Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Edward Snowden responds to release of e-mail by U.S. officials
Edward Snowden responds to release of e-mail by U.S. officials
Q: How do you respond to today’s NSA statement and the release of your email with the Office of General Counsel?
The NSA’s new discovery of written contact between me and its lawyers - after more than a year of denying any such contact existed - raises serious concerns. It reveals as false the NSA’s claim to Barton Gellman of the Washington Post in December of last year, that “after extensive investigation, including interviews with his former NSA supervisors and co-workers, we have not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden’s contention that he brought these matters to anyone’s attention.”
Today’s release is incomplete, and does not include my correspondence with the Signals Intelligence Directorate’s Office of Compliance, which believed that a classified executive order could take precedence over an act of Congress, contradicting what was just published. It also did not include concerns about how indefensible collection activities - such as breaking into the back-haul communications of major US internet companies - are sometimes concealed under E.O. 12333 to avoid Congressional reporting requirements and regulations.
If the White House is interested in the whole truth, rather than the NSA’s clearly tailored and incomplete leak today for a political advantage, it will require the NSA to ask my former colleagues, management, and the senior leadership team about whether I, at any time, raised concerns about the NSA’s improper and at times unconstitutional surveillance activities. It will not take long to receive an answer....whether my disclosures were justified does not depend on whether I raised these concerns previously. That’s because the system is designed to ensure that even the most valid concerns are suppressed and ignored, not acted upon. The fact that two powerful Democratic Senators - Ron Wyden and Mark Udall - knew of mass surveillance that they believed was abusive and felt constrained to do anything about it underscores how futile such internal action is -- and will remain -- until these processes are reformed.
Still, the fact is that I did raise such concerns both verbally and in writing, and on multiple, continuing occasions - as I have always said, and as NSA has always denied. Just as when the NSA claimed it followed German laws in Germany just weeks before it was revealed that they did not, or when NSA said they did not engage in economic espionage a few short months before it was revealed they actually did so on a regular and recurring basis, or even when they claimed they had “no domestic spying program” before we learned they collected the phone records of every American they could, so too are today’s claims that “this is only evidence we have of him reporting concerns” false.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/edward-snowden-responds-to-release-of-e-mail-by-us-officials/2014/05/29/95137e1c-e781-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html
Q: How do you respond to today’s NSA statement and the release of your email with the Office of General Counsel?
The NSA’s new discovery of written contact between me and its lawyers - after more than a year of denying any such contact existed - raises serious concerns. It reveals as false the NSA’s claim to Barton Gellman of the Washington Post in December of last year, that “after extensive investigation, including interviews with his former NSA supervisors and co-workers, we have not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden’s contention that he brought these matters to anyone’s attention.”
Today’s release is incomplete, and does not include my correspondence with the Signals Intelligence Directorate’s Office of Compliance, which believed that a classified executive order could take precedence over an act of Congress, contradicting what was just published. It also did not include concerns about how indefensible collection activities - such as breaking into the back-haul communications of major US internet companies - are sometimes concealed under E.O. 12333 to avoid Congressional reporting requirements and regulations.
If the White House is interested in the whole truth, rather than the NSA’s clearly tailored and incomplete leak today for a political advantage, it will require the NSA to ask my former colleagues, management, and the senior leadership team about whether I, at any time, raised concerns about the NSA’s improper and at times unconstitutional surveillance activities. It will not take long to receive an answer....whether my disclosures were justified does not depend on whether I raised these concerns previously. That’s because the system is designed to ensure that even the most valid concerns are suppressed and ignored, not acted upon. The fact that two powerful Democratic Senators - Ron Wyden and Mark Udall - knew of mass surveillance that they believed was abusive and felt constrained to do anything about it underscores how futile such internal action is -- and will remain -- until these processes are reformed.
Still, the fact is that I did raise such concerns both verbally and in writing, and on multiple, continuing occasions - as I have always said, and as NSA has always denied. Just as when the NSA claimed it followed German laws in Germany just weeks before it was revealed that they did not, or when NSA said they did not engage in economic espionage a few short months before it was revealed they actually did so on a regular and recurring basis, or even when they claimed they had “no domestic spying program” before we learned they collected the phone records of every American they could, so too are today’s claims that “this is only evidence we have of him reporting concerns” false.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/edward-snowden-responds-to-release-of-e-mail-by-us-officials/2014/05/29/95137e1c-e781-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html
Where's your evidence, Snowden? His legal adviser thinks the focus on this is a "red herring."
Ben Wizner, Director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project and legal adviser to Snowden, dismissed the controversy over Snowden’s internal efforts as a “red herring” to the larger issue of mass surveillance.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-releases-snowden-email-nbc-truth/story?id=23918598&singlePage=true
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-releases-snowden-email-nbc-truth/story?id=23918598&singlePage=true
Snowden's lawyer is dismissing as a "red herring" what Greenwald characterized as the "biggest news."
Biggest news from NBC/Snowden interview: NBC confirmed Snowden filed written concerns with NSA - something USG has vehemently denied.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/471893773375397889
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/471893773375397889
LOL!
Wizner's comments also indicates that Snowden has no evidence of his contacts.
Feinstein: Snowden never voiced NSA concerns
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Feinstein-Snowden-never-voiced-NSA-concerns-5514604.php
Snowden email fell short of NSA criticism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025020097
The "biggest news" is that Snowden admitted to stealing damaging documents and distributing them to people who simply promised they wouldn't reveal the information.
27 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
the WH works with Republicans to weaken the surveillance bill and the CIA continues to withhold documents pertaining to the torture committed during the Bush administration.
If the Republicans are the "enemy," why does Obama work so hard to protect them?
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
"By one of the most prolific silly posters in DU history ... "
Wait, let me guess, you're one of the "vast majority," right?
