Edward Snowden hits Hillary Clinton for not properly protecting classified information

[Cali_Democrat]

Link to preview:

Preview: Snowden hits back at Clinton and Trump

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/2015/09/preview-snowden-hits-clinton-trump-150903082815559.html

Snowden: Clinton's email server 'a problem'

National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden said on Thursday that 2016 Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is likely aware her personal email server exposed sensitive national intelligence.

Snowden added that lesser employees would have lost their jobs for copying Clinton’s actions during her tenure as secretary of State.

“This is a problem because anyone who has the clearances that the secretary of State has, or the director of any top level agency has, knows how classified information should be handled,” he said, according to excerpts of an Al Jazeera interview airing Friday.

“If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency … were sending details about the security of the embassies, which is alleged to be in her email, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements that were made to them in confidence over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it,” he added.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/252663-snowden-clintons-email-server-a-problem

[TwilightGardener]

1. I don't care who you are, that's funny, right there.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Maybe Putin will offer her sanctuary though it's hard to believe she's a whistleblower like Snowden.

[Armstead]

3. Popcorn anyone?

[SonderWoman]

4. Sorry Ed, no laws were broken.

How's the weather?

[msanthrope]

5. Trying to stay relevant is hard work. poor comrade Eddie. nt

[Bonobo]

19. Along with "narcissist!" The "staying relevant" accusation

Seems to be the reactionary rallying cry.

I had to laugh.

[teach me everything]

6. Yep - recent report says FGI was found

Born classified when receiving Foreign Government Information.

Found on her personal email server 150 emails containing FGI was found on the latest batch.

[revmclaren]

7. He can see the U.S.A. From his house....

[Adrahil]

8. Snowden? The guy who gave SCADS of classified data to unscrupulous hacks?

Yeah.... enjoy another bowl of borscht there Eddie.

[ismnotwasm]

9. That would be the one.

Ugh

[cascadiance]

10. He can't help it here if some people LOVE government spying on them and hate whistleblowers!

Here's another link to look at from Politico:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-personal-server-email-213312

[Adrahil]

11. He also exposed perfectly legitimate foreign intelligence operations....

... but he gets a pass becuase he's so whistleblowery!

[cascadiance]

13. He exposed illegal spying on the AMERICAN PEOPLE back to them!

I guess some here feel that the American people is a foreign country who he was "spying for". Too bad that some feel that way and feel more aligned with the philosophy of the old East Germany than what our forefathers had envisioned in this country.

Hero Daniel Ellsberg, who exposed other wrongdoing in our government, feels Snowden deserves a lot of credit (like a Nobel Peace prize) for our congress moving in the right directions in subsequent efforts to legislate how our security agencies operate.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/06/02/he-should-get-nobel-peace-prize-ellsberg-champions-snowdens-profound-impact

'He Should Get the Nobel Peace Prize': Ellsberg Champions Snowden's Profound Impact
"[T]he first time...this mass surveillance that's been going on is subjected to a genuine debate, it didn't stand up."
by Nadia Prupis, staff writer

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden should be credited with helping change U.S. surveillance law, Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, said Monday in an interview with The Guardian.

"It's interesting to see that the first time... this mass surveillance that's been going on is subjected to a genuine debate, it didn't stand up," he said.

...

But the importance of the Senate's rejection of the legislation cannot be discounted, said Ellsberg, and Snowden's influence on the changing political landscape in the U.S. deserves credit.

"This is the first time, thanks to Snowden, that the Senate really stood up and realized they have been complicit in the violation of our rights all along—unconstitutional action," Ellsberg said. "The Senate and the House have been passive up until now and derelict in their responsibilities. At last there was opposition."

[Adrahil]

16. Do you deny he exposed legitimate foreign intelligence operations?

'Cause he did.

But he'll get a pass from you, I'm sure. He COULD have been a hero, had he limited his leaks to illegal operations. He chose not to.

And he did that deliberately, as opposed to HRC who leaked her emails to , oh wait.... NO ONE.

[cascadiance]

17. You are spewing RIGHT WING talking points about Hillary...

I have REPEATEDLY, and many others here have to, said that whether or not Hillary leaked, unintentionally or not, mails to the outside WAS NOT THE ISSUE!!!!!!!

THE issue for Hillary is her P*SS POOR JUDGEMENT moving her email to a private server with absolutely NO GOOD REASON for doing so! And it only feeds both the right wing saying that it justifies the notion that we shouldn't have government run it infrastructure and have it privatized, and all of their conspiracy theories that she was trying to hide something. Now if she had completely legitimate reasons because of problems with our existing mail infrastructure to do this, then she has had plenty of time, and still does, to explain the reasons why she moved this mail to these servers in a way that everyone could understand her concerns. The fact that she hasn't done so either reflects an ego, or puts more doubt in to others' mind that something like what one of the conspiracy theories the right has might be true.

Now, as for Snowden, he's not hiding WHY he leaked certain documents, etc. and that was to expose the problems we have in our intelligence arena in the kind of spying that our agencies do. In our minds his judgement was proper, and as noted by other whistleblowers, they support his actions fully to alert us to the wrongdoing that was going on. Now, if we had proper oversight in our government, a lot of this could have been done internally, and fixed internally. But the problem is that oversight is broken too, and our government itself is broken unless put up to public scrutiny.

He's been charged with spying. Spying is usually a crime where someone either works for another government directly or sells information to another government to help them with activities against the government that the spy was getting information from. Now, perhaps some information that Snowden released was damaging. Why don't you put a link that delineates that more. The issue was whether folks like him or Chelsea (Bradley) Manning released such information (which likely was more damaging in his/her case), with the intent to hurt our country or with the intent to help those in this country know when wrongdoing is being done in the government in our name and often against our own interests.

[Adrahil]

18. So no answer....

[cascadiance]

20. So no link documenting your claim either...

Now, are you trying to argue that Edward Snowden's PURPOSE was to expose our intelligence operations to damage them? HUH? Are you THAT crazy? Or, more likely, are you trying to minimize what he did to help expose intelligence operation WRONGDOING, because you don't think that's important to the American people to know about?

Edward Snowden's purpose for what he's done so far has been pretty clear. He feels there's been wrongdoing in how our intelligence operations have functioned, and he's tried to provide concrete proof that this has happened, and do it from a place where government can't silence him in some other fashion before he's able to do so. Now, are there some pieces of information that perhaps shouldn't have been leaked to accomplish this purpose? Maybe, but I've not seen any that have been. THAT is YOUR JOB to put out a link that documents the details of these leaks, which I asked for, but seem to be unwilling to provide this forum.

Every action people take to accomplish a goal in many cases have side effects or other results that they aren't trying to have happen, but in most cases, if they feel those might happen, they try to minimize those effects so that the damage from those actions doesn't exceed the gain that is achieved through those actions. You could say the same thing about Obama with his drone attacks. There are many civilians that are killed in the course of him going after terrorists or who his administration/agencies feel are terrorist threats. Their view is that the effect of the deaths of these civilians is less of a problem than what would happen if we allowed those terrorists to continue what they were doing. Now I might disagree with some of these actions at time, as perhaps there might be better means to stop these terrorists without incurring these civilian casualties without alienating others and creating more terrorists in the process. But Obama and others in government have at least provided some reasons for their actions, even if the costs were high. Snowden has provided good reasons for his actions, and there might have been costs too, but you haven't shown them without any links that these costs outweigh the benefits he provided to us in what he's told us.

In the case of Hillary, it's a different story, in that we really don't know the purpose of WHY she moved her email to private servers. THAT is the fundamental question. Now if there were some problems with government IT servers having less secure environments than her private email server, then that could be a rationale she'd give us, that might even justify perhaps some leaks that might have occurred if greater leaks/damages could have occurred on government servers. But that hasn't been documented or even given as a reason for her making this move. So her situation isn't analogous to Snowden's, in that we really don't know what she was trying to accomplish with the mail server migration she made and has given no explanation for, that would justify the risk of security breaches that may or may not have happened amongst other things.

[Vattel]

12. Drake was prosecuted for less than Clinton has done, but that prosecution was bullshit and

prosecuting Clinton would be bullshit too. Snowden is right about this:

“If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency … were sending details about the security of the embassies, which is alleged to be in her email, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements that were made to them in confidence over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it,” he added.

Whether the hypothetical low level person would be subject to prosecution might depend on whether the government had a vendetta against him.

Edited to add: Didn't Clinton have boxes in her garage? (just joking)

[Peacetrain]

14. He seriously said that??

You just can't make this stuff up can you??

[OilemFirchen]

15. Ed Snowden:

GED recipient. Community College dropout. Four-month Army reservist. Security Guard. Network security technician.

And now... legal analyst!

This shit just writes itself.

[randome]

21. "She's not making it hard enough for me to steal more stuff!"

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]