Why Edward Snowden is not a Whistle-Blower

[Camikaze]

Isn't the whole 'this program being revealed will result in everyone dying' thing kinda fomenting fear?

 

[kramerfan86]

Isn't the whole 'this program being revealed will result in everyone dying' thing kinda fomenting fear?

I believe the word you are looking for is "freedom". Liberty is an acceptable alternative. These charming programs are insuring freedom for Americans, and in fact, the entire world.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Eh, they are eliminating the freedom of doing something better with those immense amounts of money poured into these measures (which btw could not unlikely save more lives in other ways) and create the freedom of a decreased likeliness of terrorist attacks.
That sounds like a question of balance. What America seems to have is a declaration of threat and that is it.
If I had my way demonstrators would be roaming the street chanting "We demand an independent cost-benefit-analysis!". Incidentally, that seems to be a good street chanting for any country at any time.

 

[druidravi]

It's not even close to the same thing. In Snowden's case he had knowledge of a specific thing he found morally questionable and only exposed that. In Bradely's case he was just generally discontent and realized random information he knew nothing about.

You have to know what you are releasing to be a whistle blower regardless of whether others agree that you should have done it.

It's not same I agree. What Bradley did was not whistle blowing. I just gave them as example as to how people who go against/embarrass the current U.S. government end up.

 

[Perfection]

You're just being paranoid now.

So yours nor any other americans rights have been trampled. That's apparently a fact of this issue.

All the rest is just fomenting fear.

Mobby, you don't trust the government to give out food stamps how the hell can you trust it with this data?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...blower-legally-speaking?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1



Although I mentioned that Snowden wasn't a whistle-blower in a couple of threads we have ongoing, I felt this article deserved its own thread because of the detail found within it explaining why he isnt, and the clarification of why Snowden isn't some 'hero' at all.

Discuss.

I find it all the more telling that his expose was necessary, precisely because such a thing is illegal, and precisely because these sorts of things he exposed are legal.

That's what should really worry you.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's not same I agree. What Bradley did was not whistle blowing. I just gave them as example as to how people who go against/embarrass the current U.S. government end up.

Of course, many people disagree with your personal opinion. Take Daniel Ellsburg, for instance:

A Salute to Bradley Manning, Whistleblower, As We Hear His Words for the First Time

Today, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, an organization that I co-founded and of which I'm on the board, has published an audio recording of Bradley Manning's speech to a military court from two weeks ago, in which he gives his reasons and motivations behind leaking over 700,000 government documents to WikiLeaks.

Whoever made this recording, and I don't know who the person is, has done the American public a great service. This marks the first time the American public can hear Bradley Manning, in his own voice explain what he did and how he did it.

After listening to this recording and reading his testimony, I believe Bradley Manning is the personification of the word whistleblower.

Secrecy surrounding trial

Manning faces some of exact same charges I faced forty two years ago when I leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and eighteen other papers. The only difference is I was a civilian, so I could stay out of jail on bond while the trial was going on, and was able to talk to the media throughout. I took responsibility for what I had done on the day of my arrest, and I was able to explain why I did it.

But thanks to the judge's rulings in Manning's case, the public has barely heard anything from Manning at all. No official transcripts of the proceeding are released to the public, and when documents like the judge's court orders are released, it is weeks after the fact -- and only in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Now I hope the American people can see Manning in a different light. In 1971, I was able to give the media my side of the story, and it is long overdue Manning is able to do the same. As Manning has now done, I stipulated as to all the facts for which I was accused. And I did that for several reasons, and I suspect that Manning had the same motives.

First, it was to exonerate a number of people who were suspected of helping me, like former Defense Department colleagues Mort Halperin, Leslie Gelb and others. I was able to state flatly they did not know about the release in the midst of President Nixon's anxious desire to indict several of them.

And Manning, in saying he took responsibility for the leaks and describing in great detail how he did it, was able to say Julian Assange and Wikileaks had nothing to do with his decision to leak. WikiLeaks had not giving him any special means beyond what a normal newspaper would do.

Now, there's really now excuse for the grand jury chasing Julian Assange for conspiracy to commit espionage to continue. If they're not going to indict the New York Times--and there is no constitutional basis for them to do so--there's no reason for them to investigate or indict Assange or WikiLeaks.

As the former general counsel of the New York Times James Goodale once said, "Charging Julian Assange with 'conspiracy to commit espionage' would effectively be setting a precedent with a charge that more accurately could be characterized as 'conspiracy to commit journalism.'"

The second thing Manning did with his statement -- which you can finally hear today -- was to explain his motives (he could not do that while he was still putting the responsibility on the government -- by pleading not guilty -- to prove what he had done beyond a reasonable doubt).

They were the same motives I felt 42 years ago. We both felt the horror of reading about deceptive, and even criminal, activity. We both felt the public needed this information and should have had it years ago. So we both released classified documents about a bloody, hopeless war.

Such criminal, dangerous, and deceptive behavior by the government can only be changed if Congress and the public are informed of them. And when official secrecy allows the government to cover these facts up, the only way to bring them to the public is to break secrecy regulations.

Torture

Some of the most critical documents leaked by Manning revealed torture by the Iraqi government, which the US knew about, and according to the international treaty on torture, the US should have required investigations.

In fact, the Iraq war logs show hundreds of instances of cases of torture, and in every case, the soldiers were given the illegal order not to investigate.

In his statement to the court, Manning talks about an incident where he thought men who were apprehended shouldn't have been, and that they were being handed over to the Iraqis to possibly be tortured. He went to his superior and was told to forget about it.

Bradley Manning, by releasing this information, is the only solider who actually obeyed this law, the international treaty, and by extension, the Constitution.

Manning was discriminating

Critics have alleged that a major difference between my case and Manning's is that I was discriminating in what I leaked, while Manning wasn't. He just dumped some material that doesn't need to be out, they say. This is simply false.

First, it's important to point out most of the material he put out was unclassified. The rest was classified 'secret,' which is relatively low level. All of the Pentagon Papers was classified top secret.

But in a fact no one seems to observe from his statement, Manning was working within a "SCIF," which stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. To get into a SCIF, a soldier needs a clearance higher than top secret. This means he had access to the highest classified material, such as communications and signals intelligence. This means he could've put out information top secret and higher, and purposely chose not to do so.

Aiding the enemy

It's important to remember through all this that Manning has already pled guilty to ten charges of violating military regulations (few of which, if any would be civilian crimes) and faces twenty years in jail. Yet the prosecutors are still going ahead with the absurd charge of "aiding the enemy," a capital offense, of which the prosecutors are asking for life in prison.

Nixon could have brought that charge against me too. I was revealing wrongdoing by our government in a public way, and that information could have been read by our enemies in Vietnam. Of course, I never had that intent and Manning didn't either. We both leaked information to provoke a domestic debate about military force and government secrecy. And to say we did so to aid the enemy is absurd.

This charge could have huge effects on the free speech of anyone in the military and journalists across the country. Any op-ed that is critical of military tactics or any news story that exposes misdeeds of the government can potentially lead to a capital offense.

Worse, the charge purports to apply to anyone, not just the military. It's blatantly unconstitutional.

Peace Prize

For the third straight year, Manning has been nominated for the Noble Peace Prize by, among others, Tunisian parliamentarians. Given the role the WikiLeaks cables played in the Arab Spring, and their role in speeding up the end of the Iraq War, I can think of no one more deserving who is deserving of the peace prize.

He's also deserving of the Congressional Medal of Honor. This medal, awarded by Congress--and not the executive branch--is given to military personnel, who during wartime, do what they should do for their country and their comrades, at the greatest risk to themselves.

Of course, there have been many who shown great courage on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq. But some have noted that we don't have the named heroes of the kind we did during World War I and World War II, such as Sergeant York or Audie Murphy.

I see a hero in these wars whose example should inspire others. His name Bradley Manning.

 

[Lord Baal]

Mobby, you don't trust the government to give out food stamps how the hell can you trust it with this data?

Because this data will help it to more adequately issue food stamps?

 

[Agent327]

Not everyone. The man has potentially crossed the line, imho. This post below was also, btw, the one which I was called out on (and correctly so) for improperly using the word treason. Betrayer, traitor, etc I guess, but not treason with its specific definition.

Oh, poor land of the free and home of the brave... Ye seem to have lost both.

In stark contrast to some of the former government criticasters on CFC, the President actually is worried about all the commotion. One of the first things mentioned during his visit to Germany was how the program has also helped prevent atacks on that country. Apparently Germany can't be trusted to spy on its own and need the US to it for them...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Or even worse, their own laws place restrictions on how much they can spy on their own citizens so they allow foreign countries to do it for them. There have even been allegations that the US allows other governments to do the same to US citizens because they also have no restrictions regarding what they can do in foreign countries.

 

[peter grimes]

I just hope he finds a country that wont deport him back to us. As far as I am concerned as an american citizen he did me a favor.

It's getting old, but I'll use my one word response yet again:

EXACTLY.

How? Do you really think they were spying on you?

You're just being paranoid now.

So yours nor any other americans rights have been trampled. That's apparently a fact of this issue.

All the rest is just fomenting fear.

If you were a mobile phone customer from any of the large telecoms, YES - You were 'spied' on, depending on how you want to define it.

That was revealed in the first leak: a copy of the FISC warrant that compelled Verizon Wireless (I was a customer at the time, as was my wife) to turn over the data on every single customer's phone records. Everyone makes a big deal that they weren't actively listening in to the conversations, but that really doesn't matter because they have a way to get that info.

As for what rights are being trampled? I'm not a lawman - but didn't the Supreme Court rule that every citizen has an implied right to privacy? And there's a lot of chatter about violations of the 4th amendment - I think that's about illegal search and seizure…

But that may not be important here, because for me the issue is government over-reach and intrusion into our private lives - regardless of whether or not these programs stand pass a legal test. Why do they need the phone records of every single call that I make if I'm not connected in any way to any investigation? Doesn't that smack of extreme intrusion?

I heard a good analogy on the radio the other day, in response to people saying 'Well, I don't have anything to hide, so what's the big deal?'

How would you feel if two FBI agents knocked on your door every day, took a look around, and asked you to hand over your phone records, just because. Sure, they claim to have a warrant, but you're not allowed to see it. Sure, you're not under investigation, but if you were they wouldn't be allowed to tell you that crazyeye, and sure, you're free to go any time.

Do you still think no rights are being trampled here?

EDIT: Here's a link to the warrant, but remember that it's still classified as Top Secret//SI//NOFORN - so people with certain clearances are not allowed to look at it :mono:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

 

[GhostWriter16]

Mobby, you don't trust the government to give out food stamps how the hell can you trust it with this data?

This I will never understand. Heck, in my younger, more neo-conish days I never really trusted them. This is naivety to the core.

I find it all the more telling that his expose was necessary, precisely because such a thing is illegal, and precisely because these sorts of things he exposed are legal.

That's what should really worry you.

I'm really, really worried. We may not agree on the fiscal stuff but I'm totally with you here...

I just hope he finds a country that wont deport him back to us. As far as I am concerned as an american citizen he did me a favor.

How? Do you really think they were spying on you?

I'd be shocked if they weren't spying on me.

You're just being paranoid now.

So yours nor any other americans rights have been trampled. That's apparently a fact of this issue.

All the rest is just fomenting fear.

See I dont get people, everyone thinks the government is crooked and corrupt but when it comes to security issues suddenly everyone wants to trust the <20% approval rate organization to do everything by the book and clean. Why would I trust them on this when I dont trust the liars on anything else?

Because if you don't, you're a terr'ist who hates us because we're free (insert cliche about "the children.")

Wait, you mean you didn't know this?

(HEAVY dose of sarcasm in this section.)

With MobBoss finally giving in to the dark side of semantic arguments, retreating into a fortress of bias, GhostWriter wields the iconic prophet avatar in front of an army of GhostWriter's imagined allies.

MobBoss' argumentative grip on this thread is not as solid as he may imagine, but the combination of death and honor energies collecting in his avatar create a force far more powerful than GhostWriter can imagine. Tribalist impulses that predate the bible, nationalist creeds in laminates and peoples. An engine of death, the combine of corps.

Ghostwriter, young; yet younger, no more.
He's brave in his heart, and part in his head.
He'd love to be praised, but I raise him instead
a fence for the fences
for display in this thread?
What would you consider, the truth
-nearest so
if some man came in, from the den of the snow?
Is he fighting for right?
Is he hiding a knife?
Your reply, in a poem, else forfeit this fight?

Who will stand victorious in this eternal struggle between A and B? Find out next time, on CFC Z!

Frankly, when everyone here except Mobby agrees with me (Well, VRWCAgent seems to be on the fence) I know I'm right.

Mobboss has drunk the government kool aid. I just hope Rand Paul can somehow get his vote anyway. That's pretty much the only use he is, politically speaking, at this point.

You can't seriously believe this is OK unless you are either naive (In which case "Becoming like children" is talking about faith in God not Gov.) or an out and out fascist....

 

[bhsup]

I am not on the fence. There are two distinct issues here.

1) Revealing a program of spying on American citizens.
2) Giving classified information to foreign countries.

He could have done 1 without 2 and I would have been totally fine with him. He crosses the line with 2.

 

[Cutlass]

Ya know, I don't feel one wit less safe because this information was released...

 

[bhsup]

Nor I, nor do I feel less safe because Pollard gave information to the Israelies. They're our allies and are not going to attack us or anything. Being less safe isn't the point. Betraying your country by giving classified information to a foreign power is.

Pollard is locked away for a good long time and damned right he should be. If it turns Snowden gave classified information to a foreign power, he should share the cell.

 

[downtown]

Mobby, you don't trust the government to give out food stamps how the hell can you trust it with this data?

Because that helps poor people, duh.

 

[Zelig]

I am not on the fence. There are two distinct issues here.

1) Revealing a program of spying on American citizens.
2) Giving classified information to foreign countries.

He could have done 1 without 2 and I would have been totally fine with him. He crosses the line with 2.

"Classified information" is just a sticker that the government puts on everything though.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I am not on the fence. There are two distinct issues here.

1) Revealing a program of spying on American citizens.
2) Giving classified information to foreign countries.

He could have done 1 without 2 and I would have been totally fine with him. He crosses the line with 2.

#1 was obviously justified.

I don't see why he would do #2, but its not treason unless we're at war with the country in question. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be legal.

I'm also not sure what info Snowden gave to China, if any, so I can't really comment on that.

Ya know, I don't feel one wit less safe because this information was released...

Nor I, nor do I feel less safe because Pollard gave information to the Israelies. They're our allies and are not going to attack us or anything. Being less safe isn't the point. Betraying your country by giving classified information to a foreign power is.

Pollard is locked away for a good long time and damned right he should be. If it turns Snowden gave classified information to a foreign power, he should share the cell.

What's the point of having classified info, in that case?

 

[bhsup]

I have not since being corrected used the word "treason", GW, so that's irrelevant. He can still betray the country by giving away classified secrets, which is spying for a foreign power.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I have not since being corrected used the word "treason", GW, so that's irrelevant. He can still betray the country by giving away classified secrets, which is spying for a foreign power.

Treason MEANS betraying the country. The constitution is very clear when that can happen...