Treason or Whistle Blower?

[asterism]

Existence of government monitoring of phone calls is common knowledge. Do some googling for yourself.

I'm aware of that. But the knowledge that the Patriot Act allows this kind of broad, warrantless monitoring is NOT common knowledge. Otherwise Snowden's exposé would be a non-issue. Everyone would be saying, 'oh, yeah, we knew that already'.

This isn't Patriot Act stuff, this goes back much further.

Google William Binney.

Interesting. Thanks for the pointer. But again, not common knowledge. Snowden is raising awareness of something that Americans would not approve of if they knew about it. And again, I ask - if this is ok, why is it being done in secret?

As I said, the methods and uses of this data are secret so that they are effective.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is no Right to Privacy Guaranteed in the Constitution; privacy is implied in the Bill of Rights.

We all "profile"; we make judgments about others by their appearance, their use of language, even the way they wear their hair, the clothes and jewelry, and of course by the color of their skin, the 'god' they worship or deny, the car they may drive or where they reside and if they cut their lawn.

Cops profile and so do salespeople; we give up much of our 'private' information easily to Yahoo and Goggle and when we apply for a credit card. We trust strangers even when we know, or should know, they seek the information to sell us stuff for their benefit, not ours. The cop who profiles isn't interested in profit, and maybe his/her first instinct is of benefit to him/herself in terms of promotions or other accolades, but the bottom line is cops exist to protect us.

Of course I'm using "cop" in a very general manner, "cop" may also include members of the military or the NSA. They're people too (to misquote Romney) and their job is to Serve and Protect, not too exploit. For that reason they are rightly held to a higher standard and why their wrongdoing will always make the press (like man bites dog).

Which brings me to ask, what motivated Snowden? Altruism? Portland, aka Oddball, once said altruism is always about self interest. Of course he's a cynical curmudgeon at his best days but does anyone believe Snowden is simply a regular guy whose actions were intended to protect them? I don't, nor do I expect privacy in a world where everywhere efforts are made to learn as much about each of us as possible, and then sell that info to others.

I don't see that our elected officials or the NSA has any nefarious motive. Have they overreached? I don't know and we don't have the facts to so determine. What I do know is that those out of power want it returned and those in power want to remain. So instead of seeking solutions and means of keeping us safe, the power elite will do everything to keep their jobs without consideration to the best interests of our nation.

Lemme get this straight. You're willfully ignorant of all the feel good legislation that Washington has passed to protect your privacy (that you say doesn't exist).. HIPPA? the annoying "opt-in" financial sharing letters that you recieve. The fact that Roe V Wade was largely determine on privacy and you don't understand the scope of protection in the words

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Makes it hard to argue your points when there is so much factual background missing.

Of course you LOVE it when Big Daddy does HIPPA or makes those financial bullies respect your privacy.. But you seem to completely ignore it when THIS WEEK......

1) The IRS is caught red-handed with a ton of your Medical Records.

2) Applicants for tax status have their DONOR LISTS LEAKED to the slimiest of opposition groups.

3) Folks making the same application to the IRS are asked about "the content of their prayers"

4) Farmers have their livestock inventory and agricultural tool list LEAKED to anti-farming groups in violation of orders from Homeland Security AND Congress.

5) Our Warriors on Terrorism are found to have data on you NOT AUTHORIZED by the very words of law in the Patriot Act. Data that gives them a clear picture of your association, locations, habits and business.

6) The Justice Dept is shaking down journalists and their elderly parents with highly exaggerated warrants.

Man ---- you really are some kind of selective suck-up on this issue --- aintcha?



Whatever you are standing for --- I'm not buying it...

 

[asterism]

And he would be DEAD or in a rendition room in Turkmenistan 48 hours ago..

Not if he had called some former operators.

He doesn't KNOW any operators. He's an IT guy.. The Rambo stuff happens waaaay down the hall.. You watch too much Burn Notice.. Where EVERYONE in Miami South Beach is a spook field agent. (and some good-looking ones there are).

He really did NOT HAVE an option to stay in the US. Even going to Congress would have ended up with him held "indefinately" and without process. No Congressman is gonna harbor someone like that.

If you're saying that IT folks in the CIA and the NSA do not know any former operators and are ignorant of whistleblowing options spelled out to them in their security briefings as well as their supervisors' off the record counseling then I'm not sure what to tell you.

--says someone who has worked with both the CIA and the NSA.

 

[asterism]

BULLSHIT. Who defines the law? Only a JUDGE. And his or her opinion can be overturned by higher courts. Even the SCOTUS seems unsure of a law's Constitutionality given the number of 5-4 decisions.

A U.S. Citizen cannot judge a law as good or bad - they may offer an opinion but in many of those cases the reasoning is solely subjective.

Wow, just wow.

{Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.}

Judges do not make laws - when they do - as with RvW - they violate the law of the land.

While you Communists seek a regime that is ruled by the moods of men, the fact is that the dictatorship you promote is not the current reality.

Nothing in his quote (and I shudder that I am agreeing with Wry Catcher) says that judges make laws. His quote says that citizens are not judges and that is accurate. Judges are judges.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is no Right to Privacy Guaranteed in the Constitution; privacy is implied in the Bill of Rights.

We all "profile"; we make judgments about others by their appearance, their use of language, even the way they wear their hair, the clothes and jewelry, and of course by the color of their skin, the 'god' they worship or deny, the car they may drive or where they reside and if they cut their lawn.

Cops profile and so do salespeople; we give up much of our 'private' information easily to Yahoo and Goggle and when we apply for a credit card. We trust strangers even when we know, or should know, they seek the information to sell us stuff for their benefit, not ours. The cop who profiles isn't interested in profit, and maybe his/her first instinct is of benefit to him/herself in terms of promotions or other accolades, but the bottom line is cops exist to protect us.

Of course I'm using "cop" in a very general manner, "cop" may also include members of the military or the NSA. They're people too (to misquote Romney) and their job is to Serve and Protect, not too exploit. For that reason they are rightly held to a higher standard and why their wrongdoing will always make the press (like man bites dog).

Which brings me to ask, what motivated Snowden? Altruism? Portland, aka Oddball, once said altruism is always about self interest. Of course he's a cynical curmudgeon at his best days but does anyone believe Snowden is simply a regular guy whose actions were intended to protect them? I don't, nor do I expect privacy in a world where everywhere efforts are made to learn as much about each of us as possible, and then sell that info to others.

I don't see that our elected officials or the NSA has any nefarious motive. Have they overreached? I don't know and we don't have the facts to so determine. What I do know is that those out of power want it returned and those in power want to remain. So instead of seeking solutions and means of keeping us safe, the power elite will do everything to keep their jobs without consideration to the best interests of our nation.

We can't say what his motivations were beyond what he says, which is informing the American people. Was it altruism? Who knows? The fact of the matter is, however, that he could have sold this information for quite a lot of money to people who hate the U.S. He didn't. He went to the press.

 

[asterism]

There is no Right to Privacy Guaranteed in the Constitution; privacy is implied in the Bill of Rights.

We all "profile"; we make judgments about others by their appearance, their use of language, even the way they wear their hair, the clothes and jewelry, and of course by the color of their skin, the 'god' they worship or deny, the car they may drive or where they reside and if they cut their lawn.

Cops profile and so do salespeople; we give up much of our 'private' information easily to Yahoo and Goggle and when we apply for a credit card. We trust strangers even when we know, or should know, they seek the information to sell us stuff for their benefit, not ours. The cop who profiles isn't interested in profit, and maybe his/her first instinct is of benefit to him/herself in terms of promotions or other accolades, but the bottom line is cops exist to protect us.

Of course I'm using "cop" in a very general manner, "cop" may also include members of the military or the NSA. They're people too (to misquote Romney) and their job is to Serve and Protect, not too exploit. For that reason they are rightly held to a higher standard and why their wrongdoing will always make the press (like man bites dog).

Which brings me to ask, what motivated Snowden? Altruism? Portland, aka Oddball, once said altruism is always about self interest. Of course he's a cynical curmudgeon at his best days but does anyone believe Snowden is simply a regular guy whose actions were intended to protect them? I don't, nor do I expect privacy in a world where everywhere efforts are made to learn as much about each of us as possible, and then sell that info to others.

I don't see that our elected officials or the NSA has any nefarious motive. Have they overreached? I don't know and we don't have the facts to so determine. What I do know is that those out of power want it returned and those in power want to remain. So instead of seeking solutions and means of keeping us safe, the power elite will do everything to keep their jobs without consideration to the best interests of our nation.

We can't say what his motivations were beyond what he says, which is informing the American people. Was it altruism? Who knows? The fact of the matter is, however, that he could have sold this information for quite a lot of money to people who hate the U.S. He didn't. He went to the press.

No, he went to China and then went to the foreign press. Why didn't he go to Switzerland and call the New York Times?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is no Right to Privacy Guaranteed in the Constitution; privacy is implied in the Bill of Rights.

We all "profile"; we make judgments about others by their appearance, their use of language, even the way they wear their hair, the clothes and jewelry, and of course by the color of their skin, the 'god' they worship or deny, the car they may drive or where they reside and if they cut their lawn.

Cops profile and so do salespeople; we give up much of our 'private' information easily to Yahoo and Goggle and when we apply for a credit card. We trust strangers even when we know, or should know, they seek the information to sell us stuff for their benefit, not ours. The cop who profiles isn't interested in profit, and maybe his/her first instinct is of benefit to him/herself in terms of promotions or other accolades, but the bottom line is cops exist to protect us.

Of course I'm using "cop" in a very general manner, "cop" may also include members of the military or the NSA. They're people too (to misquote Romney) and their job is to Serve and Protect, not too exploit. For that reason they are rightly held to a higher standard and why their wrongdoing will always make the press (like man bites dog).

Which brings me to ask, what motivated Snowden? Altruism? Portland, aka Oddball, once said altruism is always about self interest. Of course he's a cynical curmudgeon at his best days but does anyone believe Snowden is simply a regular guy whose actions were intended to protect them? I don't, nor do I expect privacy in a world where everywhere efforts are made to learn as much about each of us as possible, and then sell that info to others.

I don't see that our elected officials or the NSA has any nefarious motive. Have they overreached? I don't know and we don't have the facts to so determine. What I do know is that those out of power want it returned and those in power want to remain. So instead of seeking solutions and means of keeping us safe, the power elite will do everything to keep their jobs without consideration to the best interests of our nation.

We can't say what his motivations were beyond what he says, which is informing the American people. Was it altruism? Who knows? The fact of the matter is, however, that he could have sold this information for quite a lot of money to people who hate the U.S. He didn't. He went to the press.

No, he went to China and then went to the foreign press. Why didn't he go to Switzerland and call the New York Times?

Glenn Greenwald is an American, not a foreigner. The Washington Post and Barton Gellman are not foreigners.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

^ the Guardian IS foreign press.

Quibbling over such a thing is silly and undermines your credibility on this topic, KK.

 

[asterism]

We can't say what his motivations were beyond what he says, which is informing the American people. Was it altruism? Who knows? The fact of the matter is, however, that he could have sold this information for quite a lot of money to people who hate the U.S. He didn't. He went to the press.

No, he went to China and then went to the foreign press. Why didn't he go to Switzerland and call the New York Times?

Glenn Greenwald is an American, not a foreigner. The Washington Post and Barton Gellman are not foreigners.

Greenwald works for a foreign newspaper, and they broke the story.

One doesn't go to China if they are just looking for asylum for whistleblowing. One goes to China to sell stuff on the international market.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not if he had called some former operators.

He doesn't KNOW any operators. He's an IT guy.. The Rambo stuff happens waaaay down the hall.. You watch too much Burn Notice.. Where EVERYONE in Miami South Beach is a spook field agent. (and some good-looking ones there are).

He really did NOT HAVE an option to stay in the US. Even going to Congress would have ended up with him held "indefinately" and without process. No Congressman is gonna harbor someone like that.

If you're saying that IT folks in the CIA and the NSA do not know any former operators and are ignorant of whistleblowing options spelled out to them in their security briefings as well as their supervisors' off the record counseling then I'm not sure what to tell you.

--says someone who has worked with both the CIA and the NSA.

Well good then.. We have some similiarities in our resumes. So you're smart enough to know the options.. Intel and Classified is NOT covered in standard WhistleBlower acts. There is a separate whistleblower act that allows you to:

1) Discuss your grievance with the Chief of Govt Security in whatever org pays your check. Whereupon your clearances will be stripped and your ass will be out the door that day under ARMED guard. No ability to discuss the reason for your dismissal..

2) Contact a Congressperson on a House/Senate Intelligience Committee. Try to find a SINGLE person in that group TODAY that wants to open Pandoras Box. You and your children for generations will be visited by innumerable agencies suggesting you keep your mouth. You employer would likely be contacted and see the results of #1.

Off the record counseling? They are not gonna waste time justifying a $40B domestic spying program with you and try to comfort your fears.. Are you f-ing kidding me?

So after you pick up your crap in the parking lot and decide to contact the press, there will be government Lincolns (or whatever the vehicle of choice is today, maybe Chevy Volts) parked outside your house BEFORE you come home..

OPTIONS??? You know better than that... Sure -- I'll go tell Diane Feinstein.. The person who keeps insisting they've done nothing wrong..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

^ the Guardian IS foreign press.

Quibbling over such a thing is silly and undermines your credibility on this topic, KK.

Seriously? I'm the one quibbling? Snowden leaks the story to an American columnist, who happens to work for a British news organization, and making that an issue is somehow not quibbling?

Give me a break.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, he went to China and then went to the foreign press. Why didn't he go to Switzerland and call the New York Times?

Glenn Greenwald is an American, not a foreigner. The Washington Post and Barton Gellman are not foreigners.

Greenwald works for a foreign newspaper, and they broke the story.

One doesn't go to China if they are just looking for asylum for whistleblowing. One goes to China to sell stuff on the international market.

The Washington Post broke the PRISM story, beating out the Guardian by a few minutes I believe. Though it's true the Guardian scooped them on everything else so far. Regardless, this is the biggest non-issue that one could possibly come up with regarding this situation. The Guardian is well established in the United States, regardless of where it originates.

 

[Wry Catcher]

BULLSHIT. Who defines the law? Only a JUDGE. And his or her opinion can be overturned by higher courts. Even the SCOTUS seems unsure of a law's Constitutionality given the number of 5-4 decisions.

A U.S. Citizen cannot judge a law as good or bad - they may offer an opinion but in many of those cases the reasoning is solely subjective.

Wow, just wow.

{Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.}

Judges do not make laws - when they do - as with RvW - they violate the law of the land.

While you Communists seek a regime that is ruled by the moods of men, the fact is that the dictatorship you promote is not the current reality.

Wow, wow, wow. So Chief Justice John Marshall was a Commie? Who knew. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) ring a bell?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

^ the Guardian IS foreign press.

Quibbling over such a thing is silly and undermines your credibility on this topic, KK.

Seriously? I'm the one quibbling? Snowden leaks the story to an American columnist, who happens to work for a British news organization, and making that an issue is somehow not quibbling?

Give me a break.

Yes. You are quibbling. It was a foreign paper. Period.

Saying "Foreign press" does not mean the reporter can't be a Yankee.

If you think the fact that the paper was foreign is irrelevant (a point that might be meritorious) then you shouldn't stake out the position that the "reporter" was an American.

If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter and that's what you should have said. If it does matter, then you are quibbling since The Guardian IS a foreign paper.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

^ the Guardian IS foreign press.

Quibbling over such a thing is silly and undermines your credibility on this topic, KK.

Seriously? I'm the one quibbling? Snowden leaks the story to an American columnist, who happens to work for a British news organization, and making that an issue is somehow not quibbling?

Give me a break.

Yes. You are quibbling. It was a foreign paper. Period.

Saying "Foreign press" does not mean the reporter can't be a Yankee.

If you think the fact that the paper was foreign is irrelevant (a point that might be meritorious) then you shouldn't stake out the position that the "reporter" was an American.

If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter and that's what you should have said. If it does matter, then you are quibbling since The Guardian IS a foreign paper.

It is irrelevant, but it was also, at best, only a half-truth that I felt compelled to correct. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can respond to something even if it isn't important.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Just realized we're quibbling over quibbling, which is too much. I'm going to go ahead and move on now.

 

[numan]

No, he went to China and then went to the foreign press. Why didn't he go to Switzerland and call the New York Times?

Surely you jest. The New York Times is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Establishment !!

And Switzerland!! It may, occasionally, for PR purposes, allow refugees into its mountain fastnesses, but it rarely deigns to accept anyone but the rich and well-to-do.

In Slovenia, if on a hiking trip you stop at a farmhouse and ask for water, they will give you milk and refuse to accept money.

In Switzerland, if you are a hiker and stop to ask for water, they will give you water -- if you pay for it !!

Nothing wrong with the Swiss, though -- if you like twisted, money-grubbing gnomes.

Where do you think Wagner got the character Alberich, in the Ring Cycle?
.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No, he went to China and then went to the foreign press. Why didn't he go to Switzerland and call the New York Times?

Surely you jest. The New York Times is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Establishment !!

And Switzerland!! It may, occasionally, for PR purposes, allow refugees into its mountain fastnesses, but it rarely deigns to accept anyone but the rich and well-to-do.

In Slovenia, if on a hiking trip you stop at a farmhouse and ask for water, they will give you milk and refuse to accept money.

In Switzerland, if you are a hiker and stop to ask for water, they will give you water -- if you pay for it !!

Nothing wrong with the Swiss, though -- if you like twisted, money-grubbing gnomes.

Where do you think Wagner got the character Alberich, in the Ring Cycle?
.

Does it cause actual physical pain to be such an arrogant asshole snob bitch as you are?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Just realized we're quibbling over quibbling, which is too much. I'm going to go ahead and move on now.

Self-referential commenting on your endless quibbling over quibbling is worse than quibbling.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Seriously? I'm the one quibbling? Snowden leaks the story to an American columnist, who happens to work for a British news organization, and making that an issue is somehow not quibbling?

Give me a break.

Yes. You are quibbling. It was a foreign paper. Period.

Saying "Foreign press" does not mean the reporter can't be a Yankee.

If you think the fact that the paper was foreign is irrelevant (a point that might be meritorious) then you shouldn't stake out the position that the "reporter" was an American.

If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter and that's what you should have said. If it does matter, then you are quibbling since The Guardian IS a foreign paper.

It is irrelevant, but it was also, at best, only a half-truth that I felt compelled to correct. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can respond to something even if it isn't important.

You can. And you do respond to unimportant things.

I'd never do that.



Anyway, it wasn't a half truth. It was THE truth.

The Guardian is part of the foreign press. Period.

Amen.