Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
from the your-move dept
Yesterday we, like many, were perplexed by Ed Snowden's decision to go on a Russian television program, and to ask Vladimir Putin a question about whether or not the Russians do mass surveillance like the NSA does (which was, of course, exposed by Ed Snowden). It was clearly playing into Putin's propaganda efforts, because Putin immediately took the opportunity to insist that no, Russia does not do mass surveillance like that. Of course, Putin's answer was not true. Many of Snowden's detractors immediately jumped on this as an example of how he was working for the Putin propaganda machine -- and many (including us), wondered if he was, at the very least, pressured to play a role in order to keep his temporary asylum. Others thought he was just being naive. Some Snowden supporters, however, insisted that we should hear him out, and see if there was some more specific motive behind his question.Apparently, we didn't have to wait long. Snowden himself has now directly called Putin out for lying about Russian surveillance, and said that his question was designed to act similar to Senator Ron Wyden's now famous question to James Clapper, leading to Clapper's lie, which (in part) sparked Snowden's decision to finally release the files he'd been collecting. Snowden, writing in the Guardian, explained:
On Thursday, I questioned Russia's involvement in mass surveillance on live television. I asked Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, a question that cannot credibly be answered in the negative by any leader who runs a modern, intrusive surveillance program: "Does [your country] intercept, analyse or store millions of individuals' communications?"From there, he explains why he thinks Putin was lying, and how he expects this to now be exposed in Russia, as it was in the US:
I went on to challenge whether, even if such a mass surveillance program were effective and technically legal, it could ever be morally justified.
The question was intended to mirror the now infamous exchange in US Senate intelligence committee hearings between senator Ron Wyden and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, about whether the NSA collected records on millions of Americans, and to invite either an important concession or a clear evasion. (See a side-by-side comparison of Wyden's question and mine here.)
Clapper's lie – to the Senate and to the public – was a major motivating force behind my decision to go public, and a historic example of the importance of official accountability.
In his response, Putin denied the first part of the question and dodged on the latter. There are serious inconsistencies in his denial – and we'll get to them soon – but it was not the president's suspiciously narrow answer that was criticised by many pundits. It was that I had chosen to ask a question at all.Snowden also pointed out the remarkably similar response from Putin and Obama when asked about their domestic surveillance programs, and noted that he expects the Russian press to finally start challenging Putin on this assertion.
I was surprised that people who witnessed me risk my life to expose the surveillance practices of my own country could not believe that I might also criticise the surveillance policies of Russia, a country to which I have sworn no allegiance, without ulterior motive. I regret that my question could be misinterpreted, and that it enabled many to ignore the substance of the question – and Putin's evasive response – in order to speculate, wildly and incorrectly, about my motives for asking it.
The investigative journalist Andrei Soldatov, perhaps the single most prominent critic of Russia's surveillance apparatus (and someone who has repeatedly criticised me in the past year), described my question as "extremely important for Russia". It could, he said, "lift a de facto ban on public conversations about state eavesdropping."
When this event comes around next year, I hope we'll see more questions on surveillance programs and other controversial policies. But we don't have to wait until then. For example, journalists might ask for clarification as to how millions of individuals' communications are not being intercepted, analysed or stored, when, at least on a technical level, the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function. They might ask whether the social media companies reporting that they have received bulk collection requests from the Russian government are telling the truth.Finally, he notes that his position continues to remain entirely consistent:
I blew the whistle on the NSA's surveillance practices not because I believed that the United States was uniquely at fault, but because I believe that mass surveillance of innocents – the construction of enormous, state-run surveillance time machines that can turn back the clock on the most intimate details of our lives – is a threat to all people, everywhere, no matter who runs them.I don't think many people -- other than perhaps the most diehard Snowden supporters -- expected something quite like this. For months, many Snowden detractors have repeatedly criticized Snowden for not speaking out against Russian authoritarianism and surveillance. Many of us have felt that those criticisms were significantly off-base, in part because that wasn't Snowden's particular fight (nor did he have any unique knowledge of Russian surveillance, as he did with the US). It seemed like a stupid false equivalency to try to make Snowden look bad. And when he asked his question to Putin, some people argued that this showed he was actually "questioning" Russian surveillance. Except that the TV question felt like such a softball, so designed to allow Putin to spin some propaganda that this didn't really seem like Snowden challenging anything.
Last year, I risked family, life, and freedom to help initiate a global debate that even Obama himself conceded "will make our nation stronger". I am no more willing to trade my principles for privilege today than I was then.
I understand the concerns of critics, but there is a more obvious explanation for my question than a secret desire to defend the kind of policies I sacrificed a comfortable life to challenge: if we are to test the truth of officials' claims, we must first give them an opportunity to make those claims.
However, this latest response suggests that Snowden is (once again) playing a game where he's several moves ahead of many folks. The question may have set up a propaganda answer, but it appears there was a bigger strategy behind it -- and one that remains entirely consistent with what Snowden has claimed his position has been since the beginning. Frankly, while this possibility was raised about his original question to Putin, many people (myself included) thought it was unlikely that Snowden would so directly go after his current hosts (who only became his hosts thanks to the US pulling his passport). Putin is not known for gracefully handling those who directly challenge him, and I don't think it would be surprise anyone if Snowden had continued to stay out of the question of Russian surveillance, simply out of basic necessity.
Snowden, however, has said from the beginning, that this story has never been about him, and he accepts that the end result of his starting the process may not be good for himself. He's made it clear that he was willing to effectively sacrifice himself to get this debate going -- and having done it once, he apparently has decided he can do it again in another context. While I was confused by this move 24 hours ago, I'll admit it was because I never thought Snowden would go this far (and so quickly) to criticize Russia while he was there. Already, given what Snowden did in releasing the NSA documents, he's shown that he's much braver (and in many ways, patriotic to the public) than just about anyone. In now questioning -- and then calling BS on Putin's answer -- he's shown that bravery was not a one-time thing, but a position he intends to live by going forward.
Snowden likely made a lot more powerful enemies today -- including more who could make life very uncomfortable for him very soon. But he also showed why the public, around the globe, owes him an incredibly large debt of gratitude, one which it's unclear we'll ever be able to pay off.
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, ron wyden, russia, surveillance, vladimir putin
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hope he is safe. PR and public speaking isn't Snowden's strong point.
LOL Snowden, you're a legend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Excellent analysis
But the cynicism against government continues to slowly build. Not sure anything will come from it. Rand Paul, his potential run for President and how much me mentions reining in the NSA is probably a semi-good proxy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Excellent analysis
If some "security contractor" offered to give Rand Paul $5m in "donations" for writing and supporting a bill that would give the "security contractor" a multi-billion dollar contract to do whatever spying and the "legality" to do so... Rand Paul would do it. That's just how it works. Snowden didn't work for the NSA after all, he worked for a contractor who got billions for "security (lol ironic much) contracts".
The only hope is to get money out of politics
A contract for some firm to hack into all our computers should not be granted and the act legalized because some politician/s got "donations". That is what happens now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Excellent analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Excellent analysis
And that is entirely the wrong way to look at things. The reason that these programs are dangerous is not because they will catch some small time crimes, because for the most part the theory is right - there is way too much noise. The problem is that we go from a culture of "rule of law" to one of selective enforcement and petty revenge. If for whatever reason you end up on someone's radar, they can go back in time and string together any number of those innocuous needles you dropped over your lifetime to make you look suspicious of anything "horrible" enough to justify putting you on the no fly list, or carting you off to a secret torture camp, or targeting you for a drone strike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Excellent analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EG of online... FACT: Police snipers caught on camera shooting protestors.
1)Youtube was flooded with short News clips from multiple accounts.
2)All the clips were showing "bad protestors" throwing stuff etc.. ("bad protestors")
3)All the clips were named similar to "terrorist snipers shoot at police"
3) None of the clips showed any snipers.
4) Youtube was flooded with them
I remember in that instance finding out the fact via twitter. Looking for the video on youtube and having to wade through lots of crap before it was found. It was a losing battle for the (99%probable) Russian trolls though...THAT TIME.
Look for yourself
Youtube search: intitle:"Sniper Fires On Cops"
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=intitle%3A%22Sniper+Fires+On+Cops%22
That is just one very specific term. "Sniper Fires On Cops". 23 results left on youtube. At one stage there was hundreds of those. And all the other similar terms.
Same thing happens with most Russia related, International newsworthy issues. They are good but in that regard "our side" is too. Russia are just less subtle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
surprised?
In some ways, it's kind of a silly question -- virtually everything that easily can be tapped will be tapped, whether inside or outside the law. Even a typical corporate IT department has considerable power to "listen in" on what people are doing, both within the local network, as well as over the internet.
Wholesale spying been a widespread practice since the days of the telegraph, certainly in the US and presumably in the rest of the world as well. The main issue is whether or not any solid safeguards are in place to prevent that kind of wholesale eavesdropping from ever taking place (and of course the answer is "no").
Interestingly, Putin seemed to suggest the exact opposite of his answer to Snowden, when asked a few months ago if communications might be logged during the Olympic games.
Oh, by the way, Putin was not under oath, so his "lie" technically didn't count ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And what happens when the media doesn't start asking those questions (as Snowden knows they won't)? Hopefully Russians will start watching Russian media with an even more skeptical eye.
The strategy is the same in both instances (the original Putin question and Snowden's vocal expectation that the media will start questioning him). It looks naive on purpose. Snowden is a genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What on Earth makes you think Snowden thinks that? Absolutely nothing he's done could make anyone who's followed his public statements leap to that conclusion. Your comment almost seems like a weak attempt to lead people to believe something you know to be false...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
note Snowden wants Kremlin critics investigated
So Snowden hopes those Kremlin CRITICS get factchecked does he?
Wyden asked his Q of Clapper in a far less scripted context. Do you think the NSA-controlled US media decided to air that Q cuz it was a nice setup? This TV show would have refused to air Snowden if the Q had any potential to actually constrain Putin. Wyden did not preface his Q with an attack on another country like Snowden did.
The Russians simply screwed up here by using Snowden in a situation where the use strained credibility too much to deny. They called it "live" TV but it was too obviously prearranged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: note Snowden wants Kremlin critics investigated
Untrue. Clapper was given the question 24 hours ahead of time. His "no" was the result of a deliberate decision to lie to the American people while apologizing the next day to Wyden. None of this could be revealed until Snowden blew the lid off because it was classified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: note Snowden wants Kremlin critics investigated
He's asking "who do you thinking is lying, Putin or these companies that say they've gotten surveillance requests?" The answer is obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: note Snowden wants Kremlin critics investigated
Did he?
Wyden: “One of the most important responsibilities a Senator has is oversight of the intelligence community. This job cannot be done responsibly if Senators aren’t getting straight answers to direct questions. When NSA Director Alexander failed to clarify previous public statements about domestic surveillance, it was necessary to put the question to the Director of National Intelligence. So that he would be prepared to answer, I sent the question to Director Clapper’s office a day in advance. After the hearing was over my staff and I gave his office a chance to amend his answer. Now public hearings are needed to address the recent disclosures and the American people have the right to expect straight answers from the intelligence leadership to the questions asked by their representatives.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: note Snowden wants Kremlin critics investigated
Why are you claiming something that is provably and commonly known to be false? Kinda undermines everything else you say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: note Snowden wants Kremlin critics investigated
That statement doesn't make sense. Please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for the MSM talking heads who decry Snowden's actions, what have they done to protect their nation? The press was given an elevated privilege in law and society under the obligation to protect the public interest. If given the choice between their obligation and their comfortable lifestyle, they'd sell out. In fact, they already have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'i told you so...'
it is the only solace left to a prophet without honor...
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Martyr Syndrome
It has always been difficult to divine his underlying motives. Was he the arrogant computer expert that he seemed to be when smirking at the cameras, or were those unfortunate facial expressions and he always intended on "rescuing" us from our ignorance. Analysts could be speculating on Snowden for years. The very fact that he is ahead of everyone else could play into Snowden's arrogance, if he is arrogant.
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. Frankly, the best thing the US could do is ignore Snowden. Snowden's revelations have been digested, and apparently few people seem to care all that much. Even the feigned outrage of foreign governments is exactly that. Many of the governments knew they were being spied upon, but until the spying was brought into the open, they did not need to say anything about it. Why? Because most sophisticated governments are either doing the same thing, or are trying to do the same thing.
We already know that Russia, China, Great Britain, France, and Israel have significant electronic spying programs. Doubtless other countries are either envious of those who have such programs, or they are trying to develop similar programs. Such is the nature of government. The only thing that happens when these programs see the light of day is that the replacement program is better hidden, and the people involved are put under even more onerous surveillance.
Will the information that Snowden revealed have much effect on either us, our government, or the world? I personally doubt that it will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Martyr Syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Martyr Syndrome
Everyone is looking for motives and spin, ignoring the answer that's right in front of them: this guy has -- so far -- told the truth every single time. That's all. Just the truth. And people are so damn uncomfortable with that truth, that rather than to digest it, they'd rather try to micro-analyze Snowden himself.
I suggest that the best course of action is here is to follow advice that was given to me once upon a time, when things were just about to happen: wait and watch. Wait and watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that the "next terrorist attack" will happen because of the information that Snowden disseminated.
From the information we have up to this point, the NSA spying programs have been found to have stopped very few, if any, terrorists attacks, so why would the next be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Martyr Syndrome
There's also the issue of Snowden leaks about U.S. intelligence efforts to determine the nature and extent of Chinese hacking into both civilian and military targets. Was Snowden leaking this information in order to protect the "privacy" of Chinese military hackers?
If you disarm one side in this new cold war, are you protecting your privacy--or making it more vulnerable to people who observe no rule of law? China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran and others are loving every minute of our long, protracted slide into national suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Martyr Syndrome
You can color me unconvinced of this since James Clapper himself doesn't even believe that's true.
There's also the issue of Snowden leaks about U.S. intelligence efforts to determine the nature and extent of Chinese hacking into both civilian and military targets. Was Snowden leaking this information in order to protect the "privacy" of Chinese military hackers?
You have a citation for any of this postulation? This sounds a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to me. Almost like someone who is trying really, really hard to villainize Snowden for some unknown reason.
If you disarm one side in this new cold war, are you protecting your privacy--or making it more vulnerable to people who observe no rule of law? China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran and others are loving every minute of our long, protracted slide into national suicide.
So basically, your stance is that violating the Constitution is necessary to protect the Constitution. That kind of shit scares me more than terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
As it should, given that stance is doing their work for them. After all, what need does a terrorist have to attack a country, to destroy their rights, freedoms, and inflict harm on the country and destroy the trust the people have in it if the government itself is willing to do so all on their own, whether from panic or a hunger for power?
Moreover, that is the stance of a coward, someone willing to give away any right, weaken and destroy the rights of the people just to get a temporary feeling of 'security', before even more rights are sacrificed so they can continue to feel 'safe'.
Destroying rights for some phantom feeling of 'security', hmm, I wonder if any historical figure has ever weighed in on that one...
'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'
-Benjamin Franklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
If it sounds familiar that's because he's not the first to try it, here's the article about that I ran across while link hunting:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131104/02144225116/kurt-eichenwald-claims-snowden-is-chin ese-spy-leaks-are-just-to-protect-their-cyber-attacks.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Martyr Syndrome
So the people who have been proven to be lying to the public on a massive scale offer one of the easiest and most obvious defenses, and you just believe them? Are you one of these people or just a bit naive and gullible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
Now, you are correct on one part, people are waking up to the 'most massive media deceptions in American history', but that 'waking up' has little to do with Snowden, and everything to do with how eager the MSM is to eat up and regurgitate the USG's talking points, and never, never call them on their lies, with a few notable exceptions.
People are also slowly waking up(slowly due to an unfortunate amount still believing the MSM's job is reporting, rather than PR and spin) to the fact that the government has been lying directly to them about their actions for years now, and is about as trustworty as a clinically diagnosed kleptomaniac in a curio shop with no cameras or staff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
The NSA is screwed up on so many levels, and all you have is to bitch about Snowden? What you think of the guy is moot, we've got bigger problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
Who are these people exactly? Seriously, this is a pretty easy claim to make, but you're going to have to provide at least some proof, because it sounds quite overblown and without any merit whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
Mr. Snowden took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he is not one of the people who lied about it, or who lied when taking it.
"...more and more observers are waking up to one of the most massive media deceptions in American history."
You must be referring to 9/11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Martyr Syndrome
Best for who? The NSA? The President? Surely not best for the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
As for the people, Snowden is, by his own admission, irrelevant at this point. The documents are out of his hands, and he will never be in a position to obtain similar documents again. It is arguable that the government might want to make an example of Snowden, but why? 75% of the American people think that Snowden broke the law and should stand trial. In many people's minds, he has already been disgraced, tried, and convicted. All a trial and arrest does is to further enhance Snowden's reputation.
The smartest thing the government can do (and because it is smart, they will not do it) is to ignore Snowden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
Citation please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
Reference:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-should-stand-trial-in-us/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
How many of them think he would be able to defend his actions as a whistleblower, explaining why he did what he did, rather than just 'Did he do X, yes or no?'
Take away the context, the reason for the actions, and the trial would be a joke, a parody of justice, as why is central to his actions(and the actions of any whistleblower), and yet it would be something he would be forbidden to argue or bring up in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
You make a bunch of statements that sound as though they might be fact, when they are your opinion.
You presume the trial would be a farce.
You presume that he is a whistle blower, which because of his situation is something he would need to prove.
You presume the trial would be a joke.
You presume the trial would be a parody of justice.
You twice presume he is a whistle blower.
You presume he would be forbidden to argue that he is a whistle blower.
I think you presume a lot with very little support for your presumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
Regarding the farce 'trial':
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130821/07423624269/bradley-manning-sentenced-to-35-years .shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130821/18434224275/people-who-got-shorter-sentences-than-b radley-manning-spies-selling-secrets-to-russians-active-terrorists.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/art icles/20110826/00473415695/former-top-government-secrets-keeper-blasts-administration-abusing-espion age-act-to-punish-whistleblowers.shtml
Proving that he's a whistleblower, that falls under two parts:
First the fact that he would not be allowed to, like I pointed out:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140106/11563925775/sen-schumer-is-completely-wrong-snowden-wo uld-be-barred-arguing-his-case-trial.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130809/12594124128/oba mas-simply-wrong-whistleblower-protections-would-not-have-applied-to-snowden.shtml
http://www.techdir t.com/articles/20131223/17054725677/if-snowden-returned-to-us-trial-all-whistleblower-evidence-would -likely-be-inadmissible.shtml
Then the 'Is he a whistleblower' question:
First of all, if his actions, that of exposing government actions which are illegal or quasi-legal in order to shed light on and hopefully change them doesn't count as whistleblowing, I'm not quite sure what is.
It would likely help if you would list just what you consider a 'whistleblower' to be.
Also, it's not just me who believes he's a whistleblower...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130816/02532424205/okay-now-will-people-admit-tha t-ed-snowden-is-whistleblower.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130903/11175824392/edward-snow den-receives-whistleblowing-award.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
Trial: The circumstances of every trial are different. If I recall correctly, I thought Manning's trial was under the UCMJ, which is a VERY different beast from a criminal trial in a civilian court. Just because many people disagreed with the Manning verdict does not mean the verdict was wrong, or a farce. Manning broke MILITARY rules and was found guilty under those rules. A civilian is not subject to the same rules.
Whistle Blower: Snowden would have an opportunity to prove his motivations and to prove that he genuinely believed that the release of each of the documents points to wrong-doing by the government. Indeed, one possible outcome, depending on the court, is a recommendation that further investigations of the uncovered wrong-doing be investigated with the intent of bringing charges. Of course, such charges would need to be for violations of US laws.
All the editorials and opinion pieces you provided are very interesting, but ultimately, that's what they are. Do I personally believe Snowden is a whistle blower? No, but that is my opinion. I think Snowden had a chance to be considered one of the greatest whistle blowers of all time, and then blew it by releasing every single document in his possession, regardless of its value in supporting a whistle blowing activity.
Snowden seems like a cocky kid smirking because he put one over on a lot of people, and the more I see, read, and hear about him, the stronger that impression becomes. I can see where Snowden's behavior appeals to college and high school students, but two and a half times as many people think he should stand trial as those who think he should not. I agree with those who think he should stand trial. He definitely broke multiple laws, so let the benefits of his actions and his motivations be his defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
This is not true. The Espionage Act, under which he has been charge does not allow any such evidence to be entered. Whether or not you are a whisteblower or had good intention is simply not considered under the Espionage Act. So any attempt to raise such a defense will be barred under the statute.
I think Snowden had a chance to be considered one of the greatest whistle blowers of all time, and then blew it by releasing every single document in his possession, regardless of its value in supporting a whistle blowing activity.
He didn't do that.
Snowden seems like a cocky kid smirking because he put one over on a lot of people
I've yet to see any sign of either cockiness or smirking. Nor do I understand what your bizarre read on his emotional state has to do with anything.
He definitely broke multiple laws, so let the benefits of his actions and his motivations be his defense.
Again, motivation is NOT ALLOWED as a defense under the Espionage Act, which is what he's charged under.
You may not believe he's a whistleblower. That's fair enough. But you keep making blatantly false statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
Whistle Blower: Snowden would have an opportunity to prove his motivations and to prove that he genuinely believed that the release of each of the documents points to wrong-doing by the government.
Mike Masnick said:
This is not true. The Espionage Act, under which he has been charge does not allow any such evidence to be entered. Whether or not you are a whisteblower or had good intention is simply not considered under the Espionage Act. So any attempt to raise such a defense will be barred under the statute.
My response:
Snowden was charged with two counts under the Espionage Act, and charged with theft, not under the Espionage Act. While he is barred with that defense under the Espionage Act, he should be able to use the whistleblower defense with respect to the theft charge because thieves are not barred from such a defense under theft statutes. A jury would thus be able to hear his motivation for the theft, which would likely be assumed by a jury to be his motivation for the charges brought under the Espionage Act, if the theft charge is not dropped.
I said:
I think Snowden had a chance to be considered one of the greatest whistle blowers of all time, and then blew it by releasing every single document in his possession, regardless of its value in supporting a whistle blowing activity.
Mike Masnick said:
He didn't do that.
My response:
Really? Then why did he say he did?
http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-and-military-information-2014-3
"Snowden told James Risen of The New York Times that he gave all of the classified documents he had taken from the NSA's internal systems to the journalists he met in Hong Kong and kept no copies himself."
I said:
Snowden seems like a cocky kid smirking because he put one over on a lot of people
Mike Masnick said:
I've yet to see any sign of either cockiness or smirking. Nor do I understand what your bizarre read on his emotional state has to do with anything.
My response:
Merely the impression I have from all that I have read and heard. It is quite likely that I have a different interpretation of his comments and expression than yours. My rather conventional read on his emotional state has to do with his potential motivations. While he claims he is a whistle blower, I still have to wonder whether the had other motivations, and an arrogant of cocky attitude could well be a sign of those motivations.
I said:
He definitely broke multiple laws, so let the benefits of his actions and his motivations be his defense.
Mike Masnick said:
Again, motivation is NOT ALLOWED as a defense under the Espionage Act, which is what he's charged under.
You may not believe he's a whistleblower. That's fair enough. But you keep making blatantly false statements.
My response:
Snowden was charged in part under the Espionage Act, but he was also charged with at least one crime NOT under the Espionage Act. Snowden may be barred from raising a whistle blower defense under the Espionage Act, but he would not be barred from presenting that defense with respect to any other charges not presented under that Act.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, many of the people charged under the Espionage Act pleaded guilty to much lesser charges. I suspect the government is uninterested in testing the Espionage Act under appeal for whistle blower cases, knowing that there is a good chance they might lose.
I have not made, to the best of my knowledge, any false statements. However, I will concede to greater facts when you present them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
Excuse me? Can you point to where "whistleblowing" is an allowed defense for theft of government property? It's not.
Either way, the main charges where the whistleblowing aspect matters are the Espionage Act one, and again, he's barred from entering evidence to that effect. So, you are factually wrong. You should admit you made a mistake.
A jury would thus be able to hear his motivation for the theft, which would likely be assumed by a jury to be his motivation for the charges brought under the Espionage Act, if the theft charge is not dropped.
A jury would be clearly instructed not to pay attention to any such evidence when it came to the Espionage Act claims (assuming such evidence was ever entered, which it wouldn't be). Are you familiar with how the American Justice system works?
Really? Then why did he say he did?
From the very beginning he noted that he went through every document and only gave those away that he felt had something legitimately in the public interest: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
The report you link to from Michael Kelley (who has been trying to claim Snowden is a spy since the very beginning), was the DOD report which assumed -- totally incorrectly according to pretty much everyone -- that Snowden handed over every document he ever "touched."
Snowden was charged in part under the Espionage Act, but he was also charged with at least one crime NOT under the Espionage Act. Snowden may be barred from raising a whistle blower defense under the Espionage Act, but he would not be barred from presenting that defense with respect to any other charges not presented under that Act.
You can repeat it many times over. Doesn't mean it will suddenly become true. Because it's not.
I suspect the government is uninterested in testing the Espionage Act under appeal for whistle blower cases, knowing that there is a good chance they might lose.
Bullshit. This administration has brought SEVEN Espionage Act claims against whistleblowers. That's compared to a grand total of THREE in ALL OF HISTORY before this administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
I suspect the government is uninterested in testing the Espionage Act under appeal for whistle blower cases, knowing that there is a good chance they might lose.
Mike said, with solidly supported factual evidence:
Bullshit. This administration has brought SEVEN Espionage Act claims against whistleblowers. That's compared to a grand total of THREE in ALL OF HISTORY before this administration.
My response:
Okay, let's see if the administration is interested in, as I said, testing the Espionage Act:
(1) The Administration charged NSA executive Thomas Drake under the Espionage Act. As the Administration's case began to collapse, Drake plead guilty to a misdemeanor of misuse of a computer.
Administration test of the Espionage Act: 0/1
(2) Stephen Jin-Woo Kim of the State Department was charged by the Administration for giving reporters classified information about North Korea's nuclear program. Though Kim was charged in 2010, his trial has yet to begin, so the Administration has not yet had to test the Act for this case.
Administration test of the Espionage Act: 0/2
(3) The Administration charged James Hitselberger, a linguist under contract to the Navy, with a variety of crimes, including providing classified information regarding disposition of US forces, to a think tank. Hitselberger's trial has yet to begin, so the Administration has not tested the Espionage Act in this case.
Administration test of the Espionage Act: 0/3
(4) The Administration charged FBI translator Shamai K. Leibowitz under the Espionage Act, but Leibowitz plead guilty and said that he regretted leaking the information that he did, which saved the Administration from yet another
test of the Espionage Act.
Administration test of the Espionage Act: 0/4
(5) The Administration charged former CIA employee John Kiriakou under the Espionage Act, but the charges under that act were DROPPED when Kiriakou plead guilty to leaking the identity of a CIA operative. The plea deal also saved the Administration a test of the Espionage Act.
Administration test of the Espionage Act: 0/5
(6) Bradley Manning was charged by the Army for a whole bunch of crimes under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). While Manning has twice used the "whistle blower" arguments in statements to the military court and to President Obama, those statement were given negligible weight by the military court (which is no surprise; military courts tend to be very bound by rules, and Manning broke the rules). Charges of an active-duty soldier under the UCMJ for any release of classified information is a near guarantee that the soldier will be convicted, unless there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that each and every document leaked showed wrong-doing on the part of individual officers and/or enlisted men, as opposed to actions of the government supported by the president. Fundamentally, the viability of the Espionage Act to charge an active-duty soldier was unlikely to be a serious test of the Act.
Administration test of the Espionage Act: 0/6
(7) Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling was charged under the Espionage Act, but as reported by the New York Times in June 2012, the "Justice Department is appealing several of the judge's pretrial rulings about evidentiary issues, saying they effectively terminated the case." Whoa, who knew? Yet another lack of testing the Espionage Act.
Administration test of the Espionage Act: 0/7
(8) Lastly, the Administration has charged Edward Snowden of all sorts of crimes under the Espionage Act. Given that Snowden is not here, the Act is unlikely to be testing by a case against Snowden any time soon.
Administration test of the Espionage Act: 0/8
So, let me summarize. Charges under the Espionage Act have been brought against EIGHT individuals by the Obama administration. In all cases but one, Bradley Manning, the trial either has yet to begin, or is effectively dead, or the accused plead guilty. So, where is the test of the Espionage Act? Ummm...no where. Furthermore, unless a Manning appeal goes to a civilian court (and Manning could be released by the time that happens), the Act may never stand scrutiny by a higher court, either a Federal appeals court or the Supreme Court, which may be exactly what the current administration wants.
Because this message got so long, and I do not wish to hide other comments, I will wrap this one up now.
Oh, as for your comment of "Bullshit," I think I have made my case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
Yeah, they were still charged under the Espionage Act, so I'm afraid it does indeed still count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
You are missing my point. I said (for the third time now) that the Espionage Act has not been tested.
For the Espionage Act to be tested, someone has to be convicted by a judge or a jury in a trial, which has only happened ONCE, without the ability to use the whistle blower defense (because that is apparently a precedence), and then appeal to a Federal Appeals Court and then, if the Supreme Court grants certiorari, have the conviction survive the Supreme Court.
The ONLY time that any of the EIGHT people charged under the Espionage Act have been convicted at trial is the trial of Bradley Manning, which was about as close to a slam dunk as the Administration could get for a conviction. Manning was nearly 100% guaranteed to be convicted of MOST charges (all except one, as it turned out) because he, as an active-duty soldier, leaked classified information to someone without the need to know, in direct contravention of the oath that Manning took on joining the military. That trial was not a test or indication of ANYTHING, except reiterating that you never want to get into trouble in the military because UCMJ charges are rarely made unless military authorities are nearly certain it will get a conviction.
My statement remains accurate that the use of the Espionage Act to charge someone without permitting the use of the whistle blower defense (though Manning used it in his trial, and the military court completely disregarded that as a defense), to have that person convicted, and to then have that conviction tested in an appeal, has not happened under the Obama administration. I am not sure when Manning's appeal will happen, but I think the next appeal is also a military court, so it is unlikely that the first appeal will succeed. No one else has been convicted of the Espionage Act to permit a test of the Act at appeal, and, as I have said before, I am not sure the current administration really wants to test the Act if they can help it. The Act provides the administration with too much leverage to see the Act overturned on appeal, so my guess is that they will only pursue charges under the Act at trial only when they are highly certain of a conviction. Otherwise, they seem quite willing to allow those charged to plead guilty to a lesser charge not under the Act.
In at least one case, the administration permitted a plea to a misdemeanor rather than going after charges that could have sent the person charged to prison for decades. If the administration was so confident of its position in using the Espionage Act, why did it switch from multiple counts under the Act to a plea deal for a misdemeanor of "misuse of a computer"? My goodness, to go from being charged under the Espionage Act to the equivalent of illegal parking.
Am I reading more into the charges of the eight people than is really there? Maybe. But it seems suspicious that for the two cases that were in the trial phase (not counting Manning) that the administration accepted significantly lower pleas for charges NOT under the Espionage Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
I can somewhat see that, it's pretty much the core rot behind 'plea deals', charge them with everything, to get them to plea guilty for some of it.
However, in Snowden's case, I think you underestimate just how very much they hate him(do a little digging and you'll run across an article a while back where various government and contractor officials were basically fantasizing about killing the guy, anonymously but on record). The administration, spy agencies, and to at least an extent the whole government has found themselves with egg on their faces on a global scale due to his actions, so if any case would cause them to bring everything they could down on a person, his would be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
Yes, you got it. I think the government would only pursue charges under the Espionage Act in a trial if they were highly confident that the Act would not be challenged. After all, if the Act was successfully challenged and limited under appeal (i.e., whistle blower defense was deemed acceptable, or worse, if the Supreme Court completely overturned the law), then the government would be out one of what has been a relatively effective tool for Slammin' Obama (as a side note, I would have expected the sorts of things he has been doing from a Republican versus a Democrat).
As for Snowden, it could be that the government is willing to throw everything at him, even if they lose or risk losing what has been an effective tool (the Espionage Act). The government has not been known for being great at strategy, and could find itself in a position where all sorts of court judgments fall on the side of the accused; perhaps not during the initial trial, but under the appeals that would ultimately happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
The actual charge against Snowden is criminal conversion, which is under the theft statutes. Of course, he criminal conversion is not because he took any computers, but because he used government computers to make copies of the information he acquired. It seems to me that it would be necessary to use computers to obtain information stored on them, and if Snowden was truly whistle blowing, then a mere criminal conversion charge should be defendable.
As I said before, IF the government allows the criminal conversion charge to go forward along with the Espionage Act charges, then Snowden's attorneys would have a chance to introduce a whistle blower defense for the criminal conversion.
The judge can instruct the jury all day long about consider this and consider that, but at the end of the day, the jury will do what they do, sometimes irrespective of the judge's instructions. Jury nullification can occur when a jury ignores a judge's instruction.
You comment that Snowden said:
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
All well and fine. I do not believe him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
You're either unbelievably ignorant in claiming there's no support for these "presumptions", or you're trying to convince us there is no such support despite the massive amount of published info providing quite solid support. So are you dumb or deceitful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same AC as 18Apr14, 10:26pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
So, when you are unable to provide a rational or logical comment, you stoop toan ad hominem attack? Such a remark is undeserving of a response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Martyr Syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Wyden/Snowden Postulate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many moves ahead?
Could that mean he's already out of that country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How many moves ahead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How many moves ahead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The guy has balls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's in the water?
He may wake up some day and find himself on a direct flight from Moscow to DC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's in the water?
He's so brave and committed that he's decided it's worth doing even if there are consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's in the water?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brave!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re the Snowden and Putin show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
Starting off with an ad hom usually indicates a weak argument forthcoming...
...that this is another Glenn Greenwald post hoc justification? Greenwald scripts Snowden, as anyone who reads the language carefully understands.
You have any proof of this accusation, other than a vague feeling that you might have? You seen to be unable to believe that Snowden is intelligent enough to form his own beliefs and prose.
The idea that Snowden's question would prompt some sort of inquiry in Russia is laughable.
Why? Aren't Russian citizens also people who might be concerned with an invasive and overreaching government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
The people of Russia are very concerned about civil liberties (some of them in jail as a result). We don't help them by asking silly softball questions (with no followup) on Putin's propaganda show.
Meanwhile, as we disable our intelligence agencies while leaving Russia's and China's agencies unfettered, how do you imagine your "privacy" is protected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
To be honest, I'm not sure what that exactly proves. I tend to form my written thoughts about a 1000x better then I express myself verbally because of my innate fear of public speaking.
The people of Russia are very concerned about civil liberties (some of them in jail as a result). We don't help them by asking silly softball questions (with no followup) on Putin's propaganda show.
If it comes out the Putin is caught in a blatant lie, how is that considered a softball question?
Meanwhile, as we disable our intelligence agencies while leaving Russia's and China's agencies unfettered, how do you imagine your "privacy" is protected?
How exactly are we disabling our intelligence agencies by asking them to actually follow the rules and laws of the land?
As for me, I don't worry about Russia or China spying on me whatsoever - why should they care about a lowly citizen of different country when they have their own citizens to spy on? I do, however, worry about my own government invading my privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
We're had conflicting legal opinions on supposed NSA violations, but most support the NSA. Will a definitive Supreme Court ruling satisfy you? Will *you* then abide by the rule of law?
The libertarian far right and anarchist far left agree on this issue. Even though the Fourth Amendment has a "reasonableness" standard built in, they persist in seeing individual "rights" as absolute. But not even the First Amendment is interpreted that way (libel is not protected speech). At the core of their argument is unbridled selfishness--also evident in the gun control debates. My "right" to do exactly as I please is more important than the physical safety of every man, woman, and child in the country. This is not the true heritage of our country--sometimes we do make sacrifices for the common good-- and it will not survive the next terrorist attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
That's exactly what your proposing. That we should just surrender our liberties...in order to save them--because the government says it's for our own good. Other regimens have made the same arguments under the banner of "nationalism" and none of them turned out well. Perhaps you if read up a bit more on the subject, and the origins of the Bill or Rights as well, you wouldn't be so quick to shred them.
Sometimes, yes, we should make sacrifices for the common good. Taxes, to a point, is one of them. We need national defense, infrastructure, education and healthcare to even have a functional economy. Individual liberties that protect the rights of every man, woman, and child is a common good as well.
As for the "next terrorist attack", all of our surveillance and trampling of civil liberties has done little to stop the previous attacks. The argument that we should just stay the course, or have even more invasive surveillance, doesn't hold water. And last time I checked, we survived the last terrorist attack, and the one before. We survived 9/11, the worst single terrorist attach in the world, and will we survive the next. However, our civil liberties, the heritage left to us by our founding fathers, will not survive if quivering simpletons piss their pants, and the Constitution, every time something bad happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
That sounds like corporate espionage to me. Is that really within the purview of the NSA to begin with?
We're had conflicting legal opinions on supposed NSA violations, but most support the NSA. Will a definitive Supreme Court ruling satisfy you? Will *you* then abide by the rule of law?
Not really sure what your point is here. A SCOTUS ruling *would* be the law of the land. The question is - would the NSA abide by such a ruling or continue on with it's own secret interpretations of such laws?
This is not the true heritage of our country--sometimes we do make sacrifices for the common good-- and it will not survive the next terrorist attack.
Now don't get me wrong here. I believe that the US still needs it's intelligence mechanisms against foreign adversaries, I just don't think that these institutions should be allowed to do what they whatever they wish nor should they be allowed to make up their own rules as they go along.
As for not surviving the next terrorist attack, that worries me less than the damage already caused to our Constitution by people with your mindset in the wake of 9/11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
Given how the NSA and CIA appear to operate, it's not just within their purview, it's one of their primary objectives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
Which is a greater problem: foreign entities that engage in corporate espionage or US agencies that deliberately keep exploits open for their own espionage, which also largely enables espionage against us in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
Wow, you're accusing someone you don't even know about of breaking the law. You really love discrediting your own posts really damn easily. Fuck you, and the high horse you rode in on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
How are we disabling our intelligence agencies? I can't even begin to guess what you mean. Please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
Not to mention having actual, effective oversight and limits on their actions, instead of just doing whatever they want and lying about it when asked? How in the world are they supposed to get anything done if they have to worry about those pesky 'rules' and 'laws' and 'rights of the people' getting in the way?
And terrorists man, terrorists! They may be less likely to kill you than hundreds, if not thousands of other risks that people face on a daily basis, like ladders, cars, and small children, but they're called terrorists for crying out loud, so obviously you've got to be terrified of them and treat them like the worst threat imaginable!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a question that deserves answers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P.S. If you come back now and turn yourself in, we'll give you a fair trial and a long sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's doubtful I'd be making such statements if I had deportation and torture in Federal Prison hanging over my head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am aware of the Franklin quote. One good quote deserves another:
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact"
(attributed to Abraham Lincoln and cited in at least one Supreme Court opinion).
Meanwhile, you and your cohorts post hyperbolic claims about living in a police state, but happily and safely return the next day to post more of the same again. It's risible.
This is endless bombast until we get down to specifics. Let the victims of supposed civil liberties violations step forward and make a case in court (there's no shortage of lawyers to represent them for free). Courts focus on facts. Eventually the Supreme Court will decide. I support the rule of law and will abide by the Court's decision, even if I don't like it. This is what the "Founding Fathers" also had in mind.
Meanwhile, do try to think just a little about what you give back to your country and your community besides "paying taxes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh. You make it sound like the deck isn't completely stacked against such a victim in these types of cases. Even if you were able to glean enough specific information in order to raise a valid case against the USG, the unsurmountable mountain of national security gag orders, withheld information and whatnot will keep you from building any kind of case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
'If you abandon your principles during a crisis, you were never principled in the first place.'
-Unknown
And, I hope you realize, but you pretty much just proved my point there. The idea that it might not be perfectly safe to uphold the rights in the Constitution, that it's acceptable to sacrifice liberties and rights in exchange for a false sense of 'perfect safety' is exactly the kind of thinking the Franklin quote is aimed at.
If you're willing to sacrifice rights and liberties just to feel 'safe', you deserve neither the rights you hold so in contempt, nor the illusionary 'safety' you so desperately want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, really? You sound like a typical politician trying to get elected with blatant fear-mongering.
"Meanwhile, you and your cohorts post hyperbolic claims about living in a police state..."
Meanwhile, you and your cohorts post hyperbolic claims about living in a state of imminent terrorism. This despite the fact that the chances of being directly affected by a terrorist attack are statistically minute, particularly one of foreign origin. The government has been given (or just taken) far more power than it needs to combat the problem, and is massively abusing that power.
"I support the rule of law and will abide by the Court's decision, even if I don't like it. This is what the "Founding Fathers" also had in mind."
The law is supposed to be a reflection of the public's will, the kind of society they want to live in. When the law is extended, twisted and abused to the point where it no longer reflects the public will, it should be changed, not supported. I'm pretty damn sure the Founding Fathers didn't have total acquiescence to government power in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The N.S.A., for example, is tracking more than 20 Chinese hacking groups — more than half of them Chinese Army and Navy units — as they break into the networks of the United States government, companies including Google, and drone and nuclear-weapon part makers, according to a half-dozen current and former American officials."
Is that another NSA transgression? Should we shut down all counter-intelligence operations to make you feel better?
Demonizing the NSA won't protect your privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope. This is exactly what I would expect the NSA's job to be.
I'm also confused as to why releasing that information is such a problem. You can't honestly believe that those groups are unaware that they may be tracked by organizations like the NSA.
Should we shut down all counter-intelligence operations to make you feel better?
Where did I ever ask for that? I would be content with proper and impartial oversight of such organizations and a rock-solid assurance that, at the very least, my elected representatives were being told the whole truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Neither will supporting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think there's more need in this forum good psychiatry than good lawyering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm lost as to whom you are responding to now.
Either use "reply" so viewing in threaded mode makes sense or quote something from who you are responding to, please.
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well considering thanks to the NSA US tech companies are now seen as highly suspect and not to be trusted, you can bet that's going to lead to some pretty hefty loses there. Perhaps not immediately(ducking out of huge contracts tends to have some hefty penalties), but when it comes time to renew those contracts...
Example:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140331/08390426747/security-researchers-find- rsa-even-more-completely-compromised-nsa-than-previously-thought.shtml
The RSA might have gotten a nice 10 million to sell out their security and reputation, but in exchange no one serious about computer security is likely to trust them ever again, so I imagine that 10 mil is going to seem rather small in the coming years.
Who's speech has been silenced?
If you don't think that having someone looking over your shoulder, even if it's just a suspicion, won't change your actions, maybe make you leery of posting something lest it be 'taken the wrong way' by someone with an axe to grind, then you haven't thought the matter through enough.
Example:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140402/18091226783/nearly-half-americans-claim-the yve-changed-their-behavior-due-to-nsa.shtml
Who has been jailed?
How about the people who've been tried, and denied access to the evidence being used against them as it would 'affect national security', screwing over their chances of not being tossed in jail?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140402/12194426777/doj-flips-out-that-evidence-gathered-via- fisa-orders-might-be-made-available-to-defendants.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, there are rules of evidence. Imperfect, but tried and tested in the common law for hundreds of years. Let's try a thought experiment. Where would you prefer to stand trial? Any common law country or, say, Russia?
In the alternative, please improve your society by proposing a better judicial system. What rules of evidence would you keep or discard? Should we appoint federal judges in a different manner (elections, perhaps?). Please be specific. Isn't it time to stop complaining and start fixing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's some extremely cynical shit right there. Those being spied on were unable to have their day in court. Courts ruled they had no standing because they couldn't prove they were being spied on. It's only because of Snowden's leaks-- you know, the actions you so strongly disapprove of-- that people can now prove they're being spied on and have the standing required for cases to move forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Timeline issue - Snowden didn't react to Clapper -- other way around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Timeline issue - Snowden didn't react to Clapper -- other way around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Timeline issue - Snowden didn't react to Clapper -- other way around
No. The hearing involving Clapper as in March. Before Snowden turned over the documents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs It happened on March 12.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hero Ed Snowden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds like pure speculation presented as fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
'You just can't quite bring yourself to accept the possibility that Snowden really is that brave and noble and self-sacrificing, can you? That even in this entirely cynical age (and I'm one of the most incredibly cynical people living in it) that maybe, just maybe, he is willing to tell the truth even at the cost of his own future?
Everyone is looking for motives and spin, ignoring the answer that's right in front of them: this guy has -- so far -- told the truth every single time. That's all. Just the truth. And people are so damn uncomfortable with that truth, that rather than to digest it, they'd rather try to micro-analyze Snowden himself.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Testing the Espionage Act
When the Republicans' best Democratic Prez gets cornered by reality, his corporate bosses just hand him a set of new rules to play by, and he seldom ever tells the public about these new rules till long after the dirty deed is done, if ever.... unless somebody on the inside blows the whistle...
I think Wall Street has had ample time to wrangle up a passle of new secret legislations that'll let the Prez use the Act safely and put State's Enemy No.1 away forever.... or hang him publicly from the yard arm as an example to all.
And ye be truly blind, or bought, if ye think there is an actual divide between the wealthy that form the Republican Party and the wealthy that form the Democratic Party.
Their goals are identical in every way now - only their methods differ normally, but not so much anymore.
They aint just drinking and wenching buddies no more.
They got a Plan For A North American Conquest.
Snowden has already set them back ten years! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On Testing the Espionage Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello, Can we get in contact?
I wanted to introduce to you a Plugin we are working on for SEO Which works with all WordPress websites called consolety. (https://consolety.com)
I am sure you have questions about it and i would like to email back and forth or even do a skype call to explain how it works and why it is necessary for every website.
Kind Regards,
M.Karajanov
(skype) Matzedoon
(phone) +31 6 42618545
(email) contact@mail.consolety.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]