Eric Snowden - American Hero or just some dude ...

... Snocythe wouldn't give a temple recommend.



He's the guy who revealed the NSA/FBI surveillance madness and, if you agree with Dick Cheney, a traitor.



http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/22610600/exclusive-father-of-edward-snowden-urges-son-not-to-commit-treason-to-return-home#axzz2WUcgDP00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



http://washingtonexaminer.com/edward-snowden-google-and-facebook-misleading-their-users/article/2532005" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know if the guy is a hero or a zero. Why is he in China? On the other hand I do not think the government should be listening to everyones phone calls. All they have to do is change the rules/laws and all of a sudden you are a terrorist. Disagreeing with this administration is a scary thing. The next could be as bad or worse.



I saw the D. Cheney interview. I don't feel he represents my position. I am not sure what the Republicans represent now. I used to think they were for smaller, less intrusive government but they don't seem so strong on that now.



I hope this link is informative not argumentive. I'd like to know more.

What Snowden did was both illegal and moral - and he is a true patriot and defender of the Constitution no matter what any FISA court rules. Snocythe has, as best I can infer, argued that disobedience to a law upheld by the courts is an act which makes one dishonest. I'd like him to come out and say it so I don't have to infer any longer.



To answer your question Snowden is in Hong Kong trying to avoid extradition and the theft of more of his liberty than has already been taken from him by the US government.



Here's the best article I've found on the whole NSA secret spying madness.



http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I really don't know. I've had a security clearance for over a decade, I've worked with NSA and other gov't agencies. We have hours of mandatory yearly training about protecting the privacy of US citizens and other in the country legally.



We have classes on security classifications (top secret, secret, etc.) and the penalties for unauthorized disclosure.



But everything I've read seems to be against what I've been taught. That these programs went beyond the legal parameters of which I'm aware.



It seems when looking for terrorists and their plots, you're already searching for a needle in a haystack. I'm not sure I understand the logic in making that haystack a large as possible, by asking for ALL of phone records of Verizon or AT&T. It seems that our government would be better served by more selectively applying the criteria.



For instance, we know they knew about the Tsarnaev brothers. Why didn't we focus more on them? Were we distracted by the millions of other records we were combing through?



I think we have enough leads that lead to other terrorists to other plots without mucking up the system with a ton of useless data. More specificity is needed not less.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I really don't know. I've had a security clearance for over a decade, I've worked with NSA and other gov't agencies. We have hours of mandatory yearly training about protecting the privacy of US citizens and other in the country legally.



We have classes on security classifications (top secret, secret, etc.) and the penalties for unauthorized disclosure.



But everything I've read seems to be against what I've been taught. That these programs went beyond the legal parameters of which I'm aware.



It seems when looking for terrorists and their plots, you're already searching for a needle in a haystack. I'm not sure I understand the logic in making that haystack a large as possible, by asking for ALL of phone records of Verizon or AT&T. It seems that our government would be better served by more selectively applying the criteria.



For instance, we know they knew about the Tsarnaev brothers. Why didn't we focus more on them? Were we distracted by the millions of other records we were combing through?



I think we have enough leads that lead to other terrorists to other plots without mucking up the system with a ton of useless data. More specificity is needed not less.

What I think it all boils down to is trust. Do I trust the big government to abide by the laws and not abuse power?



Actually, the question should be, given the way big government has abused its power and those whom it is over, why should I trust it when it says that it's not abusing power and that all it ever does is for the good of America?

"If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide from the giant surveillance apparatus the government's been hiding." --Stephen Colbert



I think it's pretty clear that the 4th Amendment is being violated. I liken it to the NYPD knows a murder occurred so they get a search warrant for every apartment in NYC. They may eventually find the murderer, but it's going to take a while and a lot of innocent people will have their constitutional rights infringed.

jvqb-- you're comparing apples and oranges, brother. I suspect you know this and this is why you started a new thread instead of persisting on the other.



Show me where the Church Handbook addresses what Snowden did as directly as it addresses filing income tax returns, and we'll move forward.



As for where I stand on Snowden, I'm far from ready to call him a hero. We already know a number of lies in his backstory that he provided the Post and the Guardian (overstated income, misrepresented the nature of his military service, educational background, medical history, and reasons for leaving military service), and the fact that he would lie on those casts doubt on his motivations. In fact, he didn't even start working in the capacity where he learned about PRISM etc. until late February--but he had contacted Daniel Ellsburg and Laura Poitros about doing an espose on the NSA in January--before he even started working there. They turned him down because they wanted time to do due-diligence and he was impatient. Maybe if the Post and Guardian had taken the same precaution they might have caught his outright lies.



Then there is the timing of the leaks. At first, we only get the "surveillance state" leaks--Verizon, PRISM, and Boundless Informant. That fits with his supposed motivation. But then, things start to look more sinister--(1) He tells a story about working with the CIA in Switzerland to get a Swiss banker drunk and then recruit him as a CIA spy (a story which every source has denied, and has a timeline that doesn't work). He does this immediately prior to a crucial week in negotiations between the US and Switzerland re: banking. (2) He leaks details of US cyber surveillance programs against China and Hong Kong. He does this days before the premier of China is to meet with President Obama in California for a "shirtsleeves" summit. (3) He leaks details about the US and the UK spying on diplomats to the G-20 convention. He does this days before the UK hosts the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland. The timing of these most recent "revelations" (*gasp!*--we spy on diplomats!) seems aimed more at damaging the US in the international arena than in exposing a surveillance state. What's the constitutional objection to those three items??



So, when I connect all the dots, it leads me to the impression that Snowden is a lying millenial douchebag who wants attention from all his hacker friends, wants infamy, and thinks a free internet (read: anarchy) would be swell. He might do something later on to change my mind, but last time I read my history books, one thing Rosa Parks, MLK, and the Founding Fathers all had in common when they were flouting the law was this--they didn't run away to China to do it.







He claims he was motivated by love of country and shock at what he discovered, but the short amount of time he was working with the NSA indicates to me that he went to work looking for something to leak. He claims his dismay grew over time to the point he couldn't stand it and had to do something--he was only there three months.....and what did he think the NSA did?

urroner wrote:

I really don't know. I've had a security clearance for over a decade, I've worked with NSA and other gov't agencies. We have hours of mandatory yearly training about protecting the privacy of US citizens and other in the country legally.



We have classes on security classifications (top secret, secret, etc.) and the penalties for unauthorized disclosure.



But everything I've read seems to be against what I've been taught. That these programs went beyond the legal parameters of which I'm aware.



It seems when looking for terrorists and their plots, you're already searching for a needle in a haystack. I'm not sure I understand the logic in making that haystack a large as possible, by asking for ALL of phone records of Verizon or AT&T. It seems that our government would be better served by more selectively applying the criteria.



For instance, we know they knew about the Tsarnaev brothers. Why didn't we focus more on them? Were we distracted by the millions of other records we were combing through?



I think we have enough leads that lead to other terrorists to other plots without mucking up the system with a ton of useless data. More specificity is needed not less.

What I think it all boils down to is trust. Do I trust the big government to abide by the laws and not abuse power?



Actually, the question should be, given the way big government has abused its power and those whom it is over, why should I trust it when it says that it's not abusing power and that all it ever does is for the good of America?

At this point I'm going with you 2 guys. Whatever Snowden did or didn't do, I do not want my government checking on me but letting bombers they knew something about run around with matches and pressure coockers.

Those defending Snowden either do not understand what it is he is reporting and the NSA is doing or are looking for ways to attack Obama. Congress has known what NSA is doing FOR YEARS and not one member tea party or flaming liberal has raised Cain. And what are they raising Cain about now? NSA's recording of who is calling whom. Big freaking deal. For decades, upheld by Supreme Court precedent, the Post Office has recorded "mail cover." That is what's written on the outside of the envelope--the addresses of the sender and receiver and no one to my knowledge ever got outraged over that. The NSA's recording of phone data is doing essentially the same with a telephone--recording who is calling whom. To my understanding, it is not listening in on the conversations just as the Post Office does not open that envelope. What NSA is doing is massive but it is qualitatively no different from what has been normal procedure.



As for Snowden, I have a problem with someone breaking his oath. Here he broke his oath to disclose something already disclosed to Congress and a practice not too different from what's been happening. In any event, I am not sure his revelation is all that earth shattering--don't most of think that someone somewhere has a record of our calls? Snowden is not a hero in my book.

I posted here because you never gave an answer about whether protecting slaves and Nazi victims contrary to court approved constitutionally upheld laws makes a person dishonest, but then I guess this is apples to oranges.



If you believe a word about what the government hacks claim Snowden's backstory is you're nuts. Could he be some sleeper Chinese agent like Cheney surely believes? Sure, but then so might everyone else so let's have everyone under surveillance (they've done a nice job on the spin there). But even so he's still done more to defend the Constitution than nearly anyone else in the past 12 years.



BoiseBYU, check the the cnet story posted above. Multiple sources, including at least one congress member, have confirmed the NSA has more than just the metadata (your mail cover) that they have access to all the content they want as well. And they are the ones on the security committees who are the only ones in congress who have access to this stuff. There's a reason Justin Amash and Rand Paul aren't on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees - they need hacks like Orrin Hatch, Marco Rubio and Diane Feinstein to sign off on the surveillance state.

Snowden is not the only one breaking oaths. Some may be ok with people checking mail, phone calls and email, I am not.



I appreciated the interesting points brought out here but I'm uncomfortable with the attacks on others regardless of what the handbook says. I am not innocent here. When contention increases, learning and progression decreases.

snoscythe wrote:



So, when I connect all the dots, it leads me to the impression that Snowden is a lying millenial douchebag who wants attention from all his hacker friends, wants infamy, and thinks a free internet (read: anarchy) would be swell. He might do something later on to change my mind, but last time I read my history books, one thing Rosa Parks, MLK, and the Founding Fathers all had in common when they were flouting the law was this--they didn't run away to China to do it.



He claims he was motivated by love of country and shock at what he discovered, but the short amount of time he was working with the NSA indicates to me that he went to work looking for something to leak. He claims his dismay grew over time to the point he couldn't stand it and had to do something--he was only there three months.....and what did he think the NSA did?

Sno - I don't disagree with anything you have posted. Here are my thoughts on a hot button topic.



In my mind the jury is still out on this Snowden guy. I am certain there is spin on both sides - spinning fast and hard. I have no doubt, Snowden is an idealist. In the real world, idealists get offended all the time - certainly he did. I'm not sure he did the right thing. What are the real facts?



I hesitate calling him a traitor though. It all depends on what classified information he released, gave, or sold to the Chinese or Russians. We know so little. I have (what I think) are legitimate questions. How is this guy living now? Where is he getting his money? Certainly, as a young and new employee, Snowden is not independently wealthy to jet set around the world - or be on the run indefinitely. Is China supporting him? I really don't know. The bottom line is, I know very little and there are a lot of questions in my mind.



In my small mind - I ask - is the Obama administration above reproach? Can I trust them? Were they honest and forthcoming in Fast and Furious? No. Were they honest and forthcoming in Benghazi? No. Have they been honest and forthcoming in the IRS "tea party" scandal? No. Has Obama and his people been honest about our border security - or lack there-of? No.



Final thought - I think the national debate is good. I do not think the release of national security secrets that hurts our nation's security is good. Fact - there are really bad people out there making every effort to hurt this nation and kill it's people. Time will tell if Snowden did a heroic thing. I'm not sure. I do think he has rung a very dangerous bell.

jvquarterback wrote:
I posted here because you never gave an answer about whether protecting slaves and Nazi victims contrary to court approved constitutionally upheld laws makes a person dishonest, but then I guess this is apples to oranges.



If you believe a word about what the government hacks claim Snowden's backstory is you're nuts. Could he be some sleeper Chinese agent like Cheney surely believes? Sure, but then so might everyone else so let's have everyone under surveillance (they've done a nice job on the spin there). But even so he's still done more to defend the Constitution than nearly anyone else in the past 12 years.



BoiseBYU, check the the cnet story posted above. Multiple sources, including at least one congress member, have confirmed the NSA has more than just the metadata (your mail cover) that they have access to all the content they want as well. And they are the ones on the security committees who are the only ones in congress who have access to this stuff. There's a reason Justin Amash and Rand Paul aren't on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees - they need hacks like Orrin Hatch, Marco Rubio and Diane Feinstein to sign off on the surveillance state.

JV there are two things that Snowden has said. The "phone cover" and the stupidly James Bond sounding PRISM program. The later is designed to hack into the content of email and phone calls of non Americans. Of course there's no constitutional problem there. The fact that one Congressman said that NSA can listen in without a warrant to the content of a domestic email/phone call, refuted by the Administration, does not mean this has occurred. I'll wait to see what unfolds. If this lone democrat and Snowden are correct then it is an outrageous violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Well this going to require more investigation and since Snowden's girlfriend is calling the shots, I suggest we look for coded messages in her poll dancing videos.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

tww wrote:
Well this going to require more investigation and since Snowden's girlfriend is calling the shots, I suggest we look for coded messages in her poll dancing videos.

+1. :lol: :lol: ;) Is that so wrong? :whistle:

I think the biggest knock against Snowden isn't the whether or not he is a traitor. The real question is why was a twenty something earning 150k+ per year as a security analyst? And the answer is of course so the politically connected partners at Booz Allen could fleece taxpayers for even more money. That, along with the death of the 4th amendment, is the issue. But the don't expect Dick Cheney or the rest of the morons in DC to ever listen to anyone wanting to cut funding for "intelligence."



http://mises.org/daily/4872/Why-This-Gigantic-Intelligence-Apparatus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jvquarterback wrote:
I think the biggest knock against Snowden isn't the whether or not he is a traitor. The real question is why was a twenty something earning 150k+ per year as a security analyst? And the answer is of course so the politically connected partners at Booz Allen could fleece taxpayers for even more money. That, along with the death of the 4th amendment, is the issue. But the don't expect Dick Cheney or the rest of the morons in DC to ever listen to anyone wanting to cut funding for "intelligence."



http://mises.org/daily/4872/Why-This-Gigantic-Intelligence-Apparatus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Boy, at $150K, he can afford one heck of a pole ;)

I just read a report from Infowars.com. I don't know how to post this and I don't remember all of it but it said then vp Cheney had something to do with creating or working with nsa. He said something about going to congress for oversight and they turned it down. The report said the terrorists already know what nsa is doing. Inforwars thinks that nsa is has not prevented much of anything and the terrorists are going around it. If this is true the terrorists don't feel as threatened by nsa as some citizens do.

nuk13 wrote:
I just read a report from Infowars.com. I don't know how to post this and I don't remember all of it but it said then vp Cheney had something to do with creating or working with nsa. He said something about going to congress for oversight and they turned it down. The report said the terrorists already know what nsa is doing. Inforwars thinks that nsa is has not prevented much of anything and the terrorists are going around it. If this is true the terrorists don't feel as threatened by nsa as some citizens do.

What is really odd is that most of the terrorists that I know about (granted I don't know about them all) were here on visas. The government knew everything about them and yet looked the other way. The ones that weren't here on visas were connected in some way to terrorist organizations outside the country. It seems to me that if the government wanted to clamp down on terrorists they could do it without the current anti-4th amendment process they are currently using.



Civilians prevent more crime and stop more terrorism than the government does. All this surveillance of everyone as if everyone was a suspect is a counterproductive abuse of power and a move to soviet style party rule.



I think it is not coincidence that both the nsa and the domestic drone program will have an unusually large presence in utah, one of if not the most republican, conservative, and religious states in the union.

tww wrote:
I think it is not coincidence that both the nsa and the domestic drone program will have an unusually large presence in utah, one of if not the most republican, conservative, and religious states in the union.

We also have pretty cheap energy which is necessary for all the servers they need to cool.