Why Edward Snowden is not a Whistle-Blower

[MobBoss]

Please indeed. You seem to have missed the fact that aforementioned program hasn't been through all the legal steps yet. Which, once again, was the point - especially with regards to the impending trial.

It hasn't? Apparently, there is some legal precedent that already has been argued. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/u...-challenge-to-fisa-surveillance-law.html?_r=0

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that the journalists, lawyers and human rights advocates who challenged the constitutionality of the law could not show they had been harmed by it and so lacked standing to sue. The plaintiffs’ fear that they would be subject to surveillance in the future was too speculative to establish standing, he wrote.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread. Who's personally had any of their rights taken away by this?

Oh, and in another shot to your 'Obama isn't arguing legality' silliness earlier. He doesn't have to, he has his lackeys do it for him:

The Obama administration defended the law in court, and a Justice Department spokesman said the government was “obviously pleased with the ruling.”

This challenge was directed at FISA, which is the same law that PRISM is established out of. I dunno, is there a court higher than the Supreme Court to carry on some more of those 'legal steps' you are referring to?

 

[JollyRoger]

You've used neither logic, nor thought in that reply.

45,000+ posts can't be wrong.

Oh, and a case being tossed on standing means a decison on whether the underlying law or program was legal was not reached. Source: Logic, thought, and common sense.

 

[MobBoss]

45,000+ posts can't be wrong.

Oh, and a case being tossed on standing means the merits of whether the underlying law or program was legal were not reached. Logic, thought, common sense and all.

It also means a high likelihood the Supremes turn it back again.

 

[JollyRoger]

On standing, yes. How it would go on the merits is speculation.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yep, he ran straight into the arms of the the peace loving and free land of the People's Republic of China. If that in and of itself isn't some sort of indicator of his desire to betray his country...

They aren't "Free." Kind of like us, actually.

This whole Snowden thing is evidence enough that we aren't.

one man's treason is another man's legitimate subversive action against a dangerous regime.

This.

None of those charts or what you think my views on foreign justice are have any bearing on the fact that it seems my worries were well founded and he has most likely divulged classified documents to a foreign power. If the government didn't have a damned good idea that he'd done this, he wouldn't be charged under the espionage act.

And you need to remember that I was all willing to jump on the hero bandwagon if he'd just restricted what his leaks to what the government was doing regarding spying on its own citizens in the USA. As I've said before, he crosses the line when he gives foreign governments classified information... again, as it turns out is most likely the case.

Do you not think someone who betrays their country deserves to be in jail?

To the last question, nope. At least not using your definition of "Betrayal."

They certainly dispute your sense of what specific country is just and fair while it clearly isn't.

And as far as "betraying" their country is concerned, I think it clearly depends on the circumstances. Take Daniel Ellsberg, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden for instance. To me, the last two presidents, the US Congress, and even the Supreme Court have done far more to "betray" their own country than any of these individuals.

False logic. Regardless of how discriminating the weapons system is, there will always be some level of collateral damage. All a reasonable person has to do is compare drone strike collateral damage with say, carpet bombing, in order to give an intelligent response to the point.

That it does less "collateral damage" (Fancy word for manslaughter if not outright murder, which given the intent in this case, its the latter IMO) doesn't make the evil, murderous war that you support justifiable in the slightest.

 

[Commodore]

From the article:

First, they say, he did not expose the kinds of actions covered by whistle-blower protections — illegal conduct, fraud, waste or abuse. Some people have argued that the programs revealed by Snowden are illegal or unconstitutional. For now, they are presumptively legal, given the assent of members of Congress and the special court known as FISA that oversees intelligence operations.

All I have to say in response to that is: Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

 

[Evie]

Who says what make something right or wrong?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Who says what make something right or wrong?

Everyone has their own idea about that, but it usually lines up very neatly with their own beliefs.

I say they should just cut out the mirror and follow their own inner compass.

 

[Perfection]

'Wrong' being a rather ambiguous state that will differ among many people. I'd much rather leave such issues to the courts to decide with any finality.

Get comfortable with ambiguity and don't go crying to the government for clarification.

Disagree all you want, the truth of the matter remains he isn't a whistleblower by any factual definition of the word.

What defines the factual definition of whistleblower, what congress says it is?

 

[peter grimes]

It also means a high likelihood the Supremes turn it back again.

But now we know, based on documents published by The Guardian, that all Verizon customers - including human rights groups, the ACLU, and some others from the original suit - were indeed 'spied' on in secret.

Wouldn't this invalidate the rejection based on standing?

 

[kramerfan86]

All that shows is a major flaw in our system, "oh we cant hear the case about the secret program because you cant show it violated your rights". Well how in the world is anyone supposed to ever show the secret program effected them? If that's the tactic the supreme court is going with then the US government could blatantly make a program to spy on citizens and no citizen could bring forth a case because they couldnt prove they had actually been effected. What garbage.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, and on the flip side, the programme may well be absolutely brilliant, it may well have prevented countless acts of terrorism, and the public may well back it 100% and voluntarily give up a little bit of privacy for the increased level of safety that the programme grants. But we'll never know whether it's a good programme or not, because it's all been done in secret. We're never given a chance to appraise the quality of the programme, and we're never asked whether we would voluntarily consent to our emails being sniffed. Personally, I would happily let the gov't sniff my emails if it did indeed prevent me from being blown up by terrorists. But I'm never given the choice!

Oh and btw this "we" I'm talking about includes the UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world's communications
Exclusive: British spy agency collects and stores vast quantities of global email messages, Facebook posts, internet histories and calls, and shares them with NSA, latest documents from Edward Snowden reveal

 

[MobBoss]

Get comfortable with ambiguity and don't go crying to the government for clarification.

Uhm. No.

What defines the factual definition of whistleblower, what congress says it is?

The law actually, so congress, the admin and the courts.

But now we know, based on documents published by The Guardian, that all Verizon customers - including human rights groups, the ACLU, and some others from the original suit - were indeed 'spied' on in secret.

I'm glad to see you've backed off the 'they spied on everyone' rhetoric you were saying earlier.

Yeah, and on the flip side, the programme may well be absolutely brilliant, it may well have prevented countless acts of terrorism, and the public may well back it 100% and voluntarily give up a little bit of privacy for the increased level of safety that the programme grants. But we'll never know whether it's a good programme or not, because it's all been done in secret.

Well, it does have oversight, and the FISA courts backing it up. Doesn't that count for something, or are people simply too completely paranoid about it?


And none were 'spied' on US soil, and the calls referenced all involved non-Americans afaik.

 

[Mise]

I don't see how that reply relates to my post at all.

 

[peter grimes]

I'm glad to see you've backed off the 'they spied on everyone' rhetoric you were saying earlier.

I'm not backing off of it, actually - can I show you the text of the warrant?? Remember a few pages ago, I kept talking about the warrant regarding Verizon and you kept replying with stuff about Microsoft and Google?

Well, it does have oversight, and the FISA courts backing it up. Doesn't that count for something, or are people simply too completely paranoid about it?

But we have no way of knowing if the court is anything more than a legalistic rubber stamp because it's all conducted in secret. I've heard that they've only reject a handful of requests out of thousands. Either the DOJ (or whoever it is that's doing the requesting) almost never over-reaches in their attempts at data surveillance, or the court has all outwards appearance of a rubber stamp.

Until some sunshine gets in there, we just won't know. And when we don't know something, we have a habit of fearing the worst.

And none were 'spied' on US soil, and the calls referenced all involved non-Americans afaik.

I'm still incredibly skeptical of this claim. To the point that I'm not sure if the government could convince me this is the case without opening up the entire program to outside non-biased scrutiny.

Here's something to think about:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/nsa-spied/

surveillance experts at the National Security Agency won’t tell two powerful United States Senators how many Americans have had their communications picked up by the agency as part of its sweeping new counterterrorism powers. The reason: it would violate your privacy to say so.

The letter:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/06/IC-IG-Letter.pdf

 

[Formaldehyde]

GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world's communications
Exclusive: British spy agency collects and stores vast quantities of global email messages, Facebook posts, internet histories and calls, and shares them with NSA, latest documents from Edward Snowden reveal

This is the real issue. There is nothing at all stopping the NSA from giving GCHQ the very same access to the US-collected info, or even getting it themselves, and vice-versa. They are then free to spy on the lives of the others' citizens as much as they desire and then share any relevant information they think they data mined with the other, all the while being in complete compliance with their respective laws which prohibit them from directly spying on their own citizens.

 

[Agent327]

It hasn't? Apparently, there is some legal precedent that already has been argued. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/u...-challenge-to-fisa-surveillance-law.html?_r=0

If you actually read that article, it starts with a refusal of the Supreme Court to rule on it. It seems there's a legal impasse here...

I mentioned this earlier in the thread. Who's personally had any of their rights taken away by this?

Basically, anyone with privacy. Go count.

 

[kramerfan86]

The FISA court has rejected less than .1% of all requests, when you come off as a secret rubber stamp factory its kinda hard for people to respect that you are providing oversight.

 

[Mise]

This is the real issue. There is nothing at all stopping the NSA from giving GCHQ the very same access to the US-collected info, or even getting it themselves, and vice-versa. They are then free to spy on the lives of the others' citizens as much as they desire and then share any relevant information they think they data mined with the other, all the while being in complete compliance with their respective laws which prohibit them from directly spying on their own citizens.

Yes, that's exactly what they do. All Western spy agencies share information, and British and American agencies share more than most.

 

[Perfection]

The law actually, so congress, the admin and the courts.

The law isn't without fault. So why do you give it final authority in the matter?