Snowden and the Pulitzer

[Joey McGee]

I don't buy it. Ask a real question, maybe explain why anything I said is beyond the ability of the average person to look up for themselves and form their own opinions on, ... why should I bother? I post links to copious evidence on nuclear terrorism, apparently it's all fearmongering from the Republicans. Did you actually click on the youtube link? I'm not exactly arguing that point. Who is wasting who's time, or being disingenuous?

 

[The Norseman]

I don't buy it. Ask a real question, maybe explain why anything I said is beyond the ability of the average person to look up for themselves and form their own opinions on, ... why should I bother? I post links to copious evidence on nuclear terrorism, apparently it's all fearmongering from the Republicans. Did you actually click on the youtube link? I'm not exactly arguing that point. Who is wasting who's time, or being disingenuous?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Why should I bother?

 

[applecorped]

I find it disheartening trying to interact with you because you're not that stupid. I think you know exactly what I mean -- it's the same stuff I asked you for before, though you dodged it by claiming that you're not an expert. Also, argument via YouTube is pretty pathetic for a JREF member with many years and thousands of posts worth of experience.

So far, since you're demanding evidence from everyone else, I think that you should be willing to back up your statements first without even being asked to.

Evidence?

 

[Joey McGee]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Why should I bother?

Why should you bother asking real, pointed questions and taking the time to engage what I have actually said? Possibly to achieve the result of being taken seriously.

 

[The Norseman]

Why should you bother asking real, pointed questions and taking the time to engage what I have actually said? Possibly to achieve the result of being taken seriously.

By you? So far as your showing in this thread has demonstrated with your interactions with others, it's not much to really desire.

 

[The Norseman]

Evidence?

Ouch. You got me there.

 

[Joey McGee]

By you? So far as your showing in this thread has demonstrated with your interactions with others, it's not much to really desire.

So you admit that I've got your number, you never really had any point to make or desire to discuss the issue you're just trying to draw out a senseless argument to try and discredit me without debate or bring me down a peg... I'm sorry if people feel personally offended because I'm making the argument that Snowden is a stupid, deluded and a narcissistic piece of ****, it's too bad that people cling to their stupid and offensive arguments as wise and noble in such an immature way, but it's not really my problem. If it helps you sleep at night, attack the arguer and not the argument. America is the superpower and the Snowden the fugitive, the programs continue to operate the same and no one has been punished in any country, and never will be, good luck with that.

 

[The Norseman]

I'm not personally offended at anything in this thread. I think you're on the offensive with most people in this thread, demanding evidence and dismissing what is presented. I'm thinking that you can dish it out but can't take it. If it's not against AA then you don't seem to care for presenting any compelling evidence for your own assertions, some of which I've already pointed out.

I'm also not trying to discredit you or bring you down a peg. I don't play gotcha games. I am, however, not seeing any compelling evidence from you and I'm pointing that out. See, I've not made up my mind about Snowden yet so I'm open to reading about what's said.

You demand evidence which, strangely enough, is what I'm doing as well.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

If what Snowden has done isn't treason then nothing qualifies.
The guy is a snake and the idea of him getting any sort of award for it is laughable in its wrongheadedness.

 

[Beth]

Again, both Snowden and Manning released classified info to the public, and to non-US people specifically, of doings that were not at all illegal. They are not whistleblowers.

I've read more than one opinion piece indicating that the fact that the massive spying on US systems was LEGAL being a major problem. Whistleblowing is not about exposing illegal activity, but about exposing (because it previously wasn't known)unethicalactivities that the whistle blower majority in order to let the population know what is occurring. Legal and ethical are not synonyms. I think both Snowden and Manning qualify as whistleblowers not traitors. The intent in both cases was to make the general public aware of unethical activities by the U.S. government.

If what Snowden has done isn't treason then nothing qualifies.
The guy is a snake and the idea of him getting any sort of award for it is laughable in its wrongheadedness.

I don't think it's treason nor do I find his receiving an award for his sacrifice to be laughable. Instead, I am glad that there are others, like me, grateful for his work in exposing the public to the true nature and extent of the U.S. spying activities. We can only have a public debate about the ethics of what is being done when it is known.

So far, I have yet to see any evidence of substantial harm to U.S. security as a result of Snowden's leaks. That may be due to the fact that I think the harm that has occurred as a result of public knowledge of inappropriate spying activities being due to the inappropriateness of the spying rather than the public release of the fact that inappropriate spying was done.

 

[Joey McGee]

I'm not personally offended at anything in this thread. I think you're on the offensive with most people in this thread, demanding evidence and dismissing what is presented. I'm thinking that you can dish it out but can't take it. If it's not against AA then you don't seem to care for presenting any compelling evidence for your own assertions, some of which I've already pointed out.

I'm also not trying to discredit you or bring you down a peg. I don't play gotcha games. I am, however, not seeing any compelling evidence from you and I'm pointing that out. See, I've not made up my mind about Snowden yet so I'm open to reading about what's said.

You demand evidence which, strangely enough, is what I'm doing as well.

Perhaps you could take the time to ask a pointed question, explain what kind of evidence you're looking for on a specific topic, or be specific as to why you don't understand what I'm referring to in a specific place. Then you could actually demonstrate that I'm unwilling to engage.

 

[Joey McGee]

We can only have a public debate about the ethics of what is being done when it is known.

There was debate. This was passed by all three branches of government in public. Elected representatives were aware of all of the classified details. Snowden chose not to go the legal route of whistleblowing and incorrectly assumed that he had no protections because he was a contractor at the time not a direct employee. This "debate" leaked operational details to the enemy and so was not really any debate at all, it was direct sabotage. And few people are actually aware of the intent and rules of the program, and that Snowden has made false claims about them since he wasn't really an insider just an admin he assumed many things...

What the "debate" should be about is whether or not we should have any classified information at all. Again, the elected representatives have a right to make decisions about national security without our knowledge. Do you disagree? Is the constitution not important? Should there be no secrets? Snowden wanted the people to decide, the people have decided he should be put on trial. If we are to believe the polls...

So far, I have yet to see any evidence of substantial harm to U.S. security as a result of Snowden's leaks.

Did you look? Did you think about it? Or did you expect someone to spoonfeed it to you? Do you think the intelligence community is just lying about it?

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121564

the nation’s top intelligence officer described “the profound damage that his disclosures have caused and continue to cause,” which he said has left the nation less safe and its people less secure.

“As a result, we’ve lost critical foreign intelligence collection sources, including some shared with us by valued partners,” he said. “Terrorists and other adversaries of this country are going to school on U.S. intelligence sources, methods and tradecraft, and the insights they are gaining are making our job much, much harder.”
...
Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Defense Intelligence Agency director, characterized the disclosures as “grave,” with the consequences likely to prove deadly to American forces someday. “We will likely face the cost in human lives on tomorrow's battlefield or in some place where we will put our military forces,” he said.

Overall, Clapper said, the leaks and the allegations of abuse of intelligence that they generated, as well as furloughs, government shutdowns and salary freezes have taken a toll on those “who have done their utmost to protect this country and do so in a lawful manner.” In addition, he warned the diminished morale and resources of the intelligence community will have a corresponding effect on national security.

“The impact of the losses caused by the disclosures will be amplified by the substantial budget reductions we're incurring,” he said. “The stark consequences of this perfect storm are plainly evident. The intelligence community is going to have less capacity to protect our nation, and its allies, than we've had.”

There are reports of their targets moving away from how they used to operate and communicate, do you think that the intelligence community made that up or that our enemies don't read the news?

What kind of "evidence" would satisfy you? This is what I'm talking about...

 

[Joey McGee]

If what Snowden has done isn't treason then nothing qualifies.
The guy is a snake and the idea of him getting any sort of award for it is laughable in its wrongheadedness.

For someone who is apparently sticking up for the constitution, his willingness to go against secret programs that are approved and overseen by all three branches of government is shockingly stupid. The whistleblower laws and protections and channels existed for him, but he says he gave up after he sent a few emails?

“There’s an inspector general for NSA and another one for the entire intelligence community. My office has a civil liberties and privacy protection officer. Snowden could also have gone to the Justice Department or the Congress. And as we’ve seen Snowden is superb at finding information so I think he could have tracked those people down had he given it a little thought,” Clapper stated.

Yeah! He did this because he believes Clapper lied to congress, but he never tried giving the classified information to them first?

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsro...-dni-clapper-keynote-address-from-geoint-2013

“An admissions officer from George Washington University told The Post that for the admissions’ essay question, ‘Who’s your personal hero?’ the admissions officer observed that she was seeing a lot more of Edward Snowden citations. And the idea that young people see Edward Snowden as a hero really bothers me. So I thought I needed to talk about Snowden at Georgetown and Georgia and I am going to do the same elsewhere at colleges and universities.”

Maybe Snowden's face will appear on t-shirts around the globe like Che Guevara!

 

[The Norseman]

Perhaps you could take the time to ask a pointed question, explain what kind of evidence you're looking for on a specific topic, or be specific as to why you don't understand what I'm referring to in a specific place. Then you could actually demonstrate that I'm unwilling to engage.

Alright, that's cool. I'll re-read the thread to make sure I am accurate when I ask my questions and we can go from there.

 

[jimbob]

I've read more than one opinion piece indicating that the fact that the massive spying on US systems was LEGAL being a major problem. Whistleblowing is not about exposing illegal activity, but about exposing (because it previously wasn't known)unethicalactivities that the whistle blower majority in order to let the population know what is occurring. Legal and ethical are not synonyms. I think both Snowden and Manning qualify as whistleblowers not traitors. The intent in both cases was to make the general public aware of unethical activities by the U.S. government.

True.

In Manning's case, given their* low rank and the inappropriate data that they hoovered up, I'd doubt that any of America's competent enemies would have been unaware of the information contained.

I don't think it's treason nor do I find his receiving an award for his sacrifice to be laughable. Instead, I am glad that there are others, like me, grateful for his work in exposing the public to the true nature and extent of the U.S. spying activities. We can only have a public debate about the ethics of what is being done when it is known.

So far, I have yet to see any evidence of substantial harm to U.S. security as a result of Snowden's leaks. That may be due to the fact that I think the harm that has occurred as a result of public knowledge of inappropriate spying activities being due to the inappropriateness of the spying rather than the public release of the fact that inappropriate spying was done.

Similarly with this, a lot of the capabilities of the NSA had been revealed well before Snowden - albeit without the actual "grubby fingerprints" that Snowden's leaks provided. See the Wiki entry on ECHELON. Any vaguely clued up terrorist would have assumed that the capabilities and activities were going to be more extensive than those.

The Optic Nerve programme looks to be a prime example of a gross invasion of privacy that deserved to be highlighted.

And trusting security services to do the right thing is very dangerous. In the UK the Met spied on the family of Stephen Lawrence due to their campaigning for justice for their murdered son (and incidentally shredded documents about the possible corrupt actions of the first leading investigator).

There are plenty of other examples - that was just the first to spring to my mind.

I can't see any reason why the UK would be significantly more at risk than the US in this respect.


*Does one refer to their gender at the time or currently?

 

[Beth]

There was debate. This was passed by all three branches of government in public. Elected representatives were aware of all of the classified details.

That's not how it appears to me. My assessment is that elected representatives in charge of the oversight of those agencies, such as Sen. Feinstein, were routinely mislead about what exactly those agencies were doing.

Snowden chose not to go the legal route of whistleblowing and incorrectly assumed that he had no protections because he was a contractor at the time not a direct employee. This "debate" leaked operational details to the enemy and so was not really any debate at all, it was direct sabotage.

Given the treatment that similar 'whistleblowers' have received from the current administration, his actions come across to me as reasonable rather than traitorous.

What the "debate" should be about is whether or not we should have any classified information at all.

I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest that our government needs no classified information at all. Is this your contention? Are you arguing for this position or is this your strawman representation of the opposite position?

Again, the elected representatives have a right to make decisions about national security without our knowledge. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree. I do think they need accurate knowledge of what is occurring in order to make that call. When the agency officials reporting to congress are not honest with them about what they have done and what they are planning to do, then we have a serious problem. I cannot have faith in my representatives to make the right decisions and exercise competent oversight over such activities when they aren't given accurate information.

Did you look? Did you think about it? Or did you expect someone to spoonfeed it to you? Do you think the intelligence community is just lying about it?

I think the intelligence community is lying about it.

What kind of "evidence" would satisfy you? This is what I'm talking about...

Evidence that would satisfy me must come from a source I consider reliable with respect to what they are telling me. That isn't the government agency leadership that was shown to have been less than honest and forthright in reporting their activities to congress.

 

[Joey McGee]

That's not how it appears to me. My assessment is that elected representatives in charge of the oversight of those agencies, such as Sen. Feinstein, were routinely mislead about what exactly those agencies were doing.

Of course this is what supporters of Snowden are claiming, but it is not true, there are alternative explanations to all claims which need to be explored, such as the reason for Clapper's testimony, maybe you have a salient example?

Given the treatment that similar 'whistleblowers' have received from the current administration, his actions come across to me as reasonable rather than traitorous.

I'm not buying this excuse... what happened to them? Were they put in jail? Slandered? Do you have a salient example?

I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest that our government needs no classified information at all. Is this your contention? Are you arguing for this position or is this your strawman representation of the opposite position?

What I am saying is that when something has been enacted and is overseen by all three branches of government, and there are legal channels available to bring your concern about classified information to light with people who are in the position to handle that information safely, you do not have a reason to leak it, ever. The responsibility is solely with the elected representatives, there is no reason to break the law, ever. It should never be legal to leak classified information when there are protections and channels of dissent for anyone concerned. What really disgusts me is that Snowden didn't even try, he made that decision for everyone else, and guaranteed that there would be a misinformation cycle in the public sphere by getting a headstart on the government by using a **** up like Greenwald to propagandize for him. PLUS, he leaked and stole documents that have absolutely nothing to do with privacy of Americans that are putting people at risk, he is insane.

No, I don't disagree. I do think they need accurate knowledge of what is occurring in order to make that call. When the agency officials reporting to congress are not honest with them about what they have done and what they are planning to do, then we have a serious problem. I cannot have faith in my representatives to make the right decisions and exercise competent oversight over such activities when they aren't given accurate information.

Well then you shouldn't have a problem because they were well-briefed on it and weren't trying to hide anything, that is misinformation and a highly disputed opinion in Washington. Even when Clapper was testifying, all of the representatives he was addressing were aware of the program. Wyden was trying to set him up to inform the people, Clapper just misunderstood the question.

I think the intelligence community is lying about it.

Of course you do, it would make supporting Snowden very immoral, and since you already believe conspiracy theories that they were misleading everyone else about what they were doing, and that they were actually doing something immoral if not illegal, it's not a stretch to believe that they are lying about that too. You're in CT country though, and couldn't back up those assertions in a million years. This is why people are bringing up Hoover and Iraq and all sorts of other crap to try and justify their beliefs, it's like bringing up Operation Northwoods. I would be shocked if they didn't see the behavior of the enemy change... of course they would...

Evidence that would satisfy me must come from a source I consider reliable with respect to what they are telling me. That isn't the government agency leadership that was shown to have been less than honest and forthright in reporting their activities to congress.

How about you try proving this point since no one else in the world has been able to?

 

[Joey McGee]

I don't get it. Incredible detail about how we track and arrest our enemies is released to the public, its in the papers and on the news for months, and people are having a hard time believing that the enemy has studied this information and changed how they operate. Willfully ignorant is too nice of a phrase.

 

[Beth]

Of course this is what supporters of Snowden are claiming, but it is not true,

So you say. I've read this entire thread. I haven't been convinced that they are wrong.

I'm not buying this excuse... what happened to them? Were they put in jail? Slandered?

Okay. You don't buy that excuse. I do. At least one is in are in jail. Others have stated publicly they wouldn't advise others to go through the 'proper' channels. I suspect all of them have been slandered (as has Snowden) but I think that's irrelevant because I doubt slander is a key concern in making the decision about whether or not to go through official channels.

What I am saying is that when something has been enacted and is overseen by all three branches of government, and there are legal channels available to bring your concern about classified information to light with people who are in the position to handle that information safely, you do not have a reason to leak it, ever.

One reason to leak would be if you don't feel the legal channels are adequate to protect you from retribution. Another reason would be if you feel the legal channels are a sham and will not allow the information to reach those who need to see it in order to address the problems.

Well then you shouldn't have a problem because they were well-briefed on it and weren't trying to hide anything, that is misinformation and a highly disputed opinion in Washington.

Yes, I'll agree that there is misinformation and highly disputed opinions in Washington. Why should I assume the National Security folks are the only ones telling the truth?

Even when Clapper was testifying, all of the representatives he was addressing were aware of the program. Wyden was trying to set him up to inform the people, Clapper just misunderstood the question.

I find this explanation Clapper giving Congress wrong information utterly inadequate. Yes, Wyden may have been trying to set him up to inform the people. Why should I consider this a mitigating circumstance? Wasn't that the purpose of the testimony? To me, it appears that he lied to Congress. This blows the logic of your 'all three branches were aware of what was going on' argument. While it is possible that everyone making decisions was fully informed about all relevant aspects of these programs, that's not what I believe at this point.

Of course you do, it would make supporting Snowden very immoral, and since you already believe conspiracy theories that they were misleading everyone else about what they were doing, and that they were actually doing something immoral if not illegal, it's not a stretch to believe that they are lying about that too. You're in CT country though, and couldn't back up those assertions in a million years.

I don't have any idea about what, if any, conspiracy theories you are talking about here. It has, IMO, been clearly established that the security officials have not been honest in their public testimony to congress. IMO Snowden's leaks established that.

That isn't the government agency leadership that was shown to have been less than honest and forthright in reporting their activities to congress.

How about you try proving this point since no one else in the world has been able to?

If you don't find Clapper's testimony to congress evidence of that fact, I won't be able to convince you. I can only say that I found his testimony to be convincing evidence of that behavior.

 

[Beth]

I don't get it. Incredible detail about how we track and arrest our enemies is released to the public, its in the papers and on the news for months, and people are having a hard time believing that the enemy has studied this information and changed how they operate.

It's not difficult to believe that our enemies would change how they operate based on new information. What's hard to believe is that Snowden provided them with new information.

Willfully ignorant is too nice of a phrase.

I call it skepticism myself.