Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The best heroes usually are.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

When he was first elected, I had at least some hope Obama would be different. But the day after his victory, seeing his cabinet selections lined up on the podium, and seeing that they were all the same old Washington insiders - I had no delusion anything would change. And Hillary is no different. Dems are deluding themselves no less so than Republicans were under Bush.

Did you honestly believe Obama was going to stop spying on terrorists?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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.

The only person shitting on the Constitution is you and your terrorist sympathizing ilk. You think you and you alone have the authority to dictate law. The NSA's actions were authorized by all three branches of government, I'm sorry if you don't agree with it.

Terrorist sympathizing?? LMFAO When you're on the wrong side of an argument you accuse someone of being a terrorist sympathizer..^^^ Loser.. whatever.. back to the merits of the argument.. As we sit debating this issue, members from BOTH sides of the aisle are OUTRAGED and have stated that when they voted for the Patriot Act, they NEVER intended for this shit to happen..

The Patriot Act must not be used to violate the rights of law-abiding citizens | Ron Wyden and Mark Udall | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

See Marl Udall also..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The truly servile mindset: "As long as the government has given itself permission to steal everybody's data, it must be ok."

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

The truly servile mindset: "As long as the government has given itself permission to steal everybody's data, it must be ok."

How would you prefer that due process with regards to searches and seizures be carried out, if not through the checks and balances of our three branched government?

 

[dblack]

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.

When he was first elected, I had at least some hope Obama would be different. But the day after his victory, seeing his cabinet selections lined up on the podium, and seeing that they were all the same old Washington insiders - I had no delusion anything would change. And Hillary is no different. Dems are deluding themselves no less so than Republicans were under Bush.

Did you honestly believe Obama was going to stop spying on terrorists?

I had very little faith in any of his promises. But I had hoped, based on his campaign rhetoric, that he'd push back against the neo-con policies Bush saddled us with. Like I said, those hopes evaporated very quickly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The truly servile mindset: "As long as the government has given itself permission to steal everybody's data, it must be ok."

How would you prefer that due process with regards to searches and seizures be carried out, if not through the checks and balances of our three branched government?

You mean the rubber stamps of "our" three branched government? I'd prefer that there be actual due process. None of these secret courts without oversight that rarely if ever refuse any request from the executive branch. I'd prefer that my data not be stolen when I have committed no crime, and have not been charged as such.

I think that would be a pretty good start.

 

[Katzndogz]

If he broke the law by exposing the illegal excesses of this criminal regime, he deserves his own holiday. He's a true American hero. Admittedly, though, not a hero to obamamericans.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The truly servile mindset: "As long as the government has given itself permission to steal everybody's data, it must be ok."

How would you prefer that due process with regards to searches and seizures be carried out, if not through the checks and balances of our three branched government?

You mean the rubber stamps of "our" three branched government? I'd prefer that there be actual due process. None of these secret courts without oversight that rarely if ever refuse any request from the executive branch. I'd prefer that my data not be stolen when I have committed no crime, and have not been charged as such.

So you'd prefer it if the law were whatever you wanted it to be, instead of what our duly elected Congress decided?

I think that would be a pretty good start.

And until our government is up to your standards, should it just sit by idle and let America's enemies attack us?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How would you prefer that due process with regards to searches and seizures be carried out, if not through the checks and balances of our three branched government?

You mean the rubber stamps of "our" three branched government? I'd prefer that there be actual due process. None of these secret courts without oversight that rarely if ever refuse any request from the executive branch. I'd prefer that my data not be stolen when I have committed no crime, and have not been charged as such.

So you'd prefer it if the law were whatever you wanted it to be, instead of what our duly elected Congress decided?

I think that would be a pretty good start.

And until our government is up to your standards, should it just sit by idle and let America's enemies attack us?

Does being "duly elected" grant some sort of legitimacy in your mind? All it tells me is that a bunch of power-hungry frauds are pretty good at selling themselves to the lowest common denominator.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Your second question is a false choice that doesn't even merit being addressed.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You mean the rubber stamps of "our" three branched government? I'd prefer that there be actual due process. None of these secret courts without oversight that rarely if ever refuse any request from the executive branch. I'd prefer that my data not be stolen when I have committed no crime, and have not been charged as such.

So you'd prefer it if the law were whatever you wanted it to be, instead of what our duly elected Congress decided?

I think that would be a pretty good start.

And until our government is up to your standards, should it just sit by idle and let America's enemies attack us?

Does being "duly elected" grant some sort of legitimacy in your mind?'

Yes.

All it tells me is that a bunch of power-hungry frauds are pretty good at selling themselves to the lowest common denominator.

OK. So instead we should just put you in charge and let you make all the decisions?

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Your second question is a false choice that doesn't even merit being addressed.

It is not a false choice. Clearly the government must choose to either fight terrorism or not. Clearly if it is going to fight it, it will do it under existing law - or would you prefer the government abandon the law and simply consult you for all of its decisions?

 

[flacaltenn]

That's a cop out Kevin. He could have at least leaked it to the American media, as did the one in the Rosen Case. Just because we didn't see them do it, doesn't mean they didn't do it. The evidence is already there! There is NO NEED for this type of renegade/vigilante behavior. Heck this crap has been going on since 2006, as if we didn't already know, Mr. Kennedy. His heart was in the right place, but his intentions were not. If you are willing to break the law, how can I trust you to uphold it?

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.

He verified to the American people that ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts were being committed their government. And the STUPIDITY of legislation that allowed our premiere spy agency to have access to domestic data when it's PROHIBITED in their charter.
He is a whistleblower, not a traitor. No "sources and methods" were revealed that MILLIONS of American scientists and engineers did not already know or suspect.

In order to make a system like they claim they had -- you HAVE to have access to ALL of the data to TRAIN the data mining. That means the innocent as well as the suspicious. That's obvious to ANYONE working in these fields. But obviously not to the CLODS and MENTAL MIDGETS in Congress performing the oversight or the Media or the innocent Americans who's rights are being SEVERELY violated... And who are being LIED to and MISDIRECTED by govt all the way up to the Prez...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

He verified to the American people that ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts were being committed their government.

Illegal and unconstitutional according to whom?

 

[dblack]

He verified to the American people that ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts were being committed their government.

Illegal and unconstitutional according to whom?

In case you start running out of material, I think there are probably archives of Rove's old talking points online somewhere - you know, the bullet points that they used to send out to the Bush apologists? You could probably just copy and paste those and no one would be the wiser!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

He verified to the American people that ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts were being committed their government.

Illegal and unconstitutional according to whom?

In case you start running out of material, I think there are probably archives of Rove's old talking points online somewhere - you know, the bullet points that they used to send out to the Bush apologists? You could probably just copy and paste those and no one would be the wiser!

Asking why something is illegal or unconstitutional is a "Rove talking point", really? I supposed I should just believe whatever flaccaltenn tells me is unconstitutional is unconstitutional, right, instead of asking why? Because that would be like Karl Rove. Only Karl Rove ever questions flaccaltenn. I'm sorry I dared to do it.

 

[flacaltenn]

He verified to the American people that ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts were being committed their government.

Illegal and unconstitutional according to whom?

Clear violation of MANY laws and orders. Acknowledged now to be contrary to the Patriotic Act, in clear violation of the 4th amendment since that why the Patriotic gave sanctuary to "US Citizens, Legal US residents and OTHERS residing within the borders of the US".

Not to mention a MONUMENTAL departure from the acts and edicts RESTRICTING the NSA from spying domestically in any shape or form prior to 9/11..

The leak also confirms the LYING and MISREPRESENTATION that we've been subjected to and CONTINUE to be subjected to by MOST politicians right up to the Oval Office..

The leak also has shed light on some of our fellow citizens who would be prime candidates for following their party or cause into a dictatorship.. Much like I suspect you are one of those from my previous "data-mining" of your posts..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

He verified to the American people that ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts were being committed their government.

Illegal and unconstitutional according to whom?

Clear violation of MANY laws and orders. Acknowledged now to be contrary to the Patriotic Act, in clear violation of the 4th amendment since that why the Patriotic gave sanctuary to "US Citizens, Legal US residents and OTHERS residing within the borders of the US".

Not to mention a MONUMENTAL departure from the acts and edicts RESTRICTING the NSA from spying domestically in any shape or form prior to 9/11..

The leak also confirms the LYING and MISREPRESENTATION that we've been subjected to and CONTINUE to be subjected to by MOST politicians right up to the Oval Office..

The leak also has shed light on some of our fellow citizens who would be prime candidates for following their party or cause into a dictatorship.. Much like I suspect you are one of those from my previous "data-mining" of your posts..

So, unconstitutional, according to whom?

 

[dblack]

Illegal and unconstitutional according to whom?

In case you start running out of material, I think there are probably archives of Rove's old talking points online somewhere - you know, the bullet points that they used to send out to the Bush apologists? You could probably just copy and paste those and no one would be the wiser!

Asking why something is illegal or unconstitutional is a "Rove talking point", really?

Yep, it's exactly the same kind of juke and jive that he used to spin. You should look him up. You'd be impressed. They didn't call him 'turd blossom' for nothing.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In case you start running out of material, I think there are probably archives of Rove's old talking points online somewhere - you know, the bullet points that they used to send out to the Bush apologists? You could probably just copy and paste those and no one would be the wiser!

Asking why something is illegal or unconstitutional is a "Rove talking point", really?

Yep, it's exactly the same kind of juke and jive that he used to spin. You should look him up. You'd be impressed. They didn't call him 'turd blossom' for nothing.

Really? So questioning why someone thinks the Constitution as been violated is a "juke and jive" ? When someone claims its violated, they are right - no questions asked - correct?

 

[dblack]

Asking why something is illegal or unconstitutional is a "Rove talking point", really?

Yep, it's exactly the same kind of juke and jive that he used to spin. You should look him up. You'd be impressed. They didn't call him 'turd blossom' for nothing.

Really? So questioning why someone thinks the Constitution as been violated is a "juke and jive" ? When someone claims its violated, they are right - no questions asked - correct?

Heh... well, the main thing is to feign ignorance and pretend to be asking an 'honest questoin' (you know, like you're doing now). When in reality, you have no intention of listening to any of the answers to the question. The idea is to just repeat the question over and over, ad nauseum, to create the illusion that there's a real debate to be had. It's slimy as hell, but tends to be effective with less critical minds. Good luck!