Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

[Terralthra]

I really feel sorry for people who consider someone who, in order to disclose important widespread and invasive surveillance, gives up a comfortable life with a six figure salary in Hawaii "cowardly."

What exactly did Manning do that was "heroic"? Leak important information anonymously and then got sold out by a purported co-conspirator.

What did Snowden do that was cowardly? Leak important information openly, giving up his comfortable life and any hope of returning home to do so.

So, apparently it's heroic to do things anonymously, and cowardly to sign one's name. Or at least, that's the case in opposite land, from whence Flagg posted.

[Broomstick]

For instance, rape was until recently somewhere in the US defined as a man having non-consensual sex with a woman, meaning that if a man raped a man, it couldn't be charged as rape, and wasn't (they were probably charged with assault, which at least has "ass" in it). The law has since been changed, I believe, but I haven't seen any news about people being recharged with rape.

One post slight sidetrack: rape in the US is a state level crime, meaning we have 50 (at least) slightly different rape laws. Until the latter half of the 20th century most of them defined rape as "a man having non-consensual sex with a woman who is not his wife", meaning that legally rape could not occur within a marriage. After the 1970's the laws were changed so that "marital rape" had a legal existence, but no one was dragged into court for a marital rape that occurred prior to that change. A lot of states also took out the gender-specificity as well, allowing for male-on-male rape.

Until very recently the FBI did not recognize male-on-male rape as rape - a crime defined as "male rape" under the law of the state in which it occurred was listed as "sexual assault" in the FBI records. Male on male rape has always been a crime of one sort of another in the US even if it wasn't called rape. It was referred to by other terms such as "sodomy" or "sexual assault" and was just as much as felony as heterosexual rape.

Sexual assault is a pretty broad category, actually, with rape being a subset of it. Rather like the difference between "theft" and "car theft". So, please, do not have the idea that such things were not punished.

[Broomstick]

An ordinary person has even less understanding of the law than I have due to lack of legal education.

You're now claiming you have a legal education? What are your credentials?

You don't have a perfect understanding of the law as it exists- nobody does, as it is too complicated.

The difference between you and the rest of the world is that the rest of us don't need a "perfect" understanding of the law in order to conduct ourselves in a legal manner.

I think the problem here is that you really can't tolerate any ambiguity or uncertainty, and thus you try to come up with a list of rules in order to cope with the mess that is reality. This is not uncommon in people with either Austism or Asperger's Syndrome. A problem is that you live in a world of "neurotypicals" who don't have such an intolerance and can learn to cope with some ambiguity and thus see no need to construct such elaborate and ridged structures..

Finally, if the law truely were understandable all judicial decisions would be predictable in advance- and they aren't, to anybody.

I don't understand what you mean by "predictable" - please define this ambiguous term.

If you are convicted of, say, theft or attempted murder the punishment is predictable and is in fact laid out in text. Are you discomforted by the notion that at the beginning of a trial a conviction is not certain? Or is it that law can, in fact, changed from its original text?

At the moment I'm considering the status of words but am resorting more to the ethical point that it is immoral to force a law on somebody that they cannot perfectly understand. That argument does not depend on the nature of words anyway.

Since words are how the law is communicated to people I'd say yes, it does depend on the nature of words.

But, aside from that, the sort of perfection you seek does not exist. The world doesn't work that way.

[Flagg]

I really feel sorry for people who consider someone who, in order to disclose important widespread and invasive surveillance, gives up a comfortable life with a six figure salary in Hawaii "cowardly."

What exactly did Manning do that was "heroic"? Leak important information anonymously and then got sold out by a purported co-conspirator.

What did Snowden do that was cowardly? Leak important information openly, giving up his comfortable life and any hope of returning home to do so.

So, apparently it's heroic to do things anonymously, and cowardly to sign one's name. Or at least, that's the case in opposite land, from whence Flagg posted.

Hey bright boy, which one ran to Hong Kong and started giving the Chinese information about US hacking to ingratiate themselves with said foreign power so as to save his ass? Which one has repeatedly lied?

[Metahive]

An ordinary person has even less understanding of the law than I have due to lack of legal education.

The officer reading you your rights after a DUI arrest doesn't constitute legal education.

You don't have a perfect understanding of the law as it exists- nobody does, as it is too complicated.

What do you define as "perfect" understanding of the law?

Finally, if the law truely were understandable all judicial decisions would be predictable in advance- and they aren't, to anybody.

Something that autists have to deal with is that the world often doesn't work within rigid, perfectly defined codes and structures. The sooner you accept this fact the sooner you can start climbing out of the hole you're right now still busy digging.

[Carinthium]

Broomstick:

1- Not many, but I have taken a few classes in Law at school and University. I also have legal parents and have picked up a small amount by osmosis.
2- MOST people maybe, but not those who get unlucky. The phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" would not be needed if the number of convictions based on ignorance of the law was statistically insignificant. The myriad Court cases where it was ruled that a Federal Act was constitutional that by any sensible interpretation beforehand was unconstitutional, or where a person or corporation was sued due to the common law stretching or outright creation of a tort are another side to the same problem.

Besidse, I've explained my ethical argument for why a person has a right to such. Said argument is universial and not related to Aspergers, and is not dependent upon any Aspergers-centric assumptions. Finally, of course, your argument is ad hominem and therefore invalid in proper argument.

3- I mean that there would be no uncertainty about what result would occur on any question of law- people would know what the rules were and how they applied.

4-
a- Why should the nature of words in any way affect the moral principle? Are you acting from the "practicality, therefore morality" assumption again?

b- In the tradition of Immanuel Kant, I don't care about such "practicalities". The idea that they must be considered is a philosophical assumption you have yet to justify. IF it turns out to be true that avoiding ambiguity is impossible, I fully accept the logical conclusion of anarchism.

[Metahive]

1- Not many, but I have taken a few classes in Law at school and University. I also have legal parents and have picked up a small amount by osmosis.

So why then hasn't your concept of lawmaking not progressed since, well, ol' Hammurabi?

EDIT:

Besidse, I've explained my ethical argument for why a person has a right to such. Said argument is universial and not related to Aspergers, and is not dependent upon any Aspergers-centric assumptions.

It's damn well relevant since you're projecting your own mental disability upon the rest of humanity.

Finally, of course, your argument is ad hominem and therefore invalid in proper argument.

You know, I think it would be a worthwhile cause to deny the right to internet debate from everyone who uses the ad-hom improperly.

[Carinthium]

1- I don't simply accept everything I'm told uncritically- I may have learned that in practice judges make law, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Hence my arguments on retroactive law.

2- The validity of an argument does not depend upon the person who is arguing it. The facts I have outlined apply to a person with or without Aspergers, therefore your accusation is irrelevant.

3- How do you claim "ad hominem" should be used, then?

[loomer]

You know who else had legal educations? The vast majority of jurists. You know who had better legal educations than 'a few classes in schools in university'? The vast majority of jurists. Don't you dare claim you have a legal education you ignorant little cocksucker. It disgraces my profession.

[Carinthium]

I never said I had MUCH legal education- I only have a little, admittedly. But I still do have enough that "A little" is a good enough qualification.

[cosmicalstorm]

On the topic of "I have nothing to hide" I heard it mentioned that the average American citizen violates probably one, and possibly several federal laws every single day. Better hope that you did not make any enemies within the government or you might be in trouble when they have this panopticon knowledge of you.

[Broomstick]

1- Not many, but I have taken a few classes in Law at school and University. I also have legal parents and have picked up a small amount by osmosis.

"A few classes" does not constitute an education. How well did you do in those classes? Did you memorize by rote or do you have any actual understanding of the topic?

You see, earning a degree or passing a bar exam constitutes a credential. It shows that yes, you have met a certain standard and understanding. What you present means nothing.

Also - "osmosis" doesn't count. My father is a pharmacist, but I don't pretend that gives me any special insight into pharmacy or pharmaceuticals.

You also disregard that we have actual lawyers on this forum who have actual degrees and certifications, meaning they actually have proven their basic understanding of the topic. You, however, are no more an authority than I am.

2- MOST people maybe, but not those who get unlucky. The phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" would not be needed if the number of convictions based on ignorance of the law was statistically insignificant. The myriad Court cases where it was ruled that a Federal Act was constitutional that by any sensible interpretation beforehand was unconstitutional, or where a person or corporation was sued due to the common law stretching or outright creation of a tort are another side to the same problem.

"Ignorance of the law" is seldom invoked in reality in the sense you mean it. Please, provide actual statistics on how often people are convicted of violating laws they know nothing about.

Besidse, I've explained my ethical argument for why a person has a right to such. Said argument is universial and not related to Aspergers, and is not dependent upon any Aspergers-centric assumptions.

There are NO universal ethics. None. Sorry, sweetheart, but again, reality doesn't work the way you want it to. While there are some practices that are common by human groups I've yet to hear any universal ethical principal.

What's happening here is that you want reality to conform to your ideals. It doesn't. The world is as it is and not as we would have it. Grow the fuck up and deal with it, however you must. You're functional enough to get a coping mechanism like the rest of us do.

a- Why should the nature of words in any way affect the moral principle? Are you acting from the "practicality, therefore morality" assumption again?

Because words are how we communicate you moron. That's why language affects what we know, and how we know it, and how well we understand it.

b- In the tradition of Immanuel Kant, I don't care about such "practicalities".

Have you actually read Kant? (If you have, there is then the question of whether or not you understood any of it, but let's take this one step at a time...)

The idea that they must be considered is a philosophical assumption you have yet to justify. IF it turns out to be true that avoiding ambiguity is impossible, I fully accept the logical conclusion of anarchism.

You feckless ass, civilization is how humanity deals with the ambiguity of the world and AVOIDS anarchy. Anarchy sucks for everyone but the guy on top - and no one stays on top for long. Anarchy means the biggest badass takes your stuff, rapes you and your relatives, and makes you work for his benefit instead of yours. Does that sound like fun to you? Are you convinced, like most who are pro-anarchy, that you are the biggest and baddest? The odds are very much against it, AND on top of that you have a mental disability that puts you at enormous disadvantage in a constantly changing political landscape which means, at best you'd be someone's butt monkey, if they didn't just kill you outright for being so fucking annoying. Avoiding that horseshit is WHY we have laws in the first place. Maybe YOU don't like that but since I'm all too aware I am NOT the biggest and baddest I'll take civilization with all its flaws over that, thank you very much.

And yes, ambiguity is inevitable. It's present in the physical world, which is why we can't precisely predict the weather and then there's that whole sub-atomic uncertainty principle. It's present in any human society due to the constantly changing nature of social relations. You can't escape it. But, because the rest of us live in a world of spectrum from red to violent rather than a binary black/white world such as you do we learn to cope with the ambiguity. We learn that it's usually fine to go with 90% certainty instead of 100%. In other words, buddy-boy, you have a mental disability making you less able to navigate human society. That is unfortunate for you, it truly is. However, as many valued members of this forum have demonstrated by living life it is possible for someone with either autism or Asperger's to learn to compensate/cope with their disadvantage. Maybe, if you ask nicely, they'll have some pointers for you. Because, for damn sure, the rest of the world is not going to change to accommodate you. Welcome to adulthood, where you learn the need to adapt to reality.

[Broomstick]

On the topic of "I have nothing to hide" I heard it mentioned that the average American citizen violates probably one, and possibly several federal laws every single day.

I very much doubt that. Now, state or local laws that might be true. I mean, it's quite likely I drove 26 mph through a school zone rather than 25 mph yesterday. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that is that draconian in law enforcement that they'd pull over someone doing 1 mph over the speed limit even if that is technically a violation.

[loomer]

Don't expect Carinthium to have read Kant, Broomstick. He doesn't seem to think he needs to know what better and wiser men than him have actually said to be able to argue about their views.

[cosmicalstorm]

On the topic of "I have nothing to hide" I heard it mentioned that the average American citizen violates probably one, and possibly several federal laws every single day.

I very much doubt that. Now, state or local laws that might be true. I mean, it's quite likely I drove 26 mph through a school zone rather than 25 mph yesterday. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that is that draconian in law enforcement that they'd pull over someone doing 1 mph over the speed limit even if that is technically a violation.

I found the article that I was referring too. I'm no expert in US law so maybe this is incorrect?

No One is Innocent

by Alex Tabarrok on June 21, 2013 at 7:22 am in History, Law, Political Science | Permalink

I broke the law yesterday and again today and I will probably break the law tomorrow. Don’t mistake me, I have done nothing wrong. I don’t even know what laws I have broken. Nevertheless, I am reasonably confident that I have broken some laws, rules, or regulations recently because its hard for anyone to live today without breaking the law. Doubt me? Have you ever thrown out some junk mail that came to your house but was addressed to someone else? That’s a violation of federal law punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

Harvey Silverglate argues that a typical American commits three felonies a day. I think that number is too high but it is easy to violate the law without intent or knowledge. Most crimes used to be based on the common law and ancient understandings of wrong (murder, assault, theft and so on) but today there are thousands of federal criminal laws that bear no relation to common law or common understanding. The WSJ illustrates:

Last September (2011), retired race-car champion Bobby Unser told a congressional hearing about his 1996 misdemeanor conviction for accidentally driving a snowmobile onto protected federal land, violating the Wilderness Act, while lost in a snowstorm. Though the judge gave him only a $75 fine, the 77-year-old racing legend got a criminal record.

Mr. Unser says he was charged after he went to authorities for help finding his abandoned snowmobile. “The criminal doesn’t usually call the police for help,” he says.

Or how about this:

In 2009, Mr. Anderson loaned his son some tools to dig for arrowheads near a favorite campground of theirs. Unfortunately, they were on federal land….

There is no evidence the Andersons intended to break the law, or even knew the law existed, according to court records and interviews. But the law, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, doesn’t require criminal intent and makes it a felony punishable by up to two years in prison to attempt to take artifacts off federal land without a permit.

The Anderson’s didn’t even find any arrowheads but the attempt to find was punishable by imprisonment. Under statutes such as the Lacey Act one can even face criminal prosecution for violating the laws of another country. Ignorance of another country’s laws is no excuse.

If someone tracked you for a year are you confident that they would find no evidence of a crime? Remember, under the common law, mens rea, criminal intent, was a standard requirement for criminal prosecution but today that is typically no longer the case especially under federal criminal law .

Faced with the evidence of an non-intentional crime, most prosecutors, of course, would use their discretion and not threaten imprisonment. Evidence and discretion, however, are precisely the point. Today, no one is innocent and thus our freedom is maintained only by the high cost of evidence and the prosecutor’s discretion.

One of the responses to the revelations about the mass spying on Americans by the NSA and other agencies is “I have nothing to hide. What me worry?” I tweeted in response “If you have nothing to hide, you live a boring life.” More fundamentally, the NSA spying machine has reduced the cost of evidence so that today our freedom–or our independence–is to a large extent at the discretion of those in control of the panopticon.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... rXY7d.dpuf

[Carinthium]

And there one of my points is made for me.

I would also ask people to keep off the ad hominem attacks- they are irrelevant to the argument, after all.

"A few classes" does not constitute an education. How well did you do in those classes? Did you memorize by rote or do you have any actual understanding of the topic?

You see, earning a degree or passing a bar exam constitutes a credential. It shows that yes, you have met a certain standard and understanding. What you present means nothing.

Also - "osmosis" doesn't count. My father is a pharmacist, but I don't pretend that gives me any special insight into pharmacy or pharmaceuticals.

You also disregard that we have actual lawyers on this forum who have actual degrees and certifications, meaning they actually have proven their basic understanding of the topic. You, however, are no more an authority than I am.

1- So we have different meanings of what "a little" means, then.
2- You seem to have an assumption that people need to have learned about a topic through formal education in order to argue about it. Justify that assumption, particularly keeping in mind that a large part of this is Ethics.

There are NO universal ethics. None. Sorry, sweetheart, but again, reality doesn't work the way you want it to. While there are some practices that are common by human groups I've yet to hear any universal ethical principal.

What's happening here is that you want reality to conform to your ideals. It doesn't. The world is as it is and not as we would have it. Grow the fuck up and deal with it, however you must. You're functional enough to get a coping mechanism like the rest of us do.

It depends how you define "universial ethics". If you mean "moral sentiments all human share" then yes, there are universial ethics.

ANYBODY with morals wants reality to conform to their ideals, not just me. Unless you're completely 100% happy with the world as it is and see no problems with anything happening in it.

Because words are how we communicate you moron. That's why language affects what we know, and how we know it, and how well we understand it.

How, other than through pragmatism, can you make an argument from the nature of words against my ethical argument earlier? They are two different areas.

Have you actually read Kant? (If you have, there is then the question of whether or not you understood any of it, but let's take this one step at a time...)

"The tradition of deontology" might be more accurate, but it comes to the same thing- moral values should not be compromised by pragmatism.

You feckless ass, civilization is how humanity deals with the ambiguity of the world and AVOIDS anarchy. Anarchy sucks for everyone but the guy on top - and no one stays on top for long. Anarchy means the biggest badass takes your stuff, rapes you and your relatives, and makes you work for his benefit instead of yours. Does that sound like fun to you? Are you convinced, like most who are pro-anarchy, that you are the biggest and baddest? The odds are very much against it, AND on top of that you have a mental disability that puts you at enormous disadvantage in a constantly changing political landscape which means, at best you'd be someone's butt monkey, if they didn't just kill you outright for being so fucking annoying. Avoiding that horseshit is WHY we have laws in the first place. Maybe YOU don't like that but since I'm all too aware I am NOT the biggest and baddest I'll take civilization with all its flaws over that, thank you very much.

I never claimed I would be at the top in an anarchic society- what I claimed was that because the alternative is morally wrong, I am obliged to work for anarchy as the alternative.

Most of your second argument is ad hominem. The nature of how words work is irrelevant to my argument that lack of understandability in law is morally wrong.

[loomer]

And what a surprise. He hasn't read Kant, either.

[Metahive]

Carny, learn the difference between an insult and an ad-hom FFS. Also, your debate tactic is to erect a nice high wall of ignorance with pretentkousness and smug as mortar. You talk about pragmatism despite setting unreasonably high standards, you talk about ethics despite being unable to treat other people as moral entities, you talk about lawmaking despite having a severe deficiency to handle abstractions, you talk about theories and ideas as if you're some sort of knowledgeable authority despite having never actually read up on them and you think that every other human being shares your disabilifies.

If I were to write an essay about the Dunning-Krueger effecr, your postd alone would suffice as case study.

[Terralthra]

Hey bright boy, which one ran to Hong Kong and started giving the Chinese information about US hacking to ingratiate themselves with said foreign power so as to save his ass?

N.S.A. Leaker Denies Giving Secrets to China

WASHINGTON — Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who has confessed to disclosing troves of highly classified documents detailing American surveillance at home and abroad, said Monday that he had not given any classified materials to the government of China.

“This is a predictable smear that I anticipated before going public,” Mr. Snowden, who is believed to be in hiding in Hong Kong, said in an online question-and-answer session on the Web site of The Guardian, the British newspaper that has published most of the secret information to date. He said that such speculation was “intended to distract from the issue of U.S. government misconduct.”

“Ask yourself: If I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn’t I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now,” he said.

President Obama, meanwhile, defended the legality of the N.S.A. programs disclosed by Mr. Snowden, as well as their importance in preventing terrorism, in his most extensive comments to date on the programs.

“The one thing people should understand about all these programs, though, is they have disrupted plots, not just here in the United States but overseas as well,” Mr. Obama said on the “Charlie Rose” show on PBS in an interview recorded Sunday and broadcast Monday night. He added that many other factors were at work in stopping attacks, saying “at the margins we are increasing our chances of preventing a catastrophe like that through these programs.”

But Mr. Obama said he wanted to prompt “a national conversation” about the programs and the broader trade-offs between the use of “big data” by government and companies and possible intrusions on privacy. He said he had urged intelligence officials to see what more information they could make public about the surveillance programs without jeopardizing security.

“We’re going to have to find ways where the public has an assurance that there are checks and balances in place, that they have enough information about how we operate that they know their phone calls aren’t being listened to, their text messages aren’t being monitored, their e-mails are not being read by some Big Brother somewhere,” the president said.

A new CNN/ORC International poll showed that Americans were divided over the domestic surveillance programs and that in the wake of several recent controversies, Mr. Obama’s approval rating had slipped to 45 percent from 53 percent in mid-May.

Even as Mr. Obama tried to calm public fears about the N.S.A. programs, Mr. Snowden defended his claim to be a whistle-blower alerting the world to intelligence excesses, and he denied accusations that he had betrayed the United States.

Mr. Snowden’s choice to go to Hong Kong to denounce oppressive government surveillance, and his decision to tell the South China Morning Post about N.S.A. hacking into computers in mainland China and Hong Kong last week, has fueled accusations of disloyalty to the United States. On Sunday, former Vice President Dick Cheney called Mr. Snowden a “traitor” and hinted he might be spying for China.

But Mr. Snowden denied any contact with the Chinese government and said it was “the highest honor you can give an American” to be called a traitor by Mr. Cheney, whom he denounced as “a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead.”

Asked why he did not go directly to Iceland, where he has said he would like to obtain asylum, Mr. Snowden said he sought a place where he was less likely to be immediately arrested.

“There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained,” he said. “Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current U.S. administration.”

In answering questions for about 90 minutes, Mr. Snowden said there was “no single moment” in which he decided to act, but denounced “a continuing litany of lies” both from senior government officials to Congress and Congressional leaders. In particular, he accused James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, of “baldly lying to the public without repercussion,” saying that such actions subverted democratic accountability.

Since the disclosure that the N.S.A. has been keeping records of nearly all domestic calls, Mr. Clapper has come under particular scrutiny. In March, asked at a Senate hearing whether the security agency collected “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans,” he replied, “No, sir. Not wittingly.” He later explained that was the “least untruthful” answer he could give in a public setting about a classified program.

Mr. Snowden also suggested that his decision to leak the information about United States government surveillance was influenced in part by the Obama administration’s harsh crackdown on leakers; the administration has filed charges in six cases, so far, compared with three under all previous presidents combined, and several of those charged have been portrayed as heroes and martyrs by supporters.

Mr. Snowden mentioned by name two former N.S.A. officials — Thomas A. Drake and William E. Binney — who were investigated for leaking. Mr. Binney was not prosecuted, while the prosecution of Mr. Drake, in connection with the disclosure of information about wasteful spending at the agency, collapsed.

He also mentioned John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. operative who spoke openly about waterboarding and later pleaded guilty to disclosing classified information about a fellow C.I.A. officer; and Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army private who confessed to being the source for archives of materials published by WikiLeaks.

“Binney, Drake, Kiriakou and Manning are all examples of how overly harsh responses to public-interest whistle-blowing only escalate the scale, scope and skill involved in future disclosures,” he wrote. “Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrongdoing simply because they’ll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it. Instead, these draconian responses simply build better whistle-blowers.”

Mr. Snowden disputed officials’ assertions that surveillance programs pose no danger to civil liberties, saying that only “limited policy protections” are in effect rather than technology designed to restrict the N.S.A.’s access to Americans’ communications.

But Mr. Snowden, who also did computer work for the C.I.A., made clear that he objected not only to surveillance targeting Americans, like the call-log program, but also to some American spying on foreigners abroad. Asked how many sets of the documents he has made and how dispersed they are now, Mr. Snowden hinted that he had some kind of backup file in case something happened to him.

“All I can say right now is the U.S. government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me,” he said. “Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.”

Peter Baker contributed reporting.

Regarding whether you have secretly given classified information to the Chinese government, some are saying you didn't answer clearly - can you give a flat no?

Answer:
No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just like with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists.

Which one has repeatedly lied?

Evidence?

[Thanas]

I never said I had MUCH legal education- I only have a little, admittedly. But I still do have enough that "A little" is a good enough qualification.

Well seeing as we actually have quite a few lawyers on this board I don't think that "a little is good enough" is going to fly here. It certainly does not do so in my opinion.

I hope we can get this cowardly little shit back. Shame that heroes like Manning go down but little fuckers that run to China seem to be getting away with it.

The hell is this?

[Flagg]

Hey bright boy, which one ran to Hong Kong and started giving the Chinese information about US hacking to ingratiate themselves with said foreign power so as to save his ass?

N.S.A. Leaker Denies Giving Secrets to China

WASHINGTON — Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who has confessed to disclosing troves of highly classified documents detailing American surveillance at home and abroad, said Monday that he had not given any classified materials to the government of China.

“This is a predictable smear that I anticipated before going public,” Mr. Snowden, who is believed to be in hiding in Hong Kong, said in an online question-and-answer session on the Web site of The Guardian, the British newspaper that has published most of the secret information to date. He said that such speculation was “intended to distract from the issue of U.S. government misconduct.”

“Ask yourself: If I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn’t I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now,” he said.

President Obama, meanwhile, defended the legality of the N.S.A. programs disclosed by Mr. Snowden, as well as their importance in preventing terrorism, in his most extensive comments to date on the programs.

“The one thing people should understand about all these programs, though, is they have disrupted plots, not just here in the United States but overseas as well,” Mr. Obama said on the “Charlie Rose” show on PBS in an interview recorded Sunday and broadcast Monday night. He added that many other factors were at work in stopping attacks, saying “at the margins we are increasing our chances of preventing a catastrophe like that through these programs.”

But Mr. Obama said he wanted to prompt “a national conversation” about the programs and the broader trade-offs between the use of “big data” by government and companies and possible intrusions on privacy. He said he had urged intelligence officials to see what more information they could make public about the surveillance programs without jeopardizing security.

“We’re going to have to find ways where the public has an assurance that there are checks and balances in place, that they have enough information about how we operate that they know their phone calls aren’t being listened to, their text messages aren’t being monitored, their e-mails are not being read by some Big Brother somewhere,” the president said.

A new CNN/ORC International poll showed that Americans were divided over the domestic surveillance programs and that in the wake of several recent controversies, Mr. Obama’s approval rating had slipped to 45 percent from 53 percent in mid-May.

Even as Mr. Obama tried to calm public fears about the N.S.A. programs, Mr. Snowden defended his claim to be a whistle-blower alerting the world to intelligence excesses, and he denied accusations that he had betrayed the United States.

Mr. Snowden’s choice to go to Hong Kong to denounce oppressive government surveillance, and his decision to tell the South China Morning Post about N.S.A. hacking into computers in mainland China and Hong Kong last week, has fueled accusations of disloyalty to the United States. On Sunday, former Vice President Dick Cheney called Mr. Snowden a “traitor” and hinted he might be spying for China.

But Mr. Snowden denied any contact with the Chinese government and said it was “the highest honor you can give an American” to be called a traitor by Mr. Cheney, whom he denounced as “a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead.”

Asked why he did not go directly to Iceland, where he has said he would like to obtain asylum, Mr. Snowden said he sought a place where he was less likely to be immediately arrested.

“There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained,” he said. “Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current U.S. administration.”

In answering questions for about 90 minutes, Mr. Snowden said there was “no single moment” in which he decided to act, but denounced “a continuing litany of lies” both from senior government officials to Congress and Congressional leaders. In particular, he accused James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, of “baldly lying to the public without repercussion,” saying that such actions subverted democratic accountability.

Since the disclosure that the N.S.A. has been keeping records of nearly all domestic calls, Mr. Clapper has come under particular scrutiny. In March, asked at a Senate hearing whether the security agency collected “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans,” he replied, “No, sir. Not wittingly.” He later explained that was the “least untruthful” answer he could give in a public setting about a classified program.

Mr. Snowden also suggested that his decision to leak the information about United States government surveillance was influenced in part by the Obama administration’s harsh crackdown on leakers; the administration has filed charges in six cases, so far, compared with three under all previous presidents combined, and several of those charged have been portrayed as heroes and martyrs by supporters.

Mr. Snowden mentioned by name two former N.S.A. officials — Thomas A. Drake and William E. Binney — who were investigated for leaking. Mr. Binney was not prosecuted, while the prosecution of Mr. Drake, in connection with the disclosure of information about wasteful spending at the agency, collapsed.

He also mentioned John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. operative who spoke openly about waterboarding and later pleaded guilty to disclosing classified information about a fellow C.I.A. officer; and Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army private who confessed to being the source for archives of materials published by WikiLeaks.

“Binney, Drake, Kiriakou and Manning are all examples of how overly harsh responses to public-interest whistle-blowing only escalate the scale, scope and skill involved in future disclosures,” he wrote. “Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrongdoing simply because they’ll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it. Instead, these draconian responses simply build better whistle-blowers.”

Mr. Snowden disputed officials’ assertions that surveillance programs pose no danger to civil liberties, saying that only “limited policy protections” are in effect rather than technology designed to restrict the N.S.A.’s access to Americans’ communications.

But Mr. Snowden, who also did computer work for the C.I.A., made clear that he objected not only to surveillance targeting Americans, like the call-log program, but also to some American spying on foreigners abroad. Asked how many sets of the documents he has made and how dispersed they are now, Mr. Snowden hinted that he had some kind of backup file in case something happened to him.

“All I can say right now is the U.S. government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me,” he said. “Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.”

Peter Baker contributed reporting.

Regarding whether you have secretly given classified information to the Chinese government, some are saying you didn't answer clearly - can you give a flat no?

Answer:
No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just like with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists.

Which one has repeatedly lied?

Evidence?

"I didn't give it to China, just Chinese newspapers!" And we should even believe him, why? He's lied about his salary and he clearly lied about his intentions as he must have spent all 3 months working for the CIA as a contractor searching and downloading materials to "expose" a program known publicly since 2006. Real heroes, like Manning, do their work anonymously and don't seek out attention like this troll has. They don't run and hide in foreign powers only to surface occasionally to troll. The guy is a first class narcissistic scumbag real life troll who deserves to rot in prison for 30 years. Just like every other spy.

[Terralthra]

Which one has repeatedly lied?

Evidence?

"I didn't give it to China, just Chinese newspapers!" And we should even believe him, why? He's lied about his salary and he clearly lied about his intentions as he must have spent all 3 months working for the CIA as a contractor searching and downloading materials to "expose" a program known publicly since 2006. Real heroes, like Manning, do their work anonymously and don't seek out attention like this troll has. They don't run and hide in foreign powers only to surface occasionally to troll. The guy is a first class narcissistic scumbag real life troll who deserves to rot in prison for 30 years. Just like every other spy.

Question: D. Aram Mushegian II
17 June 2013 2:16pm
Did you lie about your salary? What is the issue there? Why did you tell Glenn Greenwald that your salary was $200,000 a year, when it was only $122,000 (according to the firm that fired you.)

Answer:
I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been paid.

Oops, foundering on the evidence side.

[Ralin]

"I didn't give it to China, just Chinese newspapers!" And we should even believe him, why? He's lied about his salary and he clearly lied about his intentions as he must have spent all 3 months working for the CIA as a contractor searching and downloading materials to "expose" a program known publicly since 2006. Real heroes, like Manning, do their work anonymously and don't seek out attention like this troll has. They don't run and hide in foreign powers only to surface occasionally to troll. The guy is a first class narcissistic scumbag real life troll who deserves to rot in prison for 30 years. Just like every other spy.

Uh, Flagg, I think you're stretching a bit here. Hong Kong is not China and the South China Morning Post does not report to Beijing.

Bear in mind you're talking about the city that's had public Tiananmen Square commemoration rallies for the past twenty years.

[Flagg]

"I didn't give it to China, just Chinese newspapers!" And we should even believe him, why? He's lied about his salary and he clearly lied about his intentions as he must have spent all 3 months working for the CIA as a contractor searching and downloading materials to "expose" a program known publicly since 2006. Real heroes, like Manning, do their work anonymously and don't seek out attention like this troll has. They don't run and hide in foreign powers only to surface occasionally to troll. The guy is a first class narcissistic scumbag real life troll who deserves to rot in prison for 30 years. Just like every other spy.

Question: D. Aram Mushegian II
17 June 2013 2:16pm
Did you lie about your salary? What is the issue there? Why did you tell Glenn Greenwald that your salary was $200,000 a year, when it was only $122,000 (according to the firm that fired you.)

Answer:
I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been paid.

Oops, foundering on the evidence side.

The word of a liar isn't worth dick to me, so keep trying to defend the spy. It's funny.

[Terralthra]

Evidence that he's a spy? Evidence that he lied about his salary (as opposed to slightly inaccurate reporting of current vs. max salary)? Oh, wait, providing evidence for your views would be too hard. Keep masturbating about your spy-punishing fantasies.