So now it is official -- Snowden has leaked MILITARY intelligence secrets

[Blue_Tires]

Everyone saw the USS Annapolis come home last year. It returned, poignantly, on Sept. 11, and there was a seriousness amid the usual dockside fanfare—sailors meeting newborn children for the first time, a school band playing "Anchors Aweigh." But there was no mention of the boat's secret missions.

From March to September 2014, the U.S. submarine's 152-man crew cruised the deeps of the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Arabian Gulf, earning a earning a coveted Battle "E" for their efficiency in doing all the fleet had asked of them. Which involved ... what, exactly? They covered 34,000 nautical miles, participated in one multinational exercise, and made port calls in Portugal, Spain, Bahrain, and Gibraltar, according to official Navy reports.

There was something else, according to the sub's captain, Commander Chester T. Parks. "During this time," he told reporters, "Annapolis completed four missions vital to national security."

Technically, his boat is a fast-attack submarine, responsible for tracking and killing enemy subs and surface ships when shit goes down. But the Annapolis was equipped for a very special top secret task, one that didn't involve its Mark 48 ADCAP torpedoes—or any shooting weapons at all. It was a mission that wasn't yet accomplished as the boat ported and the crew embraced their families on the dock at Submarine Base New London, Conn.

http://phasezero.gawker.com/spying-on-the-u-s-submarine-that-spies-for-the-nsa-and-1693109418


How does an exposure of Naval SIGINT against foreign targets protect my constitutional rights? Anybody wish to answer that?

Anybody want to argue this falls under "whistleblowing in the public interest?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Snowden maintained from the start that he *NEVER* took nor shared any filed related to military intelligence?


This sums it up: https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/586594078671896576

[MineralMan]

1. It doesn't protect your rights,

but it does expose those programs and inform others that they are going on. NSA and the military have real, important intelligence gathering operations to conduct. Exposing them does no good service. Just the opposite.

[951-Riverside]

2. The individuals who abused these programs and spied illegally on allies and the American people...

created this whole situation.

I would like to see those individuals and Snowden on trial for dereliction of duty, treason, etc.

[ucrdem]

19. Okay but which individuals besides Snowden have acted illegally?

Some US contractors were caught spying on their ex-wives without authorization, but other than that group, the only law breaking I'm aware of that's been publicly disclosed by Team Snowden has been Snowden's, and apparently he hasn't been officially indicted:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/20/obama-mistakenly-said-snowden-has-been-indicted/

[merrily]

60. Depends on how you interpret the 4th Amencment to the Constitution of the United States.

That's the Supreme Law of this country.


Cute that you exempt unlawful acts by government and its agents and make it seem it was only spying on wives by a couple of rogues.

[Savannahmann]

74. Because let's face it.

If the Government does it, it's automatically legal.

[qazplm]

3. This is the problem with Snowden and Manning

both I think were partially motivated by laudable concerns...domestic spying and war crimes respectively.

IF they'd limited their leaks to those areas after exhausting normal channels, they'd be heroes.

But they didn't...they dumped a ton of unrelated stuff out there.

[irisblue]

4. thanks for posting this

the article and the comments are worth reading thoughtfully all the way through

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. Mercy me. He outed more US spying.

[LittleBlue]

12. His greatest crime was humiliating Obama

I've noticed many of his most ardent supporters seem to live vicariously through him and his family. They're always posting family photos and making comments that border on idolization.

When the president spent months lecturing China about hacking and domestic spying, and then Snowden exposed him for a domestic spy, you could feel the embarrassing sting from Washington to their keyboards. The reaction was so visceral that you could tell how badly their illusions were shattered.

They resorted to fits of hysterical patriotic knee-jerking whenever Snowden is mentioned, just so they could resurrect their wall of illusions. "TRAITOR! TREASON! TERRAH!" This mantra appears to be the bat signal for compartmentalized thinking regarding the spying. Notice how whenever the issue of spying comes up, suddenly they pretend not to hear you. Snowden actually forces them to revert to Bush-era rhetoric because it is the best refuge from cognitive dissonance. Despite the fact that if Snowden had exposed Bush as a domestic spy in the exact same manner, every single one of them to a person would defend him against the same attacks they're using to attack him now. No, DU would unanimously support Snowden if he had unmasked Bush that way. They wouldn't support Bush using drone strikes either, but that's a topic for another thread.

[QC]

16. Bingo!

I remember how we used to be creeped out around here by the freepers posting pictures of Shrub and Pickles and cooing over them, but soon enough....

[ucrdem]

22. That appears to have been a primary objective, yes.

As for crimes, he hasn't been officially indicted for any as of Dec. 20 2013, per WaPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/20/obama-mistakenly-said-snowden-has-been-indicted/

[cui bono]

24. No, that was not his primary objective. The knee-jerk emotional reaction is simply a sideshow

by those who cannot bear criticism of a particular person and his admin.

[ucrdem]

25. I wouldn't call a RW disinfo stunt criticism, and I wouldn't idolize the perps. nt

[cui bono]

26. So? What does that have to do with Snowden? n/t

[ucrdem]

27. Probably very little operationally.

But some here insist on calling the voluntary poster boy of a disgusting RW hit job a hero. Go figure.

[cui bono]

30. Who is this "voluntary poster boy of a disgusting RW hit job" of which you speak?

Seriously, you've lost me. I have no idea what you are talking about.

The OP is about Snowden.

[ucrdem]

31. It'll come to you.

Take your time.

[cui bono]

32. I don't think so. Help me understand your assertions if you would like a discussion. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

33. And by the same token

All the emoprog poutrage from certain DUers over leaks about U.S. cyber warfare and Merkel's cellphone, etc. turned to DEAD FUCKING SILENCE when I posted stories about other nation's cyber warfare and Merkel tapping other leaders' phones...

The river flows both ways, so get off your goddamned high horse...

[AgingAmerican]

48. What is an 'emoprog'?

Is that supposed to be some sort of insult?

[neverforget]

50. Here ya go. This is from 2012 and yes it's meant as an insult.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2058690

[AgingAmerican]

70. Wow

That is just pathetic.

[City Lights]

71. That's just lovely.

[marym625]

43. +1000

[Jesus Malverde]

51. Nailed it!...nt

[joshcryer]

53. I think that is a response to the belittlement.

Not cause for the belittlement. Obama gets a lot of crazy crap here. And people go on the defensive just naturally, because they don't think it's right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002184082

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088636

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024832738

Any effort to bash the President on any accomplishment has been, over a matter of years, downplayed and criticized. I personally think Snowden screwed up how he released the data and I don't see a problem with criticizing it.

[Marr]

65. Indeed. It's no coincidence that the biggest Snowden attackers are almost, 1 for 1, the biggest

Obama fans.

So strange that those two positions are so perfectly aligned, isn't it?

[R B Garr]

72. Oh, no..Obama supporters?! *Gasp*

[Marr]

73. I didn't say there's anything wrong with being a fervent Obama supporter.

I said the most aggressively anti-Snowden posts almost invariably come from the most fervent Obama supporters. It suggests to me that their stance on Snowden's actions are not based on the issues they actually argue. Do you disagree?

[Sheepshank]

104. So, I was just as disgusted over exposing Valerie Plame as I am with this latest revelation

I didn't support Bush then, and I don't support exposing our spying missions ever to anyone. This is no different. Snowden had no business exposing covert operations....and it has nothing to do with being an Obama Supporter.

[uponit7771]

98. You mean the Obama that talked about the spy community months before Snowden went to China?

... nah... I'll pass on that sophistry too

[AuntPatsy]

6. Not sure why you believe this information would discredit him in any way, I see nothing that

Changes the facts that we were lied to and cannot fully trust in all good conscience our own government to be honest and forthright...

[Blue_Tires]

34. I'm just calling out hypocrisy as I see it

If folks want to pimp all the "good" whistleblowing stories, they also have to answer for the questionable ones...

[AuntPatsy]

45. I don't see it?

[MattSh]

46. Don't worry...

People see all kinds of strange things when strange things is exactly what they are looking for.

[uponit7771]

99. Snowden COULD HAVE done all of that and not be a traitor at the same time.

[leveymg]

7. I honestly don't see how any of this tells anyone anything they didn't already know.

Gee, how are we going to tap into submarine cables? With a submarine! Duh.

[Oilwellian]

8. Actually, it was the guys who wrote the article that exposed the info

In their own words:

Phase Zero will attempt to apply Gawker's modus operandi of honesty and impertinence to the deadly serious world of intelligence, war, policing, and homeland security. With an assist from Gawker's Adam Weinstein, I will expose secrets. I will name secret programs and tell you where they live, who is running them, and what they are doing in your name. I will try to drag the architecture of permanent war out of the shadowy protection program its stewards in the Pentagon, Congress, intelligence community, and journalistic establishment have built for it.

http://phasezero.gawker.com/the-forever-war-is-always-already-here-introducing-pha-169504008

[grasswire]

14. heh

Let the light shine!

[Octafish]

21. Anchors Aweigh.

Bradley, who by 1966 was director of undersea warfare for the Office of Naval Intelligence, came up with an ingenious partial solution: why not bug transmissions that the Russians would assume could not be bugged? Recalling the signs ''Cable Crossing. Do Not Anchor Cables'' from childhood days on the Mississippi, Bradley assumed that Russian shores would have similar warnings posted for underwater telephone cables. In 1971, with its periscope up, the nuclear submarine Halibut secretly traced the Siberian coastline and confirmed Bradley's hunch. After divers attached the largest telephone tap ever made to a cable on the floor of the Sea of Okhotsk, a stream of useful information about Soviet naval deployments and military exercises flowed to Washington. Had the Russians ever prepared for a first nuclear strike, this tap would have provided critical warning. Code-named ''Ivy Bells,'' this source would remain active for a decade, one of the greatest intelligence hauls of the cold war, until an American, Ronald Pelton, sold the secret to the Russians in 1980.

-- Timothy Naftali review of "Blind Man's Bluff," New York Times, Dec. 20, 1998

https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/12/20/reviews/981220.20naftalt.html

[leveymg]

44. The more both sides know about each other (within reason), the safer we all are.

Aside from nuclear launch codes, and such, there really isn't a lot of military information that needs to be protected by classification. Uncertainty in the nuclear age is the enemy of mankind.

Secrecy and compartmentalization just hide embarrassing stuff the Russians already know from the American public.

[Octafish]

76. Ever read Stanislaw Lem?

Memoirs Found in a Bathtub

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/497121.Memoirs_Found_in_a_Bathtub

A virus from space brings the end of the paperocracy, meanwhile no one can trust anyone else inside the seventh-generation Pentagon...

[leveymg]

84. Just the book Solaris. Saw both film versions - loved them both.

Does anyone trust anyone inside the pre-infested Pentagon? On the other hand, they certainly don't trust anyone in Washington outside the D-Ring. For good reason.

[Octafish]

85. Trust me.

It's not us, but you'll have a feeling of deja vu voo va-voom.

[leveymg]

86. I get that same disoriented feeling every time I read anything by

another fellow traveler:

[leveymg]

88. Looky at what I found on Google books: A Stanislaw Lem Reader.

A Stanislaw Lem Reader
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=081011495X
Stanislaw Lem, ‎Peter Swirski - 1997 - ‎Biography & Autobiography

Thanks! I actually skimmed this riding a train a decade ago. Thanks for reintroducing me.

[Major Hogwash]

80. " . . . just hide embarrassing stuff the Russians already know from the American public."

Aliens from other planets landed on the Earth millions of years ago!
Obama was born in Kenya!

This is just some of the embarrassing stuff the Russians already know by reading what the Americans are saying on the internet.

If the truth were known, we would learn that Putin is an avid fan of reading DU!!!

[leveymg]

82. Putin is Sid!

He's a perfect replicant of an alienated North American.

[uponit7771]

100. With 20 bucks and the secret signature that was released?!

[99th_Monkey]

9. The article's author asks in the Comments: "What is the damage"? It's already in the Public Domain.

"The Snowden documents (or at least some of them), while previously Top Secret, are now in the public domain, so what was previously deemed Top Secret by the government in this case is no longer secret at all. By putting that material into real world context, I submit we are actually enhancing national security: What submarines do, what our tax dollars go for, etc. This is a rare look.

The security of that submarine, the security of its crew and what it is doing, is also a matter of physical measures. One could make an argument that months later if we revealed something about it mission that was very specific (such as what foreign port it sat off of), there might be some danger. But we didn't and even there, one has to ask what is the damage."

[neverforget]

10. Have you read Blind Man's Bluff? We'very been spying and hacking

into undersea cables since the 50's. It's a good book.

[Major Hogwash]

81. That book is strictly fiction.

Never endorsed or approved by the US Navy.

[neverforget]

87. You do realize that many books get published without approval of the military right?

And do you have ANY PROOF that this is fiction? Otherwise it's just your opinion.

[neverforget]

92. Do you have anything other than your opinion on this? I really want to know

with links

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. A good question.

From the article..

Still: What does that mean? When you can spy on anyone, anywhere, anytime—not just heads of state, but anyone on a cell or a WiFi connection—what do you actually do? More to the point: Who was the Annapolis spying on last year?

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. ^THIS^

agree.

[closeupready]

36. "What does that mean?" It means billions of $$ for Apple, Microsoft,

and all the other tech companies who acquiesced to domestic intelligence gathering (as well as favors in terms of trade, and opening markets).

[LuvNewcastle]

62. Agreed.

Besides, whose word do we have that those missions were vital to national security -- the government's? They lie to us about pretty much everything, so excuse me if I don't take their pronouncements very seriously. It wasn't the American people who created this atmosphere of distrust. When you live under a government that classifies everything, how can you determine what's in the public interest and what should be kept secret? All you can do is use your own best judgement.

[KingCharlemagne]

13. Tell me again how a submarine in the Red Sea is performing missions vital to

'national security'. Whatever. If you can't give me specifics, then don't trot out the 'national security' line bullshit. FWIW, Nixon ordered the CIA to obstruct the FBI's Watergate investigation on grounds that 'national security' was at risk. Oh, yeah, and Tricky Dick and Kissinger ilegally wiretapped the phones of NSC members on 'national security' grounds.

What a crock of bullshit. *UNREC*

[grasswire]

15. you are a glutton for punishment

....and you keep getting spanked for your desperation.

[Blue_Tires]

35. How do you figure? Ain't nobody said shit yet to refute it

I've been taking you and your friends on almost singlehandedly for two damn years, and none of you have come close to proving me wrong, or shutting me up...Yeah, the usual crowd of 50 or so DUers make their requisite one-liners or insults, but that's all you've had so far...

Punish away, tough guy...Gimmie what ya got

[riderinthestorm]

38. Yes. They have. Only you are too willfully blind to see their answers

or you have folks on ignore.

You still have time to delete this.



Edited to add, I've asked you to post links to all all these threads you've created that have stumped people. And you declined, saying it was futile. Via a PM, I asked you to post an OP with all of your questions in one spot. Still declined.

Now you've been answered on this thread by at least a dozen people and you refuse to acknowledge their answers. If this thread is an example of how you think people haven't been "able" to answer your questions in the past, or refute your (mis)statements, then you've demonstrated for all to see that you aren't interested in answers or dialogue. Not one bit.

You're losing a lot of credibility.

[Blue_Tires]

89. Thanks for reminding me...

Here is the relevant portion from that PM, for public consumption:

> Yeah, that's an older thread -- It's pretty obvious by now that Snowden's original claim that he went through proper channels was bullshit, and when he got called out on it he retconned the issue into "Well it wouldn't have mattered anyway because the IG wouldn't have taken any action..." And when I see retroactive changing of story details (this is just one of several), interviews that contradict earlier interviews and other inconsistencies, it's natural for my brain to want to straighten them out -- And these past two years I've gotten tired of this "Snowden is a hero doing a heroic thing, so quit asking questions!", or "You're just a paid NSA troll!" (see sig), or "You're just an Obamabot trying to protect his dear leader!" pushback on DU and elsewhere just because I dare to ask about the parts of Snow-Wald's story that don't add up...
>
> I've kept up with this story pretty closely, so while I literally have hundreds of more detailed questions, I'll try to boil it down to 5-6 main ones...Granted, it's useless for me to ask DU since nobody here would know anyway -- Most of them can only truly be answered by an insider from Snow-Wald's cabal...But I continue to ask them on DU anyway, just to get people to *THINK*, if nothing else...
>
> 1. I want a full and detailed chronological timeline of Snowden's life from high school until he landed in Hong Kong...I want to know specifically who he worked for, when he worked for them, and what his specific job duties were..
>
> 2. I want to know why Snow-Wald have specifically made it a point to attack the Five Eyes Alliance (while frequently turning the alarmist hyperbole up to 11) while COMPLETELY ignoring Russia and China's crackdowns on internet freedoms...Case in point: Greenwald's screechy headlines to drum up maximum outrage over the NSA listening in on Merkel's cell phone (of course it came out later that the U.S. was just one of at least six countries listening in, since Merkel against all advice insisted on using an unsecured phone) and when the later story came out about Merkel listening in on our Secretary of State, Vice President, and the Turkish president's phones, there was complete silence from Snow-Wald and on DU...The Snow-Wald cabal has painted the U.S. and ONLY the U.S. as the bad guys for doing what every other developed nation does..
>
> 3. I want to know why Greenwald continually refuses to report on the corruption and abuses of his home nation of Brazil (which is a rhetorical question, since the self-styled "fearless" Mr. Greenwald knows he will get his car shot up Bonnie and Clyde-style if he starts kicking over the wrong rocks)
>
> 4. I want to know specifically what interactions Snowden has had with the Russian government -- I want to know how he got his "IT job" so quickly, while never stating exactly who he works for, what hours he works, his salary and what he does...I want to know how he affords his Moscow apartment, comfortable living, plus armed protection...And I want to know how he is the exception when he says he never cooperated with the Russians, since *every* intelligence defector they have ever gotten is heavily debriefed and mined for information...
>
> 5. I want to know *WHY* Snowden did it -- I swear to the gods I am so sick of him giving the same five basic quotes and talking points at every speech and interview...I am fucking sick and tired of him only giving access to interviewers known to be sympathetic, never asking him a question harder than "Can you please tell my audience why the NSA is bad, and just how brave and awesome you are??" I also want to know why Snow-Wald in their leaked files redact all the names involved -- I'd have thought personally that if you were alleging wrongdoing, you'd want to expose a paper trail of who signed off on what orders...
>
> 6. I know Snowden has an high-power attorney in Washington who at least was trying to negotiate with the Justice Department a transfer of custody (make no mistake, the Russians do "own" him for now, since his is way too valuable to simply walk away) and return to the U.S....I want to know the status of those secret negotiations, and I want to know exactly what "leverage" Snowden is negotiating with, since he has repeatedly said he gave all his files away to Greenwald and his media cabal...
>
> 7. I want to know why Greenwald has kept access to the cache so tight, along with why he has only shared with a very exclusive club of publications...I want to know why instead of regularly publishing he specifically holds off and times his stories for maximum public damage (yes, there was an easily identifiable pattern early on)...I want to know exactly what Pierre's $250 million investment in First Look Media is paying for, because it sure as hell isn't a competent, professional news organization that can produce regular content...The Intercept has been a glorified blog...It's not even an integrated media blog...(Granted, this is another question I'm pretty sure I know the answer to, but I have no way of proving it)
>
> 8. (This is really an extension of #2) -- For all the outcry over personal info and metadata collection, I want to know why Snow-wald have intentionally and specifically turned a blind eye to the culpability of Corporate America, the Telecoms and Silicon Valley...Not only have they ignored it, they have suppressed the issue anytime the discussion moved in that direction...I want an explanation from Greenwald on why he intentionally kept Google's name out of a data collection story in Pakistan -- Which pissed off Assange so much, he went on and named the person/company running that project...More importantly, I want to know why it is "whistleblowing" to expose legitimate operations against foreign targets...We spied on China, Libya, etc.? So fucking WHAT? That's what our people are *supposed* to do...Despite their claims, Snow-Wald never seem to have figured out that people have no inherent or legal right to *not* get spied on by a foreign entity...Because if that is the case, when does our class-action lawsuit against Russia-China-Israel start??
>
> Sorry it's a little disjointed...As you can tell, I've got much, much more than this (it's almost a borderline obsession) but off the top of my head these are the first questions I would personally ask Snow-Wald if I had the opportunity...I've stopped trying to ask these questions on DU -- Battle lines are drawn, the same crowds throws the same insults at each other (guilty as charged) while the discussion never gets me anywhere closer to finding out what I want to know...The well has kinda been poisoned, and by now everybody who has been keeping up with the story has permanently made up their mind on Snowden, Greenwald and spying, one way or the other...


==============================
==============================
This is the part where I get my credibility bronzed... I defy *anybody* to tackle these with properly documented answers...And I've got plenty more questions should anybody get past these...

Just to add the cherry on the sundae, I'll just leave this here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJAN6hOKZV-wat_3xZU1QXymZzLpRlgOOu2tKrBV87s/edit?hl=en&forcehl=1

(no, it's not my work and I'm not taking credit for it)

[riderinthestorm]

96. You've buried your questions in a ridiculous thread that most folks have tuned out

I asked you to make it an OP, which request you have neglected to copy and paste from our private messages..instead you're burying this in a thread that's already dead (because you've been exposed as so obviously not credible anymore by refusing to acknowledge the answers you've been given here).

Furthermore, you're asking DUers to do YOUR homework for you on this. A timeline of Snowden's life? If you are so interested in that, why don't you do it yourself? Not everyone is as obsessed with the guy's intimate life as you seem to be. Most of your questions, I will say I've seen answers to as well and wonder if you've similarly decided to ignore the responses you've been given just as you're doing on this thread.

Other questions have unknowable answers - you're asking for mind-reading on Greenwald for example which is crazy to then demand that DUers have failed to provide you answers. Sorry but that's bullshit.

I'm not kicking this stupid thread again. You've outed yourself as someone who isn't interested in actually getting answers but in simply flinging shit. I'm utterly uninterested in that.

Feel free to the last word.

[Blue_Tires]

106. Please point to any posts in this thread or any other thread

that answers any of my questions in a satisfactory manner...

But I want to humor you and the others, so I'll clean my questions up and post a new OP sometime tomorrow...Hope to see you there...

[uponit7771]

101. nnnnnnnooooo, no he isn't....not with me at least. Exposing the government in the dumbest way possib

... isn't something I advocate and that's what Snowden is doing

regards

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. First of all, you need to tell us what the military intelligence secret was that you think

he exposed. It was known the US uses its submarines for signals intelligence. It was known the USS Annapolis is one of them (as the article points out, Penn State already said publicly its Radiant Gemstone technology had been on the Annapolis for a field test in 2005).

So, first say something that needs refuting.

[joshcryer]

54. Nothing big, but Annapolis got a SIGINT upgrade.

It was doing pretty much everything publicly until it disappeared in 2014.

Foreign intelligence people could've easily surmised that Annapolis' behavior changed and to look out for it.

As far as Annapolis is concerned they will probably end the friendly port deployments. At most it takes port leave away from Navymen.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. If you mean it got an upgrade in 2014, then that can't come from Snowden

since all his data has to date from 2013 or earlier.

[joshcryer]

63. It got the upgrade before deploying (as per article).

We know it got the upgrade but we didn't know it was BLINDDATE/NIGHTSHADE. In fact, we didn't even know about BLINDDATE/NIGHTSHADE at all. If you look at page 26 of the PDF BLINDDATE/NIGHTSHADE is what they're hacking with.

RADIANT isn't controversial, it's just a top secret network.

BLINDDATE/NIGHTSHADE is controversial because it means we've been parking off of shores and injecting shit into networks wirelessly. Once you're in to a network you can use that wireless network to infiltrate more. Beats flying in some CIA operative to set up in some hotel room.

Oh, hmm, I guess another thing is that it tells the distance of infiltration. 8 nautical miles out. Would behoove foreign states to not have any wireless networks within 8 miles out. That's information they probably didn't possess.

[Blue_Tires]

90. If it's already public knowledge, why is he credited for the "leak?"

And why is it a "story"??

And my original question stands: How does leaking files to Gawker about submarine operations abroad protect my rights here?

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. You're the one who has christened this article a 'leak', and credited it to Snowden

There's nothing in the article that says Snowden supplied anything to Gawker at all. They've done an article about the Annapolis, and, half-way through it, they pointed out the Annapolis featured in a Snowden document that Der Speigel published some time ago. Gawker has used other sources for the article - often the Navy, or retired officers.

You got all excited by this, and pronounced this 'official', and 'MILITARY' intelligence secrets, in excited capitals. Why is it a story? Because that's how stories get written. They can take something that's already known, and then tell people more - sometimes something the public didn't know at all, sometimes information that was all out there, but has been put together in a new and informative way. That's what journalism is.

joshcryer points out in #63 that Der Speigel's document includes data on the range they had tested hacking into wireless networks at (it looks like they can access a standard network at 4 nautical miles). It is reasonable to wonder if details like that were publicly known before. Of course, this was published by a magazine in a friendly country that the USA was nevertheless spying on (remember the hacking of Merkel's phone?). So they have a public interest in knowing how the USA spies on other countries. This is the paradox of Snowden - he helps the public of the USA and allied countries, by exposing what the governments and allied countries are doing to them. He's good for people, bad for governments.

[uponit7771]

102. Two good questions that will be two hundred percent ignored

[G_j]

42. You're kidding?

Right in this thread you will find many thoughtful comments.

[Major Hogwash]

52. They can't say shit about it that means anything.

They don't even know what the missions were about, let alone whether they were completed successfully!

My mother's cousin served aboard submarines for 30 years in the US Navy.
He was not allowed to tell his own mother where he went or what he did when they went to sea.
So, exposing these things to the general public is not only foolish, it is the act of a traitor!!!

[alcibiades_mystery]

66. You've been refuted by the fact that people post pictures of the Obama family!

RECOGNIZE!!!!!

[Cha]

93. Thanks for exposing the Snowden Lies & Hypocrisy for the 2 years, Blue Tires. So appreciate it.

[JonLP24]

17. I don't have a problem with this

I do have a problem with military hackers breaking into the systems of foreign targets usually ones with crime of not agreeing with us usually for economic reasons.

Feinstein goes on to make … claims that have already been debunked:

Working in combination, the call-records database and other NSA programs have aided efforts by U.S. intelligence agencies to disrupt terrorism in the U.S. approximately a dozen times in recent years, according to the NSA. This summer, the agency disclosed that 54 terrorist events have been interrupted—including plots stopped and arrests made for support to terrorism. Thirteen events were in the U.S. homeland and nine involved U.S. persons or facilities overseas. Twenty-five were in Europe, five in Africa and 11 in Asia.

[The NSA chief himself admits the numbers are wildly inflated, and there were only “one or two” terrorist plots foiled. The NSA’s deputy director says that – at the most – one (1) plot might have been disrupted by the bulk phone records collection alone.]

Note the all important “and other NSA programs” language here. Also the use of “terrorist events” not plots. And, remember, those “thirteen events… in the U.S. homeland,” have since been whittled down to only one that actually relied on the call records program that she’s defending — and that wasn’t a terrorist plot but a cab driver in San Diego sending some cash to a Somali group judged to be a terrorist organization.

Specifically, the cab driver and 3 other men raised a total of $8,500 and sent it to Somalia.

While the group the money was sent to was, in fact, designated as a terrorist organization in 2008 by the U.S., the FBI itself admits that the cab driver’s donation was more in the nature of a political – or even tribal – affiliation, rather than a terrorist one.

Yochai Benkler explained at the Guardian:

This single successful prosecution, under a vague criminal statute, which stopped a few thousand dollars from reaching one side in a local conflict in the Horn of Africa, is the sole success story for the NSA bulk domestic surveillance program.

The Cato Institute’s Julian Sanchez writes that Feinstein’s argument:

Is simply an attempt to exploit the tragedy of 9/11 to deflect criticism of massive domestic surveillance that would not have been any use in preventing that attack.”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-spying-did-not-result-in-one-stopped-terrorist-plot-and-the-government-actually-did-spy-on-the-bad-guys-before-911.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. So, when the Navy said in 2008 the Annapolis supported national security

it was revealing vital naval intelligence secrets?

Annapolis completed a wide range of joint requirements supporting national security in the U.S. European Commands' area of responsibility, including playing a vital role in African Partnership Station (APS) 2007.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=35334

The fiends! How will the USA ever recover from this perfidy? But I bet no-one noticed this catastrophic blunder ...

OH NOES!!!!! The dastardly Wikileakspedia found out and told everyone!!! In September 2008!!!

On February 28, 2008, Annapolis returned to homeport Groton from a six-month deployment. The deployment included visits to Rota, Spain; Toulon and Brest, France; Praia, Cape Verde; and Ghana. Annapolis was the first U.S. submarine to make a port visit to Africa (Cape Verde) outside of the Mediterranean. In addition to functions supporting national security, Annapolis participated in the African Partnership Station (APS) 2007, an initiative with regional maritime services in West and Central Africa. [5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Annapolis_%28SSN-760%29&oldid=236220065

[Rex]

28. Ruh roh! So what does this mean? Does the Navy now need to flee the country?

So this is just more Snowden bashing...got it, thanks.

[cui bono]

23. I'm tempted to rec this thread for the replies alone.

I suspect it's not going as it was intended.

Thank you, Edward Snowden, for what you did. I like wrong-doings exposed no matter who is the wrong-doer.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. I'll answer your first question.

Deep in the trove of National Security Agency documents leaked by Edward Snowden is a classified Powerpoint training presentation for workers at the Naval Information Operations Command Maryland—the Navy component of the NSA. The presentation explains the ins and outs of computer network exploitation (CNE) "to change or collect information residing on or transiting computer networks." To spy, that is, on any computer network anywhere—and not just to listen, but to manipulate and even shut it down.

My constitutional rights (and yours) include a little bit about 'search and seizure' (#4). As a person who visits foreign websites, and whose internet traffic bounces around the world, not just the US, I have 'information residing on or transiting computer networks' abroad. Unless a specific investigation is looking at my data traffic, then, with a warrant attached thereto, I consider the 'collection' of that information to violate my 4th amendment rights.

So yes, I'll also argue that knowing this falls under 'whistleblowing in the public interest', inasmuch as I'm part of the public.

[mike_c]

37. sunlight is the best disinfectant....

Amazing how the scurrying begins whenever we look under the rocks, isn't it?

[bvar22]

41. Really? "Phase Zero"??????

Publishing stuff from the Public Domain that we, and everybody else, has know for decades.


Help me our here.
I couldn't find the part where Snowden handed this information directly to a foreign government. He has consistently maintained that he turned everything over to established, credible News Organizations, and let their editorial boards decide what to publish, and what to with hold. So far, after two years, nobody has been able to discredit this claim.

"Phase Zero" (LOL)has published NOTHING in your link to contradict this,
and I'm sure that "Phase Zero" was NOT on the limited list of news organizations to which Snowden turned over documents. "Phase Zero" obtain ALL their information from the public domain.

So sadly, NO.
The title of your OP is, not surprisingly, in error again.
The information contained is not "secret".
This OP appears to be nothing more than more axe grinding,
and another failed attempt to SwiftBoat a true American patriot.

We all know your feelings opposing a Transparent Democracy,
but, really, come up with some credible sources before embarrassing yourself with another OP like this one.

[joshcryer]

47. Like John Oliver pointed out, the American people don't care.

They don't give two shits about how we spy on everyone else. Every "the US is spying on foreigners!" argument is creating significant apathy to the real problem, and that is FISA's secret courts.

[AgingAmerican]

49. You should start a "Big Brother is watching us!" fan club

Lemme guess, if ya got nothin' to hide, you got nothin' to worry about, right?

[merrily]

55. The important issue is not what was leaked, but whether it was already known or not and how much it

hurts us, if at all.

Americans are notoriously not well-informed. Something that is big news to us is not necessarily news to the rest of the world, let alone to anyone with their own intelligence arm(s). So, was the information that was leaked known to others or not? And, it not, is it something that actually hurt us?


I am not saying nothing that was leaked hurt us. I am saying that the be all and end all of an intelligent analysis of that issue is NOT "He leaked X."

And, btw, Snowden turned his information over to journalists whom he believed had had experience in determining what should and should not be made public. So, he tried to be careful.

And, guess what, our government, including courts, writing the 4th Amendment out of the Constitution also harms us. Either that or the Founders had their heads up their butts when they insisted on including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

Is the fact that John Oliver used Snowden to urge our US Rep and Senators to resist renewal on June 1, 2015 of a section of the Patriotic Act responsible for the latest wave of hysteria years after the leak, or is it just coincidence?

[ucrdem]

56. Coincidentally, 2014 was also the year that Sony, Target, iCloud, Spotify, e-bay, Nieman Marcus,

Home Depot, Goodwill Industries, the Post Office, Chase bank, and the US weather service were all hit with massive data breaches by ahem, "unknown assailants":

Chinese hacked U.S. weather systems
December 28, 2014

Chinese hackers earlier this year broke into four websites belonging to the U.S. federal agency overseeing weather systems. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration carries weather data and satellite feeds to its websites. But those services were shut down by the agency for more than a week following the hack. The agency said it was “unscheduled maintenance,” but one congressman said the agency covered it the attack.

http://www.zdnet.com/pictures/2014-in-security-the-biggest-hacks-leaks-and-data-breaches/5/

Pure coincidence I have no doubt.

[neverforget]

58. tin foil hat time.

[merrily]

59. Tin foil hat or smear tactic?

Everybody knows, anything that goes wrong with any computer after 2013 is related to Snowden and/or Greenwald.

[ucrdem]

61. "2014: the year of retailers getting hacked over and over again"

Kaspersky Labs, Dec. 19, 2014:

With over 11 GB of data stolen and about 110 million customers affected, it quickly made its way onto the short list of the largest data breaches in history. . . . The incident cost Target dearly. Its CIO and CEO stepped down, it had to appease angry customers and authorities, and their profits were heavily affected.

http://business.kaspersky.com/2014-the-year-of-retailers-getting-hacked-over-and-over-again/3452

But I'm sure there's no connection to Snowball forking over untold terabytes of stolen cybersecurity date to China in 2013, none whatsoever.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. It was after all, Snowden who bungled the openssh implementation that provided a gaping exploit

in one of the most widely used and deployed secure interfaces on the internet. That fucking bastard!

Plus I'm pretty sure he had something to do with deflategate. On the other hand as a patriots fan, I choose to look away from that aspect of his efforts to WRECK EVERYTHING.

And I thought the Bill Maher thread was approaching ultimate DU Idiocy, now this.

[riderinthestorm]

69. Who benefits from a vast collection of data on American citizens?

You really think it's China who benefits from this vast accumulation of data on Americans?!

You do realize it's Snowden whose proven the U.S. government is illegally accumulating data on Americans right?

You're making yourself look almost as silly as the OP ....

[neverforget]

77. Couldn't possibly be that corporations didn't protect their

data like they should leaving the door open for criminals. Nah, I'll blame Snowden. It's easier that way and he remains the worst person in the world responsible for all cyber crimes.

[ucrdem]

78. Not these corps, no. Do you know where Target for example gets its name?

Basically they have a targeting scheme that's as complex as anything rolled out by the NSA. Think about that next time you get one of their ads in the mail. So I don't think they'd take cybersecurity casually. In fact targeting Target kind of makes a statement, like muhahahahaha . . .

[DisgustipatedinCA]

105. Well, they did take it very casually.

They let their HVAC vendor connect to a server segment with absolutely no thought for security. This is why the breach happened, and this is well known in the world of data security. Sorry, but your point is entirely invalidated.

[Marr]

68. It was also the year that Robin Williams died!

Connection?!

[randome]

67. Aw, you're full of it, Blue_Tires. Snowden only turned over info to 'responsible journalists'.

And even if they weren't responsible, they were supposed to be. And even if they weren't supposed to be responsible, they can't very well police their own files, can they?

Geeze, I'm so sick and tired of this Snowden-bashing. Anyone who isn't being responsible with this info should get the Snowden treatment -they should be shot in the balls. That should stop this kind of shit.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Major Hogwash]

79. In Russia.

Well, in China first, then in Russia, to be more accurate.

[Cha]

94. Unfortunately, he Can be full of Shite and he is.. but, obvisously doesn't matter to his fan club.

Here are the 13 most bizarre things from Snowden’s NBC News interview.

snip//

1) Snowden claimed he has “no relationship” with the Russian government and that he’s “not supported” by it. That’s odd, given how the Russian government has twice offered him asylum and one of his lawyers, Anatoly Kucherena, is an attorney with the Russian intelligence agency, the FSB (formerly the KGB). Tell me again why anyone should trust this guy?

3) Snowden said that no one has been harmed by his disclosures. Yet. Already, though, one of his documents escalated tensions between Australia and Indonesia, and another document endangered lives in Afghanistan to the point where Greenwald refused to publish the name of that country. It’s only a matter of time, sadly.

4) Early on, Snowden said, “I’m not a spy.” Later he famously confessed to being “trained as a spy.” Huh?

6) NSA can “absolutely” turn on your iPhone, which is “pretty scary.” This section was like whiplash. Snowden started out by sounding reasonable by defining that NSA only acquires data when “targeting” drug dealers or terrorists. And then, BLAM!, this shitola about NSA being able to turn on your phone. If true, why hasn’t this been disclosed from Snowden’s NSA documents?

MOre..
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/05/13-bizarre-things-edward-snowdens-nbc-news-interview/

snip//

On June 12 Snowden leaked specific IP addresses in China and Hong Kong the NSA was hacking to the South China Morning Post. Snowden also told SCMP that he intended to leak more documents later.

"If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country to make their own assessment," the 30-year-old said. He added: "I did not release them earlier because I don't want to simply dump huge amounts of documents without regard to their content.

Greenwald told The Daily Beast that he wouldn't have disclosed the IP addresses, and that Snowden did it "to ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China.” That indicates Snowden was capable of leaking classified information after parting ways with Greenwald, Poitras, and MacAskill.

MOre..

http://www.businessinsider.com/when-did-snowden-give-up-the-nsa-files-2013-10

LOL.. yeah, holding Snowden Accountable is nothing like what he Wanted to do to Leakers.. "shoot them in the balls "

[randome]

95. Oh, so now you're going to believe anything Greenwald says?

What Authoritarian presumption will you make next?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Major Hogwash]

97. Well, we have to get along with everyone here, they are our neighbors.

Jesus Christ, I'm turning into Mr. Rogers!!

[uponit7771]

103. lol

[Savannahmann]

75. Yes because the United States has an inalienable right to

CNE operators can do much more than that. It's part of a larger effort by the U.S. to "use the net to paralyze computer networks and, by doing so, potentially all the infrastructure they control, including power and water supplies, factories, airports or the flow of money," Der Spiegel wrote earlier this year.

Because attacking infrastructure is a legitimate wartime target, so where is the war? You know, pesky declaration of war? Wait, we don't have one? Oh well, a mere technicality.

Seriously Snowden haters let's get real for a minute. This bullshit is actually nothing more than the more modern version of the old Navy program called Operation Ivy Bells. Operation Ivy Bells was exposed when it was found out, by the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Reagan was President when the Russians found out. That means Snowden was in diapers, or nappies depending on what you call them, and if you're going to blame the Russians for finding one of these and putting it in their Museum then that's just asinine.



All of this was discussed by the book Blind Man's Bluff and while the book ended with the fall of the Soviet Union, it also said that the Navy was still tapping cables while Clinton was President. If there was an underwater cable, it would be tapped by the Navy in the modern incarnation of Project Ivy Bells.

Here's the NY Times review of the book. https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/12/20/reviews/981220.20naftalt.html

So the big secret that Snowden let out was that the CIA/NSA/Who the fuck knows are still doing what they were in 1998, when the book Blind Man's Bluff came out. Since that time, there have been many more books about the era, and subsequent programs that are not exactly declassified, but are not generally speaking, acknowledged. Wow, that Damn Snowden. That bastard. That treasonous fuck. Am I outraged enough yet?

If you want to know how the cables are tapped, then read the book Blind Man's Bluff. If you want to pretend that nobody knew anything about this shit before your sworn enemy Snowden gave the briefing documents to Greenwald, you're free to. You would be dancing in the dumb side of the delusional line, but you're free to do that too.

[TheKentuckian]

83. Who gives a flying fuck? Good.