Ed Edward Snowden - Whistleblower or Criminal?

[Democracy Simulator]

Does anyone want to defend James Clapper's testimony to Congress when he said that the NSA did not 'wittingly' collect 'any data at all', on millions of Americans?

 

[Democracy Simulator]

If it does, so much (all?) of it will be classified. I doubt the public will get a glimpse of much substance at all.

That won't be a good look.

 

[mijopaalmc]

btw, did anyone notice that this guy is apparently a ronnulan?

SOMEONE ALERT THE BAJORANS!!!!111!!!!!ELVENTYONE!!!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

They don't collect content. They only collect what they're calling "metadata" such as originator and destination phone numbers, duration, etc. Now, I'm not saying they aren't but that's the official story. Officially, they have to get a court order to delve behind this metadata.


Again, according to them, they don't even collect names at either end of the conversation. So they couldn't search for fuelair. I surmise, however, if they do get a court order, names will be the first thing they go get.

As to what they can do - the writings and comments of an amazing lot of people in the last couple of days suggest rather strongly that they do believe the government has the facilitys/personnell to do what I noted - that is what most of the comments on many news sources have either clearly stated or carelessly implied. I know they can't and, hopefully most of us here know that, but a lot of people really do not - or pretend not to.......

And, quite frankly, I would have long been on their list if there was one of the mis-assumed type as I research in a lot of fields that would get their interest - especially as a combined thing.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm not suggesting he hasn't broken any laws, I just thought it might be more interesting to hear from the authoritarian side what laws they thought he had broken and why they think he hasn't acted in the public interest. Because the ad homs don't really add much to the debate.

I have no interest in debate.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

What's also scary is the fact that the NSA entrusted this guy with all this information. What would have happened if someone else decided to sell this stuff off to criminals?

 

[BenBurch]

He needs to be brought up on charges, and destroyed.

And I thought that about Manning too.

And Pollard.

And Rove.

 

[madfoot]

He needs to be brought up on charges, and destroyed.

And I thought that about Manning too.

And Pollard.

And Rove.

Just nuke the whole country while we're at it. It's probably cheaper than whatever you want to do.

 

[carlosy]

Better nuke the whole world.

- No more terrorism
- No more distrust
- No more spying needed
- No more government needed, which saves a lot of money
- And the gods would also be happy, well at least some.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

No one thinks that. OTOH, I think they entirely do have the capacity to search the database for, say, fuelair (substitute your legal name, of course), and effectively perform a warrant-less search on you.

And you believe that the government has a data storage system capable of holding all this data?

 

[LSSBB]

Better nuke the whole world.

- No more terrorism
- No more distrust
- No more spying needed
- No more government needed, which saves a lot of money
- And the gods would also be happy, well at least some.

Well, the Gods of Chaos, to be sure. Arioch in particular.

As for illegality of what Snowden has done: established in previous posts.

As to illegality he has exposed: to be determined.... what has he exposed that specifies a crime worthy of whistleblower status per the applicable legal definition?

As to whether it's in the public interest: I ask in counter: is what the NSA doing in equal public interest? How do you balance security and privacy, lives possibly saved versus freedoms possibly lost?

 

[casebro]

He's kind of a geeky looking little twerp. Was that one of the choices?

I think he'll be popular in prison.

About as geeky looking as the current spate of Hollywood actors?

 

[casebro]

This is what you sign when you get a security clearance: http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf

You sign that at the tail end of a lot of training and explanation of just how many years you will spend in prison if you disclose state secrets.

I have not looked at the details of what he has released , but I'm guessing a heck of a lot of what he released falls under that agreement, as the general language in the press runs along the lines of "released top secret information about...". If so, he is guilty of espionage. Have you heard of people like Aldrich Ames? If you perform espionage in the United States you face anywhere from life in prison to the death penalty.

Another thing, you are not to travel to a communist country if you have a security clearance without notifying your security officer first. Fleeing there after releasing state secrets is not exactly going to help his cause.

Whatever you might think of that, the US takes this stuff extremely seriously. His life in the US is over. US intelligence is never, ever, going to let something like this go lightly.

Edited to add: that link specifies the laws in question -

Yes but basic law is that contracts that cover illegal acts are themselves illegal, and therefore unenforcable?

Keeping LEGAL acts secret is expected. Keeping illegal acts secret is illegal.

 

[ZouPrime]

Yes but basic law is that contracts that cover illegal acts are themselves illegal, and therefore unenforcable?

Keeping LEGAL acts secret is expected. Keeping illegal acts secret is illegal.

Which bring us to the crux of the problem: is what the NSA doing really illegal?

Was the PATRIOT act consitutional? I guess we'll know now, but my feeling is that it's not a slam dunk as much as Snowden seems to believe.

I sense another Bradley Manning in the making...

 

[AlBell]

Whistleblowing: The disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Whistleblowing

What the government is doing is not illegal.

Facts not yet in evidence. If this goes to court we might find out .. publically. I'd say he's disclosed 'wrongdoing'.

 

[Robert Prey]

Oh , hes a criminal, as he clearly broke the law.

And how about American's Founding Fathers? Were they criminals or patriots? Ditto the conspirators who attempted to assassinate Hitler? Criminals or patriots???

 

[Cleon]

And how about American's Founding Fathers? Were they criminals or patriots? Ditto the conspirators who attempted to assassinate Hitler? Criminals or patriots???

Yes.

"Criminal" and "patriot" are not mutually exclusive terms.

 

[BenBurch]

Which bring us to the crux of the problem: is what the NSA doing really illegal?

Was the PATRIOT act consitutional? I guess we'll know now, but my feeling is that it's not a slam dunk as much as Snowden seems to believe.

I sense another Bradley Manning in the making...

1. Nope, not really illegal.
2. PATRIOT - probably constitutional. I think we need to change large bits of it though.
3. Yes, another Manning. Another guy who should be hung made a hero by the ultra-Left. Disgusts me.

 

[BenBurch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

 

[roger]

Well, thanks for the information, that gives me a better idea about what he might be charged with, should he end up in custody. Do you think his revelations are in the public interest, especially if it is true that as an analyst he had virtually unlimited access to wiretap someone?

I've honestly made no such judgement, even provisionally. My signature is on one of those sheets of paper, which means I am not supposed to look at classified information, even if it has been leaked, so I do not know beyond the broadest details what he has leaked. So I have no way to judge.

I happily stipulate that there is a place for the Whistleblower's Act, and things like it (if I understand it correctly, The Whistleblower act is mainly for civilians to protect themselves from punitive measures from an employer they report; it offers little help to a federal worker or protection from federal charges). But I am biased, and know it. Anyone that releases state information is, to me, a traitor barring them exposing truly egregious and illegal behavior. People spend their lives, and give their lives, protecting this country, and somebody decides that they have the oversight and understanding to unilaterally reverse all of that. Doesn't sit well with me.

None of that is based on a naive assumption that every document classified by the government is properly classified, nor is it based on the assumption that the government does nothing illegal or that everyone in the chain of command is making the correct decision. But it is based on a heck of a lot of training and exposure to what happens when spies divulge information (I've sat through quite a few sessions with the FBI, who used to come to our company to train us on espionage - fascinating stuff). It's an imperfect system, but it is a long journey from there to Whistleblowing. I ain't a lawyer, and neither is Snowden. I seriously doubt his ability to judge whether what he saw was illegal or not. I absolutely reject the idea that "the public should know and decide" about state matters (in general); there are some things that just can't be general knowledge. That sucks, that's imperfect (due to the possibility of abuse and such with no oversight), but that's the world.

So, that's my bias. I signed a contract for life, and take it seriously. He may have taken it seriously too, I don't know. But he fled to China controlled lands claiming they support free speech? He talked about how much he gave up - well, it is amazing when you find out how little most spies get for their huge acts. A few thousand dollars, a free trip - they sell themselves and the country out for baubles. It is, of course, an imperfect science, but usually there is a different motivation going on - often anger over a lost promotion, stress at home, a combination of things that most of us would brush off but somehow triggers this behavior in a rare few.

With that said, do I think something like that was his motivation? Haven't a clue, and I ain't gonna go digging. But I assure you teams of people are. If he had a legitimate report of illegal activity by the government, and he may have, I don't know, he should have gone to a lawyer, not traveled to a communist country, and so on. This is like shooting a cop - every resource they have will be devoted to destroying you, and you will never, ever, be given the benefit of the doubt. They aren't going to sit around and listen to you tell a story about how the shooting was self defense. He not only destroyed his life, but has a really good chance of destroying, or minimizing the story he is trying to tell. His life and every action in it will be scrutinized and interpreted in the worst possible light.