9 ms·
"Further, no intelligence service - not even our own - has the capacity to compromise the secrets I continue to protect. While it has not been reported in the m
by pvnick 13y ago
"Further, no intelligence service - not even our own - has the capacity to compromise the secrets I continue to protect. While it has not been reported in the media, one of my specializations was to teach our people at DIA how to keep such information from being compromised even in the highest threat counter-intelligence environments (i.e. China).
You may rest easy knowing I cannot be coerced into revealing that information, even under torture."
I am very interested to hear some of his anti-intelligence efforts. I assume he's either talking about the Defense Intelligence Agency [1], or that this is a typo for CIA?
Also, everytime I hear from Snowden, I can't help but "fist pump" and cheer for the guy.
[1] http://www.dia.mil/ http://www.dia.mil/
- eli 13y agoI think he comes off as naive and more than a little pompous, but I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. Either way, if he really wants the focus back on the documents, he should probably write fewer letters about his beliefs, his security, and his personal situation.
- rocky1138 13y agoActually, how he is treated in this situation is of direct importance to the matter at hand. If the USA does not follow the rule of law regarding his case, it only fans the flames.
- inzax 13y agoI totally disagree on slowing down his writing. think about the federalist papers for a second. Someone needed to wrote them to convince a nation about our beloved constitution. Since all eyes are on Snowden, he has the best ability to sway many minds about what he believes and what I believe to be right.
- bobo1357 13y agoShouldn't the interpretation of our Constitution be left to the Supreme Court? I mean, the Constitution explicitly grants the Court those powers.
- inzax 13y agoDo you really trust the supreme court these days? 7 men and women designed to decide the fate of our country? also, the supreme court has no say in this. Its the fisa court....
- bobo1357 13y agoIf we're not following the rule of law, what laws should we follow? Who should interpret our laws? The Supreme Court has the power to issue an order called a “writ of mandamus” to deal with lower courts that overstep their legal authority.
- jessaustin 13y agoWhat the fuck is the holdup?
- twoodfin 13y agoIf I were going to decide whether or not I'd trust the Supreme Court, one of the first things I'd want to learn is how many justices sit on it.
- jivatmanx 13y agoWhich is only convention, not by law, and in any case, just an arbitrary number. FDR threatened to pack the court with lackeys if they didn't vote in favor of his programs. Which raises the obvious question of, since that event, has the Supreme Court really even served as a check on executive power? I suppose, at least, FDR would have had to answer to public opinion if he had actually carried out that threat. Unlike, say, if the secret FISA court were so threatened.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Which is only convention, not by law, and in any case, just an arbitrary number No, its actually set by law, not convention. > FDR threatened to pack the court with lackeys if they didn't vote in favor of his programs. FDR proposed legislation to Congress which would have expanded the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. [1] It was not a threat of unilateral action. The President can't appoint people to the Court without an open seat, created by Congress, to appoint them to. > I suppose, at least, FDR would have had to answer to public opinion if he had actually carried out that threat. Unlike, say, if the secret FISA court were so threatened. There are two different courts created under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review), and the members of both are selected by the Chief Justice of the United States from among current members of the federal judiciary. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill...
- pbreit 13y agoReplying to bobo: no. Anyone should be able to interpret the constitution as no person or group of people are infallible. It's obvious that SCOTUS opinions change over time, due to composition and prevailing attitudes.
- bobo1357 13y agoSo it's okay to pick and choose which texts to follow from our Constitution? The Constitution doesn't give Snowden the power to interpret it. It does however give that duty to our federal courts. Should we just ignore that part in our Constitution?
- foobarbazqux 13y agoThe only reason courts interpret the Constitution is because somebody brings forth a constitutional challenge. Often that discussion results from somebody breaking a law. The point is if Congress passes an unjust law, a legitimate recourse is to force the issue by breaking it intentionally and asking a judge to decide.
- ensignavenger 13y agoWhere does the Constitution give sole authority for interpreting it to the Supreme Court? In fact, it does not even give that authority to the Supreme Court. Judicial review was not established directly in the COnstitution.
- anigbrowl 13y agoArticle III section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...
- jasonkolb 13y agoHere: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed , -- And here's the important part, pay attention: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
- anigbrowl 13y agoI'm rereading the Federalist Papers right now, as it happens. I can't help thinking that most of HN would dismiss Hamilton and Madison as 'statist thugs' if I were to start quoting or paraphrasing the views of those gentlemen on topics like national security.
- jivatmanx 13y agoHamilton argued at the constitutional convention for an elected monarchy. He admired Caesar above all others, and throughout his life held a profound disdain of the lower class. - “the people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government.” Read his Caesar letters, or his constitutional convention speech, or other writings, as these views aren't really apparent in the Federalist papers. Madison is interesting, but he didn't hold to a single consistent political philosophy through his life.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- eli 13y agoI think you misread what I wrote. I suggested he write fewer letters about his beliefs, his security, and his personal situation.
- tokenadult 13y agoI think he comes off as naive and more than a little pompous, but I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. This is my take too. If he had had more knowledge about the historical background of the other countries he has visited, and especially if he had STRONG knowledge of another language, he might view the position of the United States in these matters a bit differently, and might resolve the trade-offs about what to disclose and what to keep secret quite a bit differently. On my part, as I have said in another HN comment, I would take Snowden's claims more seriously in general if he were on United States soil preparing to face trial for his alleged wrongdoing, ready to bring forward any defenses he thinks he has to possible criminal charges. Right now, part of what Snowden is saying with ghostwriting help from Wikileaks is not making sense.
- pvnick 13y agoYour statement is completely nonsensical. The whole point is we have primary documents supporting what he says. His personality has nothing to do with those claims. Greenwald and Snowden have a 100% accuracy rate regarding these leaks, and your comment comes off as very head-stuck-in-the-sand-y.
- Kylekramer 13y agoWe have primary documents supporting a very small subset of what he says. Most of the claims, including the more extraordinary ones such as he can wiretap anyone in the world including Barack Obama's personal email from his desk, remain undocumented.
- mwerd 13y agoSnowden's claim regarding wiretapping Obama is corroborated by other NSA whisteblowers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama_n_3473538.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...
- twoodfin 13y agoYou're missing the point: Nobody's denying that with the right internal authorization, the NSA can tap any phone line they like. What's up for debate (since Snowden has provided no evidence) is the claim that Snowden could do it all by his lonesome, with no oversight or approval.
- dram 13y agoHe was responding to a retired US Senator who wrote him an e-mail. You think it's pompous to respond to him?
- brymaster 13y agoThis man that sacrificed his life to expose massive, illegal surveillance by the US Government comes off as pompous to you? Wow. You're attacking Snowden's character just like he said people (and most of the mainstream media) would.
- untog 13y agoTo offer an opposing view: I cannot be coerced into revealing that information, even under torture. That is a huge claim. I do not imagine that his training involved being tortured to make sure. If he's wrong, there could be dire consequences for the US. You might even say his ego is writing checks his body can't cash.
- ianterrell 13y agoI interpret this as it's protected in such a way that any information he can give is not sufficient to access the documents. (copy pasted from my reply on another comment below)
- pkfrank 13y agoAgreed. The specificity of his claim seems to support that, as well: >I cannot be coerced... vs. "won't", "would never", et. al.
- brown9-2 13y agoHow would that work though? Wouldn't it mean that in order to access the info he is talking about, you need something more than knowledge he has in his head - like physical access to something? But then, in the worst case scenario - how could Snowden access it himself if he needs the documents?
- lifeformed 13y agoPerhaps it's more of a way to destroy data than to not reveal it, like maybe some sort of dead-man's switch. If he doesn't maintain some routine, then perhaps some data or documents gets automatically destroyed.
- dantheman 13y agoA very simple way to achieve something like this is to generate a random password, print it out and give half to someone else. Then you need 2 people to access the file.
- ambientwhsiper 13y agoNo worries, SP-117 is extremely effective. FSB or any other intelligence service have ways to make people talk. Such naïveté.
- wavefunction 13y agoYou're ignoring that he can't reveal what he doesn't know.
- moistgorilla 13y agoI don't understand how people don't see this....
- VladRussian2 13y agohe either have control over the information or he doesn't. In the case of the former, it means by transitive closure that Putin would have the control as well. It makes me wonder though who got the best deal - Chinese or Russians - i suppose each party was thinking that they are playing off the other.
- HNaTTY 13y agoBy saying that torture wouldn't reveal the information, he's saying that he doesn't have control over the information.
- anigbrowl 13y agoYou're ignoring the fact that what he does know would still have a great deal of value to some other intelligence services. Even if he can't give up a password, he still has years of first-hand experience, knowledge of specific programs whose documentation he chose to copy etc. In other words, just because he doesn't have the key to the box doesn't mean he has forgotten everything about the contents, especially considering that he packed it.
- phaus 13y ago>You may rest easy knowing I cannot be coerced into revealing that information, even under torture. I have several close friends and family members who have been to SERE(Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape) School. One of the first things you learn, is that EVERYBODY talks when they are being tortured. Forget all of the nonsense you see in movies and television shows. If Putin wants to know what Edward Snowden knows, he will. Even if they don't choose to go the direct physical route by inflicting pain, there are other ways. Sleep deprivation and near-starvation cause your mental state to degrade rapidly. Eventually, no matter how strong willed you may think you are, you are going to start talking.
- DigitalJack 13y agoYou can not reveal what you do not know.
- lttlrck 13y ago'not even our own' Odd choice of words. Maybe he doesn't consider himself stateless after all.
- jessaustin 13y agoHe's still loyal to the USA. Even though its leaders have betrayed him along with our ideals.
- gcb0 13y agomaybe he's simply bluffing. If you have nothing, you can't give up even if they torture your mother in front of you.
- s_q_b 13y agoIt's definitely the Defense Intelligence Agency. They do a lot of intelligence collection. I'm disturbed by Snowden's grandiosity in those statements. He fits the personality type interrogators would call a "grand egoist." He exaggerates his individual importance and skills to the point of self-delusion. Ironically, this package of traits is often found in people of extraordinary skill. He has managed to abscond from the country with thousands of our deepest secrets, and prevent his own capture amidst the biggest manhunt in the history of the world. But at the same time, he seems to be losing his grip under the pressure. There simply is no way that an individual can guarantee he or she won't give away information under threat of torture or under the manipulation of interrogation. The secrets live in his head, and the operating system that runs on our grey matter is eminently hackable. Deeply, deeply disturbing rhetoric.