General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHero or Traitor, Snowden Driven By Fear Of Government Intrusion
By John Shiffman and Daniel Trotta
June 10 | Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:59pm EDT
(Reuters) - A high school dropout who became a whiz at information technology, Edward Snowden was the son of parents who divorced in 2001, the year he turned 18.
Twelve years later, he would catapult to worldwide fame as one of the most significant leakers of U.S. secrets in history and Americans were debating whether he was a patriotic defender of civil liberties or the most unprincipled of traitors.
Snowden stepped from the shadows and admitted that he had exposed the U.S. government's top-secret surveillance programs to Britain's Guardian newspaper and the Washington Post after working in Hawaii for a company under contract to the National Security Agency.
Snowden, 29, saw his role more clearly, saying the U.S. government's powers of surveillance have grown so immense and intrusive that he felt compelled to denounce them, even at great personal cost. He could have remained anonymous but said his message would resonate more powerfully if he revealed his identity.
"The public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong," Snowden told the Guardian in the 12-minute video introducing him to the world on Sunday.
MORE...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/usa-security-snowden-idUSL2N0EM1GI20130611
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)About the work being performed and more than likely those instructions was reviewed with the employees on regular basis. He declared himself judge in making the decision though he is not qualified to be judge and jury, he knew it was wrong enough he left the country so he should not proclaim himself a hero. Scooter Libby spent prison time for outing Valerie Plame, a CIA agent and now Snowden needs to do his time also. This is not acceptable behavior. He needs to be better at running than he was as a worker with security clearance, the road will be long and hard. BTW, the same phone records collected will bring him down. Never should he have chosen to deliver this information to a foreign media, if he was truly a whistle blower he would have gone to proper sources such as FBI or congressional members.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--FBI or congressional members--who agreed to collect data on all Americans were going to help him get his grievances out?
and I think you know it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)a criminal. A whistle blower gives information of wrong doing, he knew he was not supposed to reveal the information.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)but they do....
There was no "proper source" within govt that would have listened to him for a minute. He had to go to media. Your realize media is supposed to be the watchdog of the public interest when internal oversight fails.
And Snowden has pointed out massive failure within--ie. that this kind of data collecting is being carried out without transparency or safeguards that can be enforced.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report agency misconduct. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. Whistleblowers may file complaints that they believe reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.
Where is the violation of law, rule or regulation? The safe guard was through FISA court.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)for going after terrorists. Does not protect Americans against undue surveillance by their own govt.
And as for The Whistleblower Protection Act: They gutted it and stripped out all protections "for intelligence agency employees" :
In July 2009, Senator Akaka proposed a controversial amendment to S. 372 that further weakened the bill and contained several provisions that were insisted upon by the powerful federal agency managers lobby and the Obama administration. Despite campaign promises to support the stronger House bill, after the election, President Obama disappointed many when his administration actively supported the weaker Senate bill and Obama administration officials helped craft some of the controversial provisions contained in the Senate mark-up version of the bill in 2009. The Senate sponsors of S. 372 delayed presenting the controversial bill for full Senate approval until the latter stage of the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress. The Senate version of the WPEA contained only modest reforms of whistleblower rights and actually contained a few provisions that would have made it more difficult for federal employees to bring whistleblower claims. The Senate bill differed substantially from the House version and the delay tactics by the Senate sponsors of S. 372 ensured that the House was given only a take-it-or-leave-it option to take up the weak Senate bill. When the House finally considered the weaker Senate bill on the last day of the 111th Congress, the bill's sponsors needed a two-thirds vote to pass the bill on the House suspension calendar. Lacking the votes necessary to pass the weaker Senate bill, and to avoid objections raised by Republicans to the intelligence agency protections, the House sponsors of the Senate bill stripped out all protections for intelligence agency and FBI employees. The WPEA was killed in the Senate on December 22, 2010, when a senator placed an anonymous hold on the bill.
(Wiki)
So tell me again how the Whistleblower Protection Act would help Snowden?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Even if Snowden had come to him what more could he do when the committee chairs seem to have no boundaries on what they were willing to accept.
magellan
(13,257 posts)...you'll just do it, and not speak up?
lol at going to "proper sources". He said he tried and was shut down. Who do you trust when you work for the spooks and congress signed off on this activity?
btw, he didn't proclaim himself a hero. He emphatically denied being one.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)repealed, he was too quick to run off at the mouth. Talking about unethical, his actions sure was. As far as being a hero, kinda hard when you committing a crime. He ran out of the country, yes he knew he was doing a wrong. What did he reveal that many knew was already happening for years, the method of how it was being collected.
magellan
(13,257 posts)And it's been gone over to death here. If you don't think the government collection of every American's private communications by subcontractors with zero oversight is unethical, then I have to question YOUR ethics.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)off at the mouth when a condition of employment prevented me from disclosing work I was supposed to be performing. He is not an oversight judge and jury, he was not in position to make the decisions made by the FISA court. He broke the condition of his employment. The collection of records is not illegal, had oversight and I doubt if the Patriot Act will be repealed. For those opposed to having their phone records collected then the use of those services should cease immediately. No service, no record.
magellan
(13,257 posts)What good is that when there's an oops and someone types in one wrong digit, resulting in the collection of a massive amount of info on unintended targets, as happened in 2009? What makes you think that can't happen intentionally, warrant or not?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Do you expect for the terrorist to openly reveal their plans? Unintended victims like the victims we just recently had in Boston or any other terrorist event. What if a planned terrorist event killed one of your loved ones or yourself, would you have preferred the plan was stopped before carried out. It is time for American citizens to open their eyes wide and pay attention to the events around them. Your argument is like never locking your doors at home because you could lock yourself out of your home or lose the key. It has happened to many and will continue to happen.
magellan
(13,257 posts)Your arguments are rooted in irrational fear and unfounded trust in a surveillance state that's not only antithetical to democracy, but has done virtually nothing to earn that trust. And it certainly hasn't done anything that wasn't done before the recent advent of blanket domestic spying. We used to catch criminals just fine without subjecting everyone in the country to constant and unnecessarily intrusive surveillance.
The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are vanishingly small compared to being killed by a drunk driver or by your own medications. If you're so paranoid about terrorists you're willing to justify the forfeiture of everyone's rights for your own false sense of security, then you're a hypocrite if you get in a car or fill an Rx. And a damned hypocrite at that.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)listened to, have my emails read, have my searches followed. I am not attempting to plan a crime nor am I attempting to cover up any crimes. More awareness of everyone is needed to observe what is happening around us to thwart possible terrorist attacks in the future, if someone drops a package near where you might be locate, etc. You are right in increased odds of being killed in a terrorist attack because of actions taken by Homeland Security.
magellan
(13,257 posts)You mean decreased (Freudian slip?).
Your assertion that the risk is smaller or reduced "because of actions taken by Homeland Security" is a non sequitur; the NSA falls under the DoD, not the DHS. That's okay. It's all Big Brother and as long as you feel safe, what do pesky details matter?
The DoD probably is more responsible for the reduced risk of terrorist attack, but how much of that is down to the NSA in particular isn't in evidence -- because it's secret. It's equally true that the actions of the DoD have increased the risk of terrorist attacks against us. You know, because for some reason most people don't take kindly to foreign countries bombing and occupying them.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I've seen people on DU advocate for locking someone up and throwing away the key for doing something that was a lot less than what Snowden did.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)neither.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)If that is a controversial thing to say, especially on a website called "Democratic Underground," then I dare say the country is finished.
magellan
(13,257 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)are passed in FISA court in front of a judge. Don't like your call records recorded, don't use the services and there will not be a record. We live in a different world today, changed a lot by 9 11 2001, if you want to continue to move freely around the country then understand changes have been made and perhaps more in the future. Too many cell phones available on the streets with the ability to record your every move.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This is NOT about Snowden (or anyone else) saying:
If it were I suspect there would be no controversy here. What is being debated is the lawfulness of Snowden disclosing classified documents/information, in particular, and whether the program is unlawfully being undertaken.
Too many, imo, wish to substitute their beliefs/principles/ideology on the rightness of this program, whether we should have such a program for what the law (and BTW, the Constitution) allows, and/or whether Snowden is justified in disclosing the classified information because he is horrified by the program.
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)that there are more important things than even their personal safety.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)that he contacted the media and then went to work for BAH on an NSA contract. For $200K a year.
Our heroes are wanting, methinks.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)He has sacrificed everything to inform the American people that we are all being spied upon.