General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSnowden email fell short of NSA criticism
By Julian Hattem
In an email sent to top lawyers at the National Security Agency a month before leaving the agency, former contractor Edward Snowden questioned the agencys legal rationale but did not formally denounce its operations.
The April 5, 2013, email released by the spy agency on Thursday showed Snowden merely asking for clarification about a recent training course he had taken.
The message falls short of an objection to the agencys procedures and operations, however, and may not satisfy Snowdens supporters looking for proof that he had no other option but to go to the press.
After a mandatory training course about an agency directive that prohibits collecting information about Americans, Snowden asked NSA lawyers to clarify the hierarchy of government legal documents. At the top he listed the U.S. Constitution, followed by federal statutes and presidential executive orders, then Pentagon and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) regulations and, at the bottom, directives and policies from the NSA.
- more -
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/207622-snowden-email-fell-short-of-nsa-criticism
Snowden recently changed his story because he's still desperate for clemency
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024640825
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)about a twitter poll you once heard of. I'm all ears......
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Prosecutor is going to point out that when Snowden asked questions...he was answered, and invited to ask if he had any other questions.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/471893773375397889
Found via Mother Jones:
And the spy agency released that one email.
By Dana Liebelson
Update, Thursday, 2:25 EDT: The NSA has released the email it received from Edward Snowden on April 5, 2013. In the email, Snowden posed questions regarding a training session. He asked whether presidential executive orders supersede federal laws. He also asked about Department of Defense regulations and Office of Director of National Intelligence rules, wondering which has greater precedence. This email did not refer to any concerns about NSA surveillance programs. Three days later, the general counsel's office replied that EOs "cannot override a statute" and that DOD and ODNI regulations "are afforded similar precedence." The email noted, "please give me a call if you would like to discuss further."
The NSA is firing back against former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who insists he reported his concerns about illegal surveillance activity directly to the NSA in writing before leaking his treasure trove of super-secret documents. The NSA says it will today release an email it received from Snowden that undercuts his assertion.
Snowden has maintained that he alerted intelligence officials internally more than "10 times" about his concerns about NSA activities prior to becoming a leaker. Last night, as part of its interview with Snowden, NBC reported that two US officials confirmed that Snowden had sent at least one email to the NSA's general counsel raising "policy and legal questions." The network's revelation drew attention; the Intercept's Glenn Greenwald called it the "biggest news" from the interview. After all, NSA officials have previously denied that Snowden reported wrongdoing to senior officials. In a speech on April 15 in Tampa, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that "Snowden isn't a whistleblower." He asserted that Snowden "could have reported (concerns) to seniors at NSA he chose not to go to any of those places."
- more -
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/nsa-snowden-email
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)high school an learn civics, Eddie....of course it can't.
What a fucking dumb question.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)....what if NSA is operating under an EO (signed by Bush or Obama) that is contradictory to the law of the land?
That's the implication I get from Snowden's query. And it is a clever ploy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)an email for the purposes of what?????
grasswire
(50,130 posts)possibly clarification, possible getting NSA general counsel on record.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)That a tool who wasn't smart enough to secure himself in the country of his choosing before releasing the documents was any brighter in any of his other dealings leaves me less than convinced.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)would point to that statement as yet another example of his intellect and integrity.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And even asked him to contact them for further questions or inquiries.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)kept no copies of his e-mail to official.
Brilliant! LOL!
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Pretty smart reasoning, too. He didn't keep them because he didn't want to be mugged for them, or compromised in any way.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)not mine.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Or stash them in a YAHOO account in "the cloud?"
I mean, come on--if he made numerous complaints, why not keep a record of them?
And surely the Russians wouldn't "steal" them, even if he carried print-outs of them.
It's STUPID reasoning to not keep evidence that serves as a mitigator of one's behavior.
Unless, of course, that evidence does not exist because the individual never wrote those emails in the first place.
Cha
(297,154 posts)Snowden has a record of making claims that aren't true and now he's busted again. I'm getting so tired of that narcissistic asshole and his attempts to cover his ass after the stupid while making the greenwald corp mega rich.
Maybe GG is putting aside money for ES when he retires.. from Russia or Prison? He should share the wealth with his cash cow after all.
randome
(34,845 posts)And having nothing to support his contentions. Nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
JI7
(89,247 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)there is Greenwald playing along, claiming that the e-mail is the big news.
The big news is that Snowden admitted to stealing damaging documents and distributing them to people who simply promised they would reveal the information.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)of proportion. He knows he has a captive fan club that will suck that up with a straw.
Problem is.. the "email" reveals Snowden for the liar he's already proven to be.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)So, the same organization that is willing to lie about that is now telling the truth.
All of this, BTW, draws attention from the heart of the matter:
THE NSA IS NOT SUPPOSED TO SPY ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Response to ProSense (Reply #12)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You really are taking criticism of Snowden personal to the point of accusing people of "lying" when the facts are right in front of you.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)But apparently you do, when it suits you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)That's not only illegal, it serves to destroy democracy.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Now he's saying, oh, well, what I really meant, even though I had 11 months to prepare responses to questions like these, was that the email raising objections was in an email to the Signal Intelligence Directorate. Go look for that one.
Yeah, that's it. Oh and Snowden mentioned it verbally to people he worked with. Yeah.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Will post jury results when they're in.
Jury results:
"The email Snowden's talked about"? Where is it documented? The guy is a liar.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5022564
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Link crashed my computer. Please notify other posters and Administration.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 30, 2014, 12:25 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Link worked fine for me. Maybe you should get a better computer. Or maybe the alert is simply because the alerter doesn't like what the poster has to say about Snowden. That's a much more likely scenario, IMO.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Didn't crash mine.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not an alert issue. Poster should be advised to remove link.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Sid
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There is no malicious code there.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Almost every day, you and a few others talk about a new Snowden "lie". The only problem is, you've been wrong every last time. So, no...Snowden did not get caught in a lie.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Best of luck to you, Ms Sense.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So you were wrong the first 58 times you called him a liar. But this time, by golly, you'll win. Best of luck to you, Ms Sense."
...has no evidence. Snowden is making the claim. If he was stupid enough to not keep documented proof, then he just blowing smoke.
I mean, he's attacking the NSA and also relying on them to prove his BS claims? Pretty stupid position to be in.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)They don't even have to go anywhere. It makes me feel unaccountably lonely when you don't provide links.
randome
(34,845 posts)It sounds like a routine question regarding his training. And his email was answered in that vein.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Either way, NSA spying on America is illegal and unconstitutional.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I said so from the beginning and this is more proof of it.
http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/
Octafish
(55,745 posts)WHY DID YOU POST THAT?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Link worked fine for me. Maybe you should get a better computer. Or maybe the alert is simply because the alerter doesn't like what the poster has to say about Snowden. That's a much more likely scenario, IMO.
-------------------------
I alerted in order to prevent others from having computer problems.
In 13 years on DU, I've alerted fewer than five times.
As for the "likely scenario" in which I use Alert because I don't like what a poster writes about Snowden or anything else, you're projecting.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)About
Created at the direction of the President of the United States, IC ON THE RECORD provides immediate, ongoing and direct access to factual information related to the lawful foreign surveillance activities carried out by the U.S. Intelligence Community
.
.
.
This website is maintained by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not a malicious website.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Really?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... the means do NOT justify the ends
Regars
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Ask yourself and those you interview the basic questions, stevenleser -- especially the "Why?"
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)And they're off, holding an Executive Order that makes all the treason OK. And "Money trumps peace" is fine and buy-partisan.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If I read that, I would have also dismissed it as not possibly being what he was talking about and would have reported that Snowden never raised a concern about Surveillance practices to the OGC.
Here it is: http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/
Does that look at all like raising concerns about surveillance to you?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)but it is !!frightening!! that no matter what evidence shows up contrary to Snowden's and GG's stories and many versions of the same stories, they will deny it and LIE LIE LIE.
and people believe them! Now I know that Fox News is not the only place taking over people's thinking abilities. This is REALLY scarey.
JI7
(89,247 posts)how they brought up some emails and other things to prove what ?
the thing is they don't really need to get into the contents , it's more about just getting the line "THERE IS AN EMAIL" and then assuming and implying things about it.
the whore media of course doesn't care, they want to sensationalize everything to get ratings.
but you look into it and it's nothing.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Scared of a foreign whistleblower and his defenders! Surely they will come to your aid.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)This email does exactly what Snowden claimed he did in emails to NSA lawyers. He claimed that in emails to NSA lawyers, he was "raising concerns about the NSAs interpretations of its legal authorities. Referring to those interpretations Snowden says in the email: Im not entirely certain, but this does not seem correct, as it seems to imply Executive Orders have the same precedence as law." Thanks for vindicating Snowden.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)he asked a question about administrative law, and the GC's office told him he was correct
Vattel
(9,289 posts)he was "raising concerns about the NSAs interpretations of its legal authorities. The email in question does that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)whistleblowing would be "hey, here's some illegal shit people in the agency are doing, please investigate"
the fact that the GC agreed with him indicates there wasn't anything revealed or raised
Vattel
(9,289 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)or even hinting at it?
I don't trust the NSA's word that this is his only email, but I don't trust him either (they're all professional liars or they would not be good at their jobs)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)but he specifically mentioned the email to the OGC in his interview with Brian Williams on NBC. And that email says nothing, and that's being generous.
I'll be interested to see what the Signals Intelligence Directorate email says, but if he raised the OGC email and didnt mention the Signals one on air, what do you think the chances are that the Signals Intelligent Directorate email says anything more substantial?
And even that doesn't cover the important points here. I'll talk more about it on my show this week and will post a transcript.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)
The email, dated April 5, 2013more than a month before he released a trove of secret documents to reporters but after he had already been in contact with themshows Snowden asking the agencys lawyers whether Executive Orders can trump federal statute and whether regulations from the Department of Defense or Office of Director of National Intelligence can take precedence over the other. An employee of the general counsels office replied to Snowden three days later, answering that executive orders have the force of law but cannot override federal law, and that DOD and ODNI regulations are treated with equal weight. But the email was sent months after his initial contacts with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald when he first showed interest in leaking documents.
- more -
http://time.com/137530/nsa-to-release-snowden-email/
"Message: Hello, I have a question regarding the mandatory USSID 18 training."
LOL!
Vattel
(9,289 posts)contradict anything he has claimed?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)bullshit claims: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024640825
Vattel
(9,289 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)in the same way you choose to see the OP e-mail as validating Snowden's BS claim.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)how does this support his claim (as you stated in post 35) that he contacted them about concerns about domestic surveillance?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)If you still want to ask this question, I cannot help you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You said:
Snowden said:
http://www.nbcnews.com/#/feature/edward-snowden-interview/paper-trail-nsa-releases-email-snowden-sent-agency-officials-n117086
The OP e-mail is a training-related question. His claim is BS.
The fact that he didn't keep any evidence is key.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I mean, seriously, read the email.
On edit, nvm, here is the relevant part:
After a mandatory training course about an agency directive that prohibits collecting information about Americans, Snowden asked NSA lawyers to clarify the hierarchy of government legal documents. At the top he listed the U.S. Constitution, followed by federal statutes and presidential executive orders, then Pentagon and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) regulations and, at the bottom, directives and policies from the NSA.
Im not entirely certain, but this does not seem correct, Snowden wrote, as it seems to imply Executive Orders have the same precedence as law."
Now tell me that he is not asking about the NSA's interpretation of its legal authorities.
"I mean, seriously, read the email."
...you read it, and note this:
"Message: Hello, I have a question regarding the mandatory USSID 18 training."
The email, dated April 5, 2013more than a month before he released a trove of secret documents to reporters but after he had already been in contact with themshows Snowden asking the agencys lawyers whether Executive Orders can trump federal statute and whether regulations from the Department of Defense or Office of Director of National Intelligence can take precedence over the other. An employee of the general counsels office replied to Snowden three days later, answering that executive orders have the force of law but cannot override federal law, and that DOD and ODNI regulations are treated with equal weight. But the email was sent months after his initial contacts with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald when he first showed interest in leaking documents.
- more -
http://time.com/137530/nsa-to-release-snowden-email/
LOL!
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The training included information about the NSA's understanding of its legal authorities and Snowden quite rightly questions that understanding. It's not rocket science.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)LOL!
Response to ProSense (Reply #66)
Vattel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)the NSA's interpretation of its legal authorities. Very plausible position you've staked out there. Good job.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That seem pretty frickin' DUMB to me, to not have that key bit of "proof" of his gripes--that is, assuming he actually made the complaints.
I still don't understand why--if he was a "spy" as he claimed, a "spy" who would have signed certain non-disclosure forms preventing him from sharing materials outside a "need to know" sphere--he didn't just go to the Need To Know crowd in Congress, and ask for a CLOSED SESSION. That whole "He was just a contractor" nonsense doesn't fly anymore. He said he wasn't an analyst--he said he was a "spy." If he was a spy, there's a whole 'nuther set of paperwork attached to that job.
I think his ego allowed him to believe that the force of his perspective would demand that people take his word for everything and greet him as a liberator.
That only happens if ya make the case. He didn't provide any "evidence" that he actually complained to anyone. And surely, if he did complain, it seems to me to be pretty obvious that when you complain, you KEEP copies of the letters and emails you wrote. He hasn't even named names of people he supposedly complained TO...so I'm just not buying what he has to say. My mind could be changed, though, if he coughs up those names and emails.
Cha
(297,154 posts)fit in with his little "poor me I told the nsa all about my concerns and they did nothing".. agenda.
"I think his ego allowed him to believe that the force of his perspective would demand that people take his word for everything and greet him as a liberator."
Yeah, he probably thought more would than just his die hard fan club.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)n/t
ProSense
(116,464 posts)itsrobert
(14,157 posts)n/t
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"That Snowden is an idiot."
...need more evidence?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025014178
LOL!
randome
(34,845 posts)It's rather uncomfortable to watch him implode.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Feinstein-Snowden-never-voiced-NSA-concerns-5514604.php
840high
(17,196 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)"Fell short" implies to me that a reasonable attempt was made and failed. Like someone trying to break the long jump record and missing it by a foot or two.
What Snowden did is like claiming you tried to break the long jump record while swimming laps in a pool.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Why then did he make a big deal about the OGC email on air with Brian Williams? I mean it sounds good on TV to say it, but when we look that email is a joke.
I can't wait to see the Signals Directorate email.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)At this point, I've lost alot of patience with this guy. The growing number of people alluding that he is "stupid" (including John Kerry) show that I'm not alone.
Cha
(297,154 posts)question?