5 ms·

> Moreover, the material Mr. Snowden stole pertains to lawful intelligence activities authorized and overseen by all three branches of government. Exactly. To

> Moreover, the material Mr. Snowden stole pertains to lawful intelligence activities authorized and overseen by all three branches of government. Exactly. To those who question why Snowden didn't work through the system, here's your answer--straight from the House Intelligence Committee.

leesalminen 10y ago
This seemed to be the biggest flaw in the new movie. IMHO, it could've used a scene or 2 of policy discussion with some Congressional committee/White House. I think it did a good job of showing how those in intelligence think, but not so much on the front end of the gov (our representatives).
btilly 10y ago
How was it overseen by Congress when they were lied to, repeatedly, about the existence of the programs they supposedly oversaw? How was it overseen by courts who had never been permitted to see evidence of existence? As far as I can tell, it was unilateral executive action started by the guys who brought us waterboarding, and continued by an executive who mostly continued the same foreign policy. And it is a tool whose largest beneficiary is the same executive branch that authorized it.
- samstave 10y ago
  Lets coin a new term "Fractal ignorance"
- DSMan195276 10y ago
  It isn't an all or nothing. Snowden leaked information on a lot of different programs - some of them presumably weren't known to Congress, some were. It is known that Snowden both leaked information on illegal activities and legal actives of the NSA. Leaking information about legal activities generally isn't protected by whistle-blowing laws or otherwise.
  - btilly 10y ago
    The presumption that they weren't known is based on direct testimony to Congress from the CIA saying that they had no such program in place. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper#False_testimony_to_Congress_on_NSA_surveillance_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper#False_testimo... for verification. As for the rights of whistleblowers, the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers more than all other previous administrations combined. Would YOU trust this administration if you thought they were doing wrong?
    - wbl 10y ago
      Except that the HSCI had been briefed on the phone interception program in camera.
    - DSMan195276 10y ago
      I wasn't saying anything against that - read my comment again ("It isn't an all or nothing. Snowden leaked information on lots of different programs ..."). What I'm saying is that Snowden leaked a lot more then just the fact that the NSA gathers data on US citizens. Some of that data was on legitimate NSA activities, which is why claiming he is purely a whistle-blower is a bit hard to do: Leaking the data on illegal NSA activities is a legitimate argument for a whistle-blower defense, leaking data on legal NSA activities is not. All I'm saying is that it is not a black and white issue. The reality is that even if you accept that he should have immunity for blowing the whistle on illegal NSA activities he revealed (As I do), the other things he did are still serious and it is hard to argue he should be pardoned in full for it. He could have only leaked information on the NSA illegal activities, but he didn't.
  - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
    It doesn't matter if it's "legal." For example, the NSA stalked and hacked the personal property of multiple engineers at multiple telecom companies in multiple friendly countries, solely as a means to attack their employer in order to spy on their employer's customers. Attacking law abiding foreign civilians in friendly countries like Belgium and Germany is not somehow more ok than hacking Americans. Enough of this "it's only foreigners" nonsense.
- ramblenode 10y ago
  Regardless of who was in on it before the leak, the fact that Congress is willing to own a widely unpopular and (likely) illegal program after the leak does not engender much confidence that this branch of government would have responded productively to a less publicized whistleblower who worked through the legal system. In short, they're complacent to domestic snooping.
tptacek 10y ago
You've composed a logically fallacious argument. To do so, you've assumed that the premise of that sentence in the House letter is that everything Snowden stole pertains to lawful activities. But that's not the case. Rather, among the many things Snowden took are numerous documents pertaining to lawful intelligence activities. Since the majority of the documents in the Snowden cache have not been disclosed, it appears that the facts are on House Intelligence's side with respect to that specific statement, and you cannot therefore use it as evidence that Snowden was required to leak directly to the press. You can still believe leaking to the press was a good thing! You just can't justify it with the specific argument you made.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

leesalminen 10y ago

This seemed to be the biggest flaw in the new movie. IMHO, it could've used a scene or 2 of policy discussion with some Congressional committee/White House. I think it did a good job of showing how those in intelligence think, but not so much on the front end of the gov (our representatives).

btilly 10y ago

How was it overseen by Congress when they were lied to, repeatedly, about the existence of the programs they supposedly oversaw? How was it overseen by courts who had never been permitted to see evidence of existence? As far as I can tell, it was unilateral executive action started by the guys who brought us waterboarding, and continued by an executive who mostly continued the same foreign policy. And it is a tool whose largest beneficiary is the same executive branch that authorized it.

samstave 10y ago
Lets coin a new term "Fractal ignorance"
DSMan195276 10y ago
It isn't an all or nothing. Snowden leaked information on a lot of different programs - some of them presumably weren't known to Congress, some were. It is known that Snowden both leaked information on illegal activities and legal actives of the NSA. Leaking information about legal activities generally isn't protected by whistle-blowing laws or otherwise.
- btilly 10y ago
  The presumption that they weren't known is based on direct testimony to Congress from the CIA saying that they had no such program in place. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper#False_testimony_to_Congress_on_NSA_surveillance_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper#False_testimo... for verification. As for the rights of whistleblowers, the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers more than all other previous administrations combined. Would YOU trust this administration if you thought they were doing wrong?
  - wbl 10y ago
    Except that the HSCI had been briefed on the phone interception program in camera.
  - DSMan195276 10y ago
    I wasn't saying anything against that - read my comment again ("It isn't an all or nothing. Snowden leaked information on lots of different programs ..."). What I'm saying is that Snowden leaked a lot more then just the fact that the NSA gathers data on US citizens. Some of that data was on legitimate NSA activities, which is why claiming he is purely a whistle-blower is a bit hard to do: Leaking the data on illegal NSA activities is a legitimate argument for a whistle-blower defense, leaking data on legal NSA activities is not. All I'm saying is that it is not a black and white issue. The reality is that even if you accept that he should have immunity for blowing the whistle on illegal NSA activities he revealed (As I do), the other things he did are still serious and it is hard to argue he should be pardoned in full for it. He could have only leaked information on the NSA illegal activities, but he didn't.
- lawnchair_larry 10y ago
  It doesn't matter if it's "legal." For example, the NSA stalked and hacked the personal property of multiple engineers at multiple telecom companies in multiple friendly countries, solely as a means to attack their employer in order to spy on their employer's customers. Attacking law abiding foreign civilians in friendly countries like Belgium and Germany is not somehow more ok than hacking Americans. Enough of this "it's only foreigners" nonsense.
ramblenode 10y ago
Regardless of who was in on it before the leak, the fact that Congress is willing to own a widely unpopular and (likely) illegal program after the leak does not engender much confidence that this branch of government would have responded productively to a less publicized whistleblower who worked through the legal system. In short, they're complacent to domestic snooping.

tptacek 10y ago

You've composed a logically fallacious argument. To do so, you've assumed that the premise of that sentence in the House letter is that everything Snowden stole pertains to lawful activities. But that's not the case. Rather, among the many things Snowden took are numerous documents pertaining to lawful intelligence activities. Since the majority of the documents in the Snowden cache have not been disclosed, it appears that the facts are on House Intelligence's side with respect to that specific statement, and you cannot therefore use it as evidence that Snowden was required to leak directly to the press. You can still believe leaking to the press was a good thing! You just can't justify it with the specific argument you made.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]