Snowden to NSA: Go ahead, deny I tried to raise the alarm

[Ichingcarpenter]

Whistle-blower Edward Snowden has challenged the National Security Agency to explicitly deny that he tried -- before leaking secret documents to journalists -- to use legal, internal means to raise a red flag about the possibly unconstitutional nature of the outfit's surveillance programs.

"The NSA at this point not only knows I raised complaints, but that there is evidence that I made my concerns known to the NSA's lawyers, because I did some of it through e-mail. I directly challenge the NSA to deny that I contacted NSA oversight and compliance bodies directly via e-mail and that I specifically expressed concerns about their suspect interpretation of the law, and I welcome members of Congress to request a written answer [from the NSA] to this question," Snowden told Vanity Fair in a feature that's scheduled for publication later this week.

The challenge came in response to a claim by NSA Deputy Director Rick Ledgett, who led the agency's investigation of Snowden and who Vanity Fair says told the magazine that Snowden made no formal complaints and that no one at the NSA has reported Snowden mentioning his concerns to them.

It's a key point. Snowden -- who's currently riding out a yearlong period of temporary asylum in Russia -- is wanted by US authorities under the Espionage Act, and the president of the United States himself has said that Snowden had other avenues at his disposal and shouldn't have leaked secret files.

We've contacted the NSA for comment and will update this post when we hear back.



http://www.cnet.com/news/edward-snowden-challenges-nsa-to-deny-he-tried-to-raise-alarm-legally/


So.. The balls in the NSA court... they either says he did or didn't and if they deny he did, Snowden produces the evidence and the NSA are proven they lied once again..... this will be interesting.

I liked this comment at the link


Rummy's paraphrased words could apply here to the NSA officials.....

'There are known emails. These are emails we know that we know about. There are known unknown emails. That is to say, there are emails that we know we don't know about. But there are also known unknown emails. There are emails we don't know we don't know about.' But trust us, Snowden is a criminal.

[Cryptoad]

1. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Android3.14]

9. Still asleep at the wheel?

eom

[fascisthunter]

90. dumb

[msanthrope]

2. The NSA denies he made a formal complaint. If he has evidence that he did, why not publish that?

While stealing 1.7 million doucuments, couldn't he have kept copies of his emails?

This strikes me as overblown and grandiose...if he's got evidence, now's the time to show it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Show me the formal denial from the NSA

FIRST.......

[msanthrope]

7. It's in the second paragraph of your OP. Snowden's responding to Rick Ledgett's TED

talk, where he outlined all the different things Snowden didn't do....

http://blog.ted.com/2014/03/20/the-nsa-responds-to-edward-snowdens-interview-at-ted/

If Snowden has evidence....why not release it? It's been almost a year now.

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. That's ted talk... NOT A FORMAL LETTER OF DEN

not that hard and then they can prove he's lying.

Mr. Lawyer....

His lawyers want it in writing.

[msanthrope]

14. So why haven't his attorneys asked for that? Look...if Comrade Eddie is serious, then he makes

a discovery request or a FOIA through his attorney....not a VF interview.

Or...he says "Hey, the NSA guy in charge of investigating me says I didn't complain, he's wrong, here's the evidence."

This is illogical and grandiose...sounds like he's pretty upset that Ledgett said he didn't whistleblow.

[elias49]

20. "Comrade" Eddie...??

How I hate childish name-calling. That's generally a Repub tool.

[hueymahl]

43. No kidding

But unfortunately those that have weak arguments (e.g., most republicans, bigots, and other weak-minded individuals) can't help themselves. It just feels so GOOD to call someone a silly name. Makes you feel all self-important.

[note to Msanthrope - I am not calling you these names - just pointing out that you are using the same rhetorical technique favored by those groups of people]

[tblue37]

244. It is especially foolish--and a RW tactic that all liberals and Dems should

absolutely eschew--to call your opposing interlocutor a "commie," which is what the appellation "Comrade" signifies.

The RW used accusations of communist "fellow traveling" or of actual party membership as a way of attacking (and often destroying) those they disagreed with. What we call that tactic now is McCarthyism. Obviously that label can now be used appropriately for any attempt to smear an opponent using guilt by association, especially when the effort is an organized, focused one, and even more so when those coordinating the effort are powerful or agents of power.

But when such smears are couched *specifically* as accusations of being a "commie pinko," which is what calling someone "Comrade" means in these particular circumstances, then such a smear is not just unconscionable, but also downright absurd.

In case anyone didn't get the memo, the Soviet Union fell apart toward the end of the last century. Though Russia is a dangerous geopolitical entity and in many ways an antagonist and competitor of the US, it is no longer communist, nor does it claim to be.

It is a kleptocratic oligarchy with a powerful autocrat at the top of that oligarchy. But it is also an unashamedly *capitalist* kleptocracy, strikingly similar in many ways to the way our own capitalistic oligarchy operates, although the powerful class in Russia has been able to take their society and its satellites much further down the path toward the oligarchs' desired outcome than our kleptocrats have managed to do here, though our kleptocrats are clearly making progress, and at an accelerating rate, toward their preferred social and economic conditions.

If one wishes to criticize Snowden and/or his actions (and BTW, those are *not* precisely the same thing), then by all means, have at it. But please, especially here on a site that is self-defined as a haven for discussion by liberals and democrats, don't try to smear him as a "commie pinko." That is both offensive and ridiculous.

[sabrina 1]

89. Yes, childish, it is also a dishonest, false implication that Snowden's original destination was

Russia, when in fact it was the US Government's action in rescinding his passport that forced him to remain in Russia.

Snowden was on his way to South America where he would have made the required formal request for political asylum. He chose to take a route where he would be least likely to be detained. Eg, when he landed in Hong Kong, the US requested that he be detained and handed over to them. Hong Kong refused. His next stop on his way to South America was Russia. But by then his passport had been rescinded and he could not leave.

So now, morons like Republican Rep. Rogers have attempted to use that to imply that he was a Russian Spy, without a shred of evidence, and when asked to produce some, have simply disappeared.

I too despise such childish nonsense, even more, I and I know so many people, find the attempt to disseminate lies in what is not even a subtle way anymore, to be thoroughly despicable, not to mention that it shows a desperation to hide the truth.

[Sheepshank]

130. Your still promoting this lie?

how many times have I given you evidence to the contrary...at least 3 times, and there have been others that have done the same...... and yet you persist.

Do you realize how childish it is to wilfully disregard evidence that has been placed in your lap multiple times?

[idendoit]

176. Revisionist. That traitor flew to Russia to get to Cuba.

His passport was yanked after he arrived in Russia. The US does that to fleeing felons. How come they didn't allow him to stay in Hong Kong? How come Ecuador turned down his asylum request? Because he's an disgraced traitor..

[Capt. Obvious]

184. He's also a dirty Commie

and a racist libertarian.

[GoneFishin]

210. ... and boxes and pole dancer girl friend, and (tee hee) don't forget Gigi ...

'cause it sounds like a girls name. Get it? Funny, right? Ya get it? Gigi? Cause it sounds like a girls name?

[bobduca]

95. as if that red-baiting poster could be engaged in an honest discussion

[grasswire]

111. :::choke:::

coffee on keyboard

[pipoman]

28. Most liberals have a civil liberation streak

Not a love it or leave it attitude. ..

[msanthrope]

40. Indeed...and this liberal attorney despises those who think themselves above the

law. Comrade Eddie is lawfully charged. He has the duty of every citizen of this great nation to stand before the bar of court and address those charges.

Fugitives are cowards.

[Autumn]

48. Why the Comrade Eddie? That sounds like such a juvenile name to call someone.

[Ichingcarpenter]

51. He's an attorney

and this is his day job.

[Autumn]

57. Joke right? Sounds like they may have been home sick on the day they talked

about Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Now I'm not a Doctor but I can do some Doctor "stuff" and I watched House on TV so I can say I'm a Doctor. Right?

[Ichingcarpenter]

63. If I respond I will have to bill one of my clients but

[msanthrope]

66. Is there a reason you are calling a female attorney a caveman? It's been

pointed out to you that my username clearly states my gender...yet you persist in using masculine terminology to describe me.

[randome]

67. The reason is pretty clear.

Trying to get under your skin. Anyone who's been observant at DU for longer than a month or so would realize it's a losing hand.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

159. Damn straight...but watching the Snowdeniks lose their shit is

pretty amusing.

[LanternWaste]

154. Maybe for the same reason you call Snowden "Comrade Eddy"

"Is there a reason you are calling a female attorney a caveman..."

Maybe for the same reason you call Snowden "Comrade Eddy" Irrational bias (insert distinction without a difference here).

Although I do absolutely understand holding others to a higher standard than you may hold yourself... indicting others for we ourselves are guilty of is ethically convenient...

[treestar]

158. Jumping in the name

To avoid the question misanthrope raised.

Post after post on poor Eddie being called that and nothing on what Eddie would do if he were serious. Starting with facing the charges.

[msanthrope]

162. You do realize that the TOS allows us to call public figures pretty much what we wish, but not other

DUers?

It's not Libertarian Underground.

[Autumn]

68. Yes indeed. Your world frightens... and confuses me!

All I can say is I don't think I would hire an attorney who is convinced that one is guilty without knowing any information other than what is put out by a "spy" agency and what the accused says to the media in a foreign country, (which by the way it's not his fault that his passport was revoked and that little detail is always overlooked by the crew) in their defense. If an attorney starts at, face the music for your crimes you traitor, I would think that any case would be downhill from there.

[randome]

70. 'Not his fault'?

Do you think international fugitives should be given safe passage to wherever they want? Yanking his passport has nothing to do with his being stranded in Russia. Putin could fly him out anytime he wants.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

77. Sure Putin can fly him to any country. Can he get in without a passport

[randome]

80. I'm sure the scores of countries offering him asylum would...oh. Wait. No one else wants him either.

There is a reason for that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

82. You bet there is a reason for that.

Obvious. your post:
"I'm sure the scores of countries offering him asylum would...oh. Wait. No one else wants him either."
You don't want a discussion so no reason to continue.
You have a great day randome.

[Rex]

105. Yikes! Bad hair day in court!

Is that from SNL?

[msanthrope]

58. My username indicates my gender quite clearly. Why would you assume an attorney is male?

[WillyT]

149. Funny Thing About Most Modern Day Attorneys... They Know A Lot About The Law...

And very little about justice.

Not too many Clarence Darrows/Thurgood Marshalls these days.

[treestar]

156. Authoritarians, apologists

And others? Comrade Eddies fans can't talk.

[Autumn]

160. And your point is what? You seem to be having trouble making one.

Last edited Thu Apr 10, 2014, 06:07 PM - Edit history (1)

I happen to admire Snowden, I don't know if that makes me a Eddie fan but I can talk, walk and I can think and I think he did a service to this country.

Oh yes by the way, I can make a point with out just stringing a few put down words together in a couple of sentences in a reply that really make no sense.

[treestar]

243. That Eddie supporters crying about name calling can be hypocrites

As they tend to name call Eddie's opponents (or those who merely think Eddie is subject to the law). They cry we call Eddie names like Comrade while they or their fellows call us Authoritarians, apologists, etc.

[msanthrope]

165. The Snowdeniks, as you can tell from this thread, are struggling with cognitive dissonance.

Normally, when one has evidence that provides an alibi, or otherwise mitigates one's guilt, one shouts it from the rooftops.

Thus, when Julian Assange argued in court not that he had not done the acts described in the EAW, but that the acts described in the EAW were not a crime in Great Britain, and then scarpered off to go play James Blond in the Ecuadorian Embassy, he lost a massive amount of support. When one acts guilty, one might just be guilty.

Here, you have a putative disaffected Libertarian white male hero, and he hasn't done what is consistent with innocence. So it's tough....lots of excuses have to be made for fleeing, and lots of excuses have to be made for fleeing to Russia and hiding behind Putin, and lots of excuses have to be made for why that very special snowflake isn't to be expected to face the justice that the rest of us are subject to.

And a shit-ton of excuses have to be made for the evidence that Mr. Snowden has failed to produce.

Hey...you notice how no one speaks about Chelsea Manning anymore? She was brave enough to face her consequences.

[treestar]

242. Yes, and you know what happens even if he does face the consequences

I will admit he manned up to do that if he does, but then, like Chelsea Manning, the Snowdeniks will then resort to the conditions of his confinement as being torture, etc. I don't think Eddie is the type who would try to kill himself, so if detained under ordinary conditions, it will be interesting to see the spin on how those constitute "torture" - being imprisoned alone will become "torture."

He and his supporters consider him exactly what you say - a special snowflake, above the law.

[hueymahl]

245. Another day, another smear campaign

Snowdeniks. Yawn.

You are starting to bore me. Post something substantive for a change.

[msanthrope]

168. I get to call Libertarians juvenile names on Democratic Underground. It is a great joy, and a

privilege of the site.

[Autumn]

174. I looked it up, it's not an insult or juvenile after all. My apologies to you.

Comrade: The most beautiful greeting in the word. A true worker's word. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=comrade

Comrade: a close friend you have worked with, been in the military with, etc. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comrade

[pipoman]

52. A fugitive of typical criminal law maybe,

In Snowden's case, we have no reason to believe that the laws he is charged with violating, or the criminal procedure which would be used against him will be fair, just, or even constitutional. He will be swept off to Florence ADX and silenced. As long as the government refuses to answer questions we all have a right to know the answer to, avoiding testifying, stating half truths and outright lies I (and most people) don't give a shit if he ever faces charges.

[msanthrope]

56. Fugitives always think their crimes place them in a category

above the common rabble. Always. Snowden reminds me of the case I'm quite familiar with... Ira Einhorn, the Unicorn.

[Autumn]

75. I'm familiar with the case of Ira Einhorn also. I read the Time article on it, The Search for the

Unicorn It was a good read, but I don't remember Edward Snowden killing his girlfriend. And I don't remember Einhorns passport being revoked.

[bobduca]

99. sounds like

another failed attempt at a smear by association.

[Autumn]

107. It seems Arlen Specter was involved in the Ira Einhorn case

and the NSA so I guess a "lawyer" could find similarities. They are both male, both had* a girlfriend, except one killed his and stuck her body in a suitcase and one didn't . Both left the country except one went to France and one went to Russia and had his passport revoked by the US government. Einhorn was a "celebrated leftist" and is credited with helping found Earth Day, Snowden is a Libertarian and is credited with "stealing" and leaking documents from the NSA about the spying on the American people. So yeah I could see a "lawyer" saying they are similar.


edited to chance have to had*

[bvar22]

102. "Fugitives always think their crimes place them in a category above the common rabble."

Really?
I call BS on this.

You SURE you are a lawyer?

[msanthrope]

163. Yes--fugitives tend to think they are special. They always have a 'reason'

why they cannot appear in a courtroom.

Assange, Snowden, Polanski....they all have good reasons why they cannot submit to Justice.

[bvar22]

198. That is the funniest thing I've read in a while.

Are you SURE you are a lawyer?

How many "fugitives" have you "handled"?
LOL


I have actually been a "fugitive" during my mis-spent youth.
My lawyer advised me NOT to turn myself in
UNTIL I had bail money and representation,
and a guarantee of fair treatment.
That is standard advice for anyone who has a criminal warrant out on them.

I advise EVERYBODY to do the same.
THEN we walked into the Station and I was OUT in less than an hour.

My advice to Snowden it to NOT turn himself over
until HE has a guarantee Fair Treatment.
As of yet, THAT has NOT been forthcoming from the US Government.
He would be a complete IDIOT to turn himself in.

I'm REALLY glad YOU weren't MY attorney,
and I actually had someone who cared about my treatment.

I would believe that George Costanza is an Architect
before I would believe you are a criminal lawyer.

[malokvale77]

211. My thoughts to a T

Thank goodness there are some good attorneys out there. I think Snowden may have one.

[msanthrope]

229. What was the charge? Are you honestly comparing your charges to felonies that

carry LWOP?

[JoeyT]

173. Right. And they're not above the common rabble.

Everyone knows the only people that are above the common rabble are war criminals and CEOs. You know, the people that if the administration went after them would actually have a chance of fighting back on something near equal footing.

[Vattel]

164. So runaway slaves were cowards? And those who ran the underground railroad?

They all should have stood before the bar of the court? Surely you can come up with a better argument.

[msanthrope]

167. You have made a fatal error in logic. You have presumed that slavery was lawful. And that is not

the only error you have made---

You have presumed that the fate and plight of millions of Black people in this Nation is somehow equivalent to the lawful prosecution of an upper middle class white man who is not being persecuted for his color, but is merely charged with crimes.

Please, proceed, Vattel, and tell us precisely how Edward Snowden is just like a runaway slave.....

[bravenak]

192. Thank you!

I was offended by that post. Very offended.

[Vattel]

199. It is painfully obvious

that I wasn't saying that Snowden is just like a runaway slave or that the plight of millions of black people is comparable to Snowden's situation. You claimed that only cowards are fugitives and I simply used the runaway slave example to show that your claim was false.

[msanthrope]

223. Runaway slaves are not fugitives from any valid law. Snowden is. See the difference?

You are responsible, solely, for your use of "runaway slaves" as a comparison to Mr. Snowden. I think your comparison offensive on every level, and logically deficient.

Again....tell us again exactly why Snowden is comparable to a runaway slave.

[Vattel]

235. So now you change your claim from "fugitives are cowards,"

which my slave example destroyed, to the claim that fugitives from valid laws are cowards. But even that new claim is false. Well, the law against treason is valid, right? But if the revolution is justified, the revolutionary is not necessarily a coward even if he is a fugitive. You can't win here. Your thinking is too dang simplistic.

Edited to add: Please don't embarrass yourself by suggesting that I am saying that Snowden is a revolutionary in a just revolution.

[msanthrope]

240. No... fugitives are cowards. runaway slaves weren't fugitives from any valid law.

At least one African American poster has pointed out to you the offensiveness of y are you going to delete aand apologize?

[hueymahl]

246. I'll take up the defense

But first, since you are prone to character assassination, let me say something that should be painfully honest - comparing the plight of one "middle-class white man" to millions of slaves is ridiculous - it cannot be compared either in scope, savagery, immorality or any standard you care to choose.

But the legalities of the two indeed make for an interesting comparison.

I have seen dozens of posters, yourself included, point out that "Snowden broke the law" and what the government did in collecting private information without a warrant was "legal". Those that favor the constitution tend to say, that just because a law has not yet been struck down as being in violation of the constitution does not make that a just law - and in fact those "legal" actions may ultimately prove to be illegal once the SC gets around to reviewing it.

This EXACT SAME legal reasoning was used historically to justify slavery. It was indeed legal in many states. And the SC even ruled it was legal on multiple occaisions (see, e.g., Dred Scott as a particularly egregious example of twisted legal reasoning). But ultimately the weight of morality and constitutional authority crushed the "legal" justifications for slavery - it just took a civil war to do it finally.

My point is, simply, that you are correct that what our country is doing re collection of private information without a warrant is "legal". But I assert, as do most who actually value civil liberties and respect the constitution, that it is morally wrong and unconstitutional what the government is doing. And "Comrade" Snowden is a martyr and a hero for bringing these unconstitutional and morally offensive state acts to light. He cannot be compared to the great martyrs of slavery for that evil is unparalleled in modern society, but he is a martyr and hero nonetheless.

History will be unkind to you and your ilk.

[joshcryer]

220. Holy shit.

That was pretty much a complete demolishment of that argument. Incredibly well done.

[bravenak]

193. Very offensive.

Runaway slaves? Comparing them to snowden is very offensive indeed.

[Vattel]

201. see post 199 to appreciate the inoffensiveness of what I said

[bravenak]

202. I see.

I get it. Not all fugitives are cowards. Carry on.

[1StrongBlackMan]

204. Because evidence that he DID complain ...

(e.g., an email, a recording of a call, whatever) would go a long way to getting him "home", as doesn't the whistle-blower statute allow/mitigate extra-agency/congressional disclosure, when following the prescribed protocol fails?

[NCTraveler]

139. Dear msanthrope,

I have been working on this next step for months and you are blowing it out of the water in seconds. I need to keep people guessing as to if I am full of shit or not. Just because I am not producing anything, and asking for a statement from people who owe me nothing, doesn't prove what I am doing is shady. Just because what you say makes more sense than what I am saying, and is based in logic, doesn't mean squat. Please shut up.

Sincerely,

Eddie

[msanthrope]

170. Dear Comrade Eddie,

Is it too much to ask that you simply publish whatever evidence you've got? I mean, if you really care about the government your ex-girlfriend and your Dad, and the rest of us are subject to, why not provide evidence of the fact that you tried to make it better?

Or, wait....is this coming out in Greenwald's book in May? How capitalistic of you!!! Making people pay to see the evidence you claim you have is a stroke of genius!

Too bad you won't get the royalties. And it must suck royally to be living in Russia, unable to drink.

All the Best,

Msanthrope

[1StrongBlackMan]

206. Besides ...

doesn't evidence that he DID complain, (e.g., an email, a recording of a call, whatever) go a long way to getting him "home", as doesn't the whistle-blower statute allow/mitigate extra-agency/congressional disclosure, when following the prescribed protocol fails?

[msanthrope]

224. Absolutely. Even if he didn't follow the letter of the law, he gives his attorneys a powerful

bargaining tool in securing a federal plea with such evidence.

[LanternWaste]

152. You're moving goalposts with every additional reply...

You're moving the goalposts with every additional reply...

[Sheepshank]

127. he wants NSA to prove that they didn't received formal complaints?

...seriously, he wants an agency to substantiate a negative?

It would be incumbent on him to produce proof that he did file formal complaints.

Clearly all bluster and no substance.

[randome]

136. And the clearer it becomes...

...the angrier his supporters become. This thread is evidence of that. Some vile aspersions are being made.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[GliderGuider]

4. Waiting for their denial before releasing his evidence seems like a good idea to me.

Both tactically and strategically correct.

[msanthrope]

5. They already denied it....as the OP stated. So now I guess he wants another denial?

If he's got evidence, why not quit playing footsie and release it?

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. 'A FORMAL WRITTEN LETTER OF DENIAL

Not to hard for them to do...... but they haven''t done that


everything else is just talk and not legally binding.

[msanthrope]

11. Well, that's goalpost moving! He gets a denial, plus public interviews by the NSA, and now he

wants a "formal written letter of denial?"

http://blog.ted.com/2014/03/20/the-nsa-responds-to-edward-snowdens-interview-at-ted/

If he were serious about this, why aren't his attorneys asking for it as a "formal" discovery matter?

This is grandiose...and since it's beena year, why not just release the evidence?

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. What are you scared of?

LOL....

[msanthrope]

16. Not a thing...certainly not a person who is cowardly enough to hide behind Putin, lest he face

the charges against him.

Why won't he release evidence, if he has it?

[Ichingcarpenter]

23. Letters are so hard.. we have to attack him

with slurs......LOL

Listen a formal letter will clear the NSA up and prove him wrong.


One page, double spaced, NSA letter head...... signed and delivered.

[msanthrope]

26. Fugitives from the law don't get their demands met. If Comrade Eddie wants something,

he'd better be prepared to do better than requesting it through a Vanity Fair article.

Grandiose, and goalpost moving on the part of Eddie.

[Ichingcarpenter]

27. A letter from the NSA denying Snowden's claim.

The whole world is watching.

[msanthrope]

42. Indeed...the whole world is watching Snowden hide behind Putin. nt

[JimDandy]

76. If you are an attorney, I would never hire you.

Your "arguments" are weak and ineffective.

[Bobbie Jo]

94. Personally,

I wouldn't hire an attorney who just reflexively agrees with me, only to watch them walk into court and have their ass handed to them because of their accommodating attitude and narrowmindedness.

Talk about weak and ineffective.....

[JimDandy]

166. Thanks! I'll add those three to my reasons not to hire.

Glad you know her better than me.

[Bobbie Jo]

175. ?

What does that even mean?

[msanthrope]

228. It's unlikely you could afford me. nt

[JimDandy]

230. You just reinforced my opinion.

What an incredibly weak response.

See you around the board...

[msanthrope]

231. You seem to think it would be your choice to hire me. You have

the wrong end of the stick.

[shaayecanaan]

29. that comrade Eddie stuff is devastating by the way

I chortled until I shat my pants. Keep it up.

[99Forever]

47. I love the smell of authoritarian desperation...

... in the morning.

Refreshing.

[bobduca]

103. Your tax dollars at work :NSA Apologia

[pipoman]

32. "Face the charges against him"

Like those on Guantanamo. The second he "faces the charges against him" he will no longer be heard. He will be swept off to Florence CO where even his lawyer will be surveilled and stifled. No, one who is defending themselves against criminal charges is wise to defend from afar if possible.

[elias49]

49. So true. But many don't understand that..

or purposely ignore the fact that there's very little argument coming from solitary confinement. Just ask (Bradley) Manning.
Really tiresome istening to the folks who want Snowden to fall on a sword FOR THEM!

[msanthrope]

50. Defend from afar? If demanding stuff through Vanity Fair is defending

himself he's doing a poor job of it. What a coward.

James Blond's continued plan is to defend himself from afar..... I think he's only doing marginally better.

[pipoman]

55. Ever been to pro-vis at ADX?

I have. Nothing comes out of ADX without the approval of SIS, the BOP, or in Snowden's case, the NSA...Federal Judges order or not.

[msanthrope]

65. Did you go as an attorney, or something else? nt

[pipoman]

72. Appointed by a Federal Judge

As defense investigator for a pro se defendant. I interviewed around 20 ADX inmates over a 2 week period. Every day was a new attempt to circumvent the judge's order. Interviewed many more in Leavenworth, Marion, Springfield, and Lewisburg. Road blocks there too, nothing compared to Florence ADX..even Florence Max. No most of the rules don't apply at ADX.

[msanthrope]

227. So you'd understand if I decline to answer your question, since I'm not sure I can? I have

not had a problem getting a judge's order eventually followed.

[Kolesar]

15. Ok. Prove that Saddam does not have WMDs

DU fun times

[GeorgeGist]

200. I raise a ...

Benghazi!!!

[uponit7771]

86. WOW!!! REALLY!?!?! There needs to be a "letter" vs an official statement saying the same?!?!!

[Ichingcarpenter]

87. Alberto Gonzales said he misspoke 5 times during his lies

Yes written is better ..... you don't Mis write.

[sendero]

8. Do you not get..

... that what some "Deputy Director" says is not an official statement from the NSA proper? They need to formally AS AN ORGANIZATION OFFICIALLY make their claim. Otherwise when challenged with the facts they will dodge with the "that was not an authorized statement" bullshit.

I believe Snowden 10 to 1 over the NSA.

[msanthrope]

12. Then why haven't his attorneys asked for that? You aren't making a logical argument....

The deputy director in charge of the NSA probe on Snowden can't speak for the Agency on Snowden? That doesn't sound right.

[sendero]

19. It would be trivial...

.. for them to issue a FORMAL STATEMENT. Let's see if they do. Let's see if they really don't believe Snowden can prove what he is saying.

Was James Clapper speaking for the agency when he lied right to Congress' face?

You act like Snowden is dealing with honest people of good faith. They are not, and anyone paying any attention knows this by now.

[randome]

22. It would be trivial for Snowden to release the emails he claims to have.

I doubt he has any. As was already pointed out, his attorneys would have those front and center by now.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

33. There's zero reason to believe that he has any emails at all.

Unless you have evidence otherwise.

[msanthrope]

25. Fugitives don't dictate who issues what...if Comrade Eddie wants something, he should

ask his attorneys. A Vanity Fair article? That's how this loser is fighting truth to power?

[MannyGoldstein]

34. LOL

Look at all the things that Snowden's forced the White House to do.

He'll likely get his way on this, too.

[SwankyXomb]

194. Mr Snowden has no power

except to make you lose your shit every time his name is mentioned, evidently.

[Autumn]

121. I would think any lawyer would suggest he wait for a trial to disclose any evidence

he has that could exonerate him of the smear or charge that he didn't go through proper channels. . .

I'm not a lawyer but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn.

[OilemFirchen]

179. Really?

I can't imagine a competent attorney holding back exculpatory evidence pre-trial. Especially if their client has not yet been apprehended.

In this case, Snowden has proffered the existence of said evidence. Moreso, if your opinion has merit, why would the NSA provide anything at this point?

[Autumn]

182. Is the NSA part of the judicial branch?

We know what crime he is accused of, but so far no interrogation, no arrest, hasn't been booked, no initial court appearance, no preliminary hearing, no pre-trial.

I would think he can tell the NSA to prove he didn't go through proper channels when they are the ones making noise, they are not the prosecution team are they? As I said I'm not a lawyer and not claiming to be one.

[OilemFirchen]

188. No. The NSA reports to the DoD.

The indictment comes from the DOJ. As to the rest of your first paragraph, there's been no activity as you've described because Snowden is a fugitive.

The NSA is not "making noise" about Snowden. He can't "tell" them to do anything.

As to the point of this discussion, if an attorney has exculpatory evidence concerning a client, it would be ridiculous not to present that after an indictment (or, preferably, before). What would be the purpose of going to trial if a defendant could simply prove his or her innocence beforehand?

[Autumn]

191. I don't think any attorneys are involved in this pissing match

Ledgett opened his mouth publicly and I think (IMHO) Edward Snowden has the right to respond. It will come out. I imagine if Ledgett slinks back under his rock that will speak volumes. If he continues to insist Snowden didn't try to make his concerns known to the NSA's lawyers then the ball is in Snowdens court to prove he did, by producing the e-mails.

Personally I don't think he will ever go to trial.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. He was a SharePoint admin, not an email admin

People at secure sites usually can't keep their own emails.

[msanthrope]

53. Manny..this might be the most illogical defense offered......

So you're telling me he can only steal some 1.7 million documents but was prevented from stealing the very documents that would be evidence of the fact that he attempted to whistle blow???!

[uponit7771]

81. I think Manny knows the gig is up and just being snarky TOWARDS Snowden with that defense...

[msanthrope]

92. Well...if Snowden's lost Manny it's all over but the crying. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

88. Definitely possible

Do you have any evidence otherwise, whatsoever? NSA was clear that what he stole was SharePoint stuff, which he could because he was a SharePoint admin.

[uponit7771]

93. Come on Manny, we "know" it's possible but is it probable?!?! NO!! He had the skill sets to steal...

... everything else but his own damn emails and docs?!

Not even a voice recording?!

Come on, if Snowden shows proof that he went through some official whistle blowing measures then the spy agencies are toast...

I would support revamping them all...

Prolly Obama would too, seeing there would be little to no oversight measures cept from stupid ass'ed congress

[Sheepshank]

132. If Snowden didn't or couldn't keep copies or prints of his own emails

how does he expect to prove that they NSA has the same evidence? OR how does he expect the NSA to affirmatively state anything to supportSnowden's statements? More importantly, why should the NSA comply with providing a written request?

Snowden is the one that say he has the proof...why not just produce it?

[bobduca]

104. Only illogical to someone who apparently knows nothing about computer systems

Dick is the admin of an email server.

Jane is the admin of a content management system, in this case SharePoint.

The Access Control Lists of those two systems are not related.
Dick can not login to the Sharepoint server with his credentials, and Jane can not login to the email system with her credentials.

[hack89]

233. But Jane can make local copies of all the emails in her account. nt

[randome]

234. Hell, she could screen-scrape them!

But maybe 'Jane' is some sort of tecno-nerd-genius who is always four steps ahead of everyone else. Except when it comes to knowing how to copy emails or what a secure FTP server is.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[uponit7771]

79. You're being sarcastic right? tia

[Autumn]

120. There is no trial so Snowden does not have to prove anything.

Rick Ledgett from NSA says he didn't Snowden says he did. Yeah Snowden has those e mails and he's a pretty smart guy not to publish them. Snowden is playing the NSA like a fish, a sucker fish. It goes to trial who looks like a fool? NSA NSA

A good lawyer would know that, even one who just plays one online.

[uponit7771]

78. amen

[rhett o rick]

171. If he showed you the evidence, I doubt you would accept it. You seem to already have

tried, convicted, and lynched him. Why is your default siding with the NSA?

[msanthrope]

172. Oh...I would definitely accept it! If he handed over a copy of a formal complaint he made with

the NSA to the media, I would expect that verification of it would take very little time, and I expect that the media would be an absolute pit bull on this one....

While I may not agree with Mr. Snowden as to the legality of what he is concerned about, I don't deny him his right to file complaints as allowed by law.

The point I am making to you, Rhett, is that if he has the evidence, where is it? It seems a bit incredible to not take with you the proof that you actually tried to raise the issue in the system. It also seems a bit foolhardy not to publish that proof.

Greenwald's book is out in May. Hopefully, he will publish that proof. But you'll have to pay for it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

178. The Albert Gonzales defense...'I misspoke'' 5 times to the Senate

to different lies he told as attorney general.

or as the white house said Alberto Gonzales misspoke 2 two times on his lies on other occasions.

Thus a written letter from the NSA does not give plausible deniability on they 'misspoke' at a TED talk or to the press.

Thus Snowden's request for A FORMAL LETTER from the the NSA


You don't ''mis write''claims but you can misspeak.




Any so called lawyer knows this.

Now about THAT DAY JOB as a lawyer.
Thank goodness my brother was a judge, criminal attorney and a DA but he has a real job which he doesn't post on a forum for 14 hours.

If the NSA replies and Snowden cops out its over for him....... I don't think he's that dumb

so as I said before lets see how this plays out.

[joshcryer]

219. It's easy enough to prove he didn't.

If he made a complaint about anything he found, because he didn't have privileged access to said data, he would have gone to jail for making the complaint, as it would prove he gained access to said data illegally.

So it is obvious, from the start, that he did not in fact make said complaints.

He could have only done so, as a whistleblower (also an illegal hacker), to a congress person, with a lawyer in between maintaining his anonymity. And then, it would have had to be a congress person he trusted very well, because at any point the lawyer could be compelled to reveal his identity.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

17. But. . .but. . .he's a traitor and a coward and needs to come back and face his trumped up

politically charged criminal charges and get his justice in a Kangaroo court.

Oh, and he's a right winger, so what he did means nothing. We love the NSA spying on us. Because the Obama administration did it, so it's okay, because the "D" means more than the constitution, which is just a "God damned piece of paper."

[sendero]

21. And don't forget....

...... HE LEFT HIS GIRLFRIEND!. What a bastard!

[840high]

91. He eats kittens.

[B Calm]

18. YAWN

[bobduca]

97. wake up!

Democracy demands informed citizenry.

[randome]

98. Except Snowden's 'revelations' are on par with...

...informing us how traffic signals work. Or how many GOP nutters fit on the head of a pin.

We knew about the metadata storage. It's legal. We didn't know -nor did we care- about international spying.

That's why there is no groundswell of support for Snowden outside some blogs and DU and such.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[bobduca]

101. without his "revelations" none of this would have been "known"

But carry on keep repeating these key talking points and it will become true!

For Obama!

[Whisp]

109. Are you seriously saying that phone companies haven't had records

of calls - day, time and duration - since forever and that, gasp! international spying is a new thing that Obama invented?

Eddie is going down the whirlpool. Eddy is eddying, and the desperation to save face of his fanclub is amusing.

[bobduca]

115. That gif convinced me.

NSA is awesome! SNOWDEN IS TEH POOPYHEAD!

[Whisp]

118. Eddy needs some java:

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. Snowden sure makes a lot of claims that he NEVER seems to show US....

never substantiate his claims...yet some believe whatever he says. Even Bill Maher noticed that every time he opens his mouth....crazy shit flies out.
Anyone in his "line of work" understands CYA....they use email to substantiate LOTS and often. He would HAVE those emails if his claim were true...

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Crazy shit flies out, indeed

But much has proven true, and none has proven false.

So it's not Snowden who's crazy, it seems.

[tridim]

39. He's probably not crazy, just dirt stupid...

And at least as massively egotistical as Greenwald.

[Zorra]

126. He's at least smart enough to elude the entire US Intelligence system, and then publicly

taunt them mercilessly.

Clearly, Snowden gets the award for "Intelligence" here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

208. Yes he is living the life of reilly as tech support in Russia....

Yes sooooo very smart....


hahahahahahaaha

[Zorra]

212. For every decent person, exposing evil to help others is worth sacrifice.

And everyone else can't fathom any reason for this type of altruism.

[randome]

226. So now phone metadata records are 'evil'?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Zorra]

237. I suggest that you may want to consider the possibility that you are missing something very

important here. Or maybe you are just being deliberately obtuse as a joke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_%282013%E2%80%93present%29

[randome]

239. Are you saying international spying is 'evil'?

I honestly don't get it. Calling me 'obtuse' is not really helpful.

If everything is so clear and obvious to you, why not explain it to me (all of us) instead of linking to a lengthy Wikipedia article?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Zorra]

241. I've been here way long enough to know better than to engage in one of your strawman

sub-threads, because it's always a huge waste of time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. Not what Snowden has said...no...

what has he shown US? What have you seen? Nothing....yet some believe anything that flies out his mouth!
Believe this...in his line of work....those emails would be saved and he would take them with him...he KNOWS CYA

[tridim]

38. He's a religion and his supporters are his flock.

And belief requires nothing more than 100% pure faith in everything Comrade Snowjob says.

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. How far off is Snowden Communion? With wafers and grape juice?

[Whisp]

110. Might be a good time to sell little Eddie statuettes on DU.

Let's set up a shingle!

[randome]

112. With authentic rappelling gear!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Whisp]

117. and when you pull the string on his back:

My proof of all the shit I've been saying, is in the mail...

[Union Scribe]

217. I don't suppose any of you will get this

but this subthread? It's precisely why no one here takes your clique seriously who isn't in it.

[Capt. Obvious]

222. Their civil war is starting though

with the coming HRC presidential run.

I for one welcome the coming BOG war.

[Enrique]

41. that's exactly what he's saying

he's saying he has the proof, and he's saying that the NSA knows he has the proof. For exactly the reason you say. CYA.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. HE should have his CYA.....he can't expect them to make his argument for him can he?

If he did this....and he didn't take those with him...

He is stupider than I thought.

[Enrique]

61. he does have them with him

and they know he does.

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. they do? How come WE don't....

Snowden needs to produce this evidence or STFU! He should have them himself.....

Why should they produce this evidence FOR him? If he were such a good superduper spy guy....he would have remembered to take the evidence that covers his ass...If he didn't then...

[Enrique]

69. everyone's telling Snowden what he should do

if he did any of it, he'd be in jail or no one would ever have heard of him. I can see how some people would want it that way, but obviously Snowden prefers doing things his way.

[VanillaRhapsody]

71. Well he keeps talking and crazy shit flies out.....

if he cannot produce these emails....its just more crazy shit.

But you keep the Faith! You BELIEVE and you will be HEALED!

[uponit7771]

84. Ummm no.... people are wanting freaking evidence he's not a damn traitor hiding behind pooty poot

... not trying to tell him what to do.

He went through no legal means to whistle blow... that's what this si starting to look like...

This defense of "he would've been [something negative]" isn't given to everyone who has a case against the US justice systems unfairness by Snowden supporters either

[DisgustipatedinCA]

205. People in this very thread have been caught lying more than Snowden has

There's no margin in my subject line, no wiggle room, just an uncomfortable (for some) truth.

[Capt. Obvious]

35. Which hand does Comrade Eddie

hold the hammer and which the sickle?

[elias49]

54. Oh puke. More childish name calling

Barf.
Are you an adult?

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. Easy enough to fix....Snowden could actually produce this evidence...

otherwise it is just more Snowden woo!

[bobduca]

96. Revealing the New McCarthyites, another part of Snowden's legacy

Last edited Thu Apr 10, 2014, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

[grasswire]

116. yes indeedy

separating the sheep from the goats, for all the world to see on a public message board.

It's quite a dance.

[GeorgeGist]

203. Former Republican?

Sure sound like one.

[SidDithers]

36. Why would the NSA do anything Snowden wants?...

What benefit, to the NSA, could there possibly be by issuing a FORMAL DENIAL of anything?

They've already said that there was no formal complaint made by Snowden. If Snowden believes that to be incorrect, why doesn't he just prove them wrong?

Sid

[NCTraveler]

37. So, he has the emails yet does not release them.

Why in the world would he do that? Why would he drag it on if he has the proof? Next up, how the NSA hacked his email account and stole them from him. His 15 mins are up, lets get back to the real story; the NSA and there subversion of the fourth amendment. Snowden hearts Snowden.

[brush]

60. His 15 minutes are up

He doesn't seem to know it though. As you said, the story has moved on to the NSA subversion of the 4th Amendment. And I for one am weary of the drip-drip-drip media releases of Snowden that seem designed to prolong his 15 minutes.

If he's got the emails he should try releasing those.

[randome]

62. Snowden is the 'MH370' of print journalism.

They can't stop themselves.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[frylock]

124. snowden has released all the documents..

drip-drip-drip media releases are a result of the media outlets scouring that data.

[brush]

147. Greenwald does get in on the act too though with "new revelations". nt

[uponit7771]

85. amen

[frylock]

123. it's called giving them enough rope to hang themselves..

and it's working quite well.

[NCTraveler]

135. It's called not having what is needed to back your claim.

It is a game to him at this point. He claims he has something yet won't release it. He is hanging on for all he can with his little buddy Pooty Poot. The only time they need to respond to this in any real way is if he turns himself in, something he would never do because he doesn't have what he says he does. Once again, he has brought the conversation to him personally instead of the egregious violations of the NSA to our fourth amendment. Snowden is insignificant. He is where he wants to be. Doing what he wants to do.

Please show where he has backed up what he is saying in anyway. Even his most loyal supporters know his word isn't worth very much. I trust what he says about as much as I believe the NSA operates within the confines of the constitution. There is nothing to back up his claim at this point.

[grasswire]

141. another mind reader!

So many people (who apparently watch too many B grade spy movies) are rushing to assign motives to Snowden! It's an amazing display.

[NCTraveler]

142. Thread is full of them if you haven't noticed.

Both pro and con. Bet you only notice the con part. Snowden leaves us as mind readers because he won't furnish anything to back up his claim. So, help us to stop being mind readers. Please post the information that Snowden went through the proper legal whistleblower channels. While your at it, will you please post the exact same comment to one of the many mind readers fighting for fast eddie. Didn't think so. Those are the good little mind readers.

[grasswire]

144. the distinction, you may not have noticed...

....is that it is the surveillance state that has lied to us all. Under oath. Lied.

Nothing Snowden has said has been shown to be false.

So you choose to believe the liars. I don't.

[randome]

146. I don't think ANYONE has suggested we should trust the NSA. No one.

But Snowden has shown no proof of his outrageous claims and the longer he remains in exile in Russia, the more outrageous those claims become.

Yesterday it was the NSA 'absolutely' spies on...whoever it was, I don't remember. With not even a scintilla of evidence.

Today it's that he has email proof of having gone through channels. With not even a scintilla of evidence.

The metadata storage he 'proved' is comparable to 'proving' that the Sun came up today.

The international spying? Few think this is deserving of all the international incidents he caused.

So, no one is saying to trust the NSA. But you, apparently, want to believe Snowden without even a cursory offer of evidence.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

207. You've implied for 8 months that they should be trusted.

Too late for that cat to go back in the bag.

[grasswire]

209. funny, isn't it?

You keep claiming that Snowden's claims of NSA excess are "outrageous" and without merit.

The NSA claims that he has endangered the country by releasing classified information. Officials are so apoplectic about his communications that they lie, under oath, about what the NSA has done.

Which is it?

[randome]

221. I don't understand why this is so hard for some to grasp.

The vast majority of Snowden's claims are without merit. He also exposed several international spying efforts, which puts national security operations in jeopardy.

It's not that hard to see that he's done both.

And I hardly see the NSA acting 'apoplectic'. They -and undoubtedly Snowden's former coworkers- are pretty pissed at him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[NCTraveler]

236. "So you choose to believe the liars."

You couldn't be further from the truth. You never read anywhere where I have said I trust the NSA. Just the opposite actually. In other words, the assumption you just made is completely wrong, as assumptions often are.

[frylock]

145. his little buddy Pooty Poot..

his little buddy, hunh. Even his most loyal supporters know his word isn't worth very much? okay then. linky?

[99Forever]

59. Sweet. Another put up or shut up moment for the...

... authoritarian/police/surveillance state, brought to you by Sir Edward Snowden, Knight for We the People.

Lookie who's scurrying, AGAIN.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. and more blind faith for the supporters...AGAIN!

Where are said emails.....in IT....everyone KNOWS you keep conversations in email at every opportunity because of CYA. If he didn't take them....he is stupid!

[Rex]

83. Rope a dope. nt.

nt.

[Blue_Tires]

100. Oh, if Snowden spoke to who he said he spoke to

there will be a metric ton of paperwork filed away somewhere...The Inspector General has said repeatedly that Snowden never approached him; so it will be very simple to find out who is lying...

I don't get this "I welcome a request from congress for a written answer" -lawyerese bullshit like he's the Under Secretary of the Air Force of something...If Snowden has e-mail evidence of who he spoke to and when; just publish it like he does everything else...Of course the obvious question would then be why he waited a year to produce this evidence...

I seriously hope VF asked Snowden some real questions and didn't sit back and accept one of his ten standard boilerplate answers which never really tell us anything...I do hope he continues to deny giving any assistance whatsoever to his Russian benefactors -- I imagine that other shoe will drop pretty soon...

[frylock]

125. snowden isn't publishing jack shit..

snowden has no control over the media outlets that have the documents. you might could bring yourself up to speed before offering an opinion.

[Blue_Tires]

150. That doesn't explain why he's kept the e-mail evidence

to back up his claims under wraps all this time...

[frylock]

151. you don't play poker, do you?

[bvar22]

106. Snowden has played this PERFECTLY.

*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

[Blue_Tires]

108. I guess by extension the Russians have played this *more* PERFECTLY

[HangOnKids]

113. Do you believe in Democracy? n/t

[randome]

114. Can you define 'democracy'?

It would be like explaining baseball to aliens, I think. Three swings and you're out. Unless you hit the ball. Unless you hit the ball and it goes foul. Unless you hit the ball and it goes foul and someone catches it. And on and on and on...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[HangOnKids]

133. Ever heard of a dictionary?

You might want to check it out!

[Blue_Tires]

153. Sure...

I'm not convinced everything Snowden has done to this point is in-line with universal democratic principles, though...

But since the everyone else is content to let the end justify the means, who am I to disagree with them?

[frylock]

128. how so?

[grasswire]

119. it's kind of funny to watch

Snowden speaks, and they dither. They run to their keyboards and dither. They spin colorful new insults, and string out new conspiracies, and bravely offer up new challenges, and just dither away. Whirling, twirling, winding.....and totally futile. Convincing no one. Changing no minds. To what end? To what end?

Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Truth will out.

[bvar22]

131. They are transparent, and as laughably devoid of a cogent argument...

...as the Creationists and Climate Change Deniers.

Repeat: Laughably Devoid of a Cogent Argument,
and Exhibit 1 - Exhibit 15 are in THIS thread.

[grasswire]

138. nobody is fooled

So their ROI is not much at all.

[99Forever]

190. They ARE the Creationists and Climate Change Deniers...

... of international politics and every bit as believable and fact filled.

[Union Scribe]

216. ...a magnificent post.

Thank you. That was perfectly put.

[Octafish]

122. The fact so many want to lock him up for exposing NSA corruption is telling.

Who can afford to stand up to the national security state?



If they aren't imprisoned, they are assassinated.

[frylock]

129. Barry and the boys

[Octafish]

143. Meanwhile, those who go along, get along.

Giants like Frank Carlucci and Porter Goss and lesser lights like Randall "Duke" Cunningham and Dusty Foggo and the likes of Luis Posada Carriles and Barry Seal are remembered in the same chapter of history as Daniel Casolaro and Lt. Col. Ted Westhusing and fellow citizens Mark Lombardi and Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

[msanthrope]

232. Who is Barry? nt

[bobduca]

238. Barry Seal

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

[SomethingFishy]

134. Don't worry, I'm sure that if Snowden releases absolute proof...

a whole flock will come out and admit they were wrong...

[NCTraveler]

140. If Snowden shows proof that he attempted to use whistleblower channels...

I will yell that I was wrong from the rooftops. If he doesn't provide what he says he has, will you admit that someone can do something great and still be a piece of crap as a person? Is this just a one way Snowden love relationship where he can do no wrong. Please show where he has backed up his claim that he used whistleblower channels.

[SomethingFishy]

148. When you ASSUME...

I have never met Snowden. I have no idea what kind of person he is. So you can stop with the assumptions that anyone who defends Snowdens position does so because they "love" him.

I defend his position because I believe what he says. It has nothing to do with who he is. Worse than that I believe that things are 3 times worse than anything he can tell you.
I grew up distrusting the government. With good reason. I came of age during Reagan, Panama, Grenada, Iran/Contra. I have been lied to so many times now I can't even count them. I have seen the cold war paranoia, the drug paranoia, the terrorist paranoia, I have seen the lengths my government is willing to go to to appease that paranoia. I have seen the bodies of innocent children, I have seen the torture pictures, I have seen the leaders of my country demand we bomb another nation because they might do something to someone at some point in the future.

Sorry, as much as I'd like to trust the NSA, the CIA, the DOD, the FBI, the Pentagon, I can't. Truth is I'd be a fucking idiot if I trusted any of them as far as I could throw them.

[BlindTiresias]

157. The whistleblower channels

You do realize that whether or not the whistleblower channels would apply or even be sufficient is extremely murky, correct? This largely has to do with his status as a contractor as well as the fact he was working for an intelligence agency.

[MisterP]

137. NSA: "well--why didn't you try to raise the alarm!?" (I know how these things go)

[rumdude]

155. I wonder what Snowden thinks of the Russian system

The Russian system is riddled with thieves, gangsters, and outright killers who don't give F about democracy, open government, human rights, or anything but increasing their own power.

[bvar22]

161. WOW....not much different than the USA.

".....riddled with thieves, gangsters, and outright killers who don't give F about democracy, open government, human rights, or anything but increasing their own power."


You forgot torturers and War Criminals.

Russia is pretty light weight when it comes to these things.
The USA has been exporting all of the above for over 60 years,
AND at a handsome profit for those with the "right" connections.

[rumdude]

169. Nope, you are so wrong

America can't even hold a candle to Russia's abuses of the past 2 decades. I don't have the time list them all out, I have work to do. Do a little research on your own, if you care to. When it comes to human rights violations, you are fooling yourself, and badly, comparing Russia to the United States...

[Maedhros]

180. Unfortunately, as Americans we cannot influence the Russian political system.

However we can influence our own system. In fact, it is our duty to address and correct the abuses Snowden has revealed.

Sidetracking into a discussion of Russian political abuses does nothing to accomplish this.

Perhaps you should start your own thread about Russia?

[idendoit]

177. The USA doesn't need to respond to confirmed traitors.

So all you wound up with was paraphrasing an unindicted criminal, Rumsfeld?

[grasswire]

181. confirmed?

How was Snowden "confirmed" as a traitor, pray tell us?

[idendoit]

195. With his own words.

Russia... [has] my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. ~ Edward Snowden. If those aren't the words of some committing treason on his fellow citizens to save his own skin, there are none.

[grasswire]

196. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word.

Nay, I KNOW you don't know what treason is.

[idendoit]

197. Do tell. 18 U.S. Code 2381 Treason.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Doesn't matter much what I think.

[Capt. Obvious]

185. Nor confirmed Communists

They're enemies of the state and a threat to our way of life.

[OilemFirchen]

183. As I re-re-re-reread this,

it appears that the presumption made by many (including me) - that Snowden is in possession of said emails - is unfounded. Rather, he appears to be suggesting that the NSA has said evidence, and that he can force them to produce it.

If so, he's just taking another idiot walk. There is absolutely no reason that the NSA would provide him with any information whatsoever - about any subject at all. Does he think that Issa will begin hearings and demand this evidence? Does he think that, should that improbability occur, the evidence will be provided? Finally, what would be the value of these emails? He's been charged with espionage and theft of government property. What he may or may not have done prior to absconding with this info is irrelevant as it pertains to the charges filed.

This smacks of self-aggrandizement and desperation. Dude's in a no-win situation and lashing out. It's a bit pitiful, actually.

[randome]

186. Yesterday it was the NSA 'absolutely' spied on Amnesty International.

With no evidence.

Today it's 'There is proof of my going through proper channels'. Without evidence.

It's going to get worse. For Snowden and for the level of cognitive dissonance at DU for those who pinned their hopes on Snowden.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[OilemFirchen]

189. I'm ashamed to admit I didn't read any of that.

OK, not really.

I saw the OPs and assumed they originated from First Look at Me Media. I've had my fun with Omidyar's Citizen Kane moment, but enuf's enuf.

[DCBob]

214. This is a good indication he's run out of juicy documents.

Now is just going to be all snowjob fantasy land stuff.

[politicman]

187. to those that hate Snoden, I bet if he did this under Bush you would think of him as a hero

WOW, yet another thread where so-called 'progressives' sound like conservative repukes.

These so-called 'progressives' focus in on Snowden because they think he broke the law. HA.

Lets get this straight people, it was the NSA that broke the law, Snowden exposed their illegal behaviour to everyone.


Because Snowden exposed this under the presidency of Obama you think he is a traitor, but I bet that if he did it under Bush you would all hail him as a hero.

Goes to show where your loyalties lie, doesn't it?

[ucrdem]

213. He wouldn't have done it under Bush. He's on Bush-Cheney's side and is carrying their water.

That's why we don't take anything he or anyone else in his swiftboat says seriously.

[politicman]

215. Obama opened himself up to the acions of Snowden by refusing to stop the NSA when he became Pres.

Who cares if he wouldn't have done it under Bush, maybe A DEMOCRATIC president shouldn't have let the CIA get away with so much.

Its all good saying that Snowden is trying to hurt Obama, but remember Obama gave him the opportunity to do it.

Seriously we all lambasted Bush for originally letting it happen, so the democratic president was supposed to clean it up, not let it continue.

But this is the way it has always been, people dismiss or forget what caused or allowed an action to happen and then just focus in on the resulting actions that happen. Its the American way of thinking.

Look at the middle east and all the decades that America meddled in it, yet the American people blame wont bring themselves to ask why Arabs hate America, no Americans just follow their governments into committing even more crimes in the middle east.


The point is that if Obama didn't allow the NSA to overstep its authority, Snowden would not have anything to disclose. He would be a nobody.

[randome]

225. Refusing to stop the NSA from doing what?

From obtaining metadata phone records via a warrant? From international spying?

How did the NSA overstep its authority during the Obama Administration? Please enlighten us.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

218. Snowden is on Bush Cheney's side?

Or did you mean that Obama is on Bush Cheney's side?

Yeah, that's the ticket.