NSA leaker has come forward: Idiot has fled the U.S

[ivwshane]

Manning was not selective, at all, in what he released, so any claim he might have had to "the moral high-road" should be thrown out the window. His actions were done more for the sake of personal revenge than anything else.

Snowdon, on the other hand, can still claim to be a selective and morally driven whistle-blower (even if that ultimately turns out to be false, as well).

They both committed similar crimes, though.

Aren't all leaks, in some way, done for personal revenge?

I see no difference between the two.

 

[woolfe9998]

There is no "might be illegal" about it. What he did -- mishandling classified information and distributing it publicly -- is absolutely illegal. There is simply no question about that.

However, that doesn't mean that the national conversation he inspired isn't worthwhile.

Regardless of how many people loved him for his actions, Robin Hood was still a thief.

I say "if" only because I'm not entirely familiar with all the applicable laws, but I was fairly certain of it any event.

My feeling is that he should be prosecuted, but his purpose for doing it should be a factor in mitigating his sentence. I don't really want to see him prosecuted but I don't think we can set a precedent whereby we give leakers a free pass every time they think what they're doing is right.

 

[bshole]

Given that the Iraq and Vietnam wars were both based on LIES perpetrated by our government and resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans, i just don't trust their need for secrecy. They lie and Americans die.

 

[monovillage]

Peggy Noonan hits another home run.

"Noonan: Privacy Isn't All We're Losing
The surveillance state threatens Americans' love of country."

The U.S. surveillance state as outlined and explained by Edward Snowden is not worth the price. Its size, scope and intrusiveness, its ability to target and monitor American citizens, its essential unaccountability—all these things are extreme.

The purpose of the surveillance is enhanced security, a necessary goal to say the least. The price is a now formal and agreed-upon acceptance of the end of the last vestiges of Americans' sense of individual distance and privacy from the government. The price too is a knowledge, based on human experience and held by all but fools and children, that the gleanings of the surveillance state will eventually be used by the mischievous, the malicious and the ignorant in ways the creators of the system did not intend. For all we know that's already happened. But of course we don't know: It's secret. Only the intelligence officials know, and they say everything's A-OK.

The end of human confidence in a zone of individual privacy from the government, plus the very real presence of a system that can harm, harass or invade the everyday liberties of Americans. This is a recipe for democratic disaster.

If—again, if—what Snowden says is substantially true, the surveillance state will in time encourage an air of subtle oppression, and encourage too a sense of paranoia that may in time—not next week, but in time, as the years unfold—loosen and disrupt the ties the people of America feel to our country. "They spy on you here and will abuse the information they get from spying on you here. I don't like 'here.'" Trust in government, historically, ebbs and flows, and currently, because of the Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department, Benghazi, etc.—and the growing evidence the executive agencies have been reduced to mere political tools—is at an ebb that may not be fully reversible anytime soon. It is a great irony, and history will marvel at it, that the president most committed to expanding the centrality, power, prerogatives and controls of the federal government is also the president who, through lack of care, arrogance, and an absence of any sense of prudential political boundaries, has done the most in our time to damage trust in government.

.................

read it all.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8543721259199626.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

It bears repeating "It is a great irony, and history will marvel at it, that the president most committed to expanding the centrality, power, prerogatives and controls of the federal government is also the president who, through lack of care, arrogance, and an absence of any sense of prudential political boundaries, has done the most in our time to damage trust in government."

 

[yhelothar]

Manning was not selective, at all, in what he released, so any claim he might have had to "the moral high-road" should be thrown out the window. His actions were done more for the sake of personal revenge than anything else.

Snowdon, on the other hand, can still claim to be a selective and morally driven whistle-blower (even if that ultimately turns out to be false, as well).

They both committed similar crimes, though.

You may argue if he was selective enough in his leaks, but he was selective. Manning took care into releasing only documents that he believed would bring transparency to the government and was absolutely certain it could not harm the United States.

Here is a statement from himself on how he selected the cables that he released:

"Up to this point,during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.
In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.
The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.
The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS [missed word] caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.
The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.
The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.
I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.
I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations."
​

https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/03/help-spread-bradley-mannings-words-across-internet

 

[ussfletcher]

The man committed a felony by releasing classified information. This isn't just something that you can release whenever you want, regardless of reason. He is not a whistle blower, especially since nothing he released shows anything illegal or unconstitutional. Phone metadata in particular is used all the time by police and the FBI to locate call originations and to see who people have been in contact with for example. As for everything else you voluntarily gave your consent for companies to collect, maintain, and distribute information about you. It still amazes me that people still don't understand how companies like facebook and Google make money.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Phone metadata in particular is used all the time by police and the FBI to locate call originations

Sure. But they DO IT WITH A WARRANT. They don't HIDE it from you.

 

[yhelothar]

The man committed a felony by releasing classified information. This isn't just something that you can release whenever you want, regardless of reason. He is not a whistle blower, especially since nothing he released shows anything illegal or unconstitutional. Phone metadata in particular is used all the time by police and the FBI to locate call originations and to see who people have been in contact with for example. As for everything else you voluntarily gave your consent for companies to collect, maintain, and distribute information about you. It still amazes me that people still don't understand how companies like facebook and Google make money.

Hmmm I wonder how you possibly concluded that.


The NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaginghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_messaging

 

[OverVolt]

^

Patriot act?

 

[ussfletcher]

Hmmm I wonder how you possibly concluded that.


The NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaginghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_messaging

Sounds mostly like a problem with keeping the executive branch in check, from the top down.

 

[ussfletcher]

Sure. But they DO IT WITH A WARRANT. They don't HIDE it from you.

I'm not talking about wiretapping here, as that has strict laws. Despite what you would expect there is a lot of data that is legal to collect without a warrant including metadata. There are also quite a few extenuating circumstances that remove the need for warrants that have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

 

[yhelothar]

^

Patriot act?

The Constitution supersedes the Patriot Act.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sounds mostly like a problem with keeping the executive branch in check, from the top down.

That's the problem. It can't be done.

 

[palehorse]

You may argue if he was selective enough in his leaks, but he was selective. Manning took care into releasing only documents that he believed would bring transparency to the government and was absolutely certain it could not harm the United States.

That's absolute bullshit. He released hundreds of thousands of classified documents that had nothing to do with alleged wrong-doings -- hundreds of thousands!

Don't believe a single word that little fucktard says.

 

[bradly1101]

Who knew that that Big Brother would actually be four people; Obama, Putin, Xi and Brown.

Will I raise the ire of 'the listeners' for saying that?

 

[sm625]

You have to remember that there are at least 80 million americans who are so dumbed down and so controlled that they would NOT see anything wrong in any of the events that led to Nixon's resignation. Yet the majority of these people will look back on those events and admit "yes crimes were committed". But they absolutely cannot see through the media fog of war to see the truth as it unfolds realtime. They can read political-correctness tea leaves, but they cannot see through a lens of truth and justice. Those concepts are completely lost on them. You can see those same types of people at work now, and its sad.

 

[shady28]

So you expect all laws, all potential changes to our government, to be written and passed through an amendment and ratified by the states?

I would really like to know what fucking country on this planet do you think that'll ever work when you are dealing with the likes of Iran, China or even Russia during the cold war?

you guys really live in an alternative universe.

What I expect is that all laws that the government passes abide by the Constitution. That is their job, that is what they swore to defend, and it's the job of the Supreme Court to shoot such laws down (which they have done, many times).

Any "law" that violates the Constitution is a failure of the Congress and the President.

 

[shady28]

The issue of whether or not we should know about it is separate from the issue of whether or not he should have leaked or whether he should be punished. His treachery cannot be excused by government treachery.

Actually I think it can.

Hypothetically, lets say the SCOTUS shoots down PRISM and the other programs as being unconstitutional.

So now is he criminal anymore?

Lets make this a bit hyperbolic, lets say the US Gov't is running a bioweapons lab to develop a fatal disease to wipe out black people. It's all top secret of course, so some guy named Fred Bowden leaks the news.

Do we imprison him, or no?

With such a cut and dry situation, we would probably imprison the people running such a program and impeach/censure any politicos involved. Why? Because it violates the constitutional right to life, liberty without due process of law. That mechanism is also defined in the Constitution (ie, a Judge and a Jury).

So why aren't we handling this the same way?

Simple : Because people do not think, nor care.

Here's some quotes :

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures.... The separate existence of the federal states will not be done away.... The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such law is in itself a limited one."

"n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

"What luck for the rulers that men do not think."

"For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

"The unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual."

And who made these interesting and strangely relevant quotes?

Adolph Hitler.

 

[bshole]

Obama and the 180.......


Obama on Bush....

"This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide."

Obama as POTUS....

You can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices

Obama's administration has denied more Freedom of Information Act requests than Bush did, and prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. Obama, c'mon my brother, you picked the wrong side.

 

[palehorse]

Actually I think it can.

Hypothetically, lets say the SCOTUS shoots down PRISM and the other programs as being unconstitutional.

So now is he criminal anymore?

Lets make this a bit hyperbolic, lets say the US Gov't is running a bioweapons lab to develop a fatal disease to wipe out black people. It's all top secret of course, so some guy named Fred Bowden leaks the news.

Do we imprison him, or no?

With such a cut and dry situation, we would probably imprison the people running such a program and impeach/censure any politicos involved. Why? Because it violates the constitutional right to life, liberty without due process of law. That mechanism is also defined in the Constitution (ie, a Judge and a Jury).

So why aren't we handling this the same way?

Simple : Because people do not think, nor care.

Here's some quotes :

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures.... The separate existence of the federal states will not be done away.... The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such law is in itself a limited one."

"n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

"What luck for the rulers that men do not think."

"For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

"The unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual."

And who made these interesting and strangely relevant quotes?

Adolph Hitler.

If he was ever on it, Snowden gave up the moral high ground the minute he decided to start talking about things other than domestic surveillance and domestic collection -- ie. hacking China. If he continues to spill US secrets that have nothing at all to do with US civil liberties, I don't think anyone should support him.

Just because some good could come from his initial statements and actions -- those being worthy of a serious national conversation, and perhaps some legislative changes -- it doesn't mean that his high crimes should be completely thrown out the window...

 

[bradly1101]

He seems like a different man in office. The presidency changes people though. To some, commanding that much power must be intoxicating.

In a press conference Bush accidentally (I think) gave away the real reason we went to Iraq when asked what was the reason he wanted Saddam Hussein removed from power in light of the inspectors not finding anything. He said, "He tried to kill my dad!"

All the costs, death and destruction over what I believe was a family feud. Yeah the power gets to you.

 

[KlokWyze]

He's risked everything for a public service. A service for all the average Joe's, not the big corporations and big government. All in the name of transparency and freedom. More than our bought politicians do.

The real story is how full of shit our "protectors" are and how they've been caught with their pants down. Thanks for the tip off Snowden. :thumbsup:

 

[Nebor]

The Constitution supersedes the Patriot Act.

That doesn't make sense, the Patriot act was passed several decades later. It's more recent and thus more relevant.

 

[Nebor]

You have to remember that there are at least 80 million americans who are so dumbed down and so controlled that they would NOT see anything wrong in any of the events that led to Nixon's resignation. Yet the majority of these people will look back on those events and admit "yes crimes were committed". But they absolutely cannot see through the media fog of war to see the truth as it unfolds realtime. They can read political-correctness tea leaves, but they cannot see through a lens of truth and justice. Those concepts are completely lost on them. You can see those same types of people at work now, and its sad.

I understand what's going on. But I would do the same thing if I were charged with making decisions regarding our nation's security. So I understand what they did, and why they did it. Furthermore, I deeply resent someone that would expose it and damage it's efficacy. I easily resign him to death in the name of our state and it's security.

 

[Nebor]

He seems like a different man in office. The presidency changes people though. To some, commanding that much power must be intoxicating.

In a press conference Bush accidentally (I think) gave away the real reason we went to Iraq when asked what was the reason he wanted Saddam Hussein removed from power in light of the inspectors not finding anything. He said, "He tried to kill my dad!"

All the costs, death and destruction over what I believe was a family feud. Yeah the power gets to you.

Everyone has to deal with reality when they're faced with the kinds of decision that the president is. And increasingly that pushes them towards totalitarianism because that's what is required to safeguard our nation against today's enemies.