Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree with your opinion of his action. However I haven't seen anything that remotely sounds like he leaked National Security information. He merely "leaked" information that was already common knowledge: the authorities look for patterns in phone activity, the horror. The authorities monitor emails of foreigners in an effort to catch terrorists, oh my!Glenn Greenwald is an American, and that's who he leaked it to. Talk about a cop out. Who cares if he leaked it to the Guardian or the NY Times?
So you knew about PRISM and Verizon turning over everybody's data the U.S. government before Snowden leaked this story? Why didn't you say anything? Of course you didn't. Nobody knew the scope of the spying.
This argument is so disingenuous, that he "broke the law." It's only illegal because the government made it illegal to protect itself from being held accountable for what it knew was its own illegal behavior. Laws like that should be broken.
No, it is illegal because he signed a non disclosure agreement with the government (You). He broke faith with you (The Government). he has released classified information to the public which includes our enemies.
On the other hand, the government has taken the Pat Act and stretched it way beyond what was meant. Our beloved congress needs to meet and put in some overtime reeling this back and placing definitions where needed. And if not that repealing it completely which would be detrimental to the security of the USA. I have little doubt that the way this has been used is unconstitutional.
Yet the man is still guilty and should be brought back to face trial.
If you are not the government then we are all living a lie.......We the people and all that....
If you are not the government then we are all living a lie.......We the people and all that....
I agree with your opinion of his action. However I haven't seen anything that remotely sounds like he leaked National Security information. He merely "leaked" information that was already common knowledge: the authorities look for patterns in phone activity, the horror. The authorities monitor emails of foreigners in an effort to catch terrorists, oh my!No, it is illegal because he signed a non disclosure agreement with the government (You). He broke faith with you (The Government). he has released classified information to the public which includes our enemies.
On the other hand, the government has taken the Pat Act and stretched it way beyond what was meant. Our beloved congress needs to meet and put in some overtime reeling this back and placing definitions where needed. And if not that repealing it completely which would be detrimental to the security of the USA. I have little doubt that the way this has been used is unconstitutional.
Yet the man is still guilty and should be brought back to face trial.
Ravi, it's not foreigners. It is you and I. Makes a bit of a difference. Yes I knew that they were monitoring international calls, When i talked to my sons in Germany we would talk about terrorists on purpose just to give NSA some extra work. But I do not expect the Government to have any reason to follow what I do in my private e-mails to my Daughter 200 miles away from me.
In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an "executive coup" against the US constitution.
Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.
The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa but that unconstitutionally sweeping warrant is from a secret court, shielded from effective oversight, almost totally deferential to executive requests. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: "It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp."
Go read the article.I've used the program. There's nothing "mind boggling" about it. It's just a voter file linked to a volunteer/contact database.
Programs like it have existed for years. VoteBuilder has been around since 2007, and it can do everything described in your post.
I don't need to read the article. I've used the damn program.
They've combined their databases. There's nothing revolutionary or sophisticated about that, it's just a matter of automating processes that we used to do ourselves - i.e. looking up a donor in the voter file, and noting the donation.
So you knew about PRISM and Verizon turning over everybody's data the U.S. government before Snowden leaked this story? Why didn't you say anything? Of course you didn't. Nobody knew the scope of the spying.
The Justice Department's inspector general told a committee of angry House members yesterday that the FBI may have violated the law or government policies as many as 3,000 times since 2003 as agents secretly collected the telephone, bank and credit card records of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals residing here.
Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said that according to the FBI's own estimate, as many as 600 of these violations could be "cases of serious misconduct" involving the improper use of "national security letters" to compel telephone companies, banks and credit institutions to produce records.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.
It reversed the dismissal by a lower court of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen who was being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant" after being captured in Afghanistan in 2001.
The United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that prisoners held as “enemy combatants” at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba can immediately file habeas corpus petitions in US district courts challenging the legality of their confinement. Most have been held at the US naval base under brutal conditions, enduring solitary confinement and torture, for more than six years. None has ever had the merits of his case reviewed by a court of law.
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.
Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.
Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services — primarily long-distance and wireless — to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.
The Bush administration maintains that the changes are consistent with FISA's intent--that targeting foreign communications doesn't require a warrant--and that a warrant is still required for "targeting a person in the United States." But civil-liberties advocates argue that the government is creating a loophole to monitor Americans' e-mails and phone calls to overseas contacts without the intended court approval.
The new law also immunizes from legal liability the private companies that assist the government with surveillance going forward, but Bush repeated existing calls for making that policy retroactive as well.
"It's particularly important for Congress to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation, following the 9/11 attacks," Bush said.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T over its allegedly illegal cooperation with the government, says references to the crippling liability posed by such suits suggest that the scope of the wiretapping is "massive."
So you knew about PRISM and Verizon turning over everybody's data the U.S. government before Snowden leaked this story? Why didn't you say anything? Of course you didn't. Nobody knew the scope of the spying.
Wow! Apparently you have not been paying attention until we had a Democrat in the White House.
2007: FBI Violations May Number 3,000, Official Says
The Justice Department's inspector general told a committee of angry House members yesterday that the FBI may have violated the law or government policies as many as 3,000 times since 2003 as agents secretly collected the telephone, bank and credit card records of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals residing here.
Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said that according to the FBI's own estimate, as many as 600 of these violations could be "cases of serious misconduct" involving the improper use of "national security letters" to compel telephone companies, banks and credit institutions to produce records.
Bush breaking the law on a massive scale.
Let's seeeeee...what else. Oh yeah. Bush thought he could detain American citizens without habeas corpus:
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
So there's solid evidence Bush was violating the Constitution.
And let us not forget the torture. Waterboarding and "enhanced interrogations".
Speaking of habeas corpus and violating the Constitution yet again: Boumediene et al v. Bush
And for those who were under the gravely mistaken impression Bush never spied on Americans the way Obama is being hit for this week:
2006: NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.
Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services primarily long-distance and wireless to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.
After searching your phone records, Bush asked Congress to give retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies which turned over your records:
The Bush administration maintains that the changes are consistent with FISA's intent--that targeting foreign communications doesn't require a warrant--and that a warrant is still required for "targeting a person in the United States." But civil-liberties advocates argue that the government is creating a loophole to monitor Americans' e-mails and phone calls to overseas contacts without the intended court approval.
The new law also immunizes from legal liability the private companies that assist the government with surveillance going forward, but Bush repeated existing calls for making that policy retroactive as well.
"It's particularly important for Congress to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation, following the 9/11 attacks," Bush said.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T over its allegedly illegal cooperation with the government, says references to the crippling liability posed by such suits suggest that the scope of the wiretapping is "massive."
Congress passed the law, giving them that immunity.
So you knew about PRISM and Verizon turning over everybody's data the U.S. government before Snowden leaked this story? Why didn't you say anything? Of course you didn't. Nobody knew the scope of the spying.
Wow! Apparently you have not been paying attention until we had a Democrat in the White House.
2007: FBI Violations May Number 3,000, Official Says
The Justice Department's inspector general told a committee of angry House members yesterday that the FBI may have violated the law or government policies as many as 3,000 times since 2003 as agents secretly collected the telephone, bank and credit card records of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals residing here.
Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said that according to the FBI's own estimate, as many as 600 of these violations could be "cases of serious misconduct" involving the improper use of "national security letters" to compel telephone companies, banks and credit institutions to produce records.
Bush breaking the law on a massive scale.
Let's seeeeee...what else. Oh yeah. Bush thought he could detain American citizens without habeas corpus:
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
So there's solid evidence Bush was violating the Constitution.
And let us not forget the torture. Waterboarding and "enhanced interrogations".
Speaking of habeas corpus and violating the Constitution yet again: Boumediene et al v. Bush
And for those who were under the gravely mistaken impression Bush never spied on Americans the way Obama is being hit for this week:
2006: NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.
Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services primarily long-distance and wireless to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.
After searching your phone records, Bush asked Congress to give retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies which turned over your records:
The Bush administration maintains that the changes are consistent with FISA's intent--that targeting foreign communications doesn't require a warrant--and that a warrant is still required for "targeting a person in the United States." But civil-liberties advocates argue that the government is creating a loophole to monitor Americans' e-mails and phone calls to overseas contacts without the intended court approval.
The new law also immunizes from legal liability the private companies that assist the government with surveillance going forward, but Bush repeated existing calls for making that policy retroactive as well.
"It's particularly important for Congress to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation, following the 9/11 attacks," Bush said.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T over its allegedly illegal cooperation with the government, says references to the crippling liability posed by such suits suggest that the scope of the wiretapping is "massive."
Congress passed the law, giving them that immunity.
Interesting that Daniel Ellsberg sees this as the most important leak in American history.
The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.
The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.
Snowden will go down in history as one of America's most consequential whistleblowers, alongside Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning. He is responsible for handing over material from one of the world's most secretive organisations the NSA.
Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations | World news | guardian.co.uk
It's probable that the government is going to go after this hero, harshly, when, in fact, they should be the ones arrested.
Someone please refresh my memory. What's the big leak---people have known about this since Bush. Aren't we just revisiting an old issue ?
The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.
The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.
Snowden will go down in history as one of America's most consequential whistleblowers, alongside Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning. He is responsible for handing over material from one of the world's most secretive organisations the NSA.
Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations | World news | guardian.co.uk
It's probable that the government is going to go after this hero, harshly, when, in fact, they should be the ones arrested.
If Snowden had clearance and leaked the information, he broke the law. I'm sorry your hero is a criminal.
Someone please refresh my memory. What's the big leak---people have known about this since Bush. Aren't we just revisiting an old issue ?
There isn't a big leak. The NSA is authorized by Congress and the courts to do exactly what it was 'leaked' they were doing. The only difference is now we - and our enemies - know a few more details.
If Snowden had been caught doing what he did in 1943 he would have been hung and no one would have given a damn except his mother.
Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations | World news | guardian.co.uk
It's probable that the government is going to go after this hero, harshly, when, in fact, they should be the ones arrested.
If Snowden had clearance and leaked the information, he broke the law. I'm sorry your hero is a criminal.
It's so funny to watch the blindly partisan Dems lining up to support the police state. Well, not funny, but it's good to see their true colors flying loud.
If Snowden had clearance and leaked the information, he broke the law. I'm sorry your hero is a criminal.
It's so funny to watch the blindly partisan Dems lining up to support the police state. Well, not funny, but it's good to see their true colors flying loud.
We don't live in a police state. We live in a republic and our leaders our chosen by a democratic process. The NSA's actions were authorized by the broad spectrum of our government - from life long appointments sitting on the bench, to the elected members of the House who can be tossed out of office every two years. It is inconceivable to me what further authorization you would require.
On the other hand - Snowden's actions were not authorized by my elected representatives, or approved by the courts that were appointed and approved by my elected representatives. On the contrary, Snowden acted in what he thought was best, rather than relying on the sovereign judgement of the American people who selected their government. Is Snowden a sovereign? I think not. Then what authority does he have to set the law aside based solely on his own discretion? Zero. If the facts reported about him are accurate, he is a criminal and deserves a criminal's punishment.
If Snowden had clearance and leaked the information, he broke the law. I'm sorry your hero is a criminal.
It's so funny to watch the blindly partisan Dems lining up to support the police state. Well, not funny, but it's good to see their true colors flying loud.
We don't live in a police state. We live in a republic and our leaders our chosen by a democratic process. The NSA's actions were authorized by the broad spectrum of our government - from life long appointments sitting on the bench, to the elected members of the House who can be tossed out of office every two years. It is inconceivable to me what further authorization you would require.
On the other hand - Snowden's actions were not authorized by my elected representatives, or approved by the courts that were appointed and approved by my elected representatives. On the contrary, Snowden acted in what he thought was best, rather than relying on the sovereign judgement of the American people who selected their government. Is Snowden a sovereign? I think not. Then what authority does he have to set the law aside based solely on his own discretion? Zero. If the facts reported about him are accurate, he is a criminal and deserves a criminal's punishment.
It's so funny to watch the blindly partisan Dems lining up to support the police state. Well, not funny, but it's good to see their true colors flying loud.
We don't live in a police state. We live in a republic and our leaders our chosen by a democratic process. The NSA's actions were authorized by the broad spectrum of our government - from life long appointments sitting on the bench, to the elected members of the House who can be tossed out of office every two years. It is inconceivable to me what further authorization you would require.
On the other hand - Snowden's actions were not authorized by my elected representatives, or approved by the courts that were appointed and approved by my elected representatives. On the contrary, Snowden acted in what he thought was best, rather than relying on the sovereign judgement of the American people who selected their government. Is Snowden a sovereign? I think not. Then what authority does he have to set the law aside based solely on his own discretion? Zero. If the facts reported about him are accurate, he is a criminal and deserves a criminal's punishment.
It's amusing to watch the far left liberal side of the aisle line up with the Neo-Con far right side of the aisle.. You're both FULL of it..If you want to live in a totalitarian state, fucking move.. I don't AGREE to shitting all over the US Constitution in the name of security. Some things are STILL sacred to freedom loving Americans.
It's so funny to watch the blindly partisan Dems lining up to support the police state. Well, not funny, but it's good to see their true colors flying loud.
We don't live in a police state. We live in a republic and our leaders our chosen by a democratic process. The NSA's actions were authorized by the broad spectrum of our government - from life long appointments sitting on the bench, to the elected members of the House who can be tossed out of office every two years. It is inconceivable to me what further authorization you would require.
On the other hand - Snowden's actions were not authorized by my elected representatives, or approved by the courts that were appointed and approved by my elected representatives. On the contrary, Snowden acted in what he thought was best, rather than relying on the sovereign judgement of the American people who selected their government. Is Snowden a sovereign? I think not. Then what authority does he have to set the law aside based solely on his own discretion? Zero. If the facts reported about him are accurate, he is a criminal and deserves a criminal's punishment.
It's amusing to watch the far left liberal side of the aisle line up with the Neo-Con far right side of the aisle.. You're both FULL of it..If you want to live in a totalitarian state, fucking move.. I don't AGREE to shitting all over the US Constitution in the name of security. Some things are STILL sacred to freedom loving Americans.
It's so funny to watch the blindly partisan Dems lining up to support the police state. Well, not funny, but it's good to see their true colors flying loud.
We don't live in a police state. We live in a republic and our leaders our chosen by a democratic process. The NSA's actions were authorized by the broad spectrum of our government - from life long appointments sitting on the bench, to the elected members of the House who can be tossed out of office every two years. It is inconceivable to me what further authorization you would require.
On the other hand - Snowden's actions were not authorized by my elected representatives, or approved by the courts that were appointed and approved by my elected representatives. On the contrary, Snowden acted in what he thought was best, rather than relying on the sovereign judgement of the American people who selected their government. Is Snowden a sovereign? I think not. Then what authority does he have to set the law aside based solely on his own discretion? Zero. If the facts reported about him are accurate, he is a criminal and deserves a criminal's punishment.
The liberal Democrat "government" is moving us closer to a police state and faster than ever.
Denying it won't change that fact.
That said, there is plenty of room for disagreement about the validity of the USA PATRIOT Act. And in how it gets implemented or ignored. And about the lack of appropriate oversight OVER it.
But Obama is a lawless bastard and his main accomplice appears to be his AG. holder should be kicked OUT of Office immediately.
