Sen. Feinstein calls Snowden's NSA leaks an 'act of treason'

tekkychick said:
So as I've been pondering this and hearing more, I have to say - based on what we know now - I am against what Snowden did. And here's why.

First, he was the IT person. Now in the old days - and I assume it's the same today - the ethics were that, in return for enhanced access, the IT people didn't snoop. Or if they did, they didn't talk about what they found. The company trusts you with their data; you uphold that trust.

He was a contractor IT person. He had no idea what this data really means or what the program was or whether it was authorized or anything. He also had no idea what leaking it would do. When Valerie Plame was outed by the Bush administration - I was pissed. This guy is leaking with no idea of the consequences.

He also did nothing else BUT leak. To my mind, a true "whistleblower" not only understands the consequences of the stuff they are leaking - they also have tried, internally, to get the company or organization to change its ways. He didn't talk to his supervisor at NSA. He didn't talk to his supervisor at Booz-Allen. He didn't talk to his Senator or Congressional representative. He took data - which he had no idea how it would impact the country - and took it straight to the newspaper.

At least the Washington Post showed some ethics - they checked it out first with the NSA; waited two weeks to publish it; and only did 4 of the 14 slides. (Snowden was pushing them to publish in 72 hours and to do all the slides - http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-the-washington-post-whistleblowers/ )


So in my mind this guy isn't an hero. He's perhaps not a traitor, although leaking state secrets usually qualifies to be a traitor. He is an IT guy with no sense of ethics. And he is most definitely a twit.


This doesn't mean I agree with PRISM or the collection of the phone records. But do you know what? *I* don't know enough about the purposes of the programs either. But this wasn't a program hatched up in a dark alley and run by a few rogue CIA agents. We spent billions of dollars on this program. It was run through official channels Elected representatives on both sides of the aisle knew about it. The programs were under some kind of court oversight.

This idiot young man decided he knew better than the whole NSA what should be done with the programs. With no double-checking, with no knowledge of the background, with no understanding ... he dumped it out in public. Twit. Definitely a twit.
Click to expand...

You didn't need to write a Dixie like novella. Just say you think he is a traitor because your Dear Leader Obimmer told you to.

Sheesh
 
I'm sorry, ILA...did I go beyond your reading comprehension level? is anything more than a twitter post of 140 characters too much for you to read? Does a reasoned position give you headaches and eye strains?

You don't have to read my posts; it's ok. I wasn't writing for you anyway.
 
tekkychick said:
So as I've been pondering this and hearing more, I have to say - based on what we know now - I am against what Snowden did. And here's why.

First, he was the IT person. Now in the old days - and I assume it's the same today - the ethics were that, in return for enhanced access, the IT people didn't snoop. Or if they did, they didn't talk about what they found. The company trusts you with their data; you uphold that trust.

He was a contractor IT person. He had no idea what this data really means or what the program was or whether it was authorized or anything. He also had no idea what leaking it would do. When Valerie Plame was outed by the Bush administration - I was pissed. This guy is leaking with no idea of the consequences.

He also did nothing else BUT leak. To my mind, a true "whistleblower" not only understands the consequences of the stuff they are leaking - they also have tried, internally, to get the company or organization to change its ways. He didn't talk to his supervisor at NSA. He didn't talk to his supervisor at Booz-Allen. He didn't talk to his Senator or Congressional representative. He took data - which he had no idea how it would impact the country - and took it straight to the newspaper.

At least the Washington Post showed some ethics - they checked it out first with the NSA; waited two weeks to publish it; and only did 4 of the 14 slides. (Snowden was pushing them to publish in 72 hours and to do all the slides - http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-the-washington-post-whistleblowers/ )


So in my mind this guy isn't an hero. He's perhaps not a traitor, although leaking state secrets usually qualifies to be a traitor. He is an IT guy with no sense of ethics. And he is most definitely a twit.


This doesn't mean I agree with PRISM or the collection of the phone records. But do you know what? *I* don't know enough about the purposes of the programs either. But this wasn't a program hatched up in a dark alley and run by a few rogue CIA agents. We spent billions of dollars on this program. It was run through official channels Elected representatives on both sides of the aisle knew about it. The programs were under some kind of court oversight.

This idiot young man decided he knew better than the whole NSA what should be done with the programs. With no double-checking, with no knowledge of the background, with no understanding ... he dumped it out in public. Twit. Definitely a twit.
Click to expand...

Do be a traitor, you must provide aid and comfort to an enemy. The only way he would qualify is if the American people are the enemy of the government.
 
Dungheap said:
A couple of points. First, the Verizon court order was entered under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which hasn't been modified since 2005. I can assure you that the Bush Administration took advantage of this provision of the Patriot Act. It's just a shame that no one leaked any Court orders when Bush was President. I guess we were all too busy being concerned about the illegal and warrantless wiretapping to access the content of communications of American citizens to bother with the legal and less invasive stuff.

Second, "according to Snowden" is doing a lot of work there. PRISM, what Snowden was talking about, is an different thing from the Verizon thing. You just got done saying that PRISM was internet only yet here you are saying it includes taped cell phone calls. Which is it? (Also, too, as a practical matter it would be impossible for the govenment to tape every single cell phone call, so if Snowden said that (which I doubt), I'd really question his veracity. It cannot possibly be true).
Click to expand...

I was not saying it "included" that. Again, as I said and according to the article you linked to, PRISM is about internet communications, Snowden has brought forward something far deeper than that. I was pointing out to you that PRISM is not the whole of what we have heard from Snowden, nor even from Obama for that matter, while he pretensively tries to dismiss that "your" calls are not listened to, he does state that at the very least who you call, the duration you talked, and who you called along with information on where you were when you made the calls is recorded for them to access whenever they see fit.

Third, what PRISM actually does is not at all clear as I've tried to explain to you. Snowden claims one thing, everyone else says another, and the publicly released slides from the Power Point presentation don't conclusively support one story or the other.
Click to expand...
And again, if you believe "what everyone else says" it is still too much.

The facility you are referring to is still under construction.
Click to expand...
Yet there is, according to reports, still a database that at the very least contains every call you've made, the duration and to whom. Not terrorist suspects calls, yours. That the facility is still under construction doesn't change what is. That they feel the need to create an even larger (massively larger) database doesn't change that reality.


It's all the same thing. PRISM was started in 2007 as the follow on from the TSP which was the follow on from the TIA and OIA. The difference now is that its all been approved by Congress and the FISA Court (whereas Bush did it illegally under the TSP) and more companies are participating. Section 215 of the Patriot Act is what it has been since 2005.
Click to expand...

Again, PRISM, has nothing to do with the database of your calls. It is a program that monitors, and stores for "posterity", internet communication. Cell phone, and landline, calls fall under a different intel program.

You can try to make partisan hay about this being somehow different and worse, but it isn't. It's the same and as bad as it ever wa
Click to expand...
Saying it is worse is not partisan, it is a statement of fact. Nor does it assign specific blame. It only does that in your imagination because you apparently believe that "worse" and "Obama" are synonymous in others eyes because you project onto others how you act when somebody in a different color jersey is in office.


The bold is exactly the thing that is unclear. You should probably read a bit more about it rather than pretending that Snowden's claims are self-evidently true. They may not be. I don't know.

And, also, all of this stuff is done pursuant to court orders. They don't need to do the warrantless wiretapping anymore. They can just get warrants.
Click to expand...

And again, for the eleventy-second time. Even if you only believe the official statements, and you stop there, it is exponentially worse than the warrantless wiretapping we spoke about earlier.

Now, you and I may disagree whether Snowden's statements are credible. (Charges of "treason" from Feinstein, you know that Senator on the Intel Committee, put a lie to that.) However, the reality is, when it was simply a discussion on just one point of this, you were upset and at that time agreed it was bad. That you cannot simply state, yeah, it is worse now than then, and insist that simply pointing that out is "partisan" pretty much underlines that you are simply working as an apologist rather than bothering to engage your brain.
 
tekkychick said:
So as I've been pondering this and hearing more, I have to say - based on what we know now - I am against what Snowden did. And here's why.

First, he was the IT person. Now in the old days - and I assume it's the same today - the ethics were that, in return for enhanced access, the IT people didn't snoop. Or if they did, they didn't talk about what they found. The company trusts you with their data; you uphold that trust.

He was a contractor IT person. He had no idea what this data really means or what the program was or whether it was authorized or anything. He also had no idea what leaking it would do. When Valerie Plame was outed by the Bush administration - I was pissed. This guy is leaking with no idea of the consequences.

He also did nothing else BUT leak. To my mind, a true "whistleblower" not only understands the consequences of the stuff they are leaking - they also have tried, internally, to get the company or organization to change its ways. He didn't talk to his supervisor at NSA. He didn't talk to his supervisor at Booz-Allen. He didn't talk to his Senator or Congressional representative. He took data - which he had no idea how it would impact the country - and took it straight to the newspaper.

At least the Washington Post showed some ethics - they checked it out first with the NSA; waited two weeks to publish it; and only did 4 of the 14 slides. (Snowden was pushing them to publish in 72 hours and to do all the slides - http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-the-washington-post-whistleblowers/ )


So in my mind this guy isn't an hero. He's perhaps not a traitor, although leaking state secrets usually qualifies to be a traitor. He is an IT guy with no sense of ethics. And he is most definitely a twit.


This doesn't mean I agree with PRISM or the collection of the phone records. But do you know what? *I* don't know enough about the purposes of the programs either. But this wasn't a program hatched up in a dark alley and run by a few rogue CIA agents. We spent billions of dollars on this program. It was run through official channels Elected representatives on both sides of the aisle knew about it. The programs were under some kind of court oversight.

This idiot young man decided he knew better than the whole NSA what should be done with the programs. With no double-checking, with no knowledge of the background, with no understanding ... he dumped it out in public. Twit. Definitely a twit.
Click to expand...
is it not a persons duty to report violations of the constitution?
 
Damocles said:
I was not saying it "included" that. Again, as I said and according to the article you linked to, PRISM is about internet communications, Snowden has brought forward something far deeper than that. I was pointing out to you that PRISM is not the whole of what we have heard from Snowden, nor even from Obama for that matter, while he pretensively tries to dismiss that "your" calls are not listened to, he does state that at the very least who you call, the duration you talked, and who you called along with information on where you were when you made the calls is recorded for them to access whenever they see fit.
Click to expand...

Is there a reason you are repeating back to me what I have said to you? The specifics of the phone metadata collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act are known because we have a court order detailing them. No need to reference Obama. The point you have ignored is that Section 215 of the Patriot Act was modified to allow this type of collection since 2005 and, again, was available to and used by Bush.


And again, if you believe "what everyone else says" it is still too much.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. Our disagreement is whether its any different from what happened under Bush, who started the Prism program and its predecessors.


Yet there is, according to reports, still a database that at the very least contains every call you've made, the duration and to whom. Not terrorist suspects calls, yours. That the facility is still under construction doesn't change what is. That they feel the need to create an even larger (massively larger) database doesn't change that reality.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you're backing off the dumbshit claim that the government maintained a database of recordings of all phone calls. And, again, the fact that you are missing is that he authority by which the government obtained those records was put in place under and utilized by the Bush Administration. It's nothing new.


Again, PRISM, has nothing to do with the database of your calls. It is a program that monitors, and stores for "posterity", internet communication. Cell phone, and landline, calls fall under a different intel program.
Click to expand...

Again, you're repeating things back to me that I have said to you. Why?


Saying it is worse is not partisan, it is a statement of fact. Nor does it assign specific blame. It only does that in your imagination because you apparently believe that "worse" and "Obama" are synonymous in others eyes because you project onto others how you act when somebody in a different color jersey is in office.
Click to expand...


Frankly, at his point I don't even know what "it" is in the first sentence here. Both Prism (and its illegal predecessors) and Section 215 of the Patriot Act were utilized by the Bush Administration for the very purposes to which they have been put by the Obama Administration.


And again, for the eleventy-second time. Even if you only believe the official statements, and you stop there, it is exponentially worse than the warrantless wiretapping we spoke about earlier.
Click to expand...

You keep saying its worse, but you haven't explained in what way Prism is different now than when Bush started it, how complying with the law is worse than illegal warrantless wiretapping or how Section 215 of the Patriot Act has been used for different purposes than under Bush.

And if you want to quote "official statements" please do. Otherwise I have no idea to what you are referring.


Now, you and I may disagree whether Snowden's statements are credible. (Charges of "treason" from Feinstein, you know that Senator on the Intel Committee, put a lie to that.) However, the reality is, when it was simply a discussion on just one point of this, you were upset and at that time agreed it was bad. That you cannot simply state, yeah, it is worse now than then, and insist that simply pointing that out is "partisan" pretty much underlines that you are simply working as an apologist rather than bothering to engage your brain.
Click to expand...

Uh, I have no doubt that Prism exists. I just don't know what it does. Neither do you. If you want to call my unequivocal opposition of it as apologism that's fine. And if it makes you feel better about your support for Bush by pretending the Obama utilizing the same programs and authorities developed under Bush as magically "worse" because Obama uses them, that's fine by me, too.



Edit: and don't think I didn't notice you completely ignoring my first paragraph.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I would love to see some documentation of that....just to see you waste the time trying to find something that doesn't exist......
Click to expand...


There's an unclassified multi-agency IG report from 2009 that says as much about the TSP and that doesn't even get into the classified "other intelligence activities" that we know about. I guess I can dig it up for you if you really want it.
 
Dungheap said:
There's an unclassified multi-agency IG report from 2009 that says as much about the TSP and that doesn't even get into the classified "other intelligence activities" that we know about. I guess I can dig it up for you if you really want it.
Click to expand...

no need....I know you're full of shit....I don't have to waste my time searching for the non-existent simply to confirm it......your problem is that you have still refused to admit that when someone makes a call to a telephone number which IS being legally wiretapped, the caller loses all protections......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no need....I know you're full of shit....I don't have to waste my time searching for the non-existent simply to confirm it......your problem is that you have still refused to admit that when someone makes a call to a telephone number which IS being legally wiretapped, the caller loses all protections......
Click to expand...

I can't believe I have to relitigate this shit. Your problem is that you refuse to admit that when a US person is a party to a communication, the government has to get a warrant to listen in or read it, regardless of whom that US person is communicating with. They didn't get warrants. Thus, the Bush Administration illegally wiretapping US citizens. And here is a press briefing by Alberto Gonzales and Michael Hayden explaining that this is exactly what they did:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html

And that's not even getting into the "other intelligence activities" that we know about.

By the by, one of the things that I completely forgot about was the hospital room showdown where Alberto Gonzales and Andew Card attempted to get John Ashcroft to reauthorize some aspects of the program that the DoJ had already concluded were illegal as Ashcroft was in an intensive care unit.
 
tekkychick said:
I'm sorry, ILA...did I go beyond your reading comprehension level? is anything more than a twitter post of 140 characters too much for you to read? Does a reasoned position give you headaches and eye strains?

You don't have to read my posts; it's ok. I wasn't writing for you anyway.
Click to expand...

Brevity is the soul of wit. I have found that the more folks type, the less they know. It isn't just you. I said the same about the rightie Dixie. Don't get your tampon string in a twist sugar tits
 
ILA, you just prove how right Darla is about the sexism and misogyny of some of the posters on this board. Not that I needed you to prove it yet again.
 
Dungheap said:
Your problem is that you refuse to admit that when a US person is a party to a communication, the government has to get a warrant to listen in or read it, regardless of whom that US person is communicating with.
Click to expand...

???....since it isn't true, obviously I would refuse.......phone conversations in other nations do not require warrants and haven't pretty much since before there were telephones.......if a person here calls a phone tapped there, no warrant is necessary......

consider it this way....lets say the police are legally tapping a phone line of a suspected bookie working out of a pizza joint.....you call the pizza joint to order a deep dish......have the police listened to your conversation without a warrant?......no, just because they didn't mention your name to the judge when they got the warrant to listen to the pizza place they have not violated YOUR rights.....you called a legally tapped phone.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....since it isn't true, obviously I would refuse.......phone conversations in other nations do not require warrants and haven't pretty much since before there were telephones.......if a person here calls a phone tapped there, no warrant is necessary......
Click to expand...


Well, if you say so. I guess Alberto Gonales was wrong in describing the law and all the hub bub was much ado about nothing:

The President has authorized a program to engage in electronic surveillance of a particular kind, and this would be the intercepts of contents of communications where one of the -- one party to the communication is outside the United States. And this is a very important point -- people are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors. Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States.

Another very important point to remember is that we have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda. We view these authorities as authorities to confront the enemy in which the United States is at war with -- and that is al Qaeda and those who are supporting or affiliated with al Qaeda.

What we're trying to do is learn of communications, back and forth, from within the United States to overseas with members of al Qaeda. And that's what this program is about.

Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.
Click to expand...


I guess we all could have avoided a lot of trouble, including the threatened resignations of several senior DOJ officials, just by giving you a call.
 
Topspin said:
He also doesn't like college education or science much, pick him up at Christian mingle.com!
Click to expand...

Why would I not like science, God created it douche bag. College wasn't for me, and I work my arse off to earn a living. I realize that doesn't fit the libiot mold of sit and take.
 
patriot66 said:
Why would I not like science, God created it douche bag. College wasn't for me, and I work my arse off to earn a living. I realize that doesn't fit the libiot mold of sit and take.
Click to expand...
You mean the liberals who get more education, open factories that you watch over!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top