Maggie's Farm

Not for nothing, but we're supposed to believe NSA lawyers?
They release one email and we're supposed to accept that was the only email and that's all he said?

I have to wonder who is being naive.

I don't necessarily think Snowden is a saint or pure as the driven snow. But I'll take his word over theirs 90% of the time. If you've ever blown a whistle (I have), you know one thing - how you blow it is the most important point. If Snowden had stepped out and said he thought they were breaking the law, the protections he'd have received were minimal, at best. He had to do what he did in a very particular way to avoid drawing attention to himself or leading to any kind of legal action against himself (which could have occurred).

If comments about Snowden's 'lying' are still important, I'd add "So What?" Let's face it, it's liar versus liar. There is absolutely, positively NO WAY politicians and bureaucrats who want him in shackles are telling the truth.

Versions of the truth? Sure, everyone has shaded their position.

But at the end of the day, I'll take Snowden over a bureaucrat/politician, thank you.

A) who has died? From what I've seen, nobody.
B) claims that his expose hurt anti-terrorist work is BS. All the cases which were claimed to have been supported by NSA spying were ultimately proven to have benefited not a whit.
C) the one high-profile case the spying SHOULD have caught, the Tsarnaevs, it failed completely and utterly on. So much for the 'benefits'
D) he did go through proper channels and the NSA actually admitted this - though they have clearly whitewashed it to their benefit. It's also worth noting the whistleblower laws for government employees are VERY DIFFERENT than for you and me at a corporation. WE get job protection. THEY get thrown in jail (unless they manage to find other ways to protect their case and themselves, which is not easy).

Is Snowden clean? Nah, I've never said that, nor would I. But he's not hurt us one bit. Not at all. Oh yeah, the PR sucks, sure. But all he did was expose what most nations already knew, as did you and I - that we're being spied on by our elected officials. Illegally, in most cases.

Your last question is logical - though maybe he does have them. Certainly the NSA has one which does SUPPORT his claim (if not perfectly, it doesn't undermine his claim at all). My guess is Snowden probably does have more information - he's clearly been very good about timing his releases for mass effect.

By the way, you say there should be obvious reasons. Um, the only obvious reason I've seen is that he realized he'd likely have been killed if he went through normal channels. If the outcome has a high probability either by going through normal channels or outside channels - which method has the higher probability of getting your story out there? I'd say he made the right choice.

No, I don't trust US jurisprudence. Not when it comes to classified information I think any set of interviews of General Alexander, if you take the time to read them, can answer why I don't trust it. He prefers to keep it all secret, and with good reason. HE knows he's breaking the law. But by telling people "Hey, I'm PROTECTING YOU and YOU don't want to know what I'm doing to keep you safe," people say "oh, how nice, let's let the nice man do his job and stay ignorant."

Nah. I'm not buying it.

I'm not sold on Snowden. I'm less sold on the idea of any damage. God knows Obama has done far more damage on his own than Snowden could dream of.

No, it doesn't. What would you do if you realized the questions you were raising could get you killed?

He just took off and looked for places he could hide and potentially avoid extradition as any intelligent person would.

Remember, his initial intent was to not go to Russia. That was a secondary result. And Hong Kong while being part of China, has specialized laws so it's not really "China proper"

I meant to say" if the outcome of death has a high probability"
Point is - if you're likely to get killed, don't you want to make sure your story gets out?
He succeeded in doing both things he wanted - staying alive and getting the story out. I have to say, that is indicative of a very high level of brilliance. Remember, they tried to paint him as a less than average intelligent sub-contractor initially. That attempt failed, for obvious reasons. Clearly, Snowden is not average.
Narcissitic? Yeah, I'm with you on that. But so is Obama.

You should retract that - but not being sure doesn't mean it's worth mentioning. As you point out, if lives have been lost, wouldn't the government have evidence they could put forward? Oh....it's secret. Ahem. No, I don't think so. That's just a ready excuse.

Yes, I do expect the government to tell me. We live in a free society. Just because information is kept quiet in wartime doesn't mean saying "we're in a war on terror" makes all of us criminals worthy of surveillance. You making excuses for the government is actually rather sad. You actually TRUST these fools? Even in wartime (which has not been declared) I don't trust them.

You named a few whistleblowers who did things right.
Binney - too highly visible to kill off. Snowden is no comparison.
Drake - again highly placed
Fellwock - basically did what Snowden did without leaving, but rules were significantly different then AND he went to Ramparts - a radical magazine that was willing to get him exposure. He still used a pseudonym.
Klein - protected by corporate whistleblower laws.
Tamm - pseudonym to the Times, but a highly placed Justice official
Tice is probably your best example. But note:
Tice was dismissed by the NSA in May 2005 just days after publicly urging Congress to pass stronger protections for federal intelligence agency whistleblowers facing retaliation, and claiming that whistleblowers were being punished.

His call for better whistleblower protections for intelligence workers was REJECTED.

Snowden was much lower on the totem pole than ANY of these guys. He goes 'missing', who cares?
These guys were all well known, or their stories out, before anyone was paying attention. Snowden never would've gotten the same treatment and it's naive to assume he would've. Just think back a year at how he was described by the government. Now think today and ask yourself - who was being more truthful in those descriptions?

Snowden is embellishing, he's narcissistic, he's many things. But the government, which you seem to TRUST, is much worse. Yes, I'd run.

As far as the danger of the information he released poses - it's all hurt PR, no lives. I'll again ask you to answer for the Tsarnaevs - tailor made for this program - and why the program FAILED.

We can't make systems like these work effectively. I applaud Snowden and wish he would get a pardon. Those you mention, who came before him, all know he merely expanded on their work. Yes, they'd prefer he didn't run. But I completely understand why - some of these guy were harassed, had their homes raided ILLEGALLY, etc.

Is it worth it? If you're a low level employee likely to go 'missing'? Nope.

Like NJ Soldier, I opt for the lesser of two evils. That is Snowden.

I'm not holding an 'everything's rosy' view - you assume I am. I'm simply saying "why should I trust the government to ever be honest with me about anything when they have consistently proven they are not reliable."

That alone is enough for me to question their claims of ANY damage. Assuming SOME damage, though, would mean that at this point we should be aware of SOMETHING - don't you think? I mean, someone, somewhere, should have talked, leaked, complained or otherwise said something. That's how our system works. Nobody can keep their mouth shut, can they?

So much for "ignorance", more like "cynicism". Which is perfectly legitimate.

My comment about Snowden potentially being killed isn't illegitimate. While saying they haven't already is fair and I have never said they have, it is a modest assumption since there's about as much evidence of the government killing whistleblowers (while I find all the bizarre Clinton coincidences odd, I never thought any of those people were killed deliberately - but if you'd like, that's more than enough evidence for me to make my claim that people DO get killed) as there is that Snowden did damage. Fair enough? So, if you're willing to assume this on YOUR side, then you have to accept that it's OK for me to assume what I want on MY side. Yes?
That said, put yourself in his very low profile shoes, considering your potential fate while trying to take information public. Do you HONESTLY think you wouldn't think there was a good chance you were a dead man? Just on a personal level? And if you think "No", please think a second time and a third. Because it's really not so outlandish.

He's no folk hero. I never said that. This is you putting words in my mouth. So...not sure why you care WHERE he is - that's all just window dressing. I'd flee too. Problem is, there are precious few places to go these days.

This is, in fact, and either/or situation. You can believe one or the other. Or neither, but in choosing neither you have to weigh the evidence and make determinations about who is more believable before passing judgement as easily as you just did. I have declared American jurisprudence untrustworthy. I think people like you make the court of public opinion a guiding factor.

I think Snowden would come back if people like you weren't so thirsty to see him in jail. Ease up a bit, toss him in with Tice, and maybe he'd return. But that's already an option which has been denied him.

According to my analysis I said nothing about Hanssen. You did. You took my points to illogical and absurd extremes.

I didn't cherry pick the Tsarnaevs. Failure is an indication of worth. Show me where it worked, and don't rely on "I can't because that will give the opposition too much information" bull. Fact is, the government TRIED to show that it worked, and FAILED MISERABLY IN THE ATTEMPT. Game, set, match. Domestic surveillance program utter failure. But yet, it still continues.... why? Because guess what? Someday we'll have a leader who decides it's OK to chase down people because of the color shirt they wear, the car they drive or some other nonsense. But by that stage, there won't be anybody with the gonads to stop them.
Which is precisely why Franklin said those who are willing to give up liberty in exchange for safety deserve neither. You're willing to give some of one up for the other? I'm not. I'll take my chances, and I don't want people like you saying it's OK for the government to be infringing on my liberties, thank you. You don't have that right OR that responsibility.

I think he should be pardoned for lack of a better term. I don't believe he should be convicted. He's no worse than any of the men you listed. Perhaps, if you'd like, you can give me a better term to use which would allow him to come home and face no charges?
Charges should be dropped. How's that?

There's nothing he did that was 'wrong'. As most people are fond of saying regarding his releases "hey, we knew it was going on anyway, he just confirmed it."

If so, then what did he do wrong? Confirming what you knew? That's a pretty stupid charge.

FWIW, when I said toss him in with Tice, what I meant was classify him in the same fashion. The difference between Tice and Snowden, to you, seems to be two things:

1. Tice didn't release classified information (not a big deal to me since Snowden did us all a favor and Tice more or less said so)
2. Tice didn't flee the country - no big deal to me considering THIS:
On the heels of the first Edward Snowden NSA disclosures in 2013, Tice was asked during an interview on All In with Chris Hayes, "What was your experience in trying to blow the whistle from inside the NSA? And does it make you understand why Snowden might have done what he did?" Tice replied, "Oh, absolutely. I learned the hard way, you cannot trust any of the internal supposed mechanisms that are there for oversight. The chain of command, the IG [Inspector General]'s office, even at the DOD IG I found was basically trying to put a knife in my back.

The Whistleblower Protection Act does not apply to the intelligence community. They're exempt from it. And most people in the intelligence community, they don't realize that. So, you can't even go to the Office of Special Counsel because they're exempt from that, too, and the merit system protection board.

So even if you use the whistleblower - intelligence community Whistleblower Protection Act, the only thing that gives you is the right to go to Congress. It doesn't - it doesn't have any teeth there to protect you against retribution from the agency that you're reporting abuse on."


EVEN TICE respects Snowden had to take the steps he took.