching "The Wire", for lack of anything else to do. He can't hold a job, because he doesn't know the language. He can't travel anywhere, and he can't come home without facing the consequences of his actions.
He has no idea what his fate will be from one day to the next, once Putin no longer finds him useful.
If this is a cat-and-mouse game, Eddie is the mouse - while the cat, his friend GG, lines his own pockets thanks to Eddie's "information".
You'd think that someone who is holding "all the power" would have wound up in far better circumstances than the situation Snowden now finds himself in.
I am curious to know what power you think Snowden has.
I am also curious as to why you think saying that Snowden should show his copies of his (alleged)
emails would satisfy someone's "blood lust". It's a simple and very straightforward question: If such emails exist, why can't Snowden produce his copies? If he took no copies, why didn't he - considering they would confirm his current claim that he'd raised his concerns through proper channels?
"Snowden has no obligation to ..." is always the bottom line with his supporters. According to them, Snowden has no obligation to prove a single one of his many allegations.
It's been amusing to watch people who pride themselves on their "healthy skepticism" of anything and everything the gov't says completely abandon ALL skepticism when it comes to a man who has made numerous allegations, and has offered no evidence to back them up.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)He is prepared to accept anything they might intend, and even anticipated his own loss of liberty or loss of life. He has all the power, and has achieved his goal.
His conscience is clear, he sleeps well.
He's in the catbird seat.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)You said it's a cat-and-mouse game, and Snowden holds all the power.
What power does he hold? His conscience is clear and he sleeps well? So do millions of people worldwide - and they do so in their own beds at home, not in a foreign country where they are not free to travel, pursue a career, visit their families.
What's the "game"? What goal has Snowden achieved? Making allegations he can't prove?
If you honestly believe that Snowden would have done what he did knowing he would wind up where he is, you are truly gullible.
I'm sure Snowden pictured himself sitting in a nice house in a safe country, raking in the money from interviews, books, film rights to his story, etc.
Elevating Snowden to Christ-like status where he "sacrificed" himself for the betterment of his fellow citizens is as naive as it gets. He described welfare and SS recipients as lazy moochers - do you really think he "sacrificed" himself for them?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)with facts and logic.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Oh noes!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and that the Mounties have something to do with my post, that this is a way for you to denigrate me in some way?
This isn't the first time you've said that to me and I'm curious how you think I should react or feel toward this because my only reaction is: What a dumb post.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The Snowden haters are like mosqutoes on an elephant in this matter. Lots of buzzing, little damage. Wasted efforts.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)you run away with parting words like:
I don't like you, ---- I'm not talking to you no more, ---- I'm not going to get Engaged to You afterall and want my Ring back!
and you're a Mountie, so there!!!
Translation for trakhnut' menya! is I'm fucked or Fuck me, in russian.
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And covering their screens also, then plug in a few thumbdrives and gather all of the emails from Snowden.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I mean, the NSA is part of the government that's "of, by, and for the people". And, as long as the "people" are kept in the dark about what the NSA does and is protected from the likes of Snowden...we can rest assured that the NSA is working on our behalf...without knowing that it is.
Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.
Thomas Jefferson
Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Thank You!
Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.
Thomas Jefferson
Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)you are doing.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)So let Snowden produce the real e-mails, then...His bluff has been called and he needs to put up or shut up...Time for him to lay down the cards...At the bare minimum he could at least say WHO he spoke to, and WHEN...I was asking for that information last year...
And for the record (because people are starting to run away with the "But the NSA said he never sent an e-mail!" -taking point)...A general civics question after a training session to the General Counsel is *NOT* the same as a message alleging widespread criminal activity and violations of established procedure to the Inspector General...And people with a brain can damn well tell he difference...
I hope Greenwald and Snowden give a hundred more interviews (even softball ones), because they only end up painting themselves in a corner and end up having to contort themselves constantly moving the goalposts, revising their comments from previous interviews and twisting logic when the inevitable next-day fact check comes...Or they deploy their high-profile cronies to shill for them or attack critics (I'm specifically looking in your direction, Mona Fuckin' Holland)...
So no more talk, no more back-and-forth he said/she said...I want to see Snowden's e-mails...If he's telling the truth, then there's no way he doesn't have copies...If he's not telling the truth, even the so-called "subservient, fawning, mewling" mainstream media (or however many words Greenwald wants to pull from the thesaurus) will start asking difficult questions and the house of cards will collapse..
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....are the reason why more and more people are supporting Snowden.
Right?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)A polling methodology with all the scientific credibility of Intelligent Design, I might add.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)A contemporaneous snapshot is better than a poll from January.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)But I'm willing to wager that the "Snowden" the public supports is the "official" cultivated image of that dogged, intelligent independent, principled whistleblower who is unafraid to speak truth to power and sacrificing his own well-being for the greater good...
If for whatever reason the official narrative is proven to inaccurate or duplicitous (and I believe as long as Snowden stays in the public eye it's only a matter of time before the stage curtain gets pulled back), I'd be very interested in seeing those opinion polls...
In all seriousness: How many lies do you need to catch someone in (even if most of them are little white lies; or the lies were in the name of a "good" cause) before you start to doubt that person's character?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)of us who have followed this closely since it broke. How can one know what you are talking about without a reference?
Did you watch the PBS:FRONTLINE a 3 hour Documentary about the NSA Whistleblowers before Snowden and details of what the Programs are, how they work and how this is important for Americans to know how their Government has gathered information?
I've posted it many times here on DU. It's well worth the watch because it seems that some are focused on Snowden and Greenwald without really connecting the dots that the Frontline Documentary does in a way that makes the whole revelations fall into place so that one can grasp that this isn't about "I've got nothing to hide...so why should I care" defense.
-------
HERE:
"NATION OF SECRETS" - PBS FRONTLINE: Whistleblowers + Snowden & Greenwald ....Years of Govt. Spying
(Reposting because some here don't seem to understand the Whistleblowers who tried to break Government Spying on Citizens before Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald released documents and why they felt it was important for them to do so. This would be excellent background for those who haven't followed closely to catch up with why what Snowden revealed is so very important to the health of our Democratic Republic Nation going forward.)
---------
United States of Secrets (Part One)
How did the government come to spy on millions of Americans?
ONLINE LINK to VIEW: PART 2 is available at the same link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/
It's two hours long and next week is Part Two. It was Excellent Watch about the NSA Spying, how it expanded under Bush, how he lied about it, the persecution of Whistle Blowers, NYT holding up story of illegal Bush spying until after the 2004 Election so the people wouldn't know, Obama's broken promises to reign it in and Greenwald and the Snowden Document release.
*WARNING* ...It's overwhelming to watch the whole two hours in one sitting. (It's like watching a thriller movie) Good to break it up in segments.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Have Links to support you or not. I gave you links....still waiting.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... that after catching the NSA in numerous bald faced lies over this situation that you still think they have more credibility than Snowden. Laughable and welcome to my Ignore list.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)The ignore list is self-defeating in the long run...Trust me -- I had almost 400 names on mine and only seeing DUers I didn't have any beef with was detracting from my DU experience...
And a protip: Skip the "Welcome to my ignore list" and just ignore someone...Nothing screams "butthurt" like that line...
So let me get this straight (It's academic because I know you won't read it anyway): Because the NSA lies constantly, Snowden is allowed to? Is that the logic we're going with now?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)do contrary to their original denials. Why didn't they produce this email before?
As for mistakes, I think Snowden has handled this brilliantly, guess he learned from all the other Whistle Blowers how NOT to handle things, Manning eg, should have sought political asylum also, Drake supports Snowden having experienced how Whistle Blowers are treated in this country, Binney too.
Drake was forbidden from speaking in his own defense. Manning, well we all know that tragic story which will one day be written about when this dark period in our history is over.
Snowden like future Whistle blowers observed these terrible results of trying to inform the people of wrong doing by govt agencies, and learned. He probably won't be the last to seek political asylum after revealing wrong doing by our government.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)No matter how many times it's posted here it seems that there are still who don't realize how much "FRONTLINE" revealed about what happened to the many Whistleblowers who went through the channels exposing the massive data collection for years under Bush II.
Yet some still seem to think that think that an employee like Snowden (no matter his position) can just simply report what he found to his supervisor and supervisor is going to go to Clapper and Clapper being shocked at what's going on (ha!) will take it straight up to the President. A Special Investigative Commission will be immediately called and Snowden will be given a "Freedom Medal," when the vast extent of surveillance on average American Citizens is revealed.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)not all of course, who are attempting to defend the indefensible, are so in order to try to protect the violators of our Constitutional rights and have zero interest in the truth. They KNOW the truth, they have been presented with it often enough. But truth is the opposite of what they are interested in. There is so much to HIDE and there is an army out there on the internet desperately trying to do just that. I guess I have become cynical over the past few years.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Hey...If those e-mails to the IG exist, I'd love to see them...They would go a long way towards proving that the chain of events occurred exactly how Snowden said they did, and not only that, the IG and probably half of his office would be out of a job (which alone would be worth the price of admission)…If Snowden didn’t have the foresight to save/print/copy those e-mails while he was planning this stunt for the better part of two years, he has nobody to blame but himself, and his circle is beyond delusional demanding the NSA release them…
But let’s be honest and think about this for a moment…If those e-mails existed, the Guardian would have published them last summer; end of story…I’ve worked in city government and I’ve worked at a state university, and 100% of the successful whistleblower cases I’ve known about have had one thing in common: A cover-your-ass/get-out-of-jail-free card to protect them from prosecution for wrongdoing…Including but not limited to:
1. Being vouched for by an unimpeachable source
2. A paper trail or e-mail conversation of who signed off on which orders, and who know what when
3. Hidden audio/video recording
So while slightly plausible, it beggars belief that Snowden would start his journey without the universal whistleblower’s talisman…
I personally could have cared less if Snowden left without talking to the IG or emailing whoever…But since he has been screaming up and down for months that he did (against overwhelming evidence), it’s reasonable for me to ask for proof…How far would his NSA allegations have gotten if he didn’t have documented chapter-and-verse evidence of those? If Snowden can’t prove he e-mailed a dozen different people about NSA abuses, then maybe he needs to stop saying he did…
KoKo
(84,711 posts)What's with this that you can't give links to VERIFY your "Opinion Post" which sounds very authentic with your 1.2.3 points...but, it's OPINION ...with NO LINKS..
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as Snowden claimed, none, zero, zilch. NOW they admit to the existence of one at least and try to spin it in their own favor.
Occam's Razor applies here, they lied, now contradict themselves in an effort to try to smear Snowden, they reveal that he was CORRECT, that there are emails, contrary to their original claims.
So far, Snowden has been proven to be correct. The NSA exposed as having lied.
Decuction to any reasonable person is that if they lied before, they are lying now.
Their release of THIS 'non-existent- email proves them to be liars.
The head of their agency LIED TO CONGRESS.
You'll have to forgive those of us who simply look at the facts. NSA, Clapper, proven liars. Snowden, not so much until proven otherwise.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Whistleblower says government's "strangely tailored and incomplete leak only shows the NSA feels it has something to hide." "
...are desperately trying to make his lack of proof a position of strength, like he has the upper hand.
Snowden is making the claim. If he was stupid enough to not keep documented proof, then he just blowing smoke.
I mean, he's attacking the NSA and also relying on them to prove his BS claims? Pretty stupid position to be in.
Snowden brought focus to his alleged e-mail. Yet his legal adviser thinks the focus on this is a "red herring."
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-releases-snowden-email-nbc-truth/story?id=23918598&singlePage=true
His allies can't even agree on what this means.
Snowden's lawyer is dismissing as a "red herring" what Greenwald characterized as the "biggest news."
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/471893773375397889
LOL!
Wizner's comments also indicates that Snowden has no evidence of his contacts.
In his current statement, Snowden seems to imply that he wants this issue to go away:
"Ultimately, whether my disclosures were justified does not depend on whether I raised these concerns previously."
If it wasn't relevant, why did he make a big deal out of it? Was it because he was trying to make a case for clemency?
Snowden recently changed his story because he's still desperate for clemency
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024640825
Snowden is facing charges. He wants to come home. He's pleading for clemency.
He's relying on the NSA to provide the evidence that he sent e-mail related to the leaks?
What's the plan: Keep railing against the agency because they aren't producing anything to back up his claim?
Like I said, pretty dumb.
Ellsberg inadvertently makes the case for why Snowden should have stayed in the U.S.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025024549
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)This is a medical condition, not a real topic for political discussion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Aerows
(39,961 posts)
randome
(34,845 posts)Using my own words against me? Oh my! In that picture, you could substitute Snowden for the poodle and Greenwald for his handler.
I'm sorry Snowden has become a disappointment to you. But we need fewer self-professed heroes, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Not Cool! And you know that....
s
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)All they have left are instant walls of text, LOL and emoticons.
That is the way to tell they lost.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)And Snowden is in the catbird seat. He is holding all the cards. The only thing the NSA could do to him would be assassinate hijm, and then he would be a martyr for liberty.
He has achieved his goal of starting a national conversation about surveillance. He won!
KoKo
(84,711 posts)post after post of "Opinion without Verification."
When asked for Verification and Links to Articles/Info that can be parsed....it's Silence/Crickets.
It's amazing to see this ...given DU Protocol of giving Back Up Links/Verification for posts...lets one be looked on as ......well...won't say how that was viewed. Don't want to be unkind.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)I suppose it's easier to win when there is only one side playing a game.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
Aerows
(39,961 posts)He makes a claim, the NSA asserts "we are not doing this". Then he pops out a document that shows that they are, in fact, doing this. He makes another claim, and they bluster and claim it isn't possible, then he pops out with not only it is possible, it is an SOP. Then he claims "I sent email". The NSA tries again to get out in front of it by showing the "least damaging" email that they can, but which still does prove that Snowden did attempt to use the proper channels, and they squall.
It's hilarious. The NSA looks like the National Stupidity Agency because they can't open their mouths without lying and the lies keep getting thrown in their faces.
My suggestion to the NSA: Quit while you are behind. The more lies you get caught in, the more people are going to rally around Snowden, and the worse it is going to be when the avalanche of shit rolls down on your heads.
"He makes a claim, the NSA asserts 'we are not doing this'. Then he pops out a document that shows that they are, in fact, doing this. "
So he has copies of the e-mail?
Yeah, it's a "masterpiece" in spin.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)LOL or whatnot.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So you're OK with NSA spying?"
...Snowden defenders love to pretend that the choice is love the NSA or love Snowden. Many people who oppose NSA overreach and recognize the value of the debate also don't approve of Snowden's actions that go beyond sparking a debate about the NSA's domestic activities. Snowden's problem is that he knows damn well he screwed up with his actions overseas. This goes to his motives, and likely why he fled.
Again, the choice is not love the NSA or love Snowden.
Jimmy Carter:
Susan Page
NEW YORK -- Former president Jimmy Carter defended the disclosures by fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden on Monday, saying revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies were collecting meta-data of Americans' phone calls and e-mails have been "probably constructive in the long run."
<...>
Does he view Snowden, now granted asylum in Russia, as a hero or a traitor?
"There's no doubt that he broke the law and that he would be susceptible, in my opinion, to prosecution if he came back here under the law," he said. "But I think it's good for Americans to know the kinds of things that have been revealed by him and others -- and that is that since 9/11 we've gone too far in intrusion on the privacy that Americans ought to enjoy as a right of citizenship."
Carter cautioned that he didn't have information about whether some of the disclosures "may have hurt our security or individuals that work in security," adding, "If I knew that, then I may feel differently." And he said Snowden shouldn't be immune from prosecution for his actions.
"I think it's inevitable that he should be prosecuted and I think he would be prosecuted" if he returned to the United States, the former president said. "But I don't think he ought to be executed as a traitor or any kind of extreme punishment like that."
- more -
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/24/usa-today-capital-download-jimmy-carter-edward-snowden-probably-constructive/6822425/
Bernie Sanders:
BLITZER: What about Snowden? Do you think that he committed a crime or he was simply a well-intentioned whistle-blower?
SANDERS: Well, I think what you have to look at is -- I think there is no question that he committed a crime, obviously. He violated his oath and he leaked information.
On the other hand, what you have to weigh that against is the fact that he has gone a very long way in educating the people of our country and the people of the world about the power of private agency in terms of their surveillance over people of this country, over foreign leaders, and what they are doing.
So, I think you got to weigh the two. My own belief is that I think, I would hope that the United States government could kind of negotiate some plea bargain with him, some form of clemency. I think it wouldn't be a good idea or fair to him to have to spend his entire remaining life abroad, not being able to come back to his country.
So I would hope that there's a price that he has to pay, but I hope it is not a long prison sentence or exile from his country.
BLITZER: You wouldn't give him clemency, though, and let him off scot-free?
SANDERS: No. BLITZER: All right, Senator, thanks very much for joining us.
<...>
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1401/06/sitroom.02.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024292659
Senator Blumenthal: prosecute Snowden, overhaul FISA courts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023425884
Rep. John Lewis: "NO PRAISE FOR SNOWDEN-Reports about my interview with The Guardian are misleading"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023427908
From the beginning, it was clear that Snowden broke the law (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439290). There was a point where even Snowden supporters accepted that he knew he broke the law. Snowden said it himself.
Fleeing the country and releasing state secrets did not help his case.
His actions since then have only made the situation worse.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035550
Some of Snowden's fans are now attacking Kerry for stating the obvious, what many others have said, which is basically that Snowden is a fugitive from justice and he has the choice to return to the U.S. to be held accountable.
Former Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke: Snowden Should Be In Prison
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025023981
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Where's the devotion to demonizing NSA and illegal domestic spying?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Got it. So why spend so much energy demonizing Snowden and Greenwald?
Where's the devotion to demonizing NSA and illegal domestic spying?"
...asking why people criticize Snowden? I mean, he did an interview on NBC, and people are talking about it.
Some are defending him and some are criticizing him. Why does that bother you?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)You've posted lots against Snowden and Greenwald. Where are yours links to what they exposed? The revelations the government spies on citizens is more important for democracy, rather than slamming and demonization..
"The Missing Links.
You've posted lots against Snowden and Greenwald. Where are yours links to what they exposed? The revelations the government spies on citizens is more important for democracy, rather than slamming and demonization."
...you first: Show me your links criticizing Snowden or Greenwald for anything.
I mean, do you really think I need to prove to you that I posted anything about the NSA to justify my criticism of Snowden?
LOL!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Just wanted to ask. Maybe Metacrawler can find it. No need to repeat what I wrote.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Go for it, and enjoy.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I'll keep trying to find your posts where your opposition to NSA spying is clear.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)You appear in threads to point out that I kicked them.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The wonder is that NSA keeps taking the bait.
He won. There's nothing they could do to him that.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)has been inflicted by the NSA itself, which is exactly what the country needed to see.
Lie after lie after lie from these arrogant fascists.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)To protect us from the Terrorists.
840high
(17,196 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)What Sen. Frank Church (Real D-Idaho) said about NSA spying in 1975:
“That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.
"I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see 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.”
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish/277
-- Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) FDR New Deal, Liberal, Progressive, World War II combat veteran. A brave man, the NSA was turned on him. Coincidentally, he narrowly lost re-election a few years later.
Pinning blame on Snowden is just a diversion from what was treason when Nixon, Reagan, Poppy Bush, Dimson Bush and Cheney did it.
It feels immensely gratifying to be on the right side of history.
I can sleep at night, too.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)who Fought for the People and weren't "Paid Operatives" for Think Tanks, Koch Brothers and wherever they could scrap a nickle or dime or Millions for a Position.
Yes...we always had a percentage of GRIFTERS in our US House & Senate...but, these days it's hard to find an honest one in the bunch.....some plead they are working for us...but it often turns on that dime, dollar, interest group or......Maybe the NSA has something on them they use.
WHAT A MESS we are dealing with... 
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)That was only the baby of what they wanted and now have.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,405 posts)If Snowden and the NSA were "tête-à-tête", we wouldn't have the faintest idea what they were saying to each other. Maybe the writer was thinking of "mano a mano"?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Couldn't find any of his emails.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)But, he is playing "cat and mouse" because he KNOWS they have them..but, it's not up to him as a Defendant to produce information until he is Confronted with their Denial that they have the E-Mails.
It gets into "Legal Territory" with Snowden and NSA (Government) going back and forth.
Sounds like that's what's going on to me....open to other opinions.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)recommended and thanks for this.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
No links to verify their position just OP after OP which means little without back up links.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Cough up your copies, Ed.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Snowden listed who he contacted in the NBC Interview with Williams..he told NSA who to contact. He's like the cat watching the mouse hole. He has power of what he Knows on his side...NSA never thought they would be confronted and they are not used to that. Truth to Power when they've gotten free ride for so long doesn't sit well with liars and obfuscaters who owe all to their great NSA TITLES and PERKS sending work to Outside Contractors like Booz-Allen...faves of the Bushies and Wall Street.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"No...it's the NSA who should "cough up copies" not the Defendant in the Case.."
So he makes a claim and it's someone else's responsibility to prove him right?
MADem
(135,425 posts)was rebuffed.
It's a high bar, and he hasn't hurdled it.
All he needs to do is cough up his "proof" that he was told "Talk to the hand" and "Shut up Ed, and Follow Orders" and he'll have the world on a string.
So why isn't he doing this?
He stole hundreds of thousands of documents. He put them on thumb drives.
So why didn't he put ten letters of complaint, and the shirty responses to Shut Up and Do Yer Job, Ed, on those thumb drives?
I was born at night. Not LAST night.
If he doesn't cough up those letters, he NEVER WROTE THEM.
elias49
(4,259 posts)in his room! Of course!
MADem
(135,425 posts)Don't tell me he can give GG and LP hundreds of thousands of documents on thumb drives, but he can't manage to toss ten or so letters/emails on that thing?
Please.
elias49
(4,259 posts)that's where metadata is born.
MADem
(135,425 posts)to GG and LP?
elias49
(4,259 posts)perhaps we should wait and see what turns up.
MADem
(135,425 posts)slot.
And it wasn't for want of publicizing it, either. NBC went ALL OUT to let people know it was airing.
Yet, for some strange reason, people are so "over" Ed that they'd rather watch a rerun of CSI or Last Comic Standing.
He's stayed too long at the fair. He's hogged the stage for too long. He'd better start singing or the Sandman is going to come out with the hook.
They're just not into him anymore...!
elias49
(4,259 posts)so continue to say "...people aren't 'into' him.
We'll see how it turns out. Maybe the American people really don't care about losing the right to privacy.
Maybe the American people don't care if they're all eventually issued a number..remember John Poindexter and Total Information Awareness? Maybe the American people just don't give a shit and just want to watch American Idol.
But that's not how I feel. Guess I'm still 'into' him.
randome
(34,845 posts)Do you think that's possible?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]
elias49
(4,259 posts)that's why I said..let's wait and see how this turns out. This is important shit - bad idea to rush.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He didn't avail himself of the resources that were available to him.
He thought he was too important to go through channels, and he perceived that he'd be the Big Hero by sounding the alarm, instead of doing what a "trained spy patriot" would do, which is resolve the issue within the framework of law while respecting his "trained spy" oath and non-disclosure agreements.
All he would have had to do is prove to Diane Feinstein all of the crap he was alleging--go hack her email, wire up her phone and listen in, take pictures of her through her home security system--go to her, show her this stuff (I mean, after all, he could "keystroke" the POTUS, so he said) and then say "Senator, this is wrong, please allow me to testify in closed session!" and he'd be off to the races.
But he didn't do that, because he's bullshitting. He knows a lot, but there's a lot he doesn't know.
And you can be "into" him all you'd like. There will be a point in time, though, where he and maybe even you figure out that it's just not ABOUT him. And his trying to make himself the Flavor of the Year just ain't cutting it.
elias49
(4,259 posts)it's about you and me and a lot of wannabes that would like to maybe make a difference, make a dent, in what we think is wrong with this country to make it better. But we don't. I don't. Too many people talk about him like he's some scurvy knave...I don't care if he's looking for some strange 'glory' in doing what he did. What he did do was to open the eyes of lots of folks to the unpleasant world of the "National Security" industry, which has little regard for the current legal system or personal rights of individuals.
MADem
(135,425 posts)methodologies to our adversaries.
That wasn't a smooth move. Additionally, we don't know what he took, who's named in those documents. There could be a lot of PLAMES in the hands of GG and LP. And who knows how safe that material is?
If I were an active operative in the field, I'd be tense. If I were in a hotbutton posting, I'd be VERY tense.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Top News Media to decide what to publish. He's never said he revealed names...it's only Programs...although there are probably names who approved those programs.
You go way to far in thinking that his goal was to identify Spies/OPs in National Intelligence. His point was to REVEAL the SPYING PROGRAMS by our GOVT. on AMERICAN CITIZENS.
I've seen nothing from him that says otherwise. And, seen nothing from you that you've even watched or read anything from Snowden and Greenwald to verify that he "Outed Secret Agents" in the "War on Terror."
You've never even mentioned you've read Greewald in "Salon" or the "Guardian" to follow any of this or the "PBS/FRONTLINE DOCUMENTARY" revealing what OTHER Whistleblowers tried to do to out what the felt was Illegal and Immoral that our Government was engaged in that DEFIED the BILL OF RIGHTS of our Constitution.
If you'd even just watched that Documentary you would be better equipped to fight a battle against Snowden (which seems to be what you want to do) and yet...you never mention any of this or give links to suggest why you feel Snowden leaded "Special Ops in Clandestine Operations protecting us from "9:11 Perps" and keeping us safer. That wasn't Snowdens purpose and you know it...yet you don't bother except to keep repeating what seems like clueless, tired talking points to direct away from what Snowden and Greenwald have worked to release because it defies the Laws of the USA...
If you have watched all that I mention...and have further to say that you can refute then I would find you more credible... And, if you do...please post in the future so your voice can be better understood in context. So far I've not seen any of that in constant posts where you keep accusing Snowden of revealing information that wasn't his focus at all.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He even celebrated his birthday with those friendly government officials--you know, the ones he told Brian Williams he had no association with.
This isn't about "other whistleblowers."
We haven't even determined what Snowden is.
If he wants to be seen as a whistleblower, he's got a few emails and memoranda for the record to cough up.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)you seem to feel casts doubt on Snowden's credibility... A careful reading doesn't justify that.
----
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/report-snowden-stayed-at-russian-consulate-while-in-hong-kong/2013/08/26/8237cf9a-0e39-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story.html
The article in Kommersant, based on accounts from several unnamed sources, did not state clearly when Snowden decided to seek Russian help in leaving Hong Kong, where he was in hiding to evade arrest by U.S. authorities on charges that he leaked top-secret documents about U.S. surveillance programs.
Kommersant reported Monday that Snowden purchased a ticket June 21 to travel on Aeroflot, Russia’s national airline, from Hong Kong to Havana, through Moscow. He planned to fly from Havana to Ecuador or some other Latin American country.
That same day, he celebrated his 30th birthday at the Russian Consulate in Hong Kong, the paper said — although several days earlier he had had an anticipatory birthday pizza with his lawyers at a private house.
Kommersant cited conflicting accounts as to what brought Snowden to the consulate, on the 21st floor of a skyscraper in a fashionable neighborhood. It quoted a Russian close to the Snowden case as saying that the former NSA contractor arrived on his own initiative and asked for help. But a Western official also interviewed by the newspaper alleged that Russia had invited him.
The Russian Foreign Ministry on Monday did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the article.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Of course the Russians aren't going to ADMIT that they weren't surprised...but seeing as he celebrated his BIRTHDAY with them, how could they be "surprised."
Funny how you didn't put all that fun BOLDING on THIS sentence:
That same day, he celebrated his 30th birthday at the Russian Consulate in Hong Kong...
or this paragraph:
Kommersant cited conflicting accounts as to what brought Snowden to the consulate, on the 21st floor of a skyscraper in a fashionable neighborhood. It quoted a Russian close to the Snowden case as saying that the former NSA contractor arrived on his own initiative and asked for help. But a Western official also interviewed by the newspaper alleged that Russia had invited him.
Please. Don't be willfully naive.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)or perhaps it's focus bias on your part...I don't really know which or if its both.
I could walk you through what you missed and why I bolded to make it clear. But, I've learned that only leads to another post, repeating what you stated, before from you with nothing accomplished in hoping that we could ever have a reasonable discussion. 's
MADem
(135,425 posts)consulate?
If you "could" walk me through it, why don't you? I took the time to point out the very things that buttressed my point, from the very bit that you cut-and-pasted, that you dismissed.
It wasn't too much "work" for me to do that, either.
What I have pointed out DOES 'cast doubt on Snowden's credibility.' He said, quite specifically, to Brian Williams that he had "no relationship" with the Russians, but we KNOW he has. His lawyer is a former KGB associate of Putin's who currently has a government posting, he stayed in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, even celebrating his BIRTHDAY there, and he lobbed a softball at Vladimir Putin on an "Ask Vladdie" show on Russian State Television--something any old schmuck could do (unh, NOT) --via video, no less!
You're seriously not trying to insist he has "no relationship" with the Russians, are you? It's apparent to anyone--even those who are willfully obtuse about his other suspect comments--that this is not the case. He most assuredly has a relationship with the Russians, he wouldn't be chatting with Putin on television if he didn't, and he sure as hell wouldn't have been hiding out in the consulate in Hong Kong, either, as we discussed, above, never mind that he just "happened" to hire Putin's best friend, who sits on the "public council" of the FSB (the government spy agency), as his lawyer.
Naaah, nothing to see here at all, don't trouble yourself, move along, citizen!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)but you are on the wrong side of this, in my opinion. "Ed" is coughing us his copies one at a time, for good reason. Every time he "coughs' then up, he seems to have another piece of evidence to discredit those who asked for evidence.
Love you MADem, but I believe this will be another side of history. You decide, my friend.
MADem
(135,425 posts)NBC has just FOIA'd the document (s) Ed says he wrote, and all we've gotten thus far (FOIAs take time, every unit of every division of every department has to pour through their files looking for stuff, it can take weeks or months) is a question coming out of a course he took (that he quite ominously wrote WHILE he was conspiring with GG and LP and stealing documents left and right).
Far from telling him to Get Lost, or Shut Up and Stop Asking Questions, the OGC was very forthcoming (to a frigging stupid question, too, that a ninth grader could have answered) and even invited Ed to come to him ANY time he had a question. That's the opposite of being bullied.
The thing Ed needs to do is stop pissing about, stop playing games, and lay the cards on the table. Say things like "I had conversations with X, Y, and Z about A, B, and C. I wrote letters to H, I and J (and here are copies) about D, E, and F. "
This "catch me if you can" game doesn't cut it. See, no one gives a shit. He can rot in his Russian jail. He can whine "I want to come home" but best case that will happen VIA Club Fed and only with a great deal of atonement.
He has to PROVE that he is an innocent with the best interests of the country at heart, and NOT (pick one or all):
--A narcissist hell-bent on revenge because he didn't get that SES paygrade he coveted, and had to make do at GS-13.
--A double agent who is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
--A hubris-laden putz who thought he was smarter than the average bear--Russian or grizzly.
He hasn't done that. It looks like he's fired a shot across the bow with this NBC interview...and no one gave a shit. His tune is playing out.
This isn't about "approving" of NSA overreaches. It not about "the authoritarians" versus "the sainted freedom lovers" like some folks like to paint it. It's not about that at all.
This is about how one little shit didn't bother to use the methodologies available to him to raise the objections to make the change he says he sought.
I think he BADLY miscalculated a lot of things. I think he thought he'd get a lot of GOP and Libertarian anti-Obama love, and people would rally to his side in massive numbers. I think he thought he'd be perceived as a Hero-Patriot-Liberator. He'd be like Ralphie in a Christmas Story, getting the A+++++++++ from the teacher after writing his theme about the Red Ryder BB gun.
He's starting to realize that's just not happening. People are questioning his methods and motives. They want to know why he spent days in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong. They see that his stories, and most tellingly, his TIMELINES-- just don't add up.
He also didn't understand the nationalist instinct that lives in many people, no matter what their nation or political party. THEY can talk trash about their country, but don't let anyone else do it. And no taking dirty laundry to the neighbors to air. You keep your shit in-house.
He's now trying to mitigate that with the "No place like home" whining.
He came off like a cold fish in that interview. He tried like hell, but he clearly was NOT at ease, he didn't look comfortable, and most importantly, he didn't sound sincere. His entire persona was so invested in the con that the tension could be cut with a knife. If he was a "trained spy" (and that was a stupid thing to say, for many, MANY reasons) he hadn't had the training wheels taken off his spycart yet. He didn't have that ease, that sincerity, that only the best "trained operatives" affect.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)... training and not some widespread wrong doing.
Propping Putin was the last straw for me
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that were directly spied upon is revealed.
For what it is worth, I hope you are right.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)A mass outbreak of heartache....
when Mr truth, justice, and the American way turns out to be yet another disappointment.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It is so good to see these fascists exposing themselves as the liars they are.
elias49
(4,259 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)a party that deeply loves law and protection of law. Folks that believe that we should not give up safety for civil rights. People that stand with the idea that if we cannot speak up, there is no point to the 1st amendment.
Progressive dog
(6,924 posts)to the truthfulness of Eddie, so all he has to do is ask for his day in court. I wonder if a judge would allow all his online postings into evidence, too.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Water is wet and fire is hot
