A question concerning Snowden versus the NSA:

[another_liberal]

Why is what Edward Snowden did always described as a, "Theft of NSA property?" Wouldn't it be much more accurate to call what he did an effort to protect evidence of the crimes committed by the spy masters against thousands, if not millions, of his fellow American citizens?

When one has evidence of a crime committed by those in authority, isn't it legally justifiable to secret that evidence away, so it can be delivered it to those who can prosecute such high level wrong-doing? Looking at it this way, wouldn't the harassment of Glenn Greenwald, his spouse and The Guardian newspaper all be acts of complicity in the NSA's crimes?

[Recursion]

1. If he produces any evidence of a crime I'll answer

As it is, he's only produced documents describing legal programs that we don't like the legality of and allegations of their illegal misuse.

[morningfog]

2. Tip of the iceberg:

The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/nsa-report-on-privacy-violations-in-the-first-quarter-of-2012/395/

[Recursion]

4. And none of that is in what he's released

That's from the NSA's internal audit. If he produces evidence of stuff like that, it would be a different situation.

[morningfog]

6. Snowden released the audit to the Washington Post.

That is the only way we know about it.

[randome]

8. A couple thousand computer-generated errors out of millions of queries.

That does not register as 'spying' to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

9. Why does that not surprise me?

[another_liberal]

10. If you run a red light . . .

If you run a red light once, it is still a crime. I don't think stating how many times you have stopped for red lights on other occasions would be a successful defense.

[randome]

11. It's the Information Age. Mistakes are easy to come by.

And the NSA itself identified the errors. So how does that equate to 'spying' on us all?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[another_liberal]

12. What, exactly, makes you so certain these were only mistakes?

The NSA monitoring all communications in and out of D.C. shortly before the 2008 election doesn't even make you suspicious? And that is to mention only one of many rather odd coincidences.

[randome]

13. They admitted in the audit that this mistake was made.

If something nefarious was going on, don't you think they would have hidden the evidence? Instead, they were upfront about it. Internally, that is.

It would have been a good idea to admit this in public, even though, as we've seen, many people immediately leap to the most nefarious conclusion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[another_liberal]

14. But the audit was only seen by outsiders because Snowden released it.

That is not an admission of anything. It is clearly an internal policy statement establishing a cover story.

I might add, if the new "information age" makes it so hard (or "impossible&quot for the NSA to do the kind of data collection they are doing without making "mistakes" which amount to violations of Americans' rights, perhaps the NSA should not even be doing what it is doing.

[another_liberal]

3. Violation of someone's Constitutional Rights isn't illegal?

What the NSA has done is violate the rights of every American. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that rises to the level of criminality.

[Recursion]

5. Three things

1. Not necessarily, if that isn't used against you (you can't sue for relief just because you've been searched; it has to be used against you somehow)

2. Metadata is not protected by the Constitution but rather by statute

3. He has still produced no evidence that the NSA has overstepped its legal bounds; he's produced documents showing how troublingly broad those legal bounds are.

[another_liberal]

7. Allow me to suggest . . .

Your points one and three have no bearing here. There are many actual victims of what the NSA has done and the wrong doing is well documented, by the very files Snowden has provided us.

As to your point two: We are still talking about real evidence that criminal abuse by high governmental authority has taken place. One can not use the argument of ownership to prevent the police seizing evidence of a crime from one's home. The same principle would seem to apply here.