Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

jazzimov

(1,456 posts)
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:36 PM Jun 2013

Why I am skeptical about Edward Snowden. [View all]

To be honest, the first Red Flag for me was that he leaked to Glenn Greenwald, who I always thought had a personal agenda and whose work I always either ignore or take with a grain of salt (usually the former). Because it was written by Greenwald, I also took into consideration that the info released was not necessarily the info that Greenwald received - giving Snowden a little benefit of the doubt. The first I heard of the article was on DU, although unfortunately there was no link associated with the post so I had to Google it to find out anything.

The first thing I found/Googled/downloaded was the leaked FISC order to Verizon.

I don’t know if any of you actually remember the fight with the Bush Administration over their illegal warrant less wiretapping, but this FISC appeared to fall into the resolution that came directly out of that fight.

Then, Snowden claimed that the NSA had “direct access” to the servers and that he, as a NSA analyst, could listen to any conversation he wanted.

But that was directly contradictory to the FISC order that he also supposedly leaked. In the first place, if the NSA had direct access to the servers, they wouldn’t NEED the FISC order. Secondly, the order specifically omitted “content”, which means that he couldn’t, as he claimed, listen to any conversation.

The next day, every company that he claimed the NSA had “direct access” to their servers denied the allegations, also claiming that they had received court orders and complied with them. - but they adamantly denied any “direct access“. To prove such, several of them are now sueing the government to release the exact orders that they received.

Then, several Congressional members verified that they had been briefed on the program in compliance with the 2008 law that so many of us fought for. Yes, some of these were Repukes, but some of them were Dems that I trust such as DiFi and Al Franken.

Shortly after that, he was fired from his contractors job and his actual salary was released - which was substantially less than he claimed. Now we knew that he was capable of lying - or at least capable of exaggeration.

Then I find out from here on DU that he’s a Ron Paul fan. NOW it starts to make sense! He is not a true “whistle-blower” trying to save Civil Liberties and Privacy, but merely wants to destroy anything to do with the government.

Then he releases more “blockbusters”, such as the US spy agencies are spying on Russia. As the former agent on CBS News says, everything that Snowden has released seems more focused on embarrassing the NSA than actually protecting anyone’s rights. This also fits into his Ron Paul aficionado persona.

One good thing I have personally noticed, is that people now are talking about how “nothing is private” and how much people actually reveal on Facebook, Twitter, etc. For instance, I pointed out that people used to use answering machines to see who to rob (Hello, we’re not home right now…) and someone else pointed out that his wife always liked to update their status (We’re at Waffle House right now) - which means “come rob our house” or, as he pointed out, if someone was looking for him they knew exactly where he was.

83 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
why it doesn't matter if you (or anyone else) is skeptical of Snowden: cali Jun 2013 #1
WRONG....its also about the fact that the Govt is hiring contractors who in turn give VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #2
This is true railsback Jun 2013 #4
Attacking Snowden has nothing to do with who hired burnodo Jun 2013 #6
If you actually read my OP, jazzimov Jun 2013 #11
No it's not....we are at risk BECAUSE we use mercenaries for this type of work. VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #14
Not only that, the guy pinches a top secret document when he's in TRAINING BeyondGeography Jun 2013 #18
It is ineptitude but it doesn't sound like Snowden was an analyst, just a network admin. randome Jun 2013 #28
Yes, he was in training but he had his top secret clearance for some time. He worked for the CIA, so okaawhatever Jun 2013 #40
Good point. randome Jun 2013 #76
The Vietnam War only ended (or our military involvement in it) when Congress HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #59
This (outsourcing of intelligence) is definitely a valid concern, but not the only one. I think HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #55
We certainly cannot trust them if they let this level of knucklehead anywhere near it.... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #62
Without defending Snowden's character or agreeing with your HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #67
Yes but you think you have reached the ultimate conclusion to this situation with the govt... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #70
Now this is a post which I think you should convert into an OP to build on, because it HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #78
Save your FUD for less intelligent sheep harun Jun 2013 #3
Thank You HangOnKids Jun 2013 #8
Would you care to elaborate? jazzimov Jun 2013 #12
In order for a discussion to take place, one has to have a point related to the issue. Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #23
+1 harun Jun 2013 #30
^strawman by the bored chair occupant eom Kolesar Jun 2013 #42
I did NONE of the above - I only focused jazzimov Jun 2013 #57
+1! n/t backscatter712 Jun 2013 #51
If you really want to know why he did it the way he did you should read/watch this: dkf Jun 2013 #5
Actually, I was almost persuaded by Binney's jazzimov Jun 2013 #16
They changed the laws to make it appear legal. dkf Jun 2013 #21
Excuse me? jazzimov Jun 2013 #34
Well thanks to Snowden and the subsequent declassification we may move forward on this: dkf Jun 2013 #37
Thanks for the link! jazzimov Jun 2013 #64
One more key thread... dkf Jun 2013 #68
+++1000 VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #65
Sacrilege!!!!! railsback Jun 2013 #7
hmmm. cali Jun 2013 #10
hmmm. railsback Jun 2013 #13
The "cult of personality" is a broad-brush jazzimov Jun 2013 #22
How dare he smear our hero!!!111 treestar Jun 2013 #56
Are you aware that he isn't the only whistle blower? usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #9
Have you seen HIM produce any evidence yet? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #15
He has produced top secret documents for the first time which is why this story is on fire usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #17
Link? jazzimov Jun 2013 #27
LINK usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #31
Thanks! Except that's nothing new. jazzimov Jun 2013 #36
Then why is it dated this year, and the current global discussion? usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #46
To the Chinese he has yes! VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #48
oh so, he does have top secret documents usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #52
Who the hell knows about this guy....he doesn't seem so trustworthy to me. VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #60
Uh, yeah... Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #20
Yes (LINKS) usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #33
Please allow me to address these one at a time; jazzimov Jun 2013 #24
Without all that squealing please usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #26
"Squealing"? What do you mean "squealing"? jazzimov Jun 2013 #38
see post #46 usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #49
Personality Politics -> blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #19
That's right, attack the messenger instead of the message jazzimov Jun 2013 #25
Oh, I'm pretty sure those are all about the message... harun Jun 2013 #32
With a title like "Personality Politics"? jazzimov Jun 2013 #39
It's like you didn't read the post Kolesar Jun 2013 #44
This. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #54
+1000 baldguy Jun 2013 #29
So true. nt jazzimov Jun 2013 #43
+ 10,000 okaawhatever Jun 2013 #45
you trust DiFi? grasswire Jun 2013 #35
She used to be a fav here at DU. jazzimov Jun 2013 #41
I don't remember that at all. Demit Jun 2013 #77
Do you trust Rand Paul and Glenn Beckk? baldguy Jun 2013 #50
I trust my senator Ron Wyden. grasswire Jun 2013 #53
That doesn't answer the question. baldguy Jun 2013 #63
who is making this about personalities? grasswire Jun 2013 #66
You support Snowden. He's no progressive Democrat. baldguy Jun 2013 #71
I support the finding of truth, wherever the facts may lead. grasswire Jun 2013 #80
You say you support the truth, but everything Snowden has said that can be verified has been false. baldguy Jun 2013 #82
your opinions are simply your opinions grasswire Jun 2013 #83
DiFi's always been an authoritarian quisling. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #58
You're entitled to your skepticism and you would be less than a full-fledged HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #47
Wow, people are amazingly stupid. Spider Jerusalem Jun 2013 #61
why yes. true and true cali Jun 2013 #73
FALSE ON ITS FACE!! The "direct access" bullshit has not been proven accurate neither was his uponit7771 Jun 2013 #74
Again this isn't about Snowden, this is about the data Spider Jerusalem Jun 2013 #79
Why would you say it's accurate? randome Jun 2013 #75
He pulled the wings off flies. Really. That's why I don't trust him. Safetykitten Jun 2013 #69
+1, "...seems more focused on embarrassing the NSA ..." uponit7771 Jun 2013 #72
I also have some questions on Snowden Gothmog Jun 2013 #81
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why I am skeptical about ...