Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)NSA says it has no record of Snowden challenging spying [View all]
By Julian Hattem - 06/25/14 02:54 PM EDT
The National Security Agency says it has not been able to find a single recorded case where former contractor Edward Snowen raised complaints about the agencys operations.
The claim, revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from investigative reporter Jason Leopold, undercuts Snowdens claim that he raised concerns with his superiors before leaking top-secret spy agency documents to the press.
A thorough search of our files was conducted, but there are no documents indicating that Mr. Snowden contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs, the agency said in a response to the journalist.
Critics of Snowden say that his seeming decision to take top-secret documents to the press before raising concerns with his NSA bosses refutes supporters claims that he is a whistleblower trying to expose an over-aggressive government.
<...>
The agency released one email Snowden sent to the general counsels office last April, but that message seemed to be little more than a request for clarification about recent training.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/210570-nsa-no-documents-of-snowden-complaints
The claim, revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from investigative reporter Jason Leopold, undercuts Snowdens claim that he raised concerns with his superiors before leaking top-secret spy agency documents to the press.
A thorough search of our files was conducted, but there are no documents indicating that Mr. Snowden contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs, the agency said in a response to the journalist.
Critics of Snowden say that his seeming decision to take top-secret documents to the press before raising concerns with his NSA bosses refutes supporters claims that he is a whistleblower trying to expose an over-aggressive government.
<...>
The agency released one email Snowden sent to the general counsels office last April, but that message seemed to be little more than a request for clarification about recent training.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/210570-nsa-no-documents-of-snowden-complaints
Snowden email fell short of NSA criticism
By Julian Hattem
In an email sent to top lawyers at the National Security Agency a month before leaving the agency, former contractor Edward Snowden questioned the agencys legal rationale but did not formally denounce its operations.
The April 5, 2013, email released by the spy agency on Thursday showed Snowden merely asking for clarification about a recent training course he had taken.
The message falls short of an objection to the agencys procedures and operations, however, and may not satisfy Snowdens supporters looking for proof that he had no other option but to go to the press.
After a mandatory training course about an agency directive that prohibits collecting information about Americans, Snowden asked NSA lawyers to clarify the hierarchy of government legal documents. At the top he listed the U.S. Constitution, followed by federal statutes and presidential executive orders, then Pentagon and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) regulations and, at the bottom, directives and policies from the NSA.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10025020097
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
165 replies, 17289 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (11)
ReplyReply to this post
165 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So you're buying the GOP line that the IRS intentionally lost those "troublesome" emails?
Cali_Democrat
Jun 2014
#20
I think that was a joke? If not....we are worse than the GOP at this point. nt
kelliekat44
Jun 2014
#31
Why would emails from 2009-early2011 be 'troublesome' but emails from 2011-2012 be NOT troublesome
blm
Jun 2014
#32
That was a Bush appointee running it then. But, I asked you a simple question relevant to your post.
blm
Jun 2014
#40
Seems easy enough. Why would 2009-early2011 emails lost be relevant to the case Issa was making?
blm
Jun 2014
#42
Ummm manny....he can save the individual emails and even print them out for...
uponit7771
Jun 2014
#57
Yep...my horseshit meter is pegged, as well. He's either an idiot or a liar. Maybe both...? nt
MADem
Jun 2014
#54
And all Snowden has to do is produce a single e-mail to prove them wrong...nt
SidDithers
Jun 2014
#45
Been holding my breath since April when NSA first said they had no record of any
Fla Dem
Jun 2014
#113
Use IGNORE if it bugs you. Don't try to censor other people's speech with suggestions that it's
MADem
Jun 2014
#61
Arguably, the person who tries to belittle the discussion is the censor.
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#65
The person who characterizes an opposing view as "belittling" could be called the censor, too.
MADem
Jun 2014
#71
When you tell someone that their argument isn't serious enough, you're belittling them.
MADem
Jun 2014
#75
I think people who mock Dick Cheney with all the cheeky names and "hilarious" images...
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#76
Well, you can "not like it" all you want, but you can't censor it. That's not your charge.
MADem
Jun 2014
#87
Criticizing the way people debate, instead of dealing with the substance of the objection,
MADem
Jun 2014
#117
You still don't get it. The person you're defending made it clear they aren't here to discuss...
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#118
You don't need to qualify your insults with quotation marks. You are insulting people.
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#132
You keep doing it! And you wonder why people look askance at what you have to say!
MADem
Jun 2014
#144
Maybe you have noticed that I place a lot of stock in how someone presents their arguments...
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#150
Again, construct your argument in a fashion that doesn't make it sound like grade school rumor.
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#22
Again, the debate is over the legality and ethics of metadata collection.
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#44
'Again' the debate is about metadata collection? First time you mentioned that in this thread.
randome
Jun 2014
#46
"Not one person." - How in the name of reason do you actually know that definitively?
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#50
I won't concede to your argument that he's lonely or isolated or pathetic.
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#60
Okay, so for the sake of the discussion we are having, let us say what you're arguing is true...
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#66
I would argue just the opposite. That the clear enemy in public consciousness...
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#70
Because there is nothing that S&G have shown that is not subject to interpretation.
randome
Jun 2014
#131
First off, I am by self proclamation not an anarchist. So that is moot.
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#115
The only thing that is self-evident is the existence of your own subjective reality.
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#142
I can't help but notice you keep telling people to STFU. You aren't answering any of their points,
MADem
Jun 2014
#88
No, I never said everyone else is not serious. I made specific objections...
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#90
The semantic structure of an argument is intertwined with the conditions.
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#148
I didn't want to engage in the childish banter of a group which has an ideological drive...
Gravitycollapse
Jun 2014
#152
When there is no evidence, only vague insinuations, of course the narrative turns to personalities.
randome
Jun 2014
#130
In this case, I don't see it as 'unhealthy' or 'irrational' to expect proof from these two bozos.
randome
Jun 2014
#140
That will be ignored, it goes against the narrative being played out by desperate people.
Rex
Jun 2014
#78
The NSA also hasn't stopped a single terrorist attack by their own admission.
riderinthestorm
Jun 2014
#33
But notice how much congress now is concerned about the NSA?? Snowden did a GREAT thing! n-t
Logical
Jun 2014
#62
Most of these agencies have little credibility with me. They lie and distort so damn
RKP5637
Jun 2014
#51
Duh. SNOWDEN doesn't even have a record of Snowden challenging the NSA program
Number23
Jun 2014
#81
Actually, scoring by catching "lies" seems like a losing tactic for you on this one.
Pholus
Jun 2014
#84
I wouldn't believe the NSA if they happened to accidentally tell the truth!
Zen Democrat
Jun 2014
#101
I think most DUers (and others) trust Greenwald and Snowden far more than the federal government.
MannyGoldstein
Jun 2014
#126
I wonder if they're going to say that they lost a bunch of emails when some individual user's hard
hughee99
Jun 2014
#134
Nope different agencies have different backup methods. Different parts of different agencies have
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#163
The IRS' email is not a particularly critical system. Makes sense its the last one to be upgraded
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#165
Yes, and without a serious good faith effort to go through regular channels, Snowden is a criminal.
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#159
We searched our secret documents and found nothing that implicates us of wrong doing
Taitertots
Jun 2014
#160