If you think that Snowden ought to have gone through channels, consider this.

[kpete]

Today, Greg Miller of the Washington Post tells us the story of Jeffrey Scudder, who worked in the CIA’s Historical Collections Division. This is a division explicitly set up to look for old documents that can be safely released to the public. Scudder discovered thousands of documents he thought should be released, and he worked diligently through channels to make this happen. When that ran into repeated roadblocks, he eventually decided to try to force the CIA's hand—legally, openly—by filing requests under the Freedom of Information Act:

Scudder’s FOIA submissions fell into two categories: one seeking new digital copies of articles already designated for release and another aimed at articles yet to be cleared. He made spreadsheets that listed the titles of all 1,987 articles he wanted, he said, then had them scanned for classified content and got permission to take them home so he could assemble his FOIA request on personal time.

....Six months after submitting his request, Scudder was summoned to a meeting with Counterintelligence Center investigators and asked to surrender his personal computer. He was placed on administrative leave, instructed not to travel overseas and questioned by the FBI.

....On Nov. 27, 2012, a stream of black cars pulled up in front of Scudder’s home in Ashburn, Va., at 6 a.m. FBI agents seized every computer in the house, including a laptop his daughter had brought home from college for Thanksgiving. They took cellphones, storage devices, DVDs, a Nintendo Game Boy and a journal kept by his wife, a physical therapist in the Loudoun County Schools.

The search lasted nearly four hours, Scudder said. FBI agents followed his wife and daughters into their bedrooms as they got dressed, asking probing questions. “It was classic elicitation,” Scudder said. “How has Jeff been? Have you noticed any unexplained income? Cash? Mood changes?”

....Last summer, the board recommended that Scudder be fired. Around the same time, he was shown a spreadsheet outlining his possible pension packages with two figures — one large and one small — underlined. He agreed to retire.

.......

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/07/heres-what-happens-when-you-challenge-cia-through-proper-channels
and:
The NSA Said Edward Snowden Had No Access to Surveillance Intercepts. They Lied.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/07/nsa-said-edward-snowden-had-no-access-surveillance-intercepts-they-lied

[djean111]

1. Snowden's big sin, to some, was exposing the NSA while Obama is president. As if that mattered in

the least.

[Jake Stern]

7. Can't help but wonder how many of the people spanking Snowden

now would likely be applauding him if he had done this under W or Romney if he was president.

[tymorial]

25. You can be certain.

This isn't even a liberal/conservative issue. So many people in this country (and around the world) engage in intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy because they are driven by emotionalism. They justify their duplicity through emotional feelings of "right" and "wrong." I always consider the example of people who surround themselves with others of like minds and ideals without ever endeavoring to understanding opposing views. When they are challenged instead of defending their point of view, they engage in misdirection and straw-man arguments. They devolve to insult and rhetoric designed to impune the character of the person challenging their notions. In my personal opinion it is distinctly dishonorable behavior and behavior that is rampant in all areas of our culture. I've been called arrogant for this opinion and I accept that there is a level of arrogance to my personality. Its largely a defense mechanism but I really do feel that it shows confidence when one endeavors to understand the mind set of "the other side." So often our elected representatives fail to consider this in their actions and sometimes make calculated errors that exacerbate the situation rather than create improved results.

[chervilant]

45. Damn! Good post!!

Welcome to DU, and I hope to see more excellent posts from you!

(Wondering if you've read Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics"?)

[tymorial]

63. Thank you :)

No, I have not read that book but I just looked it up on Wikipedia. This particular quote is fascinating and rather illustrative of the point I made. I will definitely check this out. It perfectly defines the behavior of many ideologues. It is most certainly true of most on the right but sadly, we absolutely see elements of this on the left as well:

From wikipedia "The Paranoid Style in American Politics"
"The paranoid spokesman, sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization... he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated — if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes"

[chervilant]

68. I do like that quote.

I think Hofstadter's works on anti-intellectualism are essential reading.

[awoke_in_2003]

39. He would have been a hero. nt

[BillZBubb]

8. Exactly.

It is very discouraging that some are willing to ignore these major violations of our Constitution in an attempt to somehow protect the president. Obama isn't to blame for this mess, although he hasn't exactly been a champion in cleaning it up.

[m-lekktor]

12. that is obvious. that is why i don't pay attention to that bunch

or give their hysterical posts any credence.

[gcomeau]

19. Snowden's big sin to many others...

...was leaking classified intelligence about legitimate overseas operations that had *nothing whatsoever to do with protecting Americans civil liberties* to countries like China, telling them how and where they were being penetrated, for which he should spend the rest of his life in a cell. Nothing else he has done changes that... a fact all the Snowden apologists seem weirdly bent on completely ignoring.

[BlueCheese]

26. First, I think that exaggerates what Snowden did.

Second, the administration itself has leaked information that reveals operational details on many occasions, but for public relations purposes. If leaks are really so bad, all of those people should be spending the rest of their lives in a cell, too.

Third, this fixation on Snowden is completely beside the point, and a tiny speck next to the massive intrusions on civil liberties that he revealed. It's like comparing the behavior of the officers beating up Rodney King to the issue of whether the guy filming the whole thing had ever had a speeding ticket.

[gcomeau]

31. No, that precisely and literally defines what he did.

And I have yet to see the administration ever leak anything akin to "these are the exact networks the NSA is penetrating in China and here's how they're doing it" for "public relations purposes". And when the government officially releases information it's called declassifying it.

[BlueCheese]

32. Please show me where anything that precise came out of the Snowden documents.

Also, here's the government leaking secret information for political gain:

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/07/probing_obamas_secrecy_games/

[gcomeau]

36. Ahem...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spied-on-chinese-government-and-networking-firm-huawei-a-960199.html

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1266777/exclusive-snowden-safe-hong-kong-more-us-cyberspying-details-revealed

"The latest explosive revelations about US National Security Agency cybersnooping in Hong Kong and on the mainland are based on further scrutiny and clarification of information Snowden provided on June 12.

The former technician for the US Central Intelligence Agency and contractor for the National Security Agency provided documents revealing attacks on computers over a four-year period.

The documents listed operational details of specific attacks on computers, including internet protocol (IP) addresses, dates of attacks and whether a computer was still being monitored remotely."

You were saying?

And I see, by "the administration" leaking things you mean unnamed anonymous sources that can't be prosecuted seeing as their identities are currently unknown but which are the subject of a Senate investigation?

And your point in calling attention to that is... what exactly?

[BlueCheese]

37. My point is that the government leaks things when it's convenient to them.

Leaks that make the president or administration look good happen all the time, often by many officials at once. Now either these senior officials are acting on their own, in which case the administration ought to be furious, or rather, they're acting with knowledge and approval by the White House. Neither leads to a satisfactory conclusion. Yet when leaks that help the public know what the government is doing, a massive reaction and demonization campaign follows.

Your link to the SCMP is indeed more detailed than I remembered from the time. Having said that, did he actually turn over the documents to the newspaper (which is not the Chinese government in any case), or merely demonstrate that he had them? My strong belief is with the latter case.

[gcomeau]

51. And I repeat...

...your definition of "the government" here is anonymous sources facing prosecution if the Senate investigation uncovers who they are.

You kind of keep skipping quickly past that part and acting like these guys are just being let loose to leak all they want while the administration applauds.

[BlueCheese]

53. Nobody is seriously thinking about prosecuting them.

These were almost certainly authorized leaks by the executive branch. The executive branch is not going to prosecute the people who purposely leaked information to make themselves look good. This kind of thing is routine-- it's part of politics. These are not rogues, and the executive branch is spending zero effort trying to find out who they are.

In any case, this is all a complete distraction. I happen to have a high opinion of Edward Snowden and his actions and motivations, but even if I didn't, it would be irrelevant. What's important here is the NSA's massive intrusion into our civil liberties. That's the existential threat to our democracy, not anything to do with Snowden or Greenwald personally.

Thanks for the discussion.

[gcomeau]

62. Ah, I bow to your powers of telepathy. Very impressive. -eom

[ancianita]

85. Actually that's pretty much how the NSA operates its PR system.

[BlueCheese]

38. Also, the attacks on Huawei listed in the Der Spiegel article...

It's important for the public to know about that the Internet's network infrastructure might be compromised, and to point out the double standards the US government is displaying when it accuses others of cyberattacks while engaging in them on its own.

[Vattel]

41. He should be applauded for revealing those attacks on Chinese computers.

He was exposing wrongdoing on the part of the US.

[gcomeau]

49. He was exposing Intelligence Activities on the part of the US

If that is wrongdoing then the US shouldn't have a CIA or NSA at all. Now you can try making that argument and get all the laws changed but don't try to make an argument so astoundingly stupid like Snowden was "whistleblowing" that intelligence agencies do intelligence work because otherwise nobody wold have known.

[Vattel]

64. Intelligence for economic advantage that violates the rights of innocent Chinese citizens.

And the same sort of hacking that we attack China for.

[gcomeau]

65. Which is based on nothing but the Chinese claim.

Last edited Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Show me exactly where it was established that ANY economic advantage was wrung from any of these activities.

[ancianita]

82. Mike Rodgers' House Intel Committee had gotten no evidence that Chinese firms had penetrated US

systems.

So it's more likely that, after American companies were warned away from buying Chines routers, etc., there is at work here the NSA and telecom partnership's motivation to keep Chinese devices from supplanting American made ones, that world telecom control surveillance competition is going on. When someone buys a Chinese device instead of an American one, the NSA loses a crucial means of spying on many communication activities.

Whoever controls world telecoms controls industry. That's the mutual goal of the NSA/telecom partnership.

[gcomeau]

83. Uh huh... so basically

...your evidence is "because I think that's what they probably did".

Wow, you sure got me there.

[ancianita]

84. Not trying to get you. Trying to present the idea that the evidence isn't all in yet about our

industrial espionage activities. That where what we know points to is that since we've produced and distributed the Internet structure and its process devices worldwide, there's the likelihood that people here are onto something by claiming we're not clean.

In the long run, your "show me the evidence" has limited value as an argument. My bet is that someone will, even if it's not accessible by us yet.

[gcomeau]

90. While begging the question that there *are* "industrial espionage activities"...

...about which there is some kind of unknown evidence lurking out there in the shadows waiting to be unveiled and running around making condemnatory pronouncements about those activities you don't actually have evidence of.

"In the long run, your "show me the evidence" has limited value as an argument."

It has considerably more value as an argument than your "hey, who needs evidence to make claims about things when you can just assume it exists somewhere and supports your position" approach.

[ancianita]

91. No one assumes as much as you seem to. I said: what evidence we do have "points to" the existence of

industrial espionage that you so adamantly claim doesn't objectively exist just because people here might not have access to it. The NSA's partnerships with techs and telecoms at least point to the existence of industrial espionage, that much people here are making a fair point about.

Even our trading partners complain about the NSA's second tier countries with whom it works on specific surveillance projects while also spying on them. We pay them, sure, but they don't trust us. Snowden revealed that at the 2012 SigDev conference, the Communications Services Establishment Canada boasted about targeting the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy, showing documents about spying posts there set up for surveillance of target trading partners. Industrial espionage using our complicit industry services.

At home, FB's Zuckerberg, not one to defend privacy anyway, complained that the this administration's denials of spying on Americans still jeopardized the interests of international Internet companies, saying, "Wonderful, that's really helpful for companies trying to work with people around the world. Thanks for going out there and being clear. I think that was really bad."

Without reference to you personally, I'd say your argument of "show me the evidence" remains the more unfair. It's technological espionage that I've been mostly referring to. Tech industries -- Google, Yahoo, AOL, etc. -- who continue to be in league with the NSA worldwide, have much more at stake about citizens' not knowing their activities as we citizens have about privacy invasion.

Assumptions were before Snowden. Now people are talking about historical non-military corporate behavior, current civilian-NSA partnerships and probability.

[gcomeau]

95. And I pointed out

...that not one damn thing you have "points to" industrial espionage. It just points to regular old espionage. If you want to add the industrial component you need to show evidence it was directed specifically at those businesses economic/competitive positions rather than at simply penetrating their networks and infrastructure to get at intelligence of legitimate interest. that was housed or transmitted therein.

And you have shown squat on that score.

[ancianita]

96. No "industrial components"! No content! No industrial espionage exists! Glad that's cleared up!

[gcomeau]

97. Making statements with exclamation points!

Isn't an rebuttal!

And doesn't magically generate evidence!

[ancianita]

98. Mocking! doesn't make you right. You don't accept as evidence what Snowden

has provided documents for so far, for what he calls economic espionage, which you decide to rename industrial espionage. So yeah, we're done.

As Snowden's archives show, the NSA and corporate partners' actual documents show their activities have less to do with national security than with economic espionage on Brazil's oil giant Petrobras, economic conferences in Latin America, energy companies in Venezuela and Mexico, the SWIFT banking system, Russia's Gazprom and Aeroflot.

From Snowden's GCHQ documents, NSA targets are financial institutions, foreign energy companies in Europe -- just those 13 states besides the silly old surveillance intel on officials themselves who oversee oil and finance in Latin American, EU and African heads of state and their energy business deals.

Content evidence from those areas? None. YET. So yeah, we're done.

You can go back to your Religion threads now.

[gcomeau]

99. No, I have pointed out

...that none of the information contained in those indicates industrial (or, if you want, "economic&quot espionage. Saying the NSA penetrated private companies networks IS NOT SUCH EVIDENCE. For reasons already clearly explained which you have simply ignored.

[reorg]

43. let me get this straight

so, you were saying that Snwoden leaked "legitimate operations" and your proof is that he made public that the NSA is carrying out industrial espionage in China?

How is that "legitimate"? Please explain why you consider this "legitimate", I cannot find "industrial espionage" mentioned anywhere in the NSA mission statement:

http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml

[gcomeau]

50. You declaring it to be industrial espionage doesn't make it so. -eom

[ancianita]

80. According to Snowden via Greenwald, 70% of our national intel budget is spent in the private sector,

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

with the largest concentration of cyber power on the planet at the inersection of the Baltimore Parkway and Maryland Route 32, a business park down the road from the NSA, where all of the NSA's major contractors, from Booz to SAIC to Northrop Grumman, carry out surveilance and intel.

These corporate partnerships extend beyond intel and defense to include the largest, most important Internet corporations and telecoms on the planet.

Such work is in the agency's missions of "Defense (Protect US Telecommuncations and Cumputer Systems Against Exploitations)" and "Offense (Intercept and Exploit Foreign Signals)." Greenwald's book shows the document that shows services supplied by such corporations and managed by the NSA's Special Sources Operations, the division that oversees corporate partnerships. The SSO, Snowden claims, is the "crown jewel" of the organization.

BLARNEY, FAIRVIEW, OAKSTAR AND STROMBREW are some prograoms overseen by this SSO within its Corporate Partner Access portfolio.

These are industries. This is their espionage system.

Your claiming there isn't any industrial espionage doesn't make it so.

[gcomeau]

81. Which doesn't make it "industrial espionage"

...if the reason it's spent in the private sector is because a great deal of intelligence of legitimate concern travels over infrastructure built and maintained BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR and they're simply penetrating those systems to get access to that intelligence.


Show me where the NSA stole a bunch of data from some Chinese Telecom so they could hand it over to AT&T or something. That would be industrial espionage. Otherwise, it's just espionage. You know, what the NSA exists for.

[ancianita]

86. Its "protection" systems extend less for Americans' safety than for corporate govt. safety.

When it comes to the Content of espionage, Content is not what citizens drowning in "protection" rhetoric would reasonably expect access to, as we pretty much understand here.

What Google provided to the US while in the China market, before it left China, still hasn't been revealed, to my knowledge, but from what I've learned about the Chinese from my Chinese in-laws, Google's announced leaving was done because Beijing still operates by "saving face" standards.

[gcomeau]

88. I can't even tell what the point of what you just said was.

Or how it was a response to my post.

[uponit7771]

23. ...and to others it was being a bold faced liar and losing all credibility that he COULD have gained

... trying to help the conversation of privacy.

Revealing what we did overseas to other countries had NOTHING to do with Obama being embarrased or

The fact that he lied about going through proper channels or any channels other then Glenwald isn't going to be dismissed by folk who don't think the means fit the ends

[truth2power]

74. Yes, "while Obama was President" is the operative phrase. End of story. n/t

[Adrahil]

101. Actually, I think his big sin...

Was exposing perfectly legitimate and entirely Constitutional foreign intelligence operations.

[djean111]

102. When Snowden first revealed anything at all - the big accusation here was that he

deliberately did this in order to bring down Obama. The ENTIRE thing was viewed through the Obama lens.
Not right or wrong, but how did this affect Obama. The wagons circled before anything was known or mentioned about constitutionality. If Bush had been president, IMO, the tone and tenor would have been entirely different.
And the smear the messenger stuff was actually hilarious. Hilarious. Boxes in his garage, left his girlfriend, etc. Totally childish. But now the ad hominem stuff is actually the (ineffective) weapon of choice used against anyone who is seen to threaten Obama (and Hillary) - and by threatening I mean not abjectly and uncritically adoring.

[Adrahil]

103. Well, I DO think he has been played by Greenwald and Assange....

... for their own political ends, but I put that down to his his idealistic naivete. But now I think his supporters are trying to paper over his very real (IMO) wrong-doing. If he thinks exposing perfectly legitimate and Constitutional foreign intelligence operations is worth defending, he should defend it.

And I admit, his ridiculous embrace of Russia as a champion of human rights made lose whatever respect I had for him.

[cantbeserious]

2. Make No Mistake - The System Eats Those That Attempt Reform From Within

eom

[conservaphobe]

3. It is modeled after the corporation's "open door" policies.

You can vent, but nothing will change.

[BillZBubb]

10. It's worse than that.

Any attempt to force the security state to reveal its behavior is treated as treason.

[treestar]

4. One case

And we don't know how biased the relation of the facts is here.

That would be like saying one case of police brutality means we can commit crimes without any police interference.

No excuses. We know Eddie did not use the WPA. He knows he should have, because he tried to claim he did.

[BillZBubb]

16. Hogwash

You security state groupies are willing to believe any swill the NSA pours out, but question every fact that counters it.

We ALWAYS know the bias and lies coming out of NSA, but you choose to ignore that.

And we don't know Snowden didn't go through channels. The NSA can't find the emails--or so they claim.

At any rate, given the history of the security state, Snowden would have been foolish to go through their channels. Very foolish.

[Enthusiast]

18. PLUS ONE!

[uponit7771]

24. or we're not willing to believe in grifteres like Greewald? Snowden being a bold faced liar doesn't

... help either

[BillZBubb]

35. More baloney.

Everything Snowden has disclosed about NSA activity has proven 100% true. Everything. At first the NSA DENIED everything. They were 100% dishonest.

Ad hominem attacks against Snowden and Greenwald only show the absurd lengths the deniers like you will go to.

[MannyGoldstein]

55. Again today, the NSA were proven to be liars

How many proven lies will it take before you can acknowledge that they are liars?

Snowden, however, has never been shown to be a liar.

[truth2power]

75. Read Greenwald's book, "No Place to Hide"...

or not, as you wish.

I don't know who you're trying to convince, here.

Maybe for some DUers, calling Greenwald a grifter has the intended effect and causes them to react in fear and shut down their crap detectors.

Others, though, recognize disinformation tactics when they see them.

All the thugs in the CIA/NSA combined aren't worthy to take out Greenwald/Snowden's trash. Psychopaths, all.

[uponit7771]

78. Facts convince people themselves. Fact: Snowden lied about going through any channels and people

... who are covering for him with the excuse of "no fair review" of what he did would never give a person of color the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to Americas legal system.

[rhett o rick]

33. Why do I think that it doesn't matter how much evidence you were presented with?

I find your continued support of the secrecy of the NSA/CIA and hatred of whistle-blowers to be very odd. IMO it's a citizen's duty to keep their government under control. You seem to want to smite those that dare question the government. I think that's very dangerous.

[stevenleser]

52. By this logic, a guy who gets hit by a truck crossing the street means none of us should ever cross

the street, because we are going to get hit.

[treestar]

100. So true

Like the claim that Cheney hasn't been prosecuted, so none of us have to obey the law!

[SidDithers]

5. Wait, I thought Snowden did go through channels, but was ignored...

Wasn't that the whole point of him claiming the NSA has copies of his e-mails?

Are the Snowdenistas now back to the theory that he didn't go through channels, 'cause if he had he would have ended up like this guy?

Sid

[randome]

30. Whiplash!

Hey, aren't you supposed to be sleeping in?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The night is always young. It's never too late.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cha]

59. Yeah, Consider that, OP! Either that or Snowden Lied his ass off A-gain. Get the stories straight.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

6. The "channels" all lead to the same dead end swamp.

[Babel_17]

9. Maybe the thread title should read "... have persisted in going through channels ..."

And IIRC there are other examples. Good post though, I hadn't heard this story. Thanks!

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. NSA's message on the 4th

is that we chose to ignore the 4th because of national security. The first we will monitor

[Recursion]

13. How much leeway does an employee have to "disclose" legal activity?

It's not like he was saying "hey, this law is being broken"; he was saying "hey, this law is being put into practice". That's still the difference to me between him and Drake.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Snowden going through channels to the NSA bosses is like....

a reporter going through channels to the Mafia to report a crime.

[NanceGreggs]

57. But he now insists that

he DID "go through channels", after initially stating that going through such channels would be a waste of time.

So which is it? Was he lying when he said he didn't alert his superiors to what he perceived to be illegal activity on the part of the NSA because to do so was pointless, or is he lying now when he says he DID alert his superiors via emails he allegedly sent - but didn't bother to make secure copies of?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. I'm much more inclined to believe Snowden than the NSA.

And, he should have known that it is pointless to go through "channels" in cases like this. Whether he did or not is of little consequence as the result would be the same. Except that he now is a fugitive for doing what needs to be done.

[NanceGreggs]

66. ...

"Whether he did or not is of little consequence ..."

What IS of consequence is the fact that he insisted for almost a year that he didn't attempt to alert his superiors, and then changed his story and now insists that he had.

Choosing to "believe" the NSA or Snowden is not an either/or thing. One can believe that the NSA is guilty of over-reach, or even illegal activity, without putting any credence whatsoever in Snowden's ever-changing version of events.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Is the problem with Snowden his credibility or what he exposed?

What difference does it make how Snowden went about what he did or lied about it? Isn't what he revealed of far more consequence?

Frankly, I'm far less concerned with Snowden's lies and his relationships with a pole-dancer, than I'm concerned with what the NSA has done and continues to do around the world. Not to mention our governments CYA attempts to cover it up. Which, coincidentally, involves lying.

[NanceGreggs]

69. What has he 'exposed' ...

... that wasn't already known?

What has he exposed that is illegal? When directly asked what illegal activity the NSA is engaged in, he couldn't come up with a single thing.

And yes, the problem is Snowden's credibility. He has made allegations he has never proven, he has contradicted himself on major points, he has changed his story many times. If the messenger isn't credible, neither is the message.

Slightly off-topic, I had a discussion on another thread last night with someone who insisted that DUers - his words - "were arriving in droves to yell about boxes in garages and abandoned stripper girlfriends."

I pointed out that the only DUers who constantly bring up "boxes and stripper girlfriends" are the Snowden supporters themselves, in a rather lame attempt to imply that those who don't find Snowden credible are obsessed with those two things.

I asked him to provide links to any DUer who posted about same. He came up with three - two links to a cut-and-paste of the original article that contained those statements (which were made by Snowden's neighbours), and one to a DU poster who featured a photo of Snowden's GF, with a comment that he thought she was too pretty for a nerd like Snowden. Other than that, he couldn't find a single post wherein any DUer brought up the topic of "boxes" or "stripper girlfriends" - despite his claim that there were "droves" of people who did so.

So I just wanted to thank you for proving my point. The only person in this entire thread who brought up the "pole dancer" was you. I think it's time to stop beating that dead horse.

[uponit7771]

70. Yeap... no comeback on the "exposed' part... i'ts like people have been gaslighted to no end

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. If he didn't expose anything, why are they pursuing him?

Because he released information that "everybody knew" already? And, if it's already known, why doesn't the NSA release it themselves?

Do you think that the messages from the NSA are credible? From the government in general? Why the secrecy in a democracy? You know, "a government of the people, for the people, and by the people"? Could it be that our "leaders" don't trust the people?

Your faith in the system is touchingly naive.

[NanceGreggs]

72. He is being pursued ...

... because he's a thief. He stole sensitive documents that he had no right to take, and disclosed documents he had no right to disclose - especially those documents that revealed our spying operations on foreign entities TO those foreign entities. (I'm still at a loss as to how telling China how we spied on them was in furtherance of Snowden's initially stated motive, which was to inform American citizens about domestic spying.)

The collection of metadata was already known. The specific ways in which we spy on foreign entities was not - which is as it should be.

"Why the secrecy in a democracy?"

If you think that certain secrecy in a democracy is not necessary, let me ask the following: Should we be disclosing the names and assignments of foreign operatives to everyone (think Valerie Plame)? Should law enforcement agencies be disclosing their targets for sting operations involving kiddie-porn distributors, or operators in the sex-slave industry? Should police departments be posting the names of "persons of interest" in major drug cartels on a website somewhere, so that everyone knows what they're up to?

If you think that secrecy is not part-and-parcel of a democracy in certain situations, it is you who are being touchingly naive.

[chervilant]

76. DO tell, Nance:

what is it about Snowden that's got your knickers in a twist?

Cannot you work up a modicum of righteous indignation over the (alleged) activities of the NSA?

You tend to wax eloquently about such matters -- what would you have done, were you standing in Snowden's rather unfortunate shoes?

[NanceGreggs]

79. My knickers in a twist?

You have no idea how funny that is!

I actually have very little interest in Snowden, outside of idle curiosity as to where this latest hair-on-fire episode will go before it fizzles out.

I still have no idea why he did what he did, or what he thought he was accomplishing. His story keeps changing; he has contradicted himself, and he has lied. I do feel sorry for him, for the most part. I think he was either duped by others, or duped himself into believing he is some heroic figure. I'm sure when all of this began, he never envisioned himself stranded in Russia, far from home and family, not knowing what his ultimate fate will be, while Greenwald is the one raking in the big bucks as a result of Snowden's tragic circumstances.

What I do find fascinating is how people here have been drawn into this almost cult-like worship of him. Many of them openly admit that he has lied, and made allegations he has never come close to proving. But their response is always "but it doesn't matter". What is particularly amusing is how these same people accuse Obama supporters of being mindless bots - apparently oblivious to their own mindless devotion to their hero.

The paranoia this tale has sparked is almost laughable at times. There are some who actually believe their every email is being read, their every phone conversation is being listened to, they're being 'watched' 24/7. It's FASCISM! We're living in a POLICE STATE! Democracy is DEAD! According to the conversation on DU over the last few years, democracy dies every few months over one thing or another - only to be temporarily resurrected so as to die all over again over something else.

For the most part, I just read the nonsense posted without getting involved. But at times I can't help stirring things up, just to watch the hair-on-fire brigade run amok.

As I said, my only interest in the Snowden story is curiosity as to its final outcome before it becomes yesterday's news - which eventually it will. And by then, those who are so caught up in it now will have long moved on to some new outrage-de-jour.

But, hey, thanks for asking!

[chervilant]

87. Yes, indeed, I do like that little

bit of slang.

[NanceGreggs]

89. I'm from Brooklyn ...

... and had never heard the expression until I met my second husband, who had just landed here from England.

The first time he said it, I had absolutely NO idea what he was talking about! Eventually I was the one who used it all the time - while he adopted some of my more "colourful" Brooklyn terms.

[90-percent]

15. Considering the fate of the whistle blowers that had gone before him

Considering the fate of the whistle blowers that had gone before him, Snowden choosing the "going through the proper channels" route would have been tantamount to suicide. It does kind of trip you up a little bit when the full force and fury of the United States Government elects to do everything in it's power to ruin you life. Including murdering you.

-90% Jimmy

[BillZBubb]

17. Going through "channels" is a fools errand.

Snowden was smart to avoid sticking to that path after his first attempts came to nothing.

The security state was never going to change its behavior because of his concerns.

[NanceGreggs]

73. "After his first attempts came to nothing"?

Are those the same "attempts" he initially denied having made, and now insists that he pursued?

[BillZBubb]

92. The Groupie strikes back!

No, those are the attempts he made.

[NanceGreggs]

94. Calling me a 'groupie' is so junior high ...

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)

... but whatever floats your boat.

Snowden consistently denied that he had ever raised his concerns to his superiors, on the basis that he felt it would be futile to do so.

He then changed his story, and insisted that he had sent emails to NSA superiors raising his concerns.

He stressed the "yes, I sent emails" story during his interview with Brian Williams. I believe it was a calculated move on his part. He now wants to be seen as the poor guy who repeatedly attempted to raise red flags with his superiors, but was ignored - leading to what he saw as his only other alternative, stealing the documents and absconding with them. THAT version of events plays much better than just taking the documents and running.

Cool story, bro. So where are the emails? When he allegedly gave up all hope that his concerns would be addressed, why didn't he make secure copies of those emails in order to prove that he'd attempted to go through proper channels?

Surely Mr. Smartest-Guy-in-the-Room foresaw that those emails would show him to be a concerned citizen trying to do the right thing. And yet he didn't bother to secure them.

And why did he initially deny that he had sent those emails, if indeed he had? What purpose could that denial have served?

But, as I have been told by several Snowden fans already, it doesn't matter if he lies - he's still their hero, and his credibility should never be questioned.

[Historic NY]

20. “I am one of those guys who has to push that button,” he said.

yup he certainly was.

[Cryptoad]

21. Comrade Snowden's sin is....

he didn't have the stones to stay and face the Music of his actions.....! I've heard he has settled in his new beach house in Crimea .... life is good!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. Stones?

Seems rather pointless. If he felt the information needed to be made public in the first place, the potential consequences didn't stop him from making it public. So the only purpose of him going to jail for having done so would be to 'punish' him. I don't see very many people going around turning themselves in for 'punishment' when they break the law without getting caught. People who run red lights, who speed, who commit vandalism, who shoplift... Really, almost nobody ever breaks the law and tries to get themselves thrown in jail unless they think that doing so will add to societal outrage. The people who are outraged about being spied on already are, so Snowden going to jail won't add anything. And the people who feel he should go to jail certainly won't be outraged by him doing so.

So he had nothing to gain from 'staying and facing the music'. Just years of his life wasted rotting in a jail cell.

I wouldn't call that 'having stones', I'd call that sheer stupidity. And apparently he wasn't that stupid.

[Pholus]

34. Really? I think his sin was quite different.

Unlike Herr General Alexander, he gave away the milk for free rather than set up some lucrative consulting gig.

That simply must be punished!

[elias49]

46. Yeah! He suppose be macho!!

Good grief: "..the stones!"

[BillZBubb]

93. Same old right wing smear: "Comrade". You should be proud.

[uponit7771]

22. With that logic every person of color has a reason to NEVER EVER surrender themselves to the police

... because it's well documented the disproportionate treatment people of color receive even before

[Jamaal510]

40. +1

[Babel_17]

28. Snowden appears to be sticking to a schedule

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-nsa-intercepted-data-those-not-targeted-far-outnumber-the-foreigners-who-are/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5203087

[MrMickeysMom]

29. Just think of all the employee power that has been wasted...

If half of it was used to administrate intelligence fair and firm under the law of transparency, we'd have had no need for the NSA to begin with.

[KoKo]

42. Thanks...don't know how many times "Snowden didn't have any other Recourse" given

"Whistle Blowers in Recent History" has to be posted and yet there are those who refuse to believe. Or, perhaps its not in their interest to believe but to post "Party TP's."

I've given up on convincing them ....because they don't want to be convinced. But, it's good to still keep posting "THE TRUTH OF IT."

K&R...

[Blue_Tires]

44. and that's fine

But snowden shouldn't have been screeching in every interview for months that he did go through channels when it was an obvious falsehood... Me; personally, I have a natural tendacy to wonder exactly what else he's been less than truthful about...

[elias49]

47. No s***, just what I was thinking about the NSA.

That's a real poser!

[Cha]

60. Snowden's been squiggling and lying from the get go. Just one more lie to him.

[Uncle Joe]

48. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. I am very, very said to say that

Snowden needed to do the stuff he did.

Sad that our country is in such a state.

[WillyT]

58. HUMONGOUS K & R !!!

[merrily]

77. I'm glad the info is out. Our government is wasting our tax $$

spying on us, in violation of the 4th amendment.

I could care less if Snowden and Greenwald are saints or monsters. It's irrelevant.

The point is, our government is using our tax dollars to violate our constitutional rights.

BTW, Thomas Drake went through channels, too.

[stevenleser]

104. Forced to retire is your idea of why going through channels is such a horrible idea?

Someone trying to "go through channels" in China or Russia, the two places Snowden has been since leaving the US, would get bullets in their brains.

Time for some perspective OP.