Edward Snowden & The N.S.A Revelations

Guitar92player

Byrnzie wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

Okay, I guess the war did directly hurt Americans. Although bullshit, they were trying to help a country. I'd say the same with Iraq War, even though I hated that war too and I think it was bullshit as well.

Trying to help a country? By devasting it with ten years of carpet bombing, agent orange, and the killing of 2 million people? How does that constitute helping a country?

You think Iraq was helped by the U.S invasion that killed an estimated 1 million people, produced 4-5 million refugees, and turned it into a killing ground and training ground for terrorists, including al-Queda.

Regarding Vietnam, we wanted communism out of that country. What we did was horrible.

Regarding Iraq, we took out a dictator (which to me doens't matter, cuz there are many dictators. So getting rid of one may be good but there are still more). And again, what we did was horrible.

I am not defending what we did, but what we tried to do was good, but how we did was terrible.

Byrnzie

Guitar92player wrote:

Regarding Vietnam, we wanted communism out of that country.

Did you read that on the back of a box of cereal?

Guitar92player wrote:

Regarding Iraq, we took out a dictator (which to me doens't matter, cuz there are many dictators. So getting rid of one may be good but there are still more). And again, what we did was horrible.

I am not defending what we did, but what we tried to do was good, but how we did was terrible.

No, what you tried to do was secure that country's natural resources - oil. And the devastation and loss of life was predicted beforehand, and could have been foreseen by any four year old.

Guitar92player

Byrnzie wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

Regarding Vietnam, we wanted communism out of that country.

Did you read that on the back of a box of cereal?

Guitar92player wrote:

Regarding Iraq, we took out a dictator (which to me doens't matter, cuz there are many dictators. So getting rid of one may be good but there are still more). And again, what we did was horrible.

I am not defending what we did, but what we tried to do was good, but how we did was terrible.

No, what you tried to do was secure that country's natural resources - oil. And the devastation and loss of life was predicted beforehand, and could have been foreseen by any four year old.

Oh, I am sorry, I don't get my info from The Guardian, so I guess whatever I know isn't true.

Vietnam was one war of many during the Cold War, a surrogate war, of Democracy vs. Communism. We helped S. Vietnam to fight the North who was aided by Russia and other communist countries (including the one you are living in right now, by the way). Or does the Guardian say different. :roll:

I don't doubt your second statement. But we did get rid of a dictator. Can you at least give us that as a victory.

Jason P

thank you interweb

JC29856

are there people, living breathing humans that think/believe Snowden did this to be a hero??

i would love to hear the logic and path to that conclusion!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Guitar92player wrote:

Regarding Vietnam, we wanted communism out of that country.

Think of this statement. What business is it of any country to send your military to adjust another country's way of life. Such motivation is essentially the same as attacking a country for having different religious beliefs (again... another way of life). With this said (and I could be wrong)... I think the decision to invade Vietnam had more to do with flexing muscles than actually trying to do any good.

Honest question: is communism still viewed as an evil thing that gets people's backs up?

Given the effect capitalism has had in polarizing and dividing society, I would think that one could place a reasonable argument for communism. Fortunate ones born to wealthy people, with their place already at the trough and atop of the pecking order, would argue differently. So would others- such as myself- far removed from the bleak existence afforded to so many that struggle. But the ideals of communism might appeal to some given the way in which capitalism has mutated and continues to do so.

Guitar92player

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

Regarding Vietnam, we wanted communism out of that country.

Think of this statement. What business is it of any country to send your military to adjust another country's way of life. Such motivation is essentially the same as attacking a country for having different religious beliefs (again... another way of life). With this said (and I could be wrong)... I think the decision to invade Vietnam had more to do with flexing muscles than actually trying to do any good.

Honest question: is communism still viewed as an evil thing that gets people's backs up?

Given the effect capitalism has had in polarizing and dividing society, I would think that one could place a reasonable argument for communism. Fortunate ones born to wealthy people, with their place already at the trough and atop of the pecking order, would argue differently. So would others- such as myself- far removed from the bleak existence afforded to so many that struggle. But the ideals of communism might appeal to some given the way in which capitalism has mutated and continues to do so.

I think it was both to fight off communism and to do with "flexing muscles." The U.S wanted to show that they were dominant, not the USSR, and at the same time they could get another country on their side. But, we all know how that ended up...

Guitar92player

Jason P wrote:

thank you interweb

puremagic

Byrnzie wrote:

puremagic wrote:

I hold it, because he planned this sh-t, thinking the shock would make him the ‘hero’ whistleblower.

Whatever so-called good intentions Snowden claims he had initially, Snowden has crossed the line...This is government espionage wherein whole countries and countless peoples’ way of life can be impacted.

Yeah, "he planned this shit". So what? He planned it after long and careful consideration of the lies and over-reach of government.

And just what line did he cross? The line that forbids people from exposing government lies and over-reach? You would rather the U.S government conduct it's activities in total secrecy with no accountability or transparency? Sounds like you don't hold much respect for the Constitution of your country.

And talking of "government espionage"...really, the fact that you miss the irony here says it all.

Has the WE GOTTCHA AMERICA, put you in such a euphoric state of mind that all logic is lost!

You seem to want me to believe Snowden was so disillusioned with our government’s policy that his only recourse was to commit an act of treason against his country. BULLSHIT!

It’s a fine line between whistleblower and traitor and nothing erases the fact that Snowden committed such an act once he started peddling his stolen information for a place the sleep.

Byrnzie

puremagic wrote:

You seem to want me to believe Snowden was so disillusioned with our government’s policy that his only recourse was to commit an act of treason against his country. BULLSHIT!

I don't really care what you believe. I've already posted Snowden's comments on his motivation for exposing the governments lies and over-reach. If you choose not to believe them, and want to paint him as a traitor, whilst ignoring the fact that James Clapper lied on oath to Congress, then that's your business.

Though maybe you can go ahead and tell us what you think Snowden's true motivation was?

puremagic

Byrnzie wrote:

puremagic wrote:

You seem to want me to believe Snowden was so disillusioned with our government’s policy that his only recourse was to commit an act of treason against his country. BULLSHIT!

I don't really care what you believe. I've already posted Snowden's comments on his motivation for exposing the governments lies and over-reach. If you choose not to believe them, and want to paint him as a traitor, whilst ignoring the fact that James Clapper lied on oath to Congress, then that's your business.

Though maybe you can go ahead and tell us what you think Snowden's true motivation was?

I’m not painting Snowden as traitor; Snowden created that self-portrait by his own actions.

Snowden’s self-proclaimed motivates as to why, does not negate the fact that he, Snowden, knowingly, with purpose, intent, and full understanding planned and executed actions that fell within the scope of treason against the United States of America; as such, that defines Snowden as a traitor.

Byrnzie

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... no-traitor

Edward Snowden is no 'traitor'

Far from aiding our enemies, the NSA whistleblower has exposed our own government's subversion of Americans' rights


Philip Giraldi for the American Conservative, part of the Guardian Comment Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 July 2013


There are a number of narratives being floated by the usual suspects to attempt to demonstrate that Edward Snowden is a traitor who has betrayed secrets vital to the security of the United States. All the arguments being made are essentially without merit. Snowden has undeniably violated his agreement to protect classified information, which is a crime. But in reality, he has revealed only one actual secret that matters, which is the United States government's serial violation of the fourth amendment to the constitution through its collection of personal information on millions of innocent American citizens without any probable cause or search warrant.

That makes Snowden a whistleblower, as he is exposing illegal activity on the part of the federal government. The damage he has inflicted is not against US national security, but rather on the politicians and senior bureaucrats who ordered, managed, condoned, and concealed the illegal activity.

First and foremost among the accusations is the treason claim being advanced by such legal experts as former Vice-President Dick Cheney, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and Senator Dianne Feinstein. The critics are saying that Snowden has committed treason because he has revealed US intelligence capabilities to groups like al-Qaida, with which the United States is at war. Treason is, in fact, the only crime that is specifically named and described in the US constitution, in article III:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Whether Washington is actually at war with al-Qaida is, of course, debatable since there has been no declaration of war by Congress as required by article I of the constitution. Congress has, however, passed legislation, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), empowering the president to employ all necessary force against al-Qaida and "associated" groups; this is what Cheney and the others are relying on to establish a state of war.

But even accepting the somewhat fast and loose standard for being at war, it is difficult to discern where Snowden has been supporting the al-Qaida and "associated groups" enemy. Snowden has had no contact with al-Qaida and he has not provided them with any classified information. Nor has he ever spoken up on their behalf, given them advice, or supported in any way their activities directed against the United States.

The fallback argument that Snowden has alerted terrorists to the fact that Washington is able to read their emails and listen in on their phone conversations – enabling them to change their methods of communication – is hardly worth considering, as groups like al-Qaida have long since figured that out. Osama bin Laden, a graduate in engineering, repeatedly warned his followers not to use phones or the internet, and he himself communicated only using live couriers. His awareness of US technical capabilities was such that he would wear a cowboy hat when out in the courtyard of his villa to make it impossible for him to be identified by hovering drones and surveillance satellites.

Attempts to stretch the treason argument still further by claiming that Snowden has provided classified information to Russia and China are equally wrong-headed, as the US has full and normally friendly diplomatic relations with both Moscow and Beijing. Both are major trading partners. Washington is not at war with either nation and never has been apart from a brief and limited intervention in the Russian civil war in 1918. Nor is there any evidence that Snowden passed any material directly to either country's government or that he has any connection to their intelligence services.

Then there is the broader "national security" argument. It goes something like this: Washington will no longer be able to spy on enemies and competitors in the world because Snowden has revealed the sources and methods used by the NSA to do so. Everyone will change their methods of communication, and the United States will be both blind and clueless.

Well, one might argue that the White House has been clueless for at least 12 years, but the fact is that the technology and techniques employed by the NSA are not exactly secret. Any reasonably well-educated telecommunications engineer can tell you exactly what is being done, which means the Russians, Chinese, British, Germans, Israelis, and just about everyone else who has an interest is fully aware of what the capabilities of the United States are in a technical sense. This is why they change their diplomatic and military communications codes on a regular basis and why their civilian telecommunications systems have software that detects hacking by organizations like the NSA.

...The NSA's capabilities, though highly classified, have long been known to many in the intelligence community. In 2007, I described the Bush administration's drive to broaden the NSA's activities, noting that:

'The president is clearly seeking open-ended authority to intercept communications without any due process, and he apparently intends to do so in the United States … House Republican leader John Boehner (OH), citing 9/11, has described the White House proposal as a necessary step to 'break down bureaucratic impediments to intelligence collection and analysis.' It is not at all clear how unlimited access to currently protected personal information that is already accessible through an oversight procedure would do that. 'Modernizing' Fisa would enable the government to operate without any restraint. Is that what Boehner actually means?'

It was clear to me that in 2007 Washington already possessed the technical capability to greatly increase its interception of communications networks, but I was wrong in my belief that the government had actually been somewhat restrained by legal and privacy concerns. Operating widely in a permissive extralegal environment had already started six years before, shortly after 9/11, under the auspices of the Patriot Act and the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

...Here in the United States, it remains to be seen whether anyone actually cares enough to do something about the illegal activity while being bombarded with the false claims that the out-of-control surveillance program "has kept us safe". It is interesting to observe in passing that the revelations derived from Snowden's whistleblowing strongly suggest that the hippies and other counter-culture types who, back in the 1960s, protested that the government could not be trusted actually had it right all along.

Jason P

I'm glad that Snowden chose to stay in a country that is a beacon of freedom and privacy. Plus, he is going to help our economy by restarting the cold war.

I just hope he isn't gay.

Byrnzie

Jason P wrote:

I'm glad that Snowden chose to stay in a country that is a beacon of freedom and privacy. Plus, he is going to help our economy by restarting the cold war.

I just hope he isn't gay.

Well, considering the U.S has over 2 million of it's citizens locked up, and is spying on the rest of them, I don't see how it can claim to be a beacon of freedom and privacy either.

Guitar92player

Byrnzie wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I'm glad that Snowden chose to stay in a country that is a beacon of freedom and privacy. Plus, he is going to help our economy by restarting the cold war.

I just hope he isn't gay.

Well, considering the U.S has over 2 million of it's citizens locked up, and is spying on the rest of them, I don't see how it can claim to be a beacon of freedom and privacy either.

Do you think no one should be jailed? Where do we put the criminals? Should they walk free?

Byrnzie

Guitar92player wrote:

Do you think no one should be jailed? Where do we put the criminals? Should they walk free?

Depends what you mean by 'criminals'.

Guitar92player

Byrnzie wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

Do you think no one should be jailed? Where do we put the criminals? Should they walk free?

Depends what you mean by 'criminals'.

Okay now I know what you mean. I agree there are some who are probably innocent and shouldn't be in jail, and some are probably not even criminals. However, that only makes probably a small portion of them.

Byrnzie

Guitar92player wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

Do you think no one should be jailed? Where do we put the criminals? Should they walk free?

Depends what you mean by 'criminals'.

Okay now I know what you mean. I agree there are some who are probably innocent and shouldn't be in jail, and some are probably not even criminals. However, that only makes probably a small portion of them.

And all those in jail for minor offences, including minor drug offences.

Guitar92player

Byrnzie wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

Okay now I know what you mean. I agree there are some who are probably innocent and shouldn't be in jail, and some are probably not even criminals. However, that only makes probably a small portion of them.

And all those in jail for minor offences, including minor drug offences.

That too, definitely.

Byrnzie

U.S.A - Land of the free? More like the United Stasi of America:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ied-access



Members of Congress denied access to basic information about NSA

Documents provided by two House members demonstrate how they are blocked from exercising any oversight over domestic surveillance


Glenn Greenwald
guardian.com, Sunday 4 August 2013


Members of Congress have been repeatedly thwarted when attempting to learn basic information about the National Security Agency (NSA) and the secret FISA court which authorizes its activities, documents provided by two House members demonstrate.

From the beginning of the NSA controversy, the agency's defenders have insisted that Congress is aware of the disclosed programs and exercises robust supervision over them. "These programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate," President Obama said the day after the first story on NSA bulk collection of phone records was published in this space. "And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up."

But members of Congress, including those in Obama's party, have flatly denied knowing about them. On MSNBC on Wednesday night, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct) was asked by host Chris Hayes: "How much are you learning about what the government that you are charged with overseeing and holding accountable is doing from the newspaper and how much of this do you know?" The Senator's reply:

"The revelations about the magnitude, the scope and scale of these surveillances, the metadata and the invasive actions surveillance of social media Web sites were indeed revelations to me."


But it is not merely that members of Congress are unaware of the very existence of these programs, let alone their capabilities. Beyond that, members who seek out basic information - including about NSA programs they are required to vote on and FISA court (FISC) rulings on the legality of those programs - find that they are unable to obtain it.

Two House members, GOP Rep. Morgan Griffith of Virginia and Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, have provided the Guardian with numerous letters and emails documenting their persistent, and unsuccessful, efforts to learn about NSA programs and relevant FISA court rulings.

"If I can't get basic information about these programs, then I'm not able to do my job", Rep. Griffith told me. A practicing lawyer before being elected to Congress, he said that his job includes "making decisions about whether these programs should be funded, but also an oath to safeguard the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which includes the Fourth Amendment."

Rep. Griffith requested information about the NSA from the House Intelligence Committee six weeks ago, on June 25. He asked for "access to the classified FISA court order(s) referenced on Meet the Press this past weekend": a reference to my raising with host David Gregory the still-secret 2011 86-page ruling from the FISA court that found substantial parts of NSA domestic spying to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment as well as governing surveillance statutes.

In that same June 25 letter, Rep. Griffith also requested the semi-annual FISC "reviews and critiques" of the NSA. He stated the rationale for his request: "I took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and I intend to do so."

Almost three weeks later, on July 12, Rep. Griffith requested additional information from the Intelligence Committee based on press accounts he had read about Yahoo's unsuccessful efforts in court to resist joining the NSA's PRISM program. He specifically wanted to review the arguments made by Yahoo and the DOJ, as well as the FISC's ruling requiring Yahoo to participate in PRISM.

On July 22, he wrote another letter to the Committee seeking information. This time, it was prompted by press reports that that the FISA court had renewed its order compelling Verizon to turn over all phone records to the NSA. Rep. Griffith requested access to that court ruling.

The Congressman received no response to any of his requests. With a House vote looming on whether to defund the NSA's bulk collection program - it was scheduled for July 25 - he felt he needed the information more urgently than ever. He recounted his thinking to me: "How can I responsibly vote on a program I know very little about?"

On July 23, he wrote another letter to the Committee, noting that it had been four weeks since his original request, and several weeks since his subsequent ones. To date, six weeks since he first asked, he still has received no response to any of his requests (the letters sent by Rep. Griffith can be seen here).

"I know many of my constituents will ask about this when I go home," he said, referring to the August recess when many members of Congress meet with those they represent. "Now that I won't get anything until at least September, what am I supposed to tell them? How can I talk about NSA actions I can't learn anything about except from press accounts?"

Congressman Grayson has had very similar experiences, except that he sometimes did receive responses to his requests: negative ones.

On June 19, Grayson wrote to the House Intelligence Committee requesting several documents relating to media accounts about the NSA. Included among them were FISA court opinions directing the collection of telephone records for Americans, as well as documents relating to the PRISM program.

But just over four weeks later, the Chairman of the Committee, GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, wrote to Grayson informing him that his requests had been denied by a Committee "voice vote".

In a follow-up email exchange, a staff member for Grayson wrote to the Chairman, advising him that Congressman Grayson had "discussed the committee's decision with Ranking Member [Dutch] Ruppersberger on the floor last night, and he told the Congressman that he was unaware of any committee action on this matter." Grayson wanted to know how a voice vote denying him access to these documents could have taken place without the knowledge of the ranking member on the Committee, and asked: "can you please share with us the recorded vote, Member-by-Member?" The reply from this Committee was as follows:


"Thanks for your inquiry. The full Committee attends Business Meetings. At our July 18, 2013 Business Meeting, there were seven Democrat Members and nine Republican Members in attendance. The transcript is classified."

To date, neither Griffith nor Grayson has received any of the documents they requested. Correspondence between Grayson and the Committee - with names of staff members and email addresses redacted - can be read here.

Denial of access for members of Congress to basic information about the NSA and the FISC appears to be common. Justin Amash, the GOP representative who, along with Democratic Rep. John Conyers, co-sponsored the amendment to ban the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' phone records, told CNN on July 31: "I, as a member of Congress, can't get access to the court opinions. I have to beg for access, and I'm denied it if I - if I make that request."

It is the Intelligence Committees of both the House and Senate that exercise primary oversight over the NSA. But as I noted last week, both Committees are, with the exception of a handful of members, notoriously beholden to the NSA and the intelligence community generally.

Its members typically receive much larger contributions from the defense and surveillance industries than non-Committee members. And the two Committee Chairs - Democrat Dianne Feinstein in the Senate and Republican Mike Rogers in the House - are two of the most steadfast NSA loyalists in Congress. The senior Democrat on the House Committee is ardent NSA defender Dutch Ruppersberger, whose district not only includes NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, but who is also himself the second-largest recipient of defense/intelligence industry cash.

Moreover, even when members of the Intelligence Committee learn of what they believe to be serious abuses by the NSA, they are barred by law from informing the public. Two Democratic Committee members in the Senate, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, spent years warning Americans that they would be "stunned to learn" of the radical interpretations of secret law the Obama administration had adopted in the secret FISA court to vest themselves with extremist surveillance powers.

Yet the two Senators, prohibited by law from talking about it, concealed what they had discovered. It took Edward Snowden's whistleblowing for Americans to learn what those two Intelligence Committee members were so dramatically warning them about.

Finally, all members of Congress - not just those on the Intelligence Committees - are responsible for making choices about the NSA and for protecting the privacy rights and other Constitutional guarantees of Americans. "I did not take an oath to defer to the Intelligence Committee," Rep. Griffith told me. "My oath is to make informed decisions, and I can't do my job when I can't get even the most basic information about these programs."

In early July, Grayson had staffers distribute to House members several slides published by the Guardian about NSA programs as part of Grayson's efforts to trigger debate in Congress. But, according to one staff member, Grayson's office was quickly told by the House Intelligence Committee that those slides were still classified, despite having been published and discussed in the media, and directed Grayson to cease distribution or discussion of those materials in the House, warning that he could face sanctions if he continued.

It has been widely noted that the supremely rubber-stamping FISA court constitutes NSA "oversight" in name only, and that the Intelligence Committees are captured by the agency and constrained to act even if they were inclined to. Whatever else is true, members of Congress in general clearly know next to nothing about the NSA and the FISA court beyond what they read in the media, and those who try to rectify that are being actively blocked from finding out.