Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Thu May 29, 2014, 03:10 PM May 2014

Snowden email fell short of NSA criticism

Snowden 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 agency’s 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 agency’s procedures and operations, however, and may not satisfy Snowden’s 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

104 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Snowden email fell short of NSA criticism (Original Post) ProSense May 2014 OP
But, his support is through the roof since last night. I know, because I heard it on the internetz. Tarheel_Dem May 2014 #1
are you going to post your poll from JANUARY again? nt grasswire May 2014 #2
Do you have one more recent? I think you'll find nothing's changed. Unless you want to brag... Tarheel_Dem May 2014 #18
Everybody knows counting tweets with specific hastags is the single most scientific polling method. MohRokTah May 2014 #15
Well, isn't that how everybody does it? Tarheel_Dem May 2014 #17
Actually...this fucks him in a court of law...a moderately intelligent msanthrope May 2014 #3
Greenwald on Snowden's e-mail claim: "Biggest news from NBC/Snowden interview" ProSense May 2014 #4
OMG....so an EO can't override a law? That was his question? Graduate from msanthrope May 2014 #6
LOL! n/t ProSense May 2014 #7
but.......... grasswire May 2014 #25
Okay...so what you are saying is that after he met with GG, and stole documents, he was sending msanthrope May 2014 #29
purposes? grasswire May 2014 #30
Quite honestly the idea Egnever May 2014 #44
Snowden could have said, "In what regards, Brian?" and his defenders ... 11 Bravo May 2014 #99
The NSA response seemed pretty straightforward JaneyVee May 2014 #5
He stole 1.7 million documents and ProSense May 2014 #9
That was his Super Secret Double Naught Spy plan all along MohRokTah May 2014 #16
he didn't keep the documents, either. grasswire May 2014 #23
. ProSense May 2014 #28
hey, that's his explanation grasswire May 2014 #31
So he's the one who thinks he's "clever" for not having any proof of his claims? ProSense May 2014 #33
Why didn't he ask GG or LP to hold all his emails, then? MADem May 2014 #57
"I mean, come on--if he made numerous complaints, why not keep a record of them?".. Cha May 2014 #88
He's pretty fucking compromised by being stuck in Russia for the rest of his life! randome May 2014 #72
the whole thing is just embarrassing , he reminds me of o'keefe JI7 May 2014 #8
It's ridiculous, and ProSense May 2014 #10
Well, Greenwald does have a book to sell. baldguy May 2014 #76
And, why wouldn't GG claim the email is big news? He's been blowing everything else out Cha May 2014 #89
But the NSA said there were no records of Snowden reporting his concerns. Octafish May 2014 #11
This is a question about training. Snowden got caught in a lie. n/t ProSense May 2014 #12
Post removed Post removed May 2014 #22
From the OP: ProSense May 2014 #27
I don't call a characterization from "The Hill" as "facts. grasswire May 2014 #32
No, the only "facts" are pro-Snowden hype. n/t ProSense May 2014 #43
What do you think about the NSA spying on America? Octafish May 2014 #36
I think we have no evidence of it. We now have claims from a proven liar. nt stevenleser May 2014 #85
He is not a liar. 840high May 2014 #92
He's a liar. He said he raised his concerns in an email to the OGC. Now he is backing away from that stevenleser May 2014 #94
Someone alerted on your post, claiming your link crashed their computer... SidDithers May 2014 #101
Yeah, I responded to that person below. It's an official government website stevenleser May 2014 #104
Snowden didn't get caught in a lie. DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #73
Yes, he did. n/t ProSense May 2014 #74
So you were wrong the first 58 times you called him a liar. But this time, by golly, you'll win. DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #75
Snowden ProSense May 2014 #77
Links, by Christ. I demand links. DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #81
Read the email. He didn't 'report' anything. randome May 2014 #13
Did you read the email Snowden's talked about or the one the NSA released? Octafish May 2014 #38
"The email Snowden's talked about"? Where is it documented? The guy is a liar. stevenleser May 2014 #79
THAT WEBSITE CRASHED MY COMPUTER. Octafish May 2014 #100
For Juror # 4 Octafish May 2014 #102
That is an official government website. If you had a crash, the issue is your computer. stevenleser May 2014 #103
This is NOT a "report" uponit7771 May 2014 #24
So? Snowden is concerned the NSA is illegally spying on America and Snowden's the problem? Octafish May 2014 #39
Spy agencies AND Snowden can BOTH be the problem it's not either or ... and with Snowden uponit7771 May 2014 #71
The only suggestion about NSA illegal spying is now coming from a documented liar. nt stevenleser May 2014 #87
Yes, because the nation's press corpse has zero interest in that part of the story. Octafish May 2014 #98
see my post #25 nt grasswire May 2014 #26
''I don't think it means what you think it means.'' Octafish May 2014 #41
Did you read the email Snowden is trying to pass off as "reporting his concerns"? stevenleser May 2014 #78
Laurel and Hardy stuff. Whisp May 2014 #14
it's like republicans with benghazi JI7 May 2014 #19
You are right. It's Ben-NSA-hazi! Whisp May 2014 #20
Call the Mounties! grasswire May 2014 #21
oh, that's embarrassing nt geek tragedy May 2014 #34
Lol. The title of the post should be: "Email supports Snowden's claims" Vattel May 2014 #35
that's not raising issues of illegal conduct geek tragedy May 2014 #37
He claimed that in emails to NSA lawyers, Vattel May 2014 #40
that's not whistleblowing. he's asking basic admin law questions geek tragedy May 2014 #42
Did he say that every email he ever wrote accused the NSA of illegality? Vattel May 2014 #46
the question, did he write any emails alleging wrongdoing geek tragedy May 2014 #50
He's now claiming his real concerns were in an email to the NSA Signals Intelligence Directorate stevenleser May 2014 #86
"the email was sent months after his initial contacts with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald " ProSense May 2014 #45
Does the fact that he wrote the email after he already had an interest in leaking things Vattel May 2014 #47
Yes, and it also gives rise to other questions. n/t ProSense May 2014 #48
What does it contradict? Vattel May 2014 #49
His other ProSense May 2014 #51
Sorry, but there is no contradiction there. Vattel May 2014 #55
Sure there is, you just refuse to see it ProSense May 2014 #58
So tell me what the contradiction is. Vattel May 2014 #61
Question: Given that it was clearly a training-related question, ProSense May 2014 #52
Are you serious? Go back and read my post and the email and what Snowden said. Vattel May 2014 #54
Yes, I'm "serious." ProSense May 2014 #56
The question is quite obviously a question about the NSA's interpretation of its legal authorities. Vattel May 2014 #59
Here, ProSense May 2014 #62
Awesome, the email itself. Vattel May 2014 #64
"The training included information..." ProSense May 2014 #66
This message was self-deleted by its author Vattel May 2014 #68
Okay, so I guess in your view NSA training cannot include information about Vattel May 2014 #70
You would think a guy who is smarter than the average bear (US or Russian, presumably), would have MADem May 2014 #53
Really.. but, why would Snowden save this email that the NSA released? Because it doesn't Cha May 2014 #90
This does not disprove my theory. n/t itsrobert May 2014 #60
You have a "theory"? What is it? n/t ProSense May 2014 #63
That Snowden is an idiot. n/t itsrobert May 2014 #65
Do you ProSense May 2014 #67
The most naive man in the first half of the 21st century. randome May 2014 #80
Feinstein: Snowden never voiced NSA concerns ProSense May 2014 #69
Feinstein - lol 840high May 2014 #93
I disagree with your OP title and the title of the article. stevenleser May 2014 #82
He asked a question, goddamnit! What more do you need to know? randome May 2014 #83
Now he's claiming that the OGC email wasn't the important one, it was the Signals Directorate email. stevenleser May 2014 #84
I suspect the NSA will be releasing it shortly. joshcryer May 2014 #95
Ah, so that's why this email was released Number23 May 2014 #97
Ah, but what was the Cha May 2014 #91
Dude and his "revelations" have been a big disappointment. BenzoDia May 2014 #96

Tarheel_Dem

(31,233 posts)
18. Do you have one more recent? I think you'll find nothing's changed. Unless you want to brag...
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:22 PM
May 2014

about a twitter poll you once heard of. I'm all ears......



 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
15. Everybody knows counting tweets with specific hastags is the single most scientific polling method.
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:14 PM
May 2014
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
3. Actually...this fucks him in a court of law...a moderately intelligent
Thu May 29, 2014, 03:45 PM
May 2014

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)
4. Greenwald on Snowden's e-mail claim: "Biggest news from NBC/Snowden interview"
Thu May 29, 2014, 03:49 PM
May 2014
Biggest news from NBC/Snowden interview: NBC confirmed Snowden filed written concerns with NSA - something USG has vehemently denied.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/471893773375397889



Found via Mother Jones:

NSA Fires Back at Snowden and Claims His Email Didn't Raise "Concerns About Wrongdoing"

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)
6. OMG....so an EO can't override a law? That was his question? Graduate from
Thu May 29, 2014, 03:53 PM
May 2014

high school an learn civics, Eddie....of course it can't.

What a fucking dumb question.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
25. but..........
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:38 PM
May 2014

....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)
29. Okay...so what you are saying is that after he met with GG, and stole documents, he was sending
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:43 PM
May 2014

an email for the purposes of what?????

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
44. Quite honestly the idea
Thu May 29, 2014, 05:32 PM
May 2014

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)
99. Snowden could have said, "In what regards, Brian?" and his defenders ...
Fri May 30, 2014, 11:14 AM
May 2014

would point to that statement as yet another example of his intellect and integrity.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
5. The NSA response seemed pretty straightforward
Thu May 29, 2014, 03:51 PM
May 2014

And even asked him to contact them for further questions or inquiries.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
23. he didn't keep the documents, either.
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:36 PM
May 2014

Pretty smart reasoning, too. He didn't keep them because he didn't want to be mugged for them, or compromised in any way.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
57. Why didn't he ask GG or LP to hold all his emails, then?
Thu May 29, 2014, 07:09 PM
May 2014

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)
88. "I mean, come on--if he made numerous complaints, why not keep a record of them?"..
Thu May 29, 2014, 10:20 PM
May 2014

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)
72. He's pretty fucking compromised by being stuck in Russia for the rest of his life!
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:09 PM
May 2014

And having nothing to support his contentions. Nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
10. It's ridiculous, and
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:10 PM
May 2014

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.

Cha

(297,154 posts)
89. And, why wouldn't GG claim the email is big news? He's been blowing everything else out
Thu May 29, 2014, 10:23 PM
May 2014

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)
11. But the NSA said there were no records of Snowden reporting his concerns.
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:11 PM
May 2014

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.

Response to ProSense (Reply #12)

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
27. From the OP:
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:40 PM
May 2014
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.

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)
32. I don't call a characterization from "The Hill" as "facts.
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:46 PM
May 2014

But apparently you do, when it suits you.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
36. What do you think about the NSA spying on America?
Thu May 29, 2014, 05:17 PM
May 2014

That's not only illegal, it serves to destroy democracy.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
94. He's a liar. He said he raised his concerns in an email to the OGC. Now he is backing away from that
Thu May 29, 2014, 11:30 PM
May 2014

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)
101. Someone alerted on your post, claiming your link crashed their computer...
Fri May 30, 2014, 12:23 PM
May 2014

Will post jury results when they're in.

Jury results:

On Fri May 30, 2014, 12:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

"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)
104. Yeah, I responded to that person below. It's an official government website
Sat May 31, 2014, 01:21 AM
May 2014

There is no malicious code there.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
73. Snowden didn't get caught in a lie.
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:10 PM
May 2014

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.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
75. So you were wrong the first 58 times you called him a liar. But this time, by golly, you'll win.
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:13 PM
May 2014

Best of luck to you, Ms Sense.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
77. Snowden
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:17 PM
May 2014

"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)
81. Links, by Christ. I demand links.
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:23 PM
May 2014

They don't even have to go anywhere. It makes me feel unaccountably lonely when you don't provide links.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
13. Read the email. He didn't 'report' anything.
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:14 PM
May 2014

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)
38. Did you read the email Snowden's talked about or the one the NSA released?
Thu May 29, 2014, 05:20 PM
May 2014

Either way, NSA spying on America is illegal and unconstitutional.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
79. "The email Snowden's talked about"? Where is it documented? The guy is a liar.
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:21 PM
May 2014

I said so from the beginning and this is more proof of it.

http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
102. For Juror # 4
Fri May 30, 2014, 12:49 PM
May 2014

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)
103. That is an official government website. If you had a crash, the issue is your computer.
Sat May 31, 2014, 01:00 AM
May 2014

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)
71. Spy agencies AND Snowden can BOTH be the problem it's not either or ... and with Snowden
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:06 PM
May 2014

... the means do NOT justify the ends

Regars

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
98. Yes, because the nation's press corpse has zero interest in that part of the story.
Fri May 30, 2014, 10:32 AM
May 2014

Ask yourself and those you interview the basic questions, stevenleser -- especially the "Why?"

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
41. ''I don't think it means what you think it means.''
Thu May 29, 2014, 05:26 PM
May 2014

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)
78. Did you read the email Snowden is trying to pass off as "reporting his concerns"?
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:19 PM
May 2014

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)
14. Laurel and Hardy stuff.
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:14 PM
May 2014

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)
19. it's like republicans with benghazi
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:26 PM
May 2014

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.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
21. Call the Mounties!
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:33 PM
May 2014

Scared of a foreign whistleblower and his defenders! Surely they will come to your aid.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
35. Lol. The title of the post should be: "Email supports Snowden's claims"
Thu May 29, 2014, 05:15 PM
May 2014

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 NSA’s interpretations of its legal authorities.” Referring to those interpretations Snowden says in the email: “I’m 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)
37. that's not raising issues of illegal conduct
Thu May 29, 2014, 05:19 PM
May 2014

he asked a question about administrative law, and the GC's office told him he was correct

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
40. He claimed that in emails to NSA lawyers,
Thu May 29, 2014, 05:24 PM
May 2014

he was "raising concerns about the NSA’s interpretations of its legal authorities.” The email in question does that.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
42. that's not whistleblowing. he's asking basic admin law questions
Thu May 29, 2014, 05:27 PM
May 2014

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

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
50. the question, did he write any emails alleging wrongdoing
Thu May 29, 2014, 06:47 PM
May 2014

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)
86. He's now claiming his real concerns were in an email to the NSA Signals Intelligence Directorate
Thu May 29, 2014, 10:07 PM
May 2014

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)
45. "the email was sent months after his initial contacts with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald "
Thu May 29, 2014, 05:37 PM
May 2014

Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)

<...>

The email, dated April 5, 2013—more than a month before he released a trove of secret documents to reporters but after he had already been in contact with them—shows Snowden asking the agency’s 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 counsel’s 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)
47. Does the fact that he wrote the email after he already had an interest in leaking things
Thu May 29, 2014, 06:40 PM
May 2014

contradict anything he has claimed?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
58. Sure there is, you just refuse to see it
Thu May 29, 2014, 07:10 PM
May 2014

in the same way you choose to see the OP e-mail as validating Snowden's BS claim.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
52. Question: Given that it was clearly a training-related question,
Thu May 29, 2014, 06:54 PM
May 2014

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)
54. Are you serious? Go back and read my post and the email and what Snowden said.
Thu May 29, 2014, 07:04 PM
May 2014

If you still want to ask this question, I cannot help you.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
56. Yes, I'm "serious."
Thu May 29, 2014, 07:09 PM
May 2014

You said:

The title of the post should be: "Email supports Snowden's claims"


Snowden said:

“I actually did go through channels, and that is documented,” he asserted. “The NSA has records, they have copies of emails right now to their Office of General Counsel, to their oversight and compliance folks, from me raising concerns about the NSA’s interpretations of its legal authorities. … The response more or less, in bureaucratic language, was, ‘You should stop asking questions.’”

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)
59. The question is quite obviously a question about the NSA's interpretation of its legal authorities.
Thu May 29, 2014, 07:12 PM
May 2014

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.
“I’m 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.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
62. Here,
Thu May 29, 2014, 07:15 PM
May 2014

"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, 2013—more than a month before he released a trove of secret documents to reporters but after he had already been in contact with them—shows Snowden asking the agency’s 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 counsel’s 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)
64. Awesome, the email itself.
Thu May 29, 2014, 07:22 PM
May 2014

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.

Response to ProSense (Reply #66)

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
70. Okay, so I guess in your view NSA training cannot include information about
Thu May 29, 2014, 07:33 PM
May 2014

the NSA's interpretation of its legal authorities. Very plausible position you've staked out there. Good job.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
53. You would think a guy who is smarter than the average bear (US or Russian, presumably), would have
Thu May 29, 2014, 07:03 PM
May 2014
SAVED ALL THE EMAILS he sent to all these "officials" where he documented his complaints.


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)
90. Really.. but, why would Snowden save this email that the NSA released? Because it doesn't
Thu May 29, 2014, 10:29 PM
May 2014

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.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
80. The most naive man in the first half of the 21st century.
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:21 PM
May 2014

It's rather uncomfortable to watch him implode.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
82. I disagree with your OP title and the title of the article.
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:24 PM
May 2014

"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)
83. He asked a question, goddamnit! What more do you need to know?
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:31 PM
May 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
84. Now he's claiming that the OGC email wasn't the important one, it was the Signals Directorate email.
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:57 PM
May 2014

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.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
97. Ah, so that's why this email was released
Fri May 30, 2014, 05:44 AM
May 2014
Why then did he make a big deal about the OGC email on air with Brian Williams?

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.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Snowden email fell short ...