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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:45 PM Jun 2014

Transcript of the Edward Snowden portion of my show this week

Edward Snowden Fails to Justify his Actions in NBC Interview with Brian Williams
http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2014/06/edward-snowden-fails-to-justify-his.html

Transcript of this segment from my Radio show of June 1-2 2014. You can hear the segment as I delivered it by clicking http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2014/06/02/analyzing-snowden-interview-russia-ukraine-china-bullying-and-more and fast forwarding to 37:55
---------------------------------------


I watched a replay of the Edward Snowden interview with NBC's Brian Williams this past week. I'm struck by how he provided inadequate or demonstrably untrue answers to the two central issues around his actions.

The two central questions are

#1 - Did NSA Surveillance programs amount to lawbreaking or wrongdoing and if so are they bad enough to justify taking the massive steps he took.

and

#2 - Did Snowden do enough to try to address whatever was concerning him through appropriate channels.

We can talk about other issues but everything else, in my opinion, is window-dressing compared to those two central questions.
The problem with Snowden's actions with regard to my first question, did the surveillance programs amount to wrongdoing, is that Snowden had no legal training and thus did not have the background to answer those questions, nor did he apparently consult someone who did before acting.

The NSA Surveillance programs, at least from what we have been told from the documents Snowden and Greenwald presented us, and we don't really have confirmation if that information is accurate, but from what we've gathered from the documents they are the subject of a lot of debate between fourth amendment experts. There is no consensus about whether they are Constitutional or not.

I've previously covered on this show the evolution in fourth amendment court cases with regards to surveillance.

The important two things to know are that prior to the FISA Law of 1978, the appellate Courts repeatedly ruled that the President has the inherent right to conduct surveillance for national security purposes and that this constitutes an exception to the fourth amendment. an example of one of these rulings is US v Duggan in 1984. FISA passed in 1978 basically stated that to conduct national security surveillance in the US the President had to go through a FISA court to get a warrant. And President Obama has been going to a FISA court to get warrants. So its understandable that people are making the argument that what he is doing is constitutional.

Obviously there are additional details there but the law basically is as I've laid out.

Some critics say the FISA court is almost a rubber stamp. That's right, because the FISA court is acting on prior Appellate Court precedents that say, as I just mentioned that the President has the inherent right to conduct national security surveillance.
The FISA court is not there to prevent surveillance per se, but to ensure there is oversight and a paper trail to ensure that if congress wants to come back and investigate why the President spied on someone and take action, they have the ability to do so.

Snowden was repeatedly asked by Brian Williams last week to detail the wrongdoing by the NSA and he mentioned the Constitution 22 times and he talked about a few issues but the question is did those things violate the fourth amendment. Were they illegal or Constitutional. Of course, Snowden can't answer that, he doesn't have the background. Nor can we take his word for a number of things including, did this surveillance help the fight against terrorism. The folks who really know the answer to that question are prevented from answering because the information is classified. Yes, some folks have claimed that the surveillance doesn't help. But we don't need to ask/answer that question to show Snowden's claims to be invalid.

The question is did he have a reasonable basis to conclude that the government was doing something illegal or Unconstitutional or generally wrong, and the answer is no. He could have gotten that information. He could have retained an attorney that was an expert in fourth amendment appelate cases and asked that attorney to go over what he found. He didn't do that.

That in my opinion is a critical problem with his actions. A late 20's guy with no legal experience or training made a very grave decision whose basis is a legal one that he was not qualified to make.

Now lets look at problem #2. Did Snowden take all possible actions within regular channels to get his concerns addressed. The answer to that is easily answered. No. He was asked this directly by Brian Williams and his answer was:

"I actually did go through channels, and that is documented. The NSA has records, they have copies of emails right now to their office of general counsel, to their oversight and compliance folks from me raising concerns about the NSA's interpretations of it -- legal authorities. Now, I had raised these complaints not just officially in writing through email -- to these offices and -- and these individuals, but to my supervisors, to my colleagues, in more than one office. I did it in Fort Meade. I did it in Hawaii.

Now folks, on its face you can see how ridiculous this is. This guy is about to take an extraordinary action, violate the oath he took to safeguard and not disseminate classified information to unauthorized people, he's going to flee the country, and he asserts as adequate attempts to address his concerns properly that he sent a few emails to his supervisors and the NSA's office of general counsel.

In fairness, I agree that this what Snowden describes are among the first steps you might take, yes, but not the last or even second to last or third to last. Before I took the radical step that he took, I would be knocking on the doors of every congressman or senator on Capitol Hill in particular all of the leadership of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. I would have gone to see the Inspector General of the Office of the Intelligence Community in person. I would have tried to see as many people in the administration as possible. I would have sent emails and letters to the President that I worked for the CIA and NSA and Booz Allen and needed to see him regarding an urgent national security issue. He probably wouldnt have gotten in to see the President but he might have gotten as far as a deputy Chief of staff or maybe even the Chief of staff.

And the President was clearly interested in having a discussion about this. The President gave a speech in May of 2012 indicating a desire to have a dialogue on the appropriateness of a number of programs including drones and NSA Surveillance. That's two weeks or so before Snowden's first documents were leaked to the public.

But even giving Snowden credit for emailing the NSA Office of General Counsel with his concerns is giving him too much Credit.
Get this folks, when asked about it, the NSA initially denied that Snowden ever emailed the general counsel expressing concerns.
Do you know why? Well, let me explain it this way. After Snowden kept trying to assert he had sent such an email, the NSA went back and looked for any correspondance between Snowden and the general counsel and they found one, but it had very little to do with raising security concerns. The NSA has published the full email correspondance online.

The upshot is, its Snowden asking about a training class where an Executive order was discussed as carrying the same weight as federal law. The general counsel replied, yes they have the same power. If you would like to discuss, call me.

Thats it. I am not omitting anything relevant. That is Snowdens claim to trying to get this addressed through official channels.
After the NSA posted that email online, Snowden started backing up and claimed that the emails that really expressed his concern was sent to the NSA Signals Intelligence folks. If that's true, why didn't he mention that instead of mentioning the Office of General Counsel email during his interview with Brian Williams?

Those two problems with his actions, the failure to have an expert look over what his concerns were to determine the legality of them and totally inadequate attempts to address his concerns through legal means take what he did out of the realm of whistleblower and hero and put them squarely in the position of criminal and betrayer of his countries trust and secrets. There is no amount of spin that will make those two issues go away. They are the central issues in what Snowden did and he should be judged on his failure to act responsibly in both cases.

For other odd statements by Snowden, an article by Bob Cesca titled "The 13 Most Bizarre Things from Edward Snowden’s NBC News Interview" is a good place to get that information, and includes such mentions as:

Snowden claimed he has auote “no relationship” with the Russian government and that he’s quote “not supported” by it but that’s odd, given how the Russian government has twice offered him asylum and one of his lawyers, Anatoly Kucherena, is an attorney with the Russian intelligence agency, the FSB (formerly known as the KGB).


and

Early on after the documents he took were first leaked, Snowden was adamant about saying he is not a spy.” But this past week on tv with Brian Williams he not only confessed to being “trained as a spy.” and taking on assignments as a spy, he pumped up his spying credentials.


When you examine all of this, I think that anyone who still finds Snowden credible needs to have their heads examined.

Edward Snowden wins the award for worst and most shameful nonsense of the week.
118 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Transcript of the Edward Snowden portion of my show this week (Original Post) stevenleser Jun 2014 OP
The NSA could have released that email a year ago MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #1
I find it much easier to believe that the GG, the ES & the PO are continuing to lie like crazy. Whisp Jun 2014 #3
I find it easier to believe the NSA is lying. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #33
Thank you for that 4th Amendment history - I was not aware closeupready Jun 2014 #38
Why should they release anything? Given that Mr. Snowden has charges pending in the federal docket, msanthrope Jun 2014 #12
Then why release the email they released? MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #15
because that email had Nothing to do with what Snowden promised. Whisp Jun 2014 #36
I have no idea. I would not have released it. But his attorneys can release what they wish. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #42
Maybe because it's evidence of nothing. And relevant to nothing. randome Jun 2014 #43
Snowdedn "seems to have" a problem with the truth? DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2014 #2
Oh, don't exaggerate. JackRiddler Jun 2014 #105
Long worded 'Kill the Messenger' fallacy AgingAmerican Jun 2014 #4
I evaluate both the messenger and the message. Both are faulty and stevenleser Jun 2014 #16
So you don't believe that the NSA spied on us? AgingAmerican Jun 2014 #20
The NSA illegally destroyed the records Fred Drum Jun 2014 #26
As usual, Snowden fans have mischaracterized things. stevenleser Jun 2014 #46
Does AgingAmerican Jun 2014 #49
You'll forgive us if we don't all fall in line with the authoritarians. L0oniX Jun 2014 #82
Well if the NSA said that in a press release JackRiddler Jun 2014 #111
Liar Eddie kills his own damn message. Cha Jun 2014 #70
This is why after one time, I no longer will make the effort to listen.. MrMickeysMom Jun 2014 #5
Once was enough for me bahrbearian Jun 2014 #13
My target audience is the reality based community, not Snowden/Greenwald sycophants stevenleser Jun 2014 #19
"...like they just came down from a chat with a burning bush." randome Jun 2014 #22
Is that why you go on Fox News? Union Scribe Jun 2014 #30
+ a gazillion. nt Mojorabbit Jun 2014 #51
LMFAO ...yea that. Lots of reality base going on there. Birds of a feather I guess. L0oniX Jun 2014 #81
Thanks for exposing yourself by deeming those who don't share your view as brown nosers... MrMickeysMom Jun 2014 #37
I don't blame him, he needs more airtime on Fox Dragonfli Jun 2014 #56
"Can't fault a person for needing to eat…" MrMickeysMom Jun 2014 #58
I would never personaly resort to such a dishonorable profession to live Dragonfli Jun 2014 #62
I hope we are all in a position within a few more years to embrace the good... MrMickeysMom Jun 2014 #78
The Libertarian right is on your and Snowdens side they love that this is a stevenleser Jun 2014 #87
"Ed Snowden, Russian TV star, hands Putin a propaganda coup" JackRiddler Jun 2014 #109
How silly! And Peter King agrees with you. neverforget Jun 2014 #114
Birth? JackRiddler Jun 2014 #106
Ooof! Doctor! MrMickeysMom Jun 2014 #116
Snowden couldn't name one thing the NSA has done that is illegal. Not one. randome Jun 2014 #6
Yeah, sure... MrMickeysMom Jun 2014 #7
Well, I wouldn't take Snowden's word for anything. The man is a thief. randome Jun 2014 #8
If you want an objective reason, you can start with this one... MrMickeysMom Jun 2014 #14
What is the proof? randome Jun 2014 #17
maybe you should ask the EFF Fred Drum Jun 2014 #27
They only have supposition but I would still trust them more than Snowden. randome Jun 2014 #28
"EFF to Court: There's No Doubt the Government Destroyed NSA Spying Evidence…" MrMickeysMom Jun 2014 #39
Authoritarians have no interest in evidence AgingAmerican Jun 2014 #57
That's the standard authoritarian reply AgingAmerican Jun 2014 #55
You realize that its illegal for the NSA to spy on American citizens mudy waters Jun 2014 #18
I do. Where is the proof that they are violating this law? randome Jun 2014 #21
You'll never get through to them. Union Scribe Jun 2014 #32
I know. It's just mental exercise, at this point. randome Jun 2014 #34
You have been given proof in a plethora of threads. nt Mojorabbit Jun 2014 #52
No, it's not. You, like Snowden, are practicing Constitutional law without training. stevenleser Jun 2014 #48
Snowden is like those idiots who send hatemail to DU for T/Sing them and talk about how stevenleser Jun 2014 #23
Thank goodness I was afraid I'd missed it. Union Scribe Jun 2014 #9
Ah yes, "I am not a spy." ucrdem Jun 2014 #10
With much thanks to Iching Carpenter for this reminder and huge chunk of wisdom ... Aerows Jun 2014 #11
Nah SnowGlen didn't "like" what was goin on so they decided to bust airThang wide open... you know uponit7771 Jun 2014 #24
WTF?? Anybody?? elias49 Jun 2014 #45
I assumed he fell asleep on the keyboard Union Scribe Jun 2014 #54
IOWs - "... I have a narrow cultural range of friends..." uponit7771 Jun 2014 #61
Here are some other sources for you since you don't trust Snowden: Cerridwen Jun 2014 #25
He must have suckered the ACLU, and other civil liberties groups, free press organizations, Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #29
Confessions of their character Aerows Jun 2014 #31
You want to bring up character, do you? Whisp Jun 2014 #35
Well this post says a lot about your character. nt laundry_queen Jun 2014 #60
If the answer to the first half of question one is "yes," then the rest is justified. morningfog Jun 2014 #40
What if the little jerk didn't actually take Anything... Whisp Jun 2014 #41
According to this org map of NSA divisions, GC does NOT have a compliance and oversight division. Luminous Animal Jun 2014 #44
Stephen, it's more complicated than that. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #47
It is more complicated than that, but not in the way you are asserting. stevenleser Jun 2014 #50
Supreme Court decisions are not the eternal law. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #53
It's not a supreme court decision. It's dozens of appellate decisions that the Supreme Court stevenleser Jun 2014 #65
The technology today makes the facts very different. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #69
No, none of what you just wrote is correct. stevenleser Jun 2014 #102
Sorry. The job of the appellate courts is to follow the precedents set out by the JDPriestly Jun 2014 #103
Here is some more helpful information for you. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #64
See my #65 above. nt stevenleser Jun 2014 #66
The essential thing to remember is that neither the Constitution nor the JDPriestly Jun 2014 #79
So much distortion and speculation here that it's hard to know where to begin. Vattel Jun 2014 #59
ummmm, Snowden "... I'm not a spy..." quote uponit7771 Jun 2014 #63
Funny. Feinstein & Rodgers agree that he is not a spy for Russia. Which is what Snowden was asserted Luminous Animal Jun 2014 #68
He said he was not a spy, he didn't say for whom... and yeah, the email thing is a open shut uponit7771 Jun 2014 #72
Oh, please this is pathetic. Vattel Jun 2014 #74
On the edit, it's the "Russia" conversation where he said he wasn't a spy not the China one.... uponit7771 Jun 2014 #75
Brian Williams pressed Snowden to specify something the NSA had done that was illegal. randome Jun 2014 #83
LOL, ok! nt Logical Jun 2014 #67
I see the little Eddie "I am not a spy" Eddie/wouldn't lie-brigrade is here to defend their "hero".. Cha Jun 2014 #71
Needing more Fox news airtime? Katashi_itto Jun 2014 #73
Conservatives love Snowdens allegations as they love anything that hurts Obama. stevenleser Jun 2014 #76
So it's nothing to do with the fact NSA violated the 4th Katashi_itto Jun 2014 #77
All appellate decisions are on the other side of where you are stevenleser Jun 2014 #86
I do not get this mission Aerows Jun 2014 #95
It doesn't violate the fourth amendment. stevenleser Jun 2014 #99
Trying to link yourself to EarlG Aerows Jun 2014 #100
I wasn't linking myself to EarlG I was linking you to those who send him hatemail stevenleser Jun 2014 #101
Thanks, I appreciate Aerows Jun 2014 #110
"those who love Snowden and Greenwald are the ones angling for a spot on Conservative media" LMFAO L0oniX Jun 2014 #85
And people on Fux news Aerows Jun 2014 #89
You thought Right bobduca Jun 2014 #91
Shockingly false. JackRiddler Jun 2014 #112
Approve of the NSA huh? ...then people don't deserve the freedom they have... L0oniX Jun 2014 #80
alternate show names? bobduca Jun 2014 #84
I vote for "The O'Leser Factor" JackRiddler Jun 2014 #113
You can kill the messenger Aerows Jun 2014 #88
I can and did skewer the hopelessly flawed message stevenleser Jun 2014 #90
Why? Aerows Jun 2014 #92
Because it is hopelessly flawed and incorrect. stevenleser Jun 2014 #93
How? Aerows Jun 2014 #94
This should be enough to get you started stevenleser Jun 2014 #96
Oh boy Aerows Jun 2014 #97
Like all my opinions, it's properly sourced stevenleser Jun 2014 #98
Aaaaaaawwww... JackRiddler Jun 2014 #115
But But But HangOnKids Jun 2014 #117
Yeah, it's totally courageous. JackRiddler Jun 2014 #118
READ Greenwald's book, everyone. It disabuses the OP of all this arduous case building. nt ancianita Jun 2014 #104
To expect normal people to think one side is lying and the other is the pillar of truth, is insanity Rex Jun 2014 #107
Agreed. ancianita Jun 2014 #108
 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
1. The NSA could have released that email a year ago
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:15 PM
Jun 2014

They should release all of the Snowden emails relevant to his claims, redacting whatever they need to.

Otherwise, we can only assume that the NSA is continuing to lie like crazy, like Clapper lied to Congress about the Spy On Everyone program, like Alexander lied about the Terra! plots stopped by that program, and so forth. We know that the NSA lies; there's no poof that Snowden has lied.

We also know what happens to NSA employees who raise substantive issues through correct channels: for example, they end up with a gun in their face, and/or in financial ruin defending against bogus legal charges that carry a penalty of life in prison. Given this fact, it's ridiculous to think that Snowden's emails would be so pointed.

Enough.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
3. I find it much easier to believe that the GG, the ES & the PO are continuing to lie like crazy.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:22 PM
Jun 2014

The huddle of Libertarians: Pierre, Poitras, Snowden, GG, and the Ronny and the the Randy,

nah! Pure coincidence!

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
33. I find it easier to believe the NSA is lying.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:08 PM
Jun 2014

What is left of the Bill of Rights?

The Fourth Amendment states:

Amendment IV

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

What is left of that when the government, without satisfying the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment? The FISA court's orders are at least as overreaching as the general warrants called Writs of Assistance that played such a big role in angering colonial Americans to the point that they revolted.

Malcom Affair

A writ of assistance was used in an incident known as the "Malcom Affair", which was described by legal scholar William Cuddihy as "the most famous search in colonial America."[9] The episode demonstrated a fundamental difference between the colonists' view of their rights and the official British view of imperial law. "The Malcom affair was a minor matter, a comedy of blundering revenue officers and barricaded colonials," wrote legal historian John Phillip Reid, "but were we to dismiss it in haste we might run the risk of dismissing much of the story of the American Revolution."[10]

On 24 September 1766, customs officials in Boston, with a deputy sheriff, searched merchant Daniel Malcom's home, which was also his place of business. They claimed the authority to do so by a writ of assistance issued to customs official Benjamin Hallowell, and the information of a confidential informant.[11] Malcom allowed them to search, but denied them access to a locked cellar, arguing that they did not have the legal authority to break it open. According to customs officials, Malcom threatened to use force to prevent them from opening the door; according to Malcom and his supporters, his threat specified resisting any unlawful forced entry.[12]

The officials left and returned with a specific search warrant, only to find that Malcom had locked his house.[13] A crowd supportive of Malcom had gathered around the house; Tories claimed that this "mob" numbered 300 or more people and was hostile to the customs officers, while Whigs insisted that this was a peaceful gathering of about 50 curious onlookers, mostly boys.[14] No violence occurred, but reports written by Governor Francis Bernard and the customs officials created the impression in Britain that a riot had taken place.[15] The incident furthered Boston's reputation in Britain as a lawless town controlled by "mobs", a reputation that would contribute to the government's decision to send troops in 1768.[16]

Although British officials, and some historians, described Malcom as acting in defiance of the law, John Phillip Reid argued that Malcom's actions were lawful—so precisely lawful, in fact, that Reid speculated that Malcom may have been acting under the advice of his lawyer, James Otis. According to Reid, Malcom and Otis may have been attempting to provoke a lawsuit so that they could once again "challenge the validity of writs of assistance" in court.[17] This was one of several incidents when a Boston merchant resisted a search with a seemingly exact knowledge of the law; John Hancock would act in a similar manner when customs officials attempted to search his ship Lydia in 1768.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance

See also:

A Writ of Assistance is a written order issued by a court instructing a law enforcement official to perform a certain task. In the area of customs, Writs of Assistance were first authorized by an act of the English Parliament in 1660 and were issued by the Court of Exchequer to help customs officials search for smuggled goods. These writs were called "Writs of Assistance" because they called upon sheriffs, other officials, and loyal subjects to "assist" the customs official in carrying out his duties.

In colonial America, customs Writs of Assistance served as general search warrants that did not expire, allowing customs officials to search anywhere for smuggled goods without having to obtain a specific warrant. These writs were issued by courts in British America in the 1760s. The oppressive nature of these General Writs of Assistance inspired the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids general search warrants in the United States. Thus once again, the founders, whether by luck or phenomenal insight, provided yet another restraint on governmental overreach.

Thus, the NSA domestic spying programs are merely a modern day equivalent of Writs of Assistance and since generalized blanket search warrants are forbidden by the 4th Amendment, the NSA programs are prima fascie unconstitutional.

http://www.scsun-news.com/ci_23721921



 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
12. Why should they release anything? Given that Mr. Snowden has charges pending in the federal docket,
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:23 PM
Jun 2014

shouldn't all evidence be withheld until his trial? Or at least until his lawyers have seen it?

Have his lawyers seen this evidence and decided to release it?

I dislike airing evidence in the media, and most prosecutors decline to release evidence while a trial is pending.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
36. because that email had Nothing to do with what Snowden promised.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:37 PM
Jun 2014

It had Nothing to do with Snowden claiming he tried his best to inform the NSA of their wrongdoings before he grabbed the loot and ran. Actually he already had the loot when he sent that email.

It was some simpleton question posed that genious Snowden should have known.

Didn't you read that email, Manny?

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
43. Maybe because it's evidence of nothing. And relevant to nothing.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 08:24 PM
Jun 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
2. Snowdedn "seems to have" a problem with the truth?
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:16 PM
Jun 2014

The NSA doesn't "seem" like anything. They're confirmed liars, but I'm sure they appreciate your useful support.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
105. Oh, don't exaggerate.
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 12:38 AM
Jun 2014

"Useful?" It's meant to be, I'm sure, but it's just a pedantic fart in a methane storm of propaganda. Though the repressive state has little need for such amateur apparatchiks, one does wonder where the motivation comes from.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
20. So you don't believe that the NSA spied on us?
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:22 PM
Jun 2014

Even though they have admitted it? And you don't believe this solely based on the fact that you don't like the messenger?

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
46. As usual, Snowden fans have mischaracterized things.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 08:50 PM
Jun 2014
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/318515-nsa-admits-analysts-purposefully-violated-privacy-rights

"Over the past decade, very rare instances of willful violations of NSA’s authorities have been found, but none under [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] or the Patriot Act," the agency said in a statement. "NSA takes very seriously allegations of misconduct, and cooperates fully with any investigations – responding as appropriate. NSA has zero tolerance for willful violations of the agency’s authorities."

According to Bloomberg News, which first reported on the NSA's statement, the violations were of Executive Order 12333, which was issued by President Reagan in 1981.
The admission comes days after the government released a 2011 court opinion that concluded that the NSA had unconstitutionally collected about 56,000 emails of Americans over a three-year period. The NSA said that incident and other legal violations were the result of technical glitches.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/318515-nsa-admits-analysts-purposefully-violated-privacy-rights#ixzz33cwl8tNr
 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
49. Does
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:13 PM
Jun 2014

...being against illegal NSA domestic blanket spying make a person a "Snowden fan?"

Does defending illegal NSA domestic blanket spying make a person 'Authoritarian'?



MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
5. This is why after one time, I no longer will make the effort to listen..
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:44 PM
Jun 2014

The above diatribe is like an elephant giving birth to a mouse.

Ughn! Way to push, stevenlesser...

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
19. My target audience is the reality based community, not Snowden/Greenwald sycophants
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:20 PM
Jun 2014

Who believe every ridiculous thing those two spout like they just came down from a chat with a burning bush.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
22. "...like they just came down from a chat with a burning bush."
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:25 PM
Jun 2014

That's golden.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
30. Is that why you go on Fox News?
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:48 PM
Jun 2014

Not a lot of "Snowden/Greenwald sycophants" in that reality-based crowd amiright?

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
37. Thanks for exposing yourself by deeming those who don't share your view as brown nosers...
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:44 PM
Jun 2014

It is so refreshing to see someone wanting to establish their own radio show as objective by claiming your reality is above those you do not know on this board.

That's the way a real talk show host should be. That's what we need now. Yes, I expect this is going to add to your insular discussion and thoughtfulness.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
56. I don't blame him, he needs more airtime on Fox
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:24 PM
Jun 2014

I understand career moves, I even understand why sex workers need to promote what they do. A similar need is a part of life for talking heads as well. I f he can prove he can propel the prop., his career will do much better. The man is just doing what people in his profession do, it's a living I guess. Can't fault a person for needing to eat.

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
58. "Can't fault a person for needing to eat…"
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:45 PM
Jun 2014

Yeah… I suppose so. OTOH, some would say in this manner, we are eating our young… Not an honorable thing to do.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
62. I would never personaly resort to such a dishonorable profession to live
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:01 AM
Jun 2014

But it is also unusually important to me to be able to respect myself and not swindle people out of their money or the truth just to earn a high salary.

I am nearly homeless however, so perhaps I should just embrace "all the badness in my soul" and be a well to do sociopath instead, I just can't lower myself personally in that way no matter how dire the need, oddly enough if I "had the merchandise" looks wise, I think I would have no trouble with standard prostitution as that to me appears to do no harm and so would not really cause me to feel any moral shame.

The point is, some people have different standards when looking in the mirror, and judging by the long list of fox personalities and propaganda journalists, I would have to hate a lot of people if I were to judge talking heads for their talking head ways. Give me a few more years and I will be bitter enough for such mass hatred, then I'll dish up a storm!

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
78. I hope we are all in a position within a few more years to embrace the good...
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 07:28 PM
Jun 2014

It's the journalists who do not forget their code of ethics who will help us get there.

I also hope you will no longer be nearly homeless.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
87. The Libertarian right is on your and Snowdens side they love that this is a
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:21 PM
Jun 2014

Problem for the President.

I'm not on their side. You are.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
109. "Ed Snowden, Russian TV star, hands Putin a propaganda coup"
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 12:47 AM
Jun 2014

That's the headline of an article from the "news" channel on which you provide your services as a commentator (for free, as you've said). It indicates the typical (and predictable) right-wing view of Snowden. Oh look, it also rhymes with your own views.

You are apparently free to push your opinions here, but it remains a fact that they are more often heard on the right than the left. This will continue to be the case insofar as authoritarian affirmations tend to be more a right-wing specialty (not that the left or designated "left" is immune).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/18/ed-snowden-russian-tv-star-hands-putin-propaganda-coup/

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
6. Snowden couldn't name one thing the NSA has done that is illegal. Not one.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:45 PM
Jun 2014

Brian Williams kept asking for examples and he was totally unable to provide one. You are right that this should be enough to convince anyone but there are still some -at least on DU- who want to believe in Snowden with all their might!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)
[/center][/font][hr]

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
7. Yeah, sure...
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:00 PM
Jun 2014

This meshes well with the Vanity Fair article…

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/04/edward-snowden-interview

Snowden cautions about some of the numbers that investigators have publicized, especially the 1.7 million figure, which, he tells Vanity Fair, is “simply a scare number based on an intentionally crude metric: everything that I ever digitally interacted with in my career.” He adds, “Look at the language officials use in sworn testimony about these records: ‘could have,’ ‘may have,’ ‘potentially.’ They’re prevaricating. Every single one of those officials knows I don’t have 1.7 million files, but what are they going to say? What senior official is going to go in front of Congress and say, ‘We have no idea what he has, because the N.S.A.’s auditing of systems holding hundreds of millions of Americans’ data is so negligent that any high-school dropout can walk out the door with it?’?”

“I know exactly how many documents I have,” Snowden continues. “Zero.” But for the other players involved, “I’m not sure we’ll ever know who has what,” The Guardian’s U.S. editor, Janine Gibson, says.

On what he calls the “post-terror generation’s” views on defending the Constitution: “What we’re seeing today in America is a new political movement that crosses party lines. This post-terror generation rejects the idea that we have to burn down our village in order to save it—that the only way to defend the Constitution is to tear it up.”

On allegations that he has “a doomsday cache” in his possession: In response to whispers in the intelligence community that Snowden has “a doomsday cache” in his possession, Snowden retorts, “Who would set up a system that incentivizes others to kill them?”

On the crucial ways he differs from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange: “We don’t share identical politics. I am not anti-secrecy. I’m pro-accountability. I’ve made many statements indicating both the importance of secrecy and spying, and my support for the working-level people at the N.S.A. and other agencies. It’s the senior officials you have to watch out for.”

Why he admires WikiLeaks: “They run toward the risks everyone else runs away from. No other publisher in the world is prepared to commit to protecting sources—even other journalists’ sources—the way WikiLeaks is.”

On how he’s amused by reports of his “right-wing politics” and would describe his political thought as “moderate”: Snowden tells Vanity Fair he’s amused by reports of his “right-wing politics, based on what seem to be Internet rumors and third-hand information.” He continues, “I’d describe my political thought as moderate.”

Sources close to the situation discuss Snowden’s living arrangements in Moscow and his desire to be granted asylum in Germany or another democratic state: One source close to Snowden tells Vanity Fair that he and WikiLeaks staffer Sarah Harrison moved multiple times and at one point lived with an American family outside Moscow. Snowden and Harrision’s time together “was a little bit of a love-hate thing,” says a person close to WikiLeaks. “They were stuck in close quarters there for a long time.” Snowden is fastidious and Harrison is not, this person says. Harrison moved to Berlin in November, but shortly before she did, a German politician had dinner with her and Snowden, who expressed a desire to be granted asylum in Germany or another democratic state. Mostly, the politician says, Snowden wished he could go home.
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
8. Well, I wouldn't take Snowden's word for anything. The man is a thief.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:07 PM
Jun 2014

"I am not here to hide from justice."

Why would he tell the truth about how many documents he stole? Why won't he say how many documents he stole since he said he knows the exact number? No, all he has to say is "I'm a patriot and the NSA is bad."

What objective reason is there to trust this man?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)
[/center][/font][hr]

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
14. If you want an objective reason, you can start with this one...
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:49 PM
Jun 2014

Based on what Edward Snowden did for a living, he was in a position to bring proof that the National Security Agency (originally formed to center itself around wartime cryptanalytic tasks) broke the fundamental laws originated under the constitution. How's that for starters?

The Bill of Rights memorializes these truths. If you believe that the founders of our nations claimed to offer freedom to its citizens, then you should be HORRIFIED what has been uncovered THROUGH SNOWDEN'S efforts about the NSA's domestic spying program. Call his efforts outside the law if you wish. You may be right. But what you do NOT seem to be upset about is WHY he may have broken laws after his warnings.

How this isn't clear to everyone here is the real mystery, randome….

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
17. What is the proof?
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:18 PM
Jun 2014

That the NSA keeps copies of phone metadata? That the NSA spies on other countries? None of this is unconstitutional and has been the 'norm' for decades.

All Snowden could steal were Sharepoint documents. He was never in a position to steal anything like a 'smoking gun'. If there is one, I'd like to see it. But it's a year since he left the country and he has none.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
28. They only have supposition but I would still trust them more than Snowden.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:42 PM
Jun 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
39. "EFF to Court: There's No Doubt the Government Destroyed NSA Spying Evidence…"
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:52 PM
Jun 2014
EFF Urges Judge to Rule Destroyed Evidence Would Show Clients Were Surveilled
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told a federal court today that there was no doubt that the government has destroyed years of evidence of NSA spying – the government itself has admitted to it in recent court filings. In a brief filed today in response to this illegal destruction, EFF is asking that the court make an "adverse inference" that the destroyed evidence would show that plaintiffs communications and records were in fact swept up in the mass NSA spying programs.

EFF filed its first lawsuit challenging illegal government spying in 2006. The current dispute arises from Jewel v. NSA, EFF's 2008 case that challenges the government's mass seizure of three kinds of information: Internet and telephone content, telephone records, and Internet records, all going back to 2001. EFF's brief notes that the government's own declarations make clear that the government has destroyed five years of the content it collected between 2007 and 2012, three years worth of the telephone records it seized between 2006 and 2009, and seven years of the Internet records it seized between 2004 and 2011, when it claims to have ended the Internet records seizures.


https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-court-theres-no-doubt-government-destroyed-nsa-spying-evidence

But, um… Fred,

What other evidence do you have, …?
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
21. I do. Where is the proof that they are violating this law?
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:23 PM
Jun 2014

Some say the metadata is the proof. I disagree with that and since it's been part of the NSA's job since 2006 or so, I fail to see why we should be outraged about it now.

Everything else Snowden and Greenwald have released has been about the NSA spying on other countries. A year after Snowden ran, there is still no smoking gun.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
32. You'll never get through to them.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:07 PM
Jun 2014

That poster is stuck in a loop: demands proof of spying, gets proof of spying, denies that spying is really spying, rinse and repeat. A more hardcore authoritarian cannot be found here.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
34. I know. It's just mental exercise, at this point.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:12 PM
Jun 2014

Saying why do I support mass surveillance is like asking when did I stop beating my wife. Maybe you can tell me what proof Snowden furnished.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
48. No, it's not. You, like Snowden, are practicing Constitutional law without training.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:03 PM
Jun 2014
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

Court finds FISA constitutional - United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984)

[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

[2] Nos. 83-1313, 83-1315, 83-1317, 83-1318

[3] 1984.C02.40409 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 743 F.2d 59

[4] decided: August 8, 1984.

[5] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
ANDREW DUGGAN, EAMON MEEHAN, GABRIEL MEGAHEY, AND COLM MEEHAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

.
.
.

[84] Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court [Keith, J.], 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith &quot , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.

[85] In Keith, the government argued that Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. ?? 2510 et seq. ("Title III&quot , recognized the constitutional authority of the President to conduct domestic security surveillances without a warrant. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the legislative history made clear that Title III was not intended to legislate with respect to national security surveillances. The Court went on to hold that a warrant was required in Keith under the Fourth Amendment; but the implication of its discussion was that the warrant requirement is flexible and that different standards may be compatible with the Fourth Amendment in light of the different purposes and practical considerations of domestic national security surveillances. 407 U.S. at 321-24. Thus, the Court observed

[86] that domestic security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of "ordinary crime." The gathering of security intelligence is often long range and involves the interrelation of various sources and types of information. The exact targets of such surveillance may be more difficult to identify than in surveillance operations against many types of crime specified in Title III. Often, too, the emphasis of domestic intelligence gathering is on the prevention of unlawful activity or the enhancement of the Government's preparedness for some possible future crisis or emergency. Thus, the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
23. Snowden is like those idiots who send hatemail to DU for T/Sing them and talk about how
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:27 PM
Jun 2014

DU is violating their first amendment rights.

There is a reason that to become a lawyer, you need to go through 3 years of law school where people trained in the intricacies of the law explain what the constitution and amendments mean and what happens when various constitutional provisos conflict with each other. And it's why even when you get finished with that, any reputable firm or prosecutors office will require you to work under another more senior attorney in your field before you get to do the really important stuff.

Very often, applying the law and constitution and amendments isn't straightforward.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
11. With much thanks to Iching Carpenter for this reminder and huge chunk of wisdom ...
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:16 PM
Jun 2014

People do not seem to realise that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Cerridwen

(13,251 posts)
25. Here are some other sources for you since you don't trust Snowden:
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:30 PM
Jun 2014

Spiegel Online has an ongoing series about the NSA and spying. http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/nsa_spying_scandal/

Then, of course, there's the Electronic Frontier Foundation; since this story is so closely tied to information and technology. They too have a series of articles about the NSA and spying with discussion about the technology used. https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying

Here's a presentation by EFF's Senior Staff Attorney at the 30th Chaos Communication Congress [30c3] by the Chaos Computer Club [CCC] in Hamburg, Germany:

&index=99&list=PLOcrXzpA0W82rsJJKrmeBlY3_MS0uQv3h

There were several other presentations at the 30c3 also addressing technology, the NSA, and spying:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOcrXzpA0W82rsJJKrmeBlY3_MS0uQv3h


Have you heard of Mikko Hermanni Hyppönen? Yeah, I hadn't either until I saw this TED talk,



then checked for background on him. According to the links on his wiki:

Since the 1990s, Hyppönen has assisted law enforcement in the United States, Europe and Asia on cybercrime cases and advises governments on cyber crime.[5] His team has been responsible for taking down the Sobig.F botnet.[6]

In 2004, Hyppönen co-operated with Vanity Fair on a feature, The Code Warrior, which examined his role in the Blaster and Sobig Computer worms.[7]

Hyppönen has keynoted or spoken at various conferences around the world, including, Black Hat, DEF CON, DLD,[8] Hack In The Box Security Conference[9] and RSA. In addition to data security events, Hyppönen has delivered talks at general-interest events, such as TED, TEDx, DLD, SXSW and Google Zeitgeist. He's also spoken at various military events, including AFCEA events and the NATO CCD COE's ICCC. Hyppönen is a reserve officer in the Finnish Army.[10]

Hyppönen has been a member of the advisory board of IMPACT (International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber Threats) since 2007 together with Yevgeny Kaspersky, Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Professor Fred Piper and John Thompson.[11]

Hyppönen is a columnist for BetaNews and Wired.[12] He has also written on his research for CNN.

In 2011, he was ranked 61st in Foreign Policy's Top 100 Global Thinkers report.[13]

The two greatest tools of our time have been turned into government surveillance tools. I'm talking about the mobile phone and the internet. George Orwell was an optimist.
—Hyppönen on the PRISM surveillance in 2013[14]


Check the links at his wiki to confirm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikko_Hypp%C3%B6nen



I highly recommend you not check out any recent DefCon presenters.

Note: this is mostly a copy and paste of a post I've written in another thread.

If people don't like/don't trust Greenwald and Snowden, there are plenty of other sources to read and watch. I've tried to provide a few I think might be more informative; or at least more geeky since most have a technological and security bent.


 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
29. He must have suckered the ACLU, and other civil liberties groups, free press organizations,
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:46 PM
Jun 2014

Daniel Elsberg and other whistlblowers.

Whereas, the NSA and the MIC and our "transparent" government are well known for telling the truth...sometimes...maybe...if they can't hide it...like when a whistleblower like Snowden turns the lights on.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
31. Confessions of their character
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:56 PM
Jun 2014

When you have evidence that the government is doing something illegal, and you defend it, it is a confession of your character.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
35. You want to bring up character, do you?
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:14 PM
Jun 2014

I wouldn't quite step into that yard yet.

Accusing people that don't fawn over GG and Snowden as suspect in or lacking in character is bad form to say the least and I am amazed you can jump on that so soon after... you know what.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
40. If the answer to the first half of question one is "yes," then the rest is justified.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:56 PM
Jun 2014

"Did NSA Surveillance programs amount to lawbreaking or wrongdoing?" If yes, stop here. The ends justify the means.

IMO, the answer to that question is a resounding yes.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
41. What if the little jerk didn't actually take Anything...
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 05:13 PM
Jun 2014

and what they are 'leaking' and dribbling slowly is just stuff from Wikileaks that Assange got from Manning or elsewhere and not from Snowden's supposed heist?

lol.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
44. According to this org map of NSA divisions, GC does NOT have a compliance and oversight division.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 08:43 PM
Jun 2014

Signals intelligence does.

So, Snowden didn't back track on anything. In the interview he said, "The NSA has records, they have copies of emails right now to their (i.e., NSA)* office of general counsel, to their (i.e., NSA)* oversight and compliance folks..."

So, given that the Office of General Counsel (D2 on the org map) does not have an Oversight and Compliance Division but the Signals Intellegence Directorate does (SV on the org map), clearly Snowden was talking about 2 different things.

http://www.mindmeister.com/326632176/national-security-agency-the-unofficial-org-chart-c-2014-marc-ambinder-inc

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
47. Stephen, it's more complicated than that.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:01 PM
Jun 2014

Here is the text of the Fourth Amendment because we should never lose sight of what we are talking about:

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

The comment at that website states that the Fourth Amendment focuses on the security and protection of the home. In fact, some of the early, pre-revolutionary cases that are believed to have given rise to the Fourth Amendment had nothing to do with the privacy of the home.

John Adams' defense of John Hancock based on an insufficient warrant concerned the Liberty, a ship, not Hancock's home. The Fourth Amendment does not specifically mention the home. The assumption that the Fourth Amendment is about protecting just the home seems absurd to me. It is not supported in the history of the revolutionary period.

The trigger for the dispute between the American revolutionaries and the British government was the British government's enforcement of import duties and restriction of trade in the American colonies. The British government wanted to tax and control the products that Americans brought in. To this end, they issued general warrants that permitted the British to enter the businesses, ships and homes of Americans to search for illegally imported items.

Here is an article in the Indiana Law Journal that discusses the likely original intent of the drafters of the Fourth Amendment. Madison drafted the Fourth Amendment for our Constitution based on the work of John Adams.

Do read the whole article, Stephen Leser. I hope you enjoy it.

1006
INDIANA LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 86 79
Several themes that found later resonance in John Adams’s views and in Fourth
Amendment jurisprudence can be seen in Thatcher’s arguments, including the
acknowledgement of probable cause as a standard to measure the propriety of an
intrusion, a concern with standardless discretion, and the temporary nature of
warrants. Still, it was Otis who inspired Adams, and many of the principles that
Otis advocated found a place in Adams’s writings and subsequent search and
seizure constitutional provisions. Specifically, significant aspects of Otis’s
arguments became elements of Article 14 and Fourth Amendment structure and
jurisprudence. They include the following: identifying the right to be “secure” as
the interest implicated by a search or seizure; listing the home as a protected place;
utilizing the common law search warrant as a model for when warrants can issue;
defining unjustified intrusions as “unreasonable”; and indicating that probable
cause based searches and seizures are proper. More broadly, Otis’s concerns about
the need for certain procedures, the scope of intrusions, and the arbitrary use of
authority, have had continued importance in search and seizure jurisprudence to
this day. Underlying all of those arguments and principles was a quest for objective
criteria to measure the legitimacy of a search or seizure.


. . . .

Many of the state governments at the time of the American Revolution adopted
legal protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. . . . Those protections,
embodied in the constitutions of the various states after declaring their
independence, typically addressed only abuses associated with general warrants. The Massachusetts Constitution, drafted by John Adams in 1779 and adopted by the Commonwealth in 1780, offered a much different model. The constitution Adams created was preceded by a “Declaration of Rights,” including a search and seizure provision that ultimately became Article 14, which provided:
Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches
and seizures of his person, his house, his papers, and all his
possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the
cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or
affirmation, and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make
search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons,
or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special
designation of the person or objects of search, arrest, or seizure; and no
warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities
prescribed by the laws


http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/CLANCY/Clancy.%20ADAMS%20and%20Framers.PDF%20version.pdf

I added the emphasis.

The FISA orders and searches and seizures by the NSA closely resemble the general warrants that were so hated by the American colonists. (It was reading the Verizon order that shocked me into becoming a crusader on this issue. It is far too general, far too sweeping. I was just speechless.) They do not conform to Adams' and Madisons' and the Founding Fathers' standard. They are not based on probable cause and they do not identify with specificity the persons, places, things, etc. to be searched. And they do purport to authorize searches.

Since the introduction of telephones, the internet and other new technologies (including the automobile) the question is whether and how the Fourth Amendment should apply. These new technologies permit intrusions into our lives and the amassing and analysis of data that would have astounded our Founding Fathers.

The NSA takes the view that it can do what it wants. I and, from what he has done and said, Edward Snowden and many others strongly disagree.

Since at least the Franklin D. Roosevelt era, our government with a nod from the Supreme Court has increasingly violated our rights under the Fourth Amendment. As we use more technology that makes the sidestepping or ignoring of the Fourth Amendment less noticeable to us, we need to defend our rights.

To explain: violations of the Fourth Amendment are obvious when the police come and knock down your door without a warrant. But today, the government can accomplish almost the same degree of invasion of your personal privacy with no noise, imperceptibly by just reading your text messages to your boyfriend for example. That's pretty horrible.

The Supreme Court has, in the past, suggested that the test to apply in deciding whether a search or seizure violates the Constitution is whether we have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the person, place, thing searched. That is a pretty weak test in my opinion because the government and the Supreme Court have told us that we can't expect much privacy at all. The expectation of privacy is measured not by our subjective expectation of privacy but by the Court's expectation of privacy. And for example Anthony Wiener's expectation of privacy about his person is probably very different from mine. But that is the test. It is ultimately therefore the Supreme Court Justices' expectation of privacy that controls the test I suppose.

Der Spiegel claims that the NSA can use various technologies to view you as you type on the internet -- if you have Skype, they can view you supposedly -- and Snowden stated that the NSA employees can watch us as we edit on the computer. That is an example of a new technological capacity that the Supreme Court has not ruled on.

I would assert that I have, at the very least, a reasonable expectation of privacy to any information that I use a password to get including my personal identifying information on DU. People certainly have an expectation to privacy if that encrypt their messages or use some sort of program that limits the collection of their history. I would also assert that I have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to my location when I am not in a government office, and there is no search warrant for me. I would assert a reasonable expectation to my financial accounts, to the interior of my car, to my phone records, to the content of my phone records, my e-mails and many, many other things. I would assert a reasonable expectation of privacy to anything I have or use on my computer that is not specifically placed by me on a website that is open to the public. I believe that I have a right to expect privacy in my Google searches. If Google asks my permission to collect them, fine. But it is up to me to consent to government access to them.

Those who argue in support of the NSA surveillance rely on that Maryland case decided by the Supreme Court in the late 1970s. Supreme Court decisions make general rules based on specific circumstances. The specific circumstance in that case concerned obtaining pen registers from the phone company in the context of a criminal investigation. The Court did not necessarily approve of the NSA's obtaining the pen registers of millions of innocent people, then sorting and analyzing them so as to determine who calls whom, what our social networks are. The facts are very different.

We need to obtain new Supreme Court rulings by bringing new cases, instances in which innocent people are placed under surveillance. Changing precedents set by the Supreme Court is a war of attrition. The past decisions have to be questioned, distinguished, meaning differentiated based on the facts or the law. It can take a long time to correct a situation. Think of the "separate but equal" battle. But so far, the U.S. government has made bringing new cases that are not related to criminal activity difficult if not impossible by asserting the right to withhold evidence based on national security interests.

Whether the government should withhold such evidence is a political issue. I believe the government's policy in that regard needs to be changed.

We also need to push Congress to pass new laws that prohibit the NSA's abuse of its capacity for surveillance. To that end, we need to change public opinion, to alert people to the dangers of excessive NSA surveillance.

Snowden has played a very helpful role in alerting Americans that he witnessed what he believed was excessive surveillance when he worked as a private contractor for the NSA.

I'm with John Adams and his fellow revolutionaries. I want to see the Fourth Amendment enforced so as to protect our privacy. I want the standard to be the issuance of a warrant that complies with the Fourth Amendment.

I do not think that Americans will put up with the status quo once they understand what is going on, what it means for their loss of privacy. Snowden has done us a favor by starting the conversation. Without seeing the Verizon order, I for one would not have understood just how bad the problem with the NSA surveillance is.

I support Edward Snowden's efforts to start a conversation. In the end, this is an issue that has to be dealt with through international protocols. I don't want the Chinese, the Germans, the Russians or the Portuguese or the British to place my electronic data under surveillance any more than I want the American government to do it.

We all, we earthlings, need to protect our right to privacy. It is a universal right.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
50. It is more complicated than that, but not in the way you are asserting.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:14 PM
Jun 2014

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

Court finds FISA constitutional - United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Nos. 83-1313, 83-1315, 83-1317, 83-1318

1984.C02.40409 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 743 F.2d 59

decided: August 8, 1984.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
ANDREW DUGGAN, EAMON MEEHAN, GABRIEL MEGAHEY, AND COLM MEEHAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

.
.
.

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court , 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith &quot , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.

In Keith, the government argued that Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. ?? 2510 et seq. ("Title III&quot , recognized the constitutional authority of the President to conduct domestic security surveillances without a warrant. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the legislative history made clear that Title III was not intended to legislate with respect to national security surveillances. The Court went on to hold that a warrant was required in Keith under the Fourth Amendment; but the implication of its discussion was that the warrant requirement is flexible and that different standards may be compatible with the Fourth Amendment in light of the different purposes and practical considerations of domestic national security surveillances. 407 U.S. at 321-24. Thus, the Court observed

that domestic security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of "ordinary crime." The gathering of security intelligence is often long range and involves the interrelation of various sources and types of information. The exact targets of such surveillance may be more difficult to identify than in surveillance operations against many types of crime specified in Title III. Often, too, the emphasis of domestic intelligence gathering is on the prevention of unlawful activity or the enhancement of the Government's preparedness for some possible future crisis or emergency. Thus, the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
53. Supreme Court decisions are not the eternal law.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:06 PM
Jun 2014

Snowden made his disclosures in part because the Supreme Court has been derived by our secrecy laws from making an informed decision about the extent of and procedures used by the NSA surveillance.

In your OP you belittle Snowden for judging the constitutionality of the procedures and conduct he observed and participated in while working as a contractor for the NSA although he is not a lawyer.

Are you a lawyer?

Among other things, lawyers challenge the law. They keep testing and testing the limits of the law, the specific facts to which certain laws apply.

That is as much a part of our legal process as are the decisions themselves.
I believe that the decisions of the Court on surveillance, the narrowing of the application of the Fourth Amendment are wrong. They are not what our Founding Fathers expected, wanted or hoped for.

So, time will tell. The current NSA surveillance is a terrible threat to our form of self-government and all of our rights.

Many people do not understand that. The German people do because they saw what massive surveillance did to their country.

Don't dismiss Snowden so summarily. He has done a great service. Wait and see.

Meanwhile, I am seriously asking you whether you have a law degree.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
65. It's not a supreme court decision. It's dozens of appellate decisions that the Supreme Court
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:40 AM
Jun 2014

has refused to take up because it agrees with them.

Dozens, probably over a hundred.

Do you understand why?

The appellate courts view this as a conflict between Article two, section 2 of the Constitution and the fourth amendment. Since none of the rights in the amendments matter if the country is not secure and the item that provides the article two section 2 question is the security of the country, the courts side with article two section 2. And that will continue as long as there is an existential threat. The courts regard FISA as enough to provide a paper trail that congress can use to check the President's power.

I gave you the Duggan decision and the specific excerpt so you could see how many citations of similarly decided appellate cases are just in that one decision.

The law and Constitutional rights are not what you and other Snowden supporters are trying to assert that they are. And by the way, trying to argue with me about it won't help.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
69. The technology today makes the facts very different.
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 02:30 AM
Jun 2014

I understand that it is a conflict between Article II and Amendment 4.

The Fourth Amendment should take precedent over Article II. Normally when two laws or two provisions in a Constitution conflict, the most recently adopted prevails. Clearly, the Fourth Amendment was intended to limit the Congress, and the Congress was supposed to be responsible for enacting laws. The President does not have the power to pass laws.

https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/bill-rights-brief-history

Further, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit government and protect natural rights. Therefore, Article Four limits Article II.

The crux of Snowden's question to the counsel for the NSA was whether an Executive Order may supersede an Act of Congress. The NSA counsel admitted that it does not. The programs or at least some of them are authorized by Executive Order not by an act of Congress. Members of Congress have stated that they did not intend Section 215 of the Patriot Act to widely spy on Americans.

No matter what the Supreme Court has ruled, the president does not have the power to spy on citizens including members of Congress and the Supreme Court without a warrant based on probable cause and specifically describing the items to be searched and, or seized based solely on the alleged threat of terrorism to the extent that it has apparently been doing. The orders the FISA court has been issuing look very much like the general writs of assistance that were one of the major reasons the Americans revolted against the British crown.

Is the executive branch violating the Fourth Amendment for a compelling reason? That is a major question. Because the NSA programs gather so much information and affect the privacy of so many people, if a case finally goes up before the Supreme Court, we may get a very different answer to that question than we have had in the past.

If the Fourth Amendment could be violated for national security, it would not have been added to the Constitution. When did we have less national security than at the time the Bill of Rights was enacted. England and America were not yet at peace. England was a militarily great, if not the militarily greatest country of that time.

I recall the 1960s. The 1970s. The 1980s. The 1990s.

I remember taking a transatlantic trip on the Jordanian Airlines with my children in the early 1980s. We had to be checked for posing a potential terrorism threat. The guys who checked my pre-school children took some of the candy their friends had given them as a going away present. They ate it in front of my children. So terrorists were already a problem then.

The threat of terrorism never ends. Before Al Qaeda it was the threat of Communism although the percentage of Communists in the US was teeny-tiny.

Before that it was Fascism. There has always been an enemy.

And then think back to the time when the Fourth Amendment was added to the Constitution. There has never been a more dangerous time in our history, yet the Founding Fathers felt that the Fourth Amendment was important enough to include in the Constitution.

The NSA programs applied to Americans violate the Constitution and are unnecessary. It's just a matter of time until the Supreme Court takes a well stated case in which the issues are clearly stated, and we will see change. It could take a long time, but it is just a matter of time.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee our natural, human rights and narrow or limit the rights of our government. The NSA surveillance violates that basic concept of our government.

The NSA surveillance within the US also gives too much power to the executive within the US. That is not permitted in Article II. We may have a terrorism problem, but we are not in a state of insurgency. The NSA's programs must be ended. Congress and the courts have to find the courage to end them if the President is unable or afraid to do it.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
102. No, none of what you just wrote is correct.
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 12:07 AM
Jun 2014

First off, you make the assumption that appellate decisions stopped with Duggam in 1984. They haven't and have continued to affirm the Presidents powers here and the Constitutionality of FISA right up until now. The reason I like to cite Duggan is because it lays it out there quite well.
Appellate courts continue to reaffirm those things staking into account t how technology has changed.


Your attempt to assert why the 4th amendment should trump article two is also horribly flawed. Reading the Duggan decision and similar ones like Keith explains it well. The definition of unreasonable search and seizure and the hurdles the executive branch has to jump over are different for national security surveillance versus regular criminal matters. That's how the Appellate courts balance the requirements of the fourth amendment and the Presidents duty to keep the country safe.

You need to go back and read that decision, the particular paragraph I have cited over and over again, and the five paragraphs right after that one. If you need me to do so, I can link it again and paste those pieces. On Edit, see my #48 above. It's all there.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
103. Sorry. The job of the appellate courts is to follow the precedents set out by the
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 12:32 AM
Jun 2014

Supreme Court. Since I believe the Supreme Court is corrupt and wrong, of course I do not accept the appellate decisions.

This is DU, not a court of law. I'm basing my opinions on the history of the Revolutionary War and other American history especially the history of the Bill of Rights.

Fact is that the Bill of Rights lists a few of our innate rights. They are not given to us by the government but rather by our creator, whether a scientific force or a deity. Take your pick.

As I pointed out in my statement about the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's contradictory decisions that state on the one hand that the speech rights of corporations cannot be regulated but that the speech rights of individuals can be regulated, I just think the Supreme Court is wrong.

Do you understand my argument?

I know what the Supreme Court and appellate courts say, but can you leave that and think for yourself. Because we can only move past the current mistaken reasoning of the Supreme Court if we think for ourselves.

Repeating the errors of prior Supreme Court decisions is the job of the courts. If I were appearing in a court, I would study the case decisions, the precedents, etc. I would try to advance the law by tweaking here and there. That is how law progresses and how our country develops into a freer, more productive, better place to live. Stare decisis is the basis of our law. The courts adhere to previous decisions. But it is the lawyer's job to try to differentiate the current facts from former ones when the former facts have led to decisions that are wrong.

Prioritizing national security and executive interest over the personal privacy of Americans, of the voters is just incompatible with a free, democratic or if you prefer representative government. The two cannot coexist in the same nation.

Which do we prefer? A national security state in which we have no right to privacy or a free country in which we have democratic (meaning representative) government?

I prefer the democratic or representative government.

Just where the line should be drawn on the authority of the government, specifically the executive branch to spy on the voters, I do not know. But it should, in my opinion, be drawn so as to afford the most privacy possible. Right now our privacy is pretty much completely sacrificed to national security.

When drones equipped with infrared, night vision, see through and measure pulses, brainwaves, etc. are flying over your house, you will think back on what I'm saying. I know we don't have that technology yet. I know it sounds like science fiction. But when I was growing up in the 1950s, we thought Sputnik sounded like science fiction. Technology is changing the world at an ever faster rate. My mother rode a horse to school. Now Google is experimenting with computer-driven, steering-wheel-less cars. Technology is way ahead of the law.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
64. Here is some more helpful information for you.
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:37 AM
Jun 2014

These website links will inform you about the kinds of arguments that lawyers will present in order to persuade the Supreme Court that, in spite of past rulings, the situation, the facts that now exist require it to rule that the NSA surveillance is unconstitutional.

The point of bringing cases to the Supreme Court is to bring the Court to realize that a new situation requires a new ruling. I wish the Electronic Frontier Foundation good luck in the cases they are bringing to force the NSA to end the domestic surveillance.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/top-5-claims-defenders-nsa-have-stop-making-remain-credible

https://www.eff.org/cases/first-unitarian-church-los-angeles-v-nsa

If past decisions of the Supreme Court told the whole story about what is correct law and what is not, we could retire the members of the Supreme Court -- just turn them out to pasture. They would have nothing to do. I know all about the old cases you cite. The point is we have new facts, and those old cases have not yet been found to apply.

Did you read the law journal article I cited in my previous post. It's very interesting.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
79. The essential thing to remember is that neither the Constitution nor the
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 08:36 PM
Jun 2014

government gives us the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. These are rights that belong to us no matter what our government says about it. The Supreme Court may curtail or abridge or diminish these rights in its decisions, but they still belong to us. When the Supreme Court defines the Fourth Amendment rights in a narrow way, the law will enforce that Supreme Court decision, but it is wrong because the right belongs to us. It is not even up to the government to recognize that right. The Supreme Court has, in my opinion, defined the First Amendment right too narrowly. And crazily. While it defines the right of corporations to spend money as speech and thus unlimited and not subject to regulation, it defines the right of people to speech, assembly and to petition the government as subject to reasonable regulation. There is a disconnect in the interpretation of the First Amendment. I am hoping that someone will notice the discrepancy. Unlimited campaign expenditures by the corporations but limited right to assemble, speak and petition the government for the rest of us. What?

The Fourth Amendment rights are some of the rights that are born with us, they are innate to us. (The Bill of Rights does not list all the rights that are born in us -- like marriage which has been recognized as a fundamental right.)

The problem is not whether any law or other constitutional provision can supersede or precede a right listed in the Bill of Rights.

The problem is how to apply the language of early America that is used in the Constitution to our modern technology. The Fourth Amendment recognizes our innate right to privacy in our lives and in our personal and real (real estate) property.

That cannot be changed. The executive branch of our government has to get a warrant based on probable cause with the specificity described in the Fourth Amendment before it takes or searches our private property. The NSA has not been doing that. The Court will have to decide how to apply the Fourth Amendment, how to reserve our privacy rights in the face of the technology we now have.

Because this is such an important issue and because the technology now at the government's disposal is so invasive, so capable of depriving us of any right to privacy without our even realizing that we have been violated, it will take a long time and many decisions before the Supreme Court comes to terms with its task.

Because we have so many conservatives on the Court, we may have to suffer a lot of grief, see a lot of overstepping by the executive branch (and maybe by Congress) before the country wakes up to the dangers that the use of that technology presents.

In a way, the potential in the surveillance technology and some of our other technology such as medical technology is as dangerous to our personal freedom and our country, maybe the world as nuclear weapons. We just don't realize it yet.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
59. So much distortion and speculation here that it's hard to know where to begin.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:46 PM
Jun 2014

I will limit myself to pointing out one ugly distortion. Under the heading "Edward Snowden Seems to Have a problem with the Truth" the OP says "Summer 2013: 'I am not a spy'" and then "May 2014: 'I was trained a spy . . ." That is supposed to make it look like Snowden is a liar, but in the 2013 he was being accused of being a spy for China and he said "I am not a spy for China." So there is no inconsistency between the two quotes and hence no evidence of Snowden's "having a problem with the truth."

This sort of transparent and really base smearing of Snowden undermines the credibility of those who engage in it.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
63. ummmm, Snowden "... I'm not a spy..." quote
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:10 AM
Jun 2014

" I'm not taking money from the Russian government. I'm not a spy." In fact, Snowden said, he never planned to stay in Russia"

At the least this guy doesn't have his story together

The email is a slam dunk, there's no getting out of that over sophistry

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
68. Funny. Feinstein & Rodgers agree that he is not a spy for Russia. Which is what Snowden was asserted
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:50 AM
Jun 2014

Slam dunk for what? What, precisely does it prove? As I noted above, the OGC does NOT have a compliance and oversight division the Signals Intellegence Directorate does.

http://www.mindmeister.com/326632176/national-security-agency-the-unofficial-org-chart-c-2014-marc-ambinder-inc

So, Snowden didn't back track on anything. In the interview he said, "The NSA has records, they have copies of emails right now to their (i.e., NSA)* office of general counsel, to their (i.e., NSA)* oversight and compliance folks..."

Given that the Office of General Counsel (D2 on the org map) does not have an Oversight and Compliance Division but the Signals Intellegence Directorate does (SV on the org map), clearly Snowden was talking about 2 different things.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
72. He said he was not a spy, he didn't say for whom... and yeah, the email thing is a open shut
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 07:39 AM
Jun 2014

... slam dunk bald faced ass'd lie.

He sent the email AFTER he meet with GG et al...

SnowGlen ADMITS.. ADMITS there was some channels he could've gone through

but he didn't BEFORE .. BEFORE meeting with GG...

I"m not going to believe the guy stole 1.7 million documents and left emails that prove they ignored him went he brought up issues regarding the constitution

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
74. Oh, please this is pathetic.
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:51 AM
Jun 2014

On your view, if Snowden said "I am not an employee of the CIA" that would be a lie because he used to be an employee for the CIA. Snowden is not a spy and he wasn't a spy when he said what you quote. And the idea that his insisting he is not a spy when accused of spying for Russia and China makes him a liar is ridiculous, and you know it.

edited to add: Not that it really matters (since the whole attempt to catch Snowden in a lie about being a spy is beyond stupid), but the quote you use is not from the summer of 2013. That quote is "I am not a spy for China," conveniently abbreviated in the OP as "I am not a spy."

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
75. On the edit, it's the "Russia" conversation where he said he wasn't a spy not the China one....
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 01:29 PM
Jun 2014

.... on the email (which many many seem to act like doesn't exist) I hear little to NO feedback..

He's a bald faced ass'd liar and I'm not talking about his China quote...

regards

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
83. Brian Williams pressed Snowden to specify something the NSA had done that was illegal.
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:20 PM
Jun 2014

He could not name a single thing. So he doesn't meet even the most expansive definition of 'whistleblower'.

He's a thief who was so isolated and out of sorts that he dreamed of being a superhero. Now he is stuck in Russia for the rest of his life or until he returns to face trial.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Cha

(295,899 posts)
71. I see the little Eddie "I am not a spy" Eddie/wouldn't lie-brigrade is here to defend their "hero"..
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 04:45 AM
Jun 2014

no matter how insipid he sounds. "The NSA has records " He had every other file he stole from the NSA but he's too stupid to cya with all his many "emails to the NSA SI"?

Good job, Steven.. thank you.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
76. Conservatives love Snowdens allegations as they love anything that hurts Obama.
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 05:46 PM
Jun 2014

So, the answer is, those who love Snowden and Greenwald are the ones angling for a spot on Conservative media.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
86. All appellate decisions are on the other side of where you are
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:15 PM
Jun 2014

You are making a statement of Constitutional law without providing a single legal decision in your favor and I can cite dozens in my favor and have several times now.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
95. I do not get this mission
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:37 PM
Jun 2014

that some seem to be on to disagree with transparent government. Being a reporter is ... reporting. Reporting what is there. You can choose to agree or disagree, but having it in the public discussion is worthwhile.

It does violate the 4th amendment and the defense seems to be "we shouldn't be talking about this".

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
99. It doesn't violate the fourth amendment.
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:52 PM
Jun 2014

Your suggestion that it does reminds me of the hatemail EarlG gets from those folks thrown off DU who allege that the admins are denying them their first amendment rights. Obviously those folks do not understand the first amendment.

You likewise do not understand the fourth amendment and neither you nor Snowden nor Greenwald can cite case law or judicial review that agrees with you, because pretty much all of it is on my side of things.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
100. Trying to link yourself to EarlG
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:55 PM
Jun 2014

is a rather sad conflation, stevenleser. We can disagree, but don't drag innocent people into our disagreement.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
101. I wasn't linking myself to EarlG I was linking you to those who send him hatemail
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:57 PM
Jun 2014

With an incorrect interpretation of a Constitutional amendment.

Nice try though. Almost. Nah, it really wasn't even that.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
110. Thanks, I appreciate
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 12:48 AM
Jun 2014

being labeled as a person that sends hate mail to DU. Nice way to demonize a fellow Democrat.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
85. "those who love Snowden and Greenwald are the ones angling for a spot on Conservative media" LMFAO
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:10 PM
Jun 2014

I thought you were on Fux. O well.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
80. Approve of the NSA huh? ...then people don't deserve the freedom they have...
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 08:54 PM
Jun 2014

or is everyone better and wiser than B F? Tired of seeing the crap that passes for critical thinking from all the people willing to give up freedom and rights for security ...it's anti-american to the core. Only fools would trust the government after COINTELPRO.

bobduca

(1,763 posts)
84. alternate show names?
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:07 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:58 PM - Edit history (5)

"The Authoritarian Apologist Power Hour"
"The Poopiehead Report : SnowGlen Traitors or Worse?"
"The O'Leser Factor"
"Bullethead's Browbeat Hour"

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
90. I can and did skewer the hopelessly flawed message
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:29 PM
Jun 2014

I took both messenger and message to task in my piece.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
98. Like all my opinions, it's properly sourced
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:48 PM
Jun 2014

With an appellate decision that not only makes the case I am trying to make, it explains that all appellate cases on the matter came to the same conclusion.

This entire issue is one of Constitutional law. Aren't you the least bit concerned that appellate courts have said that you, Snowden and Greenwald are wrong in your interpretation of the Constitution?

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
115. Aaaaaaawwww...
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 11:23 AM
Jun 2014

This thread, in which a volunteer commentator for the FOXNEWS network presents a common right wing opinion and then argues those who disagree with him must be right wing, has died down. It was so entertaining!

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
118. Yeah, it's totally courageous.
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:17 PM
Jun 2014

Been hearing that line about "liberals" who bravely break away from "leftist orthodoxy" for decades, at this point. Nothing's easier, or in a way more rewarding -- it will get you on TV! -- to those willing to sell their integrity.

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
104. READ Greenwald's book, everyone. It disabuses the OP of all this arduous case building. nt
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 12:32 AM
Jun 2014


edit: sigint fail
 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
107. To expect normal people to think one side is lying and the other is the pillar of truth, is insanity
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 12:40 AM
Jun 2014

Most people see personal attacks for what they are. The NSA must be held accountable for lying to Congress. The CIA must be held accountable for spying on Congress. All the distractions in the world won't change those two facts.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Transcript of the Edward ...