John Kerry Admits That The NSA Has Gone Too Far; Will He Take Back His Labelling Ed Snowden A Traitor?
from the can-we-move-that-needle-over-to-whistleblower dept
Secretary of State John Kerry is among the many politicians who rushed to call Ed Snowden a traitor -- though, to be fair, he said "traitor to the oath he took to his fellow employees, to the duty he took freely by his own choice." That's not quite the same as saying he's a traitor "to the US," but it's still pretty strong. And yet, now, after more and more information has come out about the NSA's activities, thanks entirely to Snowden's leaks, even Kerry is admitting that the NSA has "gone too far.""In some cases, I acknowledge to you, as has the President, that some of these actions have reached too far and we are going to make sure that that doesn't happen in the future.So, Secretary Kerry, can you at least now admit that Snowden was a whistleblower?
"There is no question that the President and I, and others in government, have actually learned of some things that have been happening in many ways on automatic pilot because the technology has been there and the ability has been there over the course of a long period of time."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ed snowden, john kerry, nsa, nsa surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
My prediction: No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Read as: John Kerry wants to still have a career after this administration ends.
I voted for Kerry once, I voted for Obama twice, and I just unsubscribed from the Democrats email list this morning when they came asking for money. I won't support anyone that is not as outraged as I am at the Edward Snowden revelations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
According to Wikipedia, John Forbes Kerry was born December 1943. So he's around 70 now.
He's been Senator, and now Secretary of State. What does he want to do next? I don't think he's going to run for the top slot again. If he's not going to take another shot at the presidency, then maybe Governor? What does he do next?
Or he could become a Supreme Court Justice, I guess. But you don't need the popular vote for that job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:I voted for Kerry once, I voted for Obama twice
Won't be fooled again (at least, not by that guy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All spin
Spin, spin, spin.
Well that's what SecState gets paid to do, right? Spin things for the administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still a criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still a criminal
OH wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still a criminal
The DNI, James Clapper, intentionally gave his �least untruthful� answer while under oath. The answer was false, and he knew it.
Lying, under oath, before Congress is still a crime. (Just ask Roger Clemens).
You willing to apply the same harsh standard �the law is the law� to the DNI, James Clapper?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still a criminal
Otherwise everyone involved with the Watergate reveal would have been in prison for the rest of their lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still a criminal
Spilling the inner workings of your employer is most definitely a crime.
That the crime was useful in exposing wrongdoing is an entirely different issue. I am not entirely sure where does that leave Snowden, but I'm pretty sure he's a criminal by any reasonable interpretation of the law.
But, then again, by any reasonable interpretation of the law, most heroes are. If it was easy being a hero, everyone would be one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Still a criminal
If a police officer kills an armed suspect that was about to harm innocents, he is guilty of homicide.
However, the law has safeguards for these kinds of situations: if the level of force was appropriate given the circumstances, he will not go to jail for this, despite being guilty of homicide. Let me reinforce this point: what he did was illegal, and he is guilty, but the law has a special case to handle this that says that he is not to suffer sanctions.
Snowden is in the same situation. What he did was illegal. He's guilty. I dunno if the law has safeguards for this case. In my opinion, it should. Even if it doesn't, I assume that the president has authority to pardon him? If so, he should exercise that authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Still a criminal
He is NOT guilty of anything - no trial has been held to the best of my knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Still a criminal
I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Still a criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Still a criminal
The "law" is only relevant when it's applied uniformly and fairly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Still a criminal
No, that's not quite right.
AFAIK, violating a non-disclosure agreement with a non-government affiliated company is a civil matter. The company can sue you for monetary damages and that's about it.
Snowden's case is a bit different though, since I assume he signed a non-disclosure agreement with the United States government, similar to this one, and violating that does expose you to criminal charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still a criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still a criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still a criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No is all that needs be written for this feeble question.
Say, speaking of Google: they're now claiming that the barges are "luxury showrooms" for VIPS! -- 'Cause nothing says class like welded steel shipping containers! -- It's silly on the surface, because unless constructed only a shell, each "showroom" is about the size of semi-trailer, the MANY inner ones would be claustrophobic at best, moving around a pain -- and is there an elevator to get to the fourth-story "party deck"? -- What a hoot! Now we KNOW they're hiding something!
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/10/31/googles-secret-revealed-barge-to-offer-high-en d-showrooms-party-deck/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No is all that needs be written for this feeble question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No is all that needs be written for this feeble question.
That's the beauty of it. See, google isn't an elected entity, so if you don't like 'em, don't use 'em. I feel the same about att, ms and appl. I don't like them, so I don't give them my business. One thing I wouldn't do is spam off-topic articles. That's just rude.
GOOOOOOOOOO google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No is all that needs be written for this feeble question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No is all that needs be written for this feeble question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No is all that needs be written for this feeble question.
No one was. You are just trying for the eleventy millionth time to hijack yet another topic to stroke your massive hard-on for Google. Don't like Google? Don't use them. They do not have the force of law or the weight of government power to insert themselves into your life, or deprive you of any of your freedoms or rights.
Kindly GFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Needless to say, after seeing how he acts in his position of Secretary of State, I wouldn't vote for him again. Same goes for Hillery "they blew up the embassy" Clinton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What? Get a politician to go back on his stated word and apologize?
Can I get some whatever illegal substance it is that you've been smoking?
Oh, it's not illegal anymore?
Well you still won't get an apology out of him, but he might change how "we" supposedly missinterpreted meant what he said to something that makes him look a bit less of an arse to everyone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Report" is all that needs done for this feeble-minded poster
What makes the whole situation even more annoying is that people keep responding to him, like it's gonna make any difference whatsoever. All you're doing is giving him the attention he so clearly and desperately craves and can't get anywhere else.
So, as of today I'm going to start hitting "Report" on everyone who responds to him. It's become clear that just reporting OOTB won't stop him because he's getting what he wants: attention. I'm aiming to cut off that attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Report" is all that needs done for this feeble-minded poster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Report" is all that needs done for this feeble-minded poster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Report" is all that needs done for this feeble-minded poster
I disagree with this and I always have. I've seen plenty of threads that were kicked off by a reported comment that went on to be very informative discussions.
I also disagree with ottermaton's initial statement that every response to Blue should be reported. Incorrect, uninformed and stupid speech (like most of what Blue spews) shouldn't be repressed, it should be countered with more speech and now ottermaton wants to repress that speech too.
Sometimes Blue NEEDS to be corrected. Not for his benefit, but for everyone else who is reading his comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Report" is all that needs done for this feeble-minded poster
Yes, but I've also seen many threads where the quantity and quality of inane blue-battles were such that I stopped bothering to read the comments on the post at all. Perhaps there was an informative discussion somewhere in the inane warfare, but it's as good as invisible to me at that point.
I favor thread-collapsing because Blue all too often wins in his goal of completely derailing the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Report" is all that needs done for this feeble-minded poster
I guess I really don't see the problem with discussions going off on tangents. I'm guilty of that fairly often myself. Some of the best discussions here have often had nothing to do with the articles themselves.
I know there are a lot of people that get annoyed with off-topic comments, but I'm not among them. I kind of like going off on the tangents. You can learn quite a lot that way. Just my 2�.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What too far really means
Spying on international bankers? That's �too far.�
�
�
Spying on American citizens? Not far enough. Look at the Feinstein bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course not, we still shoot the messenger!
I can't believe how many people I've met in real life (not just people being idiots on the Internet) who think like this:
"The NSA's spying is outrageous and must stop/be brought under control. But Snowden is still a filthy traitor who must be thrown in jail forever, we can't have him endangering our national security and giving our secrets to foreign countries."
That above paragraph is basically what I get from those people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all this revisionism is convincing me that the political studies are showing the people are evincing a dim view of the nsa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oath?
If the government has turned turned on the people - who do you side with?
I think Snowden made the right choice. I may not agree with how he went about it, but let's face it... if he made too much noise through the official channels, he'd end up black bagged somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oath?
To me, here's a hero.
People like him and Ladar Levesen (sorry if misspelt) both.
But then at the end of the day risking a relatively civilised US prison sentence is not as brave as (say) signing up to be an Iraqi policeman because you want the best for your country,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IRONIC: 'traitor to the oath he took'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The correct answer is:
If Snowden wanted to play whistleblower, he would have highlighted one or two cases, released perhaps information on those. He didn't have to datadump the agency so guys like you could spend their free time scanning every document hoping to find something.
Datadump != whistleblower
Once you learn that, the rest of your stuff might make some sense!
(oh, and post held for moderation... because Mike doesn't like my opinion!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The correct answer is:
horse with no name just loathes it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The simple answer
Which means in essence, he will never admit that Snowden was a whistleblower, or even right to do what he did.
That's against the rules of Washington. You never make your boss look bad.
And so, Kerry will toe the company line. "Snowden is a traitor and he should be tried for it."
That's public. What he thinks privately is another matter, one which we'll never hear about.
I rather like to think he's smarter than that-and he would actually agree that Snowden is a hero, but not loudly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about "traitor"? Some of what has been disclosed has nothing to do with whistleblowing and undermines longstanding and legitimate intelligence activities. Only one living in a parallel universe dedicated to utopian ideals would laud such activity. In these circumstances "whistleblower"? Definitely not. "Traitor"? The jury is out, but it is not looking like a nomination to sainthood is in his future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Repeating the same old lies
"3. One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country."
Now, according to this actual and real definition, Snowden is not a traitor. He did not profit from his activities, and they have nothing to do with longstanding or legitimate intelligence activities.
Unless you consider spying on your friends, neighbors, and colleagues a legitimate action. What did he surrender to which enemy? The American public as the enemy?
I'd call the NSA's actions illegal, but that's just me. Also the matter of the Constitution happens to be involved.
He might not be a hero, but what he did was a damned sight better than what the NSA is doing-plus a lot more noble and moral. At least he sleeps better at night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]