Snowden and the Pulitzer

[Joey McGee]

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

Perhaps you should be reading a variety of news sources and the arguments from the NSA itself as a source for information instead? "The NSA was routinely misleading the elected representatives", lets see the evidence.

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.

Let's see some evidence for a) Snowden being slandered b) someone people put in jail for bringing concerns through the proper channels c) who are these "advisers" saying that the proper channels are no good, and what would be the problem with that?

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 someone using this argument better have undeniable proof that this is the case and be able to present it clearly to convince the public and law enforcement. I guess this is why he fled the country knowing that paranoia isn't a defense?

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?

They are the only ones with the evidence to back up their claims, and are supported by the President and the Judiciary as well as the majority of elected representatives.

I find this explanation Clapper giving Congress wrong information utterly inadequate

Why? Read this http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/testimony-of-the-national-intelligence-director.html and this http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2013-06-21-DNI-Ltr-to-Sen.-Feinstein.pdf and tell me why it is not adequate and you do not accept this explanation.

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.

But you accept you could never prove it and there is a believable explanation for why he said that, right? Why would he lie to people who would know he was lying?

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.

Well unless you have a coherent and solid set of facts that show that the NSA was misleading the representatives and there was no oversight, you probably shouldn't be giving a 29-year old hacker with radical political beliefs a pass on damaging leaks.

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.

It has not, this is a conspiracy theory, that the NSA conspired to run secret, illegal programs that were not approved by all three branches because they involved spying on Americans.

IMO Snowden's leaks established that.

Hpw exactly?

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.

And you're absolutely sure that it cannot have any other explanation for it? Do you at least accept that you don't have anything else like this to present as "evidence of that behavior"?

 

[Joey McGee]

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.

So you know everything that has been leaked and talked about in the press recently, everything that was common knowledge to us before then, and everything that was common knowledge to our enemies before this? I find this hard to believe

“They have put our operations at risk … Al-Qaida are lapping it up.” Lobban said terrorist groups in the Middle East and Afghanistan had been discussing the revelations in specific terms and had discussed moving to other “communications packages”. The three chiefs were unwilling to provide more specific examples of this damage in public, although they said they would do so to the MPs in a closed session.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...mi6-appear-before-intelligence-committee-live

I'm putting my trust in the elected representatives on these specific matters for a reason.

I call it skepticism myself.

Great work, great contributions to the debate, really hammering in the doubt here.

 

[applecorped]

Snowden is so dreamy.

 

[Joey McGee]

He's like Mandela and the Dali Lama rolled into one.

Snowden wrote that the elderly “wouldn’t be *********** helpless if you weren’t sending them *********** checks to sit on their ass and lay in hospitals all day.”

and a badass too

he was offended by the possibility that the new president would revive a ban on assault weapons. “See, that’s why I’m goddamned glad for the second amendment,” Snowden wrote, in another chat. “Me and all my lunatic, gun-toting NRA compatriots would be on the steps of Congress before the C-Span feed finished.”

We need more Americans like Snowden.

 

[Mumbles]

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 we voted into office the people that made any sort of mass surveillance on US citizens legal, then that is the responsibility of the American people, just as every other wrongdoing that the US people rallied around, is the fault of the US people of the time. And yes, there is a time when people with access to classified info should present it to the press, even at the cost of years in jail.And...really, when the Boston Marathon bombings happened a year ago, people were howling about how the FBI didn't know about it and prevent it. It's what they want.

My view is, in most of what they presented, Manning and Snowden have given out info that does not present wrongdoing by the US government. As I said, I don't mind that there's now footage of innocents being blasted to pieces - that's a part of what war is, as much as we try to prevent it, and the folks that ran around championing the Iraq War in particular need to understand that. But I'm sorry, listening on the German PM's phone calls? Hacking a Chinese telecom? You have to be kidding me, both of those countries spy on us constantly, and it's perfectly legitimate for us to spy on them.

 

[Beth]

Perhaps you should be reading a variety of news sources and the arguments from the NSA itself as a source for information instead?

You mean like the Washington Post? Or the Huffington Post? Or RedState.com? Or NPR? I check out the stories in all of those websites. I do not assign them all the same truth value.
As far as getting my information from the NSA, like other biased sources, I don't trust what they say. I don't care what they say in the same way I don't care what the Christie funded investigation has to say about his behavior in Bridgegate. Resemblance to historical reality is subbordinate to the message they wish to convey.

"The NSA was routinely misleading the elected representatives", lets see the evidence. Let's see some evidence for a) Snowden being slandered b) someone people put in jail for bringing concerns through the proper channels c) who are these "advisers" saying that the proper channels are no good, and what would be the problem with that?

Well, a good number of links already provided in this thread have shown what I consider ample reason for concern. That's my assessment of the totality of the evidence. You can disagree, but I doubt I've seen more or better evidence than you have. You just credit the NSA as trustworthy about whether or not they are trustworthy. I don't.

They are the only ones with the evidence to back up their claims, and are supported by the President and the Judiciary as well as the majority of elected representatives.Why? Read this http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/testimony-of-the-national-intelligence-director.html

This one is basically pleading incompetence/ignorance. No, I don't find it credible that Mr. Clapper is too incompetent to have foreseen the question and ignorant of the context of his words and how they would be interpreted. If he was, it would not improve my opinion of his leadership but, FWIW my opinion is unchanged.

and this http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2013-06-21-DNI-Ltr-to-Sen.-Feinstein.pdf and tell me why it is not adequate and you do not accept this explanation.

Why don't I accept his explanation of incompetence after have been exposed as either that or a liar? Because I don't believe him. I think he was lying to Congress, deliberately misleading them rather than being an ignorant blunderbuss too stupid to know he was telling them a lie. <Shrug> I could be wrong, but that's how I read him. You don't have to agree with me. My opinion doesn't count for anything beyond providing me with an amusing pasttime to argue about such perceptions.

But you accept you could never prove it and there is a believable explanation for why he said that, right?

I accept I could never prove it. Lying was the expedient thing for him do at the time. Unless someone deliberately exposed the truth (which his administration would consider a crime), the lie would hold. Even after it was exposed, he's suffered no professional consequences other than embarassment.

Well unless you have a coherent and solid set of facts that show that the NSA was misleading the representatives and there was no oversight, you probably shouldn't be giving a 29-year old hacker with radical political beliefs a pass on damaging leaks.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. I think he deserves the prizes and recognition he has received. I don't think the NSA deserves my trust.

And you're absolutely sure that it cannot have any other explanation for it? Do you at least accept that you don't have anything else like this to present as "evidence of that behavior"?

I'm a statistician. I'm not 100% certain I'm an actual human being and not a Boltzman brain.

 

[Beth]

So you know everything that has been leaked and talked about in the press recently, everything that was common knowledge to us before then, and everything that was common knowledge to our enemies before this?

Heavens no. Why would you think that?

I'm putting my trust in the elected representatives on these specific matters for a reason.Great work, great contributions to the debate, really hammering in the doubt here.

That's nice for you. I don't agree with my representatives on hardly anything at all.

 

[Joey McGee]

As far as getting my information from the NSA, like other biased sources, I don't trust what they say.

You don't have to trust what they say, but for every argument Snowden has made, they have made a counter-argument. http://blog.ted.com/2014/03/20/the-nsa-responds-to-edward-snowdens-interview-at-ted/

Well, a good number of links already provided in this thread have shown what I consider ample reason for concern.

That answer those questions? Certainly not... not even close.

You just credit the NSA as trustworthy about whether or not they are trustworthy.

I'm not saying we should just trust the NSA, although I understand why people rationalize that's what critics must be saying. I'm saying that it's the elected representatives and judges who are allowed to see classified information that need to hold the NSA to account on these specific claims, and they actually do this, and we have their assessments. Obviously, there could be a conspiracy between the three branches and the NSA, but it is unlikely and is the reason for the structure of the constitution, and there is no evidence of such a conspiracy.

This one is basically pleading incompetence/ignorance. No, I don't find it credible that Mr. Clapper is too incompetent to have foreseen the question and ignorant of the context of his words and how they would be interpreted. If he was, it would not improve my opinion of his leadership but, FWIW my opinion is unchanged.

Foreseen the question? Ignorant of the context of his words? That doesn't even make sense... he thought the question referred to something else, end of story, mistakes happen. For some reason his bosses and colleagues accepted his explanation and he kept his job and no one is prosecuting him... is this more evidence of the conspiracy?

Why don't I accept his explanation of incompetence after have been exposed as either that or a liar? Because I don't believe him. I think he was lying to Congress, deliberately misleading them rather than being an ignorant blunderbuss too stupid to know he was telling them a lie.

Again, everyone on that panel knew about the metadata already. If he was lying, it would have been to the other people listening

.<Shrug> I could be wrong, but that's how I read him. You don't have to agree with me. My opinion doesn't count for anything beyond providing me with an amusing pasttime to argue about such perceptions.

I'm just pointing out that not only is there no evidence that he's lying, there is no reason to believe that he was. There was no reason for him to do so.

Lying was the expedient thing for him do at the time. Unless someone deliberately exposed the truth (which his administration would consider a crime, the lie would hold. Even after it was exposed, he's suffered no professional consequences other than embarassment.

His letter said that his staff clarified to Wyden after the mistake was realized, and that he couldn't publicly do so because the program is classified. Why was Wyden asking him to talk about a classified program in the first place? It was a stunt, and he has been brutally criticized by many, you should look at the arguments from the other side, say from the someone who was the inspector general of the National Security Agency from 2002-2006, the national counterintelligence executive from 2006-2009, and the senior counsel of NSA from 2009-2010

The committee chairman, Senator Diane Feinstein, may have known what Wyden had in mind. In opening the hearing she reminded senators it would be followed by a closed session and said, “I’ll ask that members refrain from asking questions here that have classified answers.” Not dissuaded, Wyden sandbagged the director.
...
Wyden did neither of these things. He lacked the courage of his conviction, and instead of running any risk himself, he transferred it to the director of national intelligence, putting Clapper in the impossible position of answering a question that he could not address truthfully and fully without breaking his oath not to divulge classified information.
...
Wyden did put Clapper in jeopardy of making or concealing a material fact or giving a false statement, a charge that carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. It was a low dishonorable act, and nothing good will come of it.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...james-clapper-history-intelligence-oversightI

His whole opinion is worth reading...who is not following the law and the best legal channels available to them in these situations? When people realize that democracy is working against their personal beliefs, they are prone to despicable and desperate acts. Hence Snowden and Wyden.

I'm a statistician. I'm not 100% certain I'm an actual human being and not a Boltzman brain.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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...
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



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...

Specific damage supportable by evidence.

All you've posted is argument from authority with vague claims of harm.

It's all vague. Al Queda's eating it up? Really? Like they didn't already know we were tracking cell phones? Hello, 'How we got Bin Laden' anyone? And did we not just take out another batch of these guys in Yemen?

Lost some sources? This is the only vague claim that has any potential credibility. But it still amounts to an unsubstantiated claim. I need more details to buy it.

 

[Joey McGee]

Heavens no. Why would you think that?

You think the intelligence community and the representatives who have been briefed on the damage are lying that there is evidence that we have lost sources and that targets been discussing the leaks and how to avoid detection based on the details. And you think that all of our enemies knew all of our capabilities already and therefore didn't learn anything from the leaks. I don't know why you believe this, maybe you could explain? You said it's hard to believe that Snowden provided them with new information. I guess that's a concession that you don't know what he leaked?

That's nice for you. I don't agree with my representatives on hardly anything at all.

The way things work is that there are certain things that are classified that only elected representatives may be aware of and vote on. If you disagree that this is necessary for National Security reasons, you could make a case for a better way of doing business, I'm not aware of any.

 

[Joey McGee]

Specific damage supportable by evidence.

All you've posted is argument from authority with vague claims of harm.

It's all vague. Al Queda's eating it up? Really? Like they didn't already know we were tracking cell phones? Hello, 'How we got Bin Laden' anyone? And did we not just take out another batch of these guys in Yemen?

Lost some sources? This is the only vague claim that has any potential credibility. But it still amounts to an unsubstantiated claim. I need more details to buy it.

They aren't going to give you the details, they are going to give them to elected representatives because it will contain classified information.

You think that Snowden's leak amounts to us tracking cell phones?

You think the fact they had a successful strike means that there is no damage to their abilities? Do you realize how big and varied the war on terror is?

And people wonder why nothing is changing...

I think if people are not willing to investigate things for themselves and handwave the statements of their elected representatives and accuse everyone of lying without evidence, they should not expect to be taken seriously by anyone

 

[jimbob]

Saying that the NSA acts hindered terrorism is not sufficient.

Banning people from carrying backpacks in the state of Massachusetts could have hindered the Boston Marathon bombers but that would have been disproportionate.

Similarly, looking at webcam images of millions of "unselected" Yahoo users is a disproportionate invasion of privacy in my opinion.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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

Sen. Feinstein herself is now convinced that the CIA misled Congress about torture, and that was something used against our enemies. You believe that the NSA would be more honorable when it comes to informing the government on surveillance used on the country's own citizens?

Secrecy and deception are what these agencies use to keep their targets ignorant. What do you think happens when everyone in America is essentially the NSA's target?

 

[Joey McGee]

Sen. Feinstein herself is now convinced that the CIA misled Congress about torture, and that was something used against our enemies. You believe that the NSA would be more honorable when it comes to informing the government on surveillance used on the country's own citizens?

Secrecy and deception are what these agencies use to keep their targets ignorant.

The claim is that "the NSA routinely misled Congress" and people claim to have evidence of this already. Mostly, it is the testimony of Clapper. His answer was "not wittingly" which makes perfect sense if he was thinking about the accidental interceptions under 702, and does not make sense if he were trying to lie about the phone records.

There are a variety of other ways people try and claim that this or that is evidence of a campaign to "mislead congress" I would like to see someone try here... one sentence by one guy... come on.

I have a problem with this because it is used by Snowden, and his supporters, to justify his leaks, as if he has proof of this, when he doesn't.

So you turn around and ask me why do I believe that agencies have never lied to Congress?

What do you think happens when everyone in America is essentially the NSA's target?

I don't think everyone is their target, I think that's paranoia, and misinformation.

 

[Beth]

You don't have to trust what they say, but for every argument Snowden has made, they have made a counter-argument. http://blog.ted.com/2014/03/20/the-nsa-responds-to-edward-snowdens-interview-at-ted/

If I don't trust what they say, then their having a counterargument won't impact my beliefs on the matter.

That answer those questions? Certainly not... not even close.

Clearly, you interpret that evidence differently that I (and many others) have.

I'm not saying we should just trust the NSA, although I understand why people rationalize that's what critics must be saying.

Interesting. It sure comes across to me that you are saying we should trust them. You keep telling me to read their counterarguments as if that should affect my opinion. It can only affect my opinion if I trust what they say.

I'm saying that it's the elected representatives and judges who are allowed to see classified information that need to hold the NSA to account on these specific claims, and they actually do this, and we have their assessments.

If we cannot trust the NSA to tell the elected representatives and judges the truth about the classified information, then we cannot trust the assessments of those representatives and judges.

Foreseen the question? Ignorant of the context of his words? That doesn't even make sense... he thought the question referred to something else, end of story, mistakes happen.

Yes, mistakes happen. Mistakes also have consequences. The consequences of making a 'mistake' in testifying to congress is that the American Public will believe you are liar and the agency you oversee cannot be trusted to tell the truth to the judges and representatives charges with oversight of your agency.

For some reason his bosses and colleagues accepted his explanation and he kept his job and no one is prosecuting him... is this more evidence of the conspiracy?

I don't know. I wish that the Obama administration had made more of a fuss about his 'mistaken' testimony to Congress. It's the kind of 'mistake' that I think should have cost him his job at the very least because such 'mistakes' undermine the public's trust in our government.

Again, everyone on that panel knew about the metadata already. If he was lying, it would have been to the other people listening.

Yes. He would have been lying to congress under oath. A serious offense IMO.

I'm just pointing out that not only is there no evidence that he's lying, there is no reason to believe that he was.

He has already admitted his answers were not truthful. The only question is was he an ignorant blunderbuss unaware of how his words would be interpreted or was he deliberately misleading Congress and the American public. That's not something I can know for certain. I can only say that my assessment after watching the testimony is that he was deliberately lying.

There was no reason for him to do so.

I think he didn't want to publicly admit that the NSA was collecting data on millions of Americans without having any suspicion of terrorist activities or even terrorist inclinations.

His letter said that his staff clarified to Wyden after the mistake was realized, and that he couldn't publicly do so because the program is classified. Why was Wyden asking him to talk about a classified program in the first place? It was a stunt, and he has been brutally criticized by many,

I would guess that Wyden asked about it because he wanted the American public to know what was the NSA was doing. Wyden's question put Clapper in the position of either having to publicly admit what was happening or lie under oath. Or maybe Clapper was just too stupid to understand the question and the position it put him in. I don't believe that, but I'll allow it's a possibility.

When people realize that democracy is working against their personal beliefs, they are prone to despicable and desperate acts. Hence Snowden and Wyden.

Desperate may be an accurate description of their acts, but I wouldn't class either of them as despicable. Rather, I see them as trying to do the best they can in the position they find themselves in. They aren't the ones who misled the American public about what the NSA had done.

 

[Joey McGee]

If I don't trust what they say, then their having a counterargument won't impact my beliefs on the matter.

So because you're skeptical of the evidence you're incapable of listening to reason?

Clearly, you interpret that evidence differently that I (and many others) have.

a) Snowden being slandered b) someone people put in jail for bringing concerns through the proper channels c) who are these "advisers" saying that the proper channels are no good, and what would be the problem with that?. Can you point me to where the answers to these questions?

Interesting. It sure comes across to me that you are saying we should trust them. You keep telling me to read their counterarguments as if that should affect my opinion. It can only affect my opinion if I trust what they say.

You can't separate evidence from reason? Or science from philosophy?

If we cannot trust the NSA to tell the elected representatives and judges the truth about the classified information, then we cannot trust the assessments of those representatives and judges.

Firstly, you can't prove they lied. Second, that's not how oversight works, they aren't relying on the Director of National Intelligence for their source of information, is that what you think? Wyden didn't need to hear it from Clapper, because he is allowed to see everything they are doing, and there are judges who are allowed to see everything they are doing, and everything is audited and available to be looked at so it can be justified later.

Yes, mistakes happen. Mistakes also have consequences. The consequences of making a 'mistake' in testifying to congress is that the American Public will believe you are liar and the agency you oversee cannot be trusted to tell the truth to the judges and representatives charges with oversight of your agency. I don't know. I wish that the Obama administration had made more of a fuss about his 'mistaken' testimony to Congress. It's the kind of 'mistake' that I think should have cost him his job at the very least because such 'mistakes' undermine the public's trust in our government. Yes. He would have been lying to congress under oath. A serious offense IMO. He has already admitted his answers were not truthful. The only question is was he an ignorant blunderbuss unaware of how his words would be interpreted or was he deliberately misleading Congress and the American public. That's not something I can know for certain. I can only say that my assessment after watching the testimony is that he was deliberately lying.

Another angle is that you can't waste time worrying about how conspiracy theorists and radicals think. Another angle is that Wyden should never have asked the question in the first place, see the New Republic article I posted. You don't punish someone like Clapper for a single statement like that when the questioning was indeed flawed with it's delivery, timing and appropriateness Dossier? Mature, responsible people generally don't listen much to the howling of immature whiners.

Wyden's question put Clapper in the position of either having to publicly admit what was happening or lie under oath. Or maybe Clapper was just too stupid to understand the question and the position it put him in. I don't believe that, but I'll allow it's a possibility.

No, he put him in the position of either lying under oath and breaking the law or exposing classified information and breaking the law, as the former senior counsel to the NSA said, this was cowardice on Wyden's part, and he is in the extreme minority on those boards with his viewpoints on this. The Senate intelligence committee has 19 members. Only one other member shared his view. The House intelligence committee has 23 members. None of them appeared to share his view.

Desperate may be an accurate description of their acts, but I wouldn't class either of them as despicable. Rather, I see them as trying to do the best they can in the position they find themselves in. They aren't the ones who misled the American public about what the NSA had done.

Do you have proof of this? Why didn't Wyden stick his own neck out then? Why did he sandbag Clapper? Why didn't Snowden try and alert Congress? Narcissism seems to be the common view. They know better than all of the other actors in the situation so they see no problem putting the burden and risk on them...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You don't have to trust what they say, but for every argument Snowden has made, they have made a counter-argument. http://blog.ted.com/2014/03/20/the-nsa-responds-to-edward-snowdens-interview-at-ted/
<snip>

Do you have a specific example of how he put lives at risk?

In the things he disclosed. The NSA is a capabilities-based organization. When we have foreign intelligence targets, legitimate things of interest — the terrorist is the iconic example but that also includes human traffickers, drug traffickers, people trying to build advanced weaponry or deliver systems for them — those capabilities are applied in very discrete and measured and controlled ways. So the unconstrained disclosure of those capabilities mean the targets see it and recognize it and move away from our ability to have insight into what they’re doing. Then we are at greater risk because we don’t see the threats coming and we might be vulnerable. We have seen targets in terrorism, in the nation state area, smugglers, who have moved away from our ability to have insight into what they’re doing. The net effect of that is that our people overseas in dangerous places, our military, our diplomats, our allies in similar situations, face a greater risk.

So you’re saying that your access to information has been closed down. One concern is that the nature of its access was not legitimate in the first place. Describe to us the Bullrun program, in which it’s alleged that the NSA deliberately weakened security to get access.

Legitimate foreign targets use the global telecommunications system, and let me say it’s a great system, it’s the most complex system devised by man. It’s a wonderful thing. It’s also used by those working against us and our allies. And in working against them I ned the capability to go after them. If we could make it so that all the bad guys used the same corner of the internet, if they all used badguy.com, that would be awesome, we could concentrate our capabilities there. That would be awesome. That’s not what happens. They’re trying to hide from the government’s ability to isolate and interdict their actions. We have to swim in the same space.

The NSA has two missions. The first is the signals and intelligence mission about which sadly we read so much in the press. The second is the information and assurance mission, to protect the security of the United States. That’s the communications the president uses, the communications we use to control nuclear weapons, the communications we use with our allies. We make recommendations on those standards — and we use the same standards. We are invested in making sure those communications are secure for their intended purposes.

I'm trying to be open-minded and read what your linking, because I haven't followed things closely enough to have a well informed opinion ... but I found this whole article to be horrible.

I pulled a quote to use as an example - I looked, but I don't see any counter-arguments there.

I see a big word-salad non-answer.

 

[Joey McGee]

OK

 

[Joey McGee]

How about you make a claim, an argument, that Snowden has made that you're concerned about, and I'll show you their counter-argument to it. I'll achieve this using Google and patience, but I understand that some people think it's the duty of their government to spoonfeed them information instead of making it available.

 

[Belz...]

If you're not aware, the programs were carefully constructed to catch terrorists while guaranteeing civil liberties and were approved and overseen by all three branches of government.

<snicker> Sure they were.