3 ms·

No, says an unnamed NSA "colleague" of a former analyst. Say what you like about Snowden, but at least some of his claims have been backed up by evidence. What

No, says an unnamed NSA "colleague" of a former analyst. Say what you like about Snowden, but at least some of his claims have been backed up by evidence. What have these guys got? Why not name names?

ToothlessJake 13y ago
A stay in a penitentiary helped managed by SAIC[1]. [1] http://www.alanco.com/news_040104.asp http://www.alanco.com/news_040104.asp
kennywinker 13y ago
Because then they'll have to flee the country like that "traitor" Snowden? Not saying it wouldn't be the right thing to do, but I am saying it would definitely come at a cost to them and their friends.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Why? A colleague of Tice's told him a few weeks ago that every domestic communication is being recorded. Tice is now a private citizen, and he has every right to tell us that colleague's name. But he won't, and I suspect that the reason is that his claim is fanciful.
  - kennywinker 13y ago
    That's definitely possible. But it's also possible he doesn't want to out his friend because he's a decent guy. You know we would all think this guy was a scumbag if he outed his friend/colleague at the NSA who would likely suffer for it. Without hard evidence it's hard to believe him, you're right. But not naming his source doesn't effect his credibility negatively in my eyes. It's equally likely he's not naming his source because he's a nice person, as it is because there is no source.
  - zxcdw 13y ago
    > But he won't, and I suspect that the reason is that his claim is fanciful. Do you find this more probable than the fact that by giving out a name he'd set up his friend between a rock and a hard place?
  - srean 13y ago
    If rights were really respected we wouldnt have this, now I am at loss for words so am settling with clusterF#$%, to begin with.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Recent history tells us there's proof out there, and that it typically follows a denial by Obama or the intelligence communities.
    - kennywinker 13y ago
      I get your emotional position, but this is just some bad logic. "If the government denies it, it must be true" is not a useful tool. How about "recent history says that this kind of thing could potentially be true, and that the government wouldn't admit if it was."
      - rhizome 13y ago
        Thanks for the condescension, but you misunderstood me: we'll find out after the denial, when the doc release occurs. The denial doesn't substitute for the doc release.
bigiain 13y ago
"Why not name names?" Because they can see what's happening to Snowden and Manning? From my outside perspective, it seems Obama's "whistle blower" rhetoric was pure electioneering lies…
ToothlessJake 13y ago
Persistent targeting, one way or another, by drones managed by SAIC[1]. [1] http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/14/news-saic-wins-95-million-drone-management-contrac/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/14/news-saic-wins-95-mil...
ToothlessJake 13y ago
Digitally stalked due to dissent by for-profit "Domain Awareness Centers" run by SAIC[1]. [1] http://oaklandwiki.org/Domain_Awareness_Center http://oaklandwiki.org/Domain_Awareness_Center
alan_cx 13y ago
In many ways, hard evidence is the last thing a whistle blower wants. Its the evidence that scares the authorities. While its just "claims", you go free. You can be mocked and dismissed as a crank. If you have evidence, well, Snowden, Manning, ...

ToothlessJake 13y ago

A stay in a penitentiary helped managed by SAIC[1]. [1] http://www.alanco.com/news_040104.asp http://www.alanco.com/news_040104.asp

kennywinker 13y ago

Because then they'll have to flee the country like that "traitor" Snowden? Not saying it wouldn't be the right thing to do, but I am saying it would definitely come at a cost to them and their friends.

twoodfin 13y ago
Why? A colleague of Tice's told him a few weeks ago that every domestic communication is being recorded. Tice is now a private citizen, and he has every right to tell us that colleague's name. But he won't, and I suspect that the reason is that his claim is fanciful.
- kennywinker 13y ago
  That's definitely possible. But it's also possible he doesn't want to out his friend because he's a decent guy. You know we would all think this guy was a scumbag if he outed his friend/colleague at the NSA who would likely suffer for it. Without hard evidence it's hard to believe him, you're right. But not naming his source doesn't effect his credibility negatively in my eyes. It's equally likely he's not naming his source because he's a nice person, as it is because there is no source.
- zxcdw 13y ago
  > But he won't, and I suspect that the reason is that his claim is fanciful. Do you find this more probable than the fact that by giving out a name he'd set up his friend between a rock and a hard place?
- srean 13y ago
  If rights were really respected we wouldnt have this, now I am at loss for words so am settling with clusterF#$%, to begin with.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- rhizome 13y ago
  Recent history tells us there's proof out there, and that it typically follows a denial by Obama or the intelligence communities.
  - kennywinker 13y ago
    I get your emotional position, but this is just some bad logic. "If the government denies it, it must be true" is not a useful tool. How about "recent history says that this kind of thing could potentially be true, and that the government wouldn't admit if it was."
    - rhizome 13y ago
      Thanks for the condescension, but you misunderstood me: we'll find out after the denial, when the doc release occurs. The denial doesn't substitute for the doc release.

bigiain 13y ago

"Why not name names?" Because they can see what's happening to Snowden and Manning? From my outside perspective, it seems Obama's "whistle blower" rhetoric was pure electioneering lies…

ToothlessJake 13y ago

Persistent targeting, one way or another, by drones managed by SAIC[1]. [1] http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/14/news-saic-wins-95-million-drone-management-contrac/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/14/news-saic-wins-95-mil...

ToothlessJake 13y ago

Digitally stalked due to dissent by for-profit "Domain Awareness Centers" run by SAIC[1]. [1] http://oaklandwiki.org/Domain_Awareness_Center http://oaklandwiki.org/Domain_Awareness_Center

alan_cx 13y ago

In many ways, hard evidence is the last thing a whistle blower wants. Its the evidence that scares the authorities. While its just "claims", you go free. You can be mocked and dismissed as a crank. If you have evidence, well, Snowden, Manning, ...