2 ms·

Okay, I am not an expert, but I have read several UNSYMPATHETIC accounts of Snowdon's actions that specifically and categorically contradict what you say here w

by Fordrus 10y ago

Okay, I am not an expert, but I have read several UNSYMPATHETIC accounts of Snowdon's actions that specifically and categorically contradict what you say here when you assert that "He ignored the legal process for raising his concerns." Last I checked, the consensus was that he raised concerns repeatedly within his chain of command and then attempted to go over it, so much so that there was a process begun to review his actions for discipline/reduced security clearance. He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED, and, as widely acknowledged by those who should have had oversight (but did not effectively have it until post-Snowden) after his leaks, those concerns should havs been taken seriously by that review process, but were not. Furthermore, you must understand this: the damage that Edward Snowden caused to the United States was no more and no less than desperately necessary chemotherapy, because the NSA had grown CANCEROUS, and I'm absolutely not convinced it has been cured totally, though I'd be happy to see information otherwise.

zeveb 10y ago
> Last I checked, the consensus was that he raised concerns repeatedly within his chain of command Yes, and he ignored that everyone qualified to determine the legality of the programmes he objected to determined that they were, in fact, legal. > He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED No, it succeeded. Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional. Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things. 'I don't like it' is unsufficient proof of illegality.
- dTal 10y ago
  >Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things Which is precisely why whether it was "legal", as defined by the NSA themselves, is irrelevant.
- intherdfield 10y ago
  > No, it succeeded. Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional. Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things. 'I don't like it' is unsufficient proof of illegality. No, he exposed a federal crime being committed by the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper. He exposed how the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper committed perjury (a federal crime in this instance) by lying to Congress and the American people about mass surveillance. Is the counter argument that senior government officials should be allowed to lie to Congress about surveillance of American citizens? And from wikipedia[1]: "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a Congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony." Clapper changed his story a few times but eventually described this as something like "I forgot what we were talking about" but only after the perjury was exposed. Attorney General Eric Holder basically said he just forgot something and no charges necessary. One interpretation of this is as overt government corruption. It's relevant that Holder recently said he believes Snowden performed a public service. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional. Untrue. And, in fact, his revelations were instrumental in leading to at least one of the cases in which those things were found to be illegal.

by Fordrus 10y ago

zeveb 10y ago

> Last I checked, the consensus was that he raised concerns repeatedly within his chain of command Yes, and he ignored that everyone qualified to determine the legality of the programmes he objected to determined that they were, in fact, legal. > He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED No, it succeeded. Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional. Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things. 'I don't like it' is unsufficient proof of illegality.

dTal 10y ago
>Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things Which is precisely why whether it was "legal", as defined by the NSA themselves, is irrelevant.
intherdfield 10y ago
> No, it succeeded. Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional. Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things. 'I don't like it' is unsufficient proof of illegality. No, he exposed a federal crime being committed by the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper. He exposed how the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper committed perjury (a federal crime in this instance) by lying to Congress and the American people about mass surveillance. Is the counter argument that senior government officials should be allowed to lie to Congress about surveillance of American citizens? And from wikipedia[1]: "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a Congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony." Clapper changed his story a few times but eventually described this as something like "I forgot what we were talking about" but only after the perjury was exposed. Attorney General Eric Holder basically said he just forgot something and no charges necessary. One interpretation of this is as overt government corruption. It's relevant that Holder recently said he believes Snowden performed a public service. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional. Untrue. And, in fact, his revelations were instrumental in leading to at least one of the cases in which those things were found to be illegal.