Snowden Says He Took No Secret Files To Russia

mspohr writes "There's an interesting interview with Edward Snowden in the NY Times. He talks freely about his decision to start collecting documents. His experience in reporting problems and abuse convinced him he would be discredited. He also states he didn't take any of the documents to Russia and that the Chinese don't have them either. 'What would be the unique value of personally carrying another copy of the materials onward? There's a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents,' he said. Snowden turned them all over to the journalists. He also corrects last week's NY Times story about the derogatory comment in his personnel file; it was due to him discovering and trying to report a vulnerability in the CIA's internal software."

Comments

Only moose and squirrel have them

[TWiTfan]

Once again our heroic leakers foil the bumbling Russkies!

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

If only there was proof. At this point the British believe that the Chinese, the Russians, or both, have copies of all the documents that Snowden took.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what the British DON'T believe in? Toothpaste!

Thank you folks, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to try out our delicious Potato Bar.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there were proof that they did have the documents. Better to spread FUD no matter the case, right?

"Land of the free, home of the brave". Biggest joke of all time. Osama may be dead but he won the war with such success far beyond his wildest dreams.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Guru80]

I have a feeling that if one, or both, nations had received the documents we would know about it by now. Not directly of course but there would have been some kind of communication or statement made somewhere that made it obvious that they know more than has been revealed. It's almost a certainty that they have managed to get their hands on even more sensitive information than the whistle-blowing that Snowden has done, it's an inevitability in a connected world and they don't need him for that.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Desler]

But there doesn't need to be proof. Simply making assertions that they do is enough to get the character assassination of the whistleblower under way. And the good "patriots" like cold fjord will eat it up without ever asking for any real evidence to back up the claims.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[MickyTheIdiot]

Prove that they *don't* have something? Yeah.. that'll work.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

Oh we know they have at least some of the documents, they can read US and UK TOP SECRET documents in the newspapers just like anybody else. They can then use those for their intelligence analysis, or to fill in missing pieces. Before they would have had to get an infiltrator to obtain them, now they can just go to the Guardian. And that's assuming that they haven't managed to obtain either voluntary or clandestine copies of documents from the Guardian or other papers with the documents. Do you recall that Mr. Greenwald's lover was carrying electronic copies of many documents with him, as well as a scribbled note with the password? Funny how we never seem to get releases of Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iranian, North Korean or other documents.

Bin Laden wants the West to turn to Islam. He failed. But it probably doesn't matter much in the long term since much of the West is heading towards a demographic death spiral. The future belongs to those who show up.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Faluzeer]

If only there was proof. At this point the British believe that the Chinese, the Russians, or both, have copies of all the documents that Snowden took.

Hmmm

Who believes that? The security services or the Politicians? I cannot help but remember that prior to the Iraq war the UK's security services produced reports on WMD in Iraq that were full of cautions about the evidence, these cautions were subsequently removed as the report was doctored, or "firmed up" as it was referred to, when the Politicians and their advisor's got involved when trying to make a case for war,

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama by his actions (or inactions) becomes a proxy of Osama.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

That's right. And there is equal proof that Snowden didn't make them available in some fashion.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[pla]

At this point the British believe that the Chinese, the Russians, or both, have copies of all the documents that Snowden took.

Considering that Snowden shared those files with journalists on both sides of the pond, I see no reason to doubt that belief - Nor do I consider it particularly meaningful.

The British might as well believe that the Chinese and Russians have copies of NyanCat, for all it matters.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh we know they have at least some of the documents, they can read US and UK TOP SECRET documents in the newspapers just like anybody else

Which is not what you were talking about. Lame equivocation is lame. You said:

At this point the British believe that the Chinese, the Russians, or both, have copies of all the documents that Snowden took.

From your lame backpedaling answer it can only be assumed you have no evidence of your previous claim.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Sique]

And there is equal proof that cold fjord didn't make them available in some fashion.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Desler]

So there's no proof but yet you keep spreading the claim as if it were true. Almost as if your whole point was the spread FUD instead of truth.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't enjoy your delicious Potato Bar due to poor dental hygiene, I'm British, you insensitive clod!

(Actually, it's dentists we don't believe in, having never been able to find one -- whereas by comparison toothpaste is readily available)

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

Quite the contrary. The Russians and Chinese have access to US & UK top secret documents the same as anyone else that goes to various web sites.

One thing you are discounting is the chain of lies and around Snowden's activities. One very interesting example of which is the birthday party at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong when the Russians later claimed that they had no idea he was coming to Moscow.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[darien.train]

Bin Laden's stated goal was not to turn the west to Islam. Why would he want a bunch of white devils screwing up his precious Islam. He hated us remember?

His goal was to destroy Wall St and the US/Saudi economy (He was mad at his rich family and their rich US friends - Like the Bush's and Clintons!). Hence crashing planes into our primary economic hub. Remember that part? Makes much more sense as a tactic for financial ruin opposed to a recruiting strategy wouldn't you say?

In 2004, Bin Laden released a tape to Al-Jazeera where the former head of Al Qaeda laid out the purpose of the 9/11 attacks, and the organization’s goals. “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” Bin Laden said.

This is why I always laugh at the phrase "Never Forget." Everyone keeps forgetting!

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[CanHasDIY]

Quite the contrary. The Russians and Chinese have access to US & UK top secret documents the same as anyone else that goes to various web sites.

One thing you are discounting is the chain of lies and around Snowden's activities. One very interesting example of which is the birthday party at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong when the Russians later claimed that they had no idea he was coming to Moscow.

The fact that there are no angels in Hell doesn't change the other fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that Snowden directly handed files over to anyone other than Glen Greenwald. "Oh, they can read it in the paper like everyone else!" Big fucking deal - we're not talking about that, we're talking about the claims that he directly and intentionally gave top secret documents to the Chinese and Russian governments; a claim Snowden has denied, and to date not a single fucking soul has managed to prove.

I know this is a bit lofty of an ideal for statists like yourself to understand, but there's this concept called "presumption of innocence" that requires there to be actual evidence of what you claim before you're allowed to nail someone's ass to a tree.

Crazy idea, I know.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[AHuxley]

Cold a quick data dump form the US NSA is of little use to the Russians or China. Now Snowden has left, the NSA can work back over what given free to the press.
Russia would have wanted him to stay on as they tried to do with their long term gov assets in the GCHQ or NSA. Get the real gov job and move up to planning and policy, the gems of the NSA, well beyond basic contracting admin work. That would take years of effort and more education, clearances. Russia could have seen great results in 10-20 years.
China has a lot of students in the US - they learn as US academics discover - what the US knows, China knows by default.
Long term "Intelligence analysis, or to fill in missing pieces" is gifted/sold via people on much higher pay grades than a walk in admin: the Russians actually build trust with their spies.
A big dump of data for "free" might be a CIA/MI6 trap ....
As for releases of Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iranian, North Korean - MI6 and the CIA often get huge amounts of data for the gift of cash and a new life.
With Russia they know not to allow too many people to have to much real data anymore.
China hides its data from its own people and fills in with stats that looks great to any reader - all junk.
Cuba Iran and NK have learned from Russia after years of CIA and MI6 attempts - keep it all hidden, mixed up and in small parts.
Sort of what the NSA did for many years but then forgot when it hired contractors ~ 10 years ago :)
The final aspect is just understanding docs from Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iran or North Korean - is it a person seeking a new life, a trap, junk or real.
A person telling the CIA or MI6 all about bunkers, factories, generals, exports, imports and then waits for a new house, car and identity.

Re: Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh they probably have a copy, not from Snowden though since they probably obtained them years ago.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry about your cornflakes.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

The presumption of innocence applies to a trial, not public discussions. But Snowden isn't innocent anyway - he has admitted to taking the documents and fleeing with them. The only question is who exactly was on his distribution list. Maybe he is telling the truth, maybe not. If he is, it would be the first time in a long time after lying about so many things to get access to the documents, and then having so many lies about his flight to Russia. And the FSB has apparently been involved with him since at least Hong Kong, if not before. At least one former Soviet bloc intelligence general believe that Snowden is a Russian agent. It may be years before we determine the truth, if ever. It was years after the Chinese stole the design data for the most advanced US nuclear warhead, the W88, before someone walked into the embassy with proof. You're free to believe what you want. I'll probably believe something different based on the evidence.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[TapeCutter]

Do you recall that Mr. Greenwald's lover was carrying electronic copies of many documents with him, as well as a scribbled note with the password?

Yes, I also seem to recall the UK government "probed" Mr Greenwald's lover for 8-9 hour before letting him thru the border. Pretty sure they wouldn't have done that if they had found a "spy". What Snowden did was most certainly illegal. I'm not so sure it was "wrong", but I'm sure as hell that baying for his crucifixion based on what been reported so far is immoral. .

Having said that I think there' more than political "coincidence" to the timing. Just prior to it hitting the news Obama was loudly beating his chest telling the world he was "not going to put up with cyber spying from China". The meeting was supposed to be a big deal, Obama was going to get tough with "cyber-spies", the meeting was blown off the front pages by the Snowden story. Talk about "egg meets face", the US tried to claim the moral high ground by loudly proclaiming it was China who was spying on everyone, it's my contention the Chinese responded by pulling Uncle Sam's pants down in front of the whole world (politically speaking).

When you look at the political powerhouses on the planet, Russia, US, EU and China, it's China (a federation of ancient empires) that shows the most unity at the top and given it's miraculous economic rise from famines to fortunes over the last 40yrs they have very strong support amongst the people. "Good", "evil", "apathetic", doesn't matter what kind of empire/republic it is, unity will win the day when push turns to shove..

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

Saddam considered the Iranians to be a strategic threat to Iraq and discounted the possibility that the West & UN would act against him in a forceful manner. As a result Saddam had his government continue to act as if they still had WMDs to fool the Iranians after they had secretly disposed of their VX nerve gas after previous fooling the inspectors. (It sounds stupid, but that was Saddam.) Saddam's strategic deception was such a success that he was invaded for it.

If it makes you feel any better, there were unfilled chemical warheads found for Iraq's long range missiles. With a native chemical industry that had previous experience making chemical agents they could have been filled in the future. The disarmament agencies also recovered a number of anthrax bombs. I'm sure there is more. And the other causes of action were still true, such as the massacres of the Kurds - a crime against humanity, and Iraq's support for terrorism.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[MightyYar]

West is heading towards a demographic death spiral

Immigration? It's what we do in the US to keep our population up.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

Bin Laden's stated goal was not to turn the west to Islam. Why would he want a bunch of white devils screwing up his precious Islam. He hated us remember?

Islam is open to people of all races. It isn't a question of race, and I'm not sure how you got that.

In his letter to America, Bin Laden's first demand was for conversion to Islam. That is consistent with al Qaida's long term goal of bringing about Muslim rule of the world under their variety of Sharia law. Providing such a warning is also consistent with the demands of their culture in making holy war.

Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

As to your Bin Laden quote, that is only to achieve an intermediate aim of reducing the US ability to resist their goals. The long range goal is the same - conversion to Islam, or destruction.

The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Fwipp]

But it probably doesn't matter much in the long term since much of the West is heading towards a demographic death spiral. The future belongs to those who show up.

Oh no, another doomsayer lamenting the imminent extinction of white folk via not having enough babies. What a terrible loss, that will be.

Of course, this is only if you believe that white folk are inherently more special than people of other colors.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

There is a difference. The US birth rate is much closer to the replacement rate of 2.1. Some parts of Europe are at or below 1.3, which halves a population in about 45 years. For the US the primary source of immigrants is Catholic Mexico. Although Mexicans have their own distinct culture, they are not fundamentally hostile to the US and its culture. Europe is brining in many immigrants that are fundamentally hostile to its culture and reject it, if not in the generation that immigrates, the one after it. Unless current trends change, Europe may very well be in a civil war in 30-50 years.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

When native Europe goes, it will take its culture with it. Many of the immigrants reject it.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[pr0nbot]

"[...] a scribbled note with the password" was what the intelligence agencies reported. Greenwald denied it (on Newsnight the other day).

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[MacDork]

In 2004, Bin Laden released a tape to Al-Jazeera where the former head of Al Qaeda laid out the purpose of the 9/11 attacks, and the organization’s goals. “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” Bin Laden said.

This is why I always laugh at the phrase "Never Forget." Everyone keeps forgetting!

I hear they even have insiders with the same agenda in the US congress.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[3.5 stripes]

So Mr Astroturf, if Mr Greenwald's lover was carrying a scribbled password with the encrypted documents.. why exactly are they not able to decrypt the contents of the thumbdrive, and say exactly what documents he was carrying?

Hint, they were lying, and you're either accepting it all at face value, or trying to promote their agenda..

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't lucifer supposed to be a fallen angel, and resident in hell?

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[CanHasDIY]

You think you're good at deflection, but you're actually terrible at it.

The presumption of innocence applies to a trial, not public discussions

Which is probably why I said

requires there to be actual evidence of what you claim before you're allowed to nail someone's ass to a tree.

Natch.

But Snowden isn't innocent anyway - he has admitted to taking the documents and fleeing with them.

Hey, weren't those goalposts over here a minute ago? As I recall, we are discussing the accusation that he turned documents over to the Chinese and/or Russian governments, not whether he took them in the first place.

Please try and keep up.

Maybe he is telling the truth, maybe not. If he is, it would be the first time in a long time after lying about so many things to get access to the documents, and then having so many lies about his flight to Russia. And the FSB has apparently been involved with him since at least Hong Kong, if not before. At least one former Soviet bloc intelligence general believe that Snowden is a Russian agent.

... and my point is, without actual evidence proving any of these claims, then he should be assumed to be innocent.

Really, it's not like this is some new and novel concept I'm positing; it's hard to believe that you honestly just don't get the concept of 'presumption of innocence' - rather, the more likely circumstance is that you're being intentionally obtuse in a pathetic attempt to avoid admission that you're being a completely unreasonable person in this regard. Of course, I wouldn't throw around such an accusation if not for the evidence of your post history.

You're free to believe what you want. I'll probably believe something different based on the evidence.

Considering that you are the one who's making baseless claims on a distinct lack of evidence, that statement is hilariously ironic.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

It's OK, but please try to hold it in in future.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[WhatHump]

Like Schrödinger's cat, we are all both guilty and innocent at the same time within the box of secret anti-terror laws passed by the government. Unless you can read the law (which most citizens can't), you cannot determine for certain whether you are complying with these laws or not. I suggest we all turn ourselves into the nearest federal law enforcement agency and ask them to prove we are innocent. Otherwise, we must be guilty and should be locked up, right?

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[darien.train]

"Come to Islam" is rhetorical. It's boilerplate AQ copy that doesn't mean anything. It's PR for his own recruiting strategy. That letter is as much to potential recruits as it is to the American people. I believe he refers to us as "Friends of Satan" a few lines down from there.

Crashing planes into world financial centers is direct cause and effect for a stated military/economic goal. Which of the two goals do you think BL thought he could actually pull off?

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Fwipp]

Taking your argument at face value, do a "s/white folk/white culture/g" on my previous post.

Seems to me that if everybody who cares about something is dead, it doesn't much matter what happens to it. People have a tendency to preserve that which is important to them, whether that's the traditions of their ancestors or a prototype Commodore64 with all-original hardware.

Also, first-wave immigrants have always "rejected" their new country's culture, causing fears about being "taken over". It is my understanding that the recent immigration to Europe is little different than most others, with the first wave retaining much of their ways, and subsequent generations beginning to assimilate and meld the two cultures. If you are American, you might know that Irish immigrants in the mid 1800's were not well-liked. Concerns were raised about their Catholicism being incompatible with "American" Protestantism, and more than a few people went so far as to say that they were non-white (playing to racist fears).

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

oh bugger off.

If you don't know by now this 'war on terror' is an utter hoax there's no hope for you.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

"Come to Islam" is rhetorical. It's boilerplate AQ copy that doesn't mean anything. It's PR for his own recruiting strategy. That letter is as much to potential recruits as it is to the American people. I believe he refers to us as "Friends of Satan" a few lines down from there.

Indeed, you have to be aware of the cultural context to understand someone's writing. To wage holy war, he has an obligation to first offer the target the chance to convert and avoid war. If he disregards this then would-be jihadis will not consider his cause to be righteous.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[MightyYar]

EU is 1.6, US is 1.8. Sure, Europe is lower but they are in the same general class. Remember that the US has a much larger immigrant population and immigrants have a higher fertility rate. Something like 40 million of the US population is foreign born - that's well over 13%. In contrast, the foreign born population of the EU sits at 4%. Increase that to 13% and watch the birth rate rise.

I can't comment on your theory about revolution in Europe. Historically it has been a pretty unstable place even without large numbers of immigrants, so maybe. But your theory seems at odds with common sense IMHO. First of all, why would people hostile to your country want to live there? Second, how is such a tiny minority going to overthrow the predominant culture?

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that there are no angels in Hell

Um, that's actually all there is in Hell right now are fallen angels, those that sided with Lucifer.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[CanHasDIY]

Like Schrödinger's cat, we are all both guilty and innocent at the same time within the box of secret anti-terror laws passed by the government.

That made me laugh... one of those sad laughs. You know, where you start chuckling because it's kinda funny, but end up nearly crying because it's also kinda true?

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

Osama was the head of the Neocons? Wow, it all makes sense now.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

You need to look at the rates for individual countries. Some are higher, some are lower. I believe the US rate has dropped recently, probably due to the economic problems, but it has tended to be closer to 2.

People move to the US and UK for many reasons, including purely economic, or to escape a local war. Life on the dole in the UK beats a firing squad for extremist activity back in the old country.

The trend is simple. 1.3 birth rate for the native population, higher rates for immigrants, more immigration, radicalization of the 2nd generation, and time. You can also throw in religious conversion of the native population, something which is occurring.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[sjames]

Yes, he has admitted to his selfless heroic act for the benefit of the people of the Unites States and the rest of the world.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

His goal, according to verifiable first-person statements, was the SPECIFIC REMOVAL of US Military air bases from Saudi Arabia. This goal was achieved, and an almost immediate concession, after 9/11/01.

There were other, minor and vague references to Palestinian cause for justice, really related to the Al Aqsa, that did not define specific outcomes.

Any other objective or motivation has been either inserted or "interpreted" by mediating commentator of differing source and agenda.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Absolute truth.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

Guilt can only be determined by a jury, He is innocent until found guilty by a jury of his peers for all maters of discussion. He admitted to taking and leaking the documents yes, but that in and of itself is not guilt. The administration cannot find him guilty, and cannot say he is guilty of any crimes until the courts rule in on the matter. As an Citizen of this once great country I am now ashamed that we have fallen so far from what we once were.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Great, Bullwinkle. Watch me pull a rabbit out of MY hat.

RELEVANT EXTRACT:
[Snowden] felt confident that he had kept the documents secure from
Chinese spies, and that the N.S.A. knew he had done so. His last
target while working as an agency contractor was China...
adding that he had had "access to every target, every active
operation mounted by the N.S.A. against the Chinese. Full lists of
them," he said.

"If that was compromised," he went on, "N.S.A. would have set the
table on fire from slamming it so many times in denouncing the damage
it had caused. Yet N.S.A. has not offered a single example of damage
from the leaks. They haven't said boo about it except "we think,"
"maybe", "have to assume" from anonymous and former officials. Not
"China is going dark." Not "the Chinese military has shut us out."

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[citizenr]

If only there was proof

You want evidence of absence?

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

And St. Reagan the Senile and George Bush II.

Re: Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

>Oh they probably have a copy, not from Snowden though since they probably obtained them years ago.

Bingo! People act as if nations aren't busily and effectively spying on each other all the time. Sheesh - AMATEURS!

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[MightyYar]

Well, I purposely used the US number from before the recent low, but this is all ballpark anyway. I'm not sure what specific country you are worried about, so I can only speculate. Germany is only at 1.4% and it has a "foreign" population of around 8% - but those seem to include other EU citizens... presumably you are not concerned about those. 4% identify as Islamic. Now granted, that is higher than the US's 1%, but I still don't see evidence to support your fears. How is a 4% minority a threat to the German "way of life", which of course changes dramatically over time with or without Islam.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Prune]

Ah, unity. The best analogy here is the difference between colonies of single-celled eukaryotes and the cells of a multicellular organism. The former and the latter are genetically and structurally similar. But there's a tremendous difference: in the former, the organisms are individual, though they benefit each other by being part of the colony. In the latter, there is runaway specialization to serve the needs of the organism, and individual cells are irrelevant and subjugated to the unity of which you speak--it's the only thing that matters in that context. I don't know about you, but I know which I'd rather be part of, and one of these isn't better than the other merely because its unity makes it more powerful as an aggregate.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

What Snowden did was most certainly illegal.

It has never been illegal report a crime and hopefully it never will.

If you want your organizations secrets to remain secret your first step should be to make sure that you don't commit any crimes.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[isorox]

You know what the British DON'T believe in? Toothpaste!

Thank you folks, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to try out our delicious Potato Bar.

I did believe in it, but then the TSA confiscated it.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Faluzeer]

Saddam considered the Iranians to be a strategic threat to Iraq and discounted the possibility that the West & UN would act against him in a forceful manner. As a result Saddam had his government continue to act as if they still had WMDs to fool the Iranians after they had secretly disposed of their VX nerve gas after previous fooling the inspectors. (It sounds stupid, but that was Saddam.) Saddam's strategic deception was such a success that he was invaded for it.

That was not the reason for the invasion, it was a political decision, that was merely the excuse for the decision. That is all beside the point, I was referring to the report that the UK Government revealed to the Members of Parliament and the UK people to justify the war, all the cautions that the security services had about the evidence were removed. Alistair Cambell, Tony Blair's spin doctor was heavily involved in that process, despite having no knowledge of either the security services or WMD.

If it makes you feel any better, there were unfilled chemical warheads found for Iraq's long range missiles. With a native chemical industry that had previous experience making chemical agents they could have been filled in the future. The disarmament agencies also recovered a number of anthrax bombs. I'm sure there is more. And the other causes of action were still true, such as the massacres of the Kurds - a crime against humanity, and Iraq's support for terrorism.

Yes, the remnants of Chemical weapons were found, all of which dates from the 80's and early 90's, and all of which tallied with the UN Inspectors reports about them decommissioned in the mid 90's (from memory I see to recall 1995). am aware of the Anfal pogroms, then again I was aware of them in the late 1980's, but as prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam was the West's "friend" in the region, that was ignored by the Western governments, as were the reports that he used chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[s.petry]

The presumption of innocence applies to a trial, not public discussions.

What? No it does not! The presumption of innocence is a statement regarding Justice. Justice is not part of the courts or a trial, it's a responsibility for every member of society all of the time. To believe that you should publicly discuss a person by assuming guilt then have the court system have to do the opposite should cause you so much cognitive dissonance your head should explode.

Seriously, stop and think about what you just said really really hard. What you are stating is that you can firmly believe in a form of justice that is exactly the opposite of society's form of justice.

FYI I am using the definition of Justice provided by Socrates, which every society since has tried to follow.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[s.petry]

For posterity, I should add that you can believe that our social justice system is wrong and that yours is correct. That would make you a psychopath, sociopath, or some other form of what we would consider mental disorder. I'm claiming that you can't have _both_ beliefs held simultaneously as "right" or "correct" forms of justice.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[TangoMargarine]

Um...both the George Bushes are still alive.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[LifesABeach]

At this point, it's not a secret anymore. Are fools the only ones that don't have a copy?

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

Snowden leaks 'worst ever loss to British intelligence'

Sir David, the former head of the UK's communications surveillance centre GCHQ, told the Times: "You have to distinguish between the original whistleblowing intent to get a debate going, which is a responsible thing to do, and the stealing of 58,000 top-secret British security documents and who knows how many American documents, which is seriously, seriously damaging.

"The assumption the experts are working on is that all that information or almost all of it will now be in the hands of Moscow and Beijing.

"It's the most catastrophic loss to British intelligence ever, much worse than Burgess and Maclean."

Donald Duart Maclean and Guy Burgess were among a group of British officials who met at Cambridge University and passed information to the Soviet Union during World War II and into the 1950s, other notable members being Kim Philby and Anthony Blunt.

I assume you must suffer from some sort of debilitating condition.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

The Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies are far to disciplined to do victory laps. The idea is nonsense.

NSA's sensitive systems are air gapped. That is why you need an insider, like Snowden.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[cold fjord]

To you, maybe. Not to the intelligence agencies. I have no access.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

What Snowden did was most certainly illegal.

This is a dubious assumption. The US has an open-ended Bill of Rights. It's up to the people to decide what rights are retained by the people (9th Amendment) or reserved to the people (10th Amendment).
No activity can be illegal if that activity is an exercise of such rights. Any laws or precedents to the contrary are themselves illegal.

By definition, rights retained by the people are retained by the people. No entity of government can take away such rights, for then they would no longer be retained by the people.

Re:Only moose and squirrel have them

[Anonymous Coward]

Mexico. It's called Mexico -- not "Catholic Mexico". Are you a WASP?

Zero Percent Chance?

[Austrian Anarchy]

There's a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents,' he said. Snowden turned them all over to the journalists.

Turning documents over to journalists, or anybody employed in any other profession, does not make them magically uninterceptable, unreadable, or unposessable by Russians, Chinese, or anybody else. He has no control over the distribution after he hands it off to anybody, and the people who have the stuff might not even know if someone else is reading it.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[TWiTfan]

God forbid anyone send them by email. They might fall into the hands of the NSA!

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid anyone send them by email. They might fall into the hands of the NSA!

Or the Chinese or Russians, Iranians, Israelis . . .

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[cold fjord]

Turning documents over to journalists, or anybody employed in any other profession, does not make them magically uninterceptable, unreadable, or unposessable by Russians, Chinese, or anybody else. He has no control over the distribution after he hands it off to anybody, and the people who have the stuff might not even know if someone else is reading it.

That is assuming that he is even telling the truth now after spending a long time lying so that he could get access to the documents. Lies about his adventure continued when the Russians said they didn't know he was coming when he in fact had a birthday party at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong prior to his departure, and made arrangements there. When he got to Russia, an FSB spokesman was speaking for him. Then there is this gem: "(On June 23 Izvestia, a [formerly] state-owned Russian newspaper, wrote that the Kremlin and its intelligence services collaborated with Wikileaks to help Snowden escape from Hong Kong.)" ... It looks to me that there is far more going on than most people want to believe.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents,'

Obviously he's ignoring the Russian and Chinese agents planted inside the NSA. Look at how easy it was for Snowden; now imagine what that means for actual professionals.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how much do you get paid being a bootlicking shill of the US government? A traitor to the people masquerading as "patriot". How pathetic this country has become.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[HarrySquatter]

That is assuming that he is even telling the truth now after spending a long time lying so that he could get access to the documents.

So no different to how the NSA uses the same tactic to get their people into companies to act as spies and to insert backdoors into said company's software and systems?

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being criticized by cold fjord is a compliment. Look at his past posts for an understanding of his moral alignment.

cold fjord, you have no standing on anything of moral consequence to the US or to the world. You support every government abuse against human rights that has occurred in the last 12 years. Go away, you are a bad person.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is assuming that he is even telling the truth now after spending a long time lying

Well, I prefer people lying in order to uphold their oath and duty to the constitution over crime lords lying in order to hide that they are breaking their oath to the constitution in order to create a police and surveillance state with taxpayers' money but outside of any democratic oversight.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a closely guarded secret between Snowden and the entire western mass-media. The russkies will never get their hands on our seekrits!

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[mjr167]

Don't worry. The Russians and Chinese don't have the internet so won't be able to read what the journalists publish.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the implication is that if the Russians or Chinese had the documents, they'd have taken some action that'd reveal that, and the NSA would be "pounding on the table" about how Snowden had hurt the United States. Since that hasn't happened, he's concluded they don't have the documents.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Desler]

Why would they need to read it in the newspaper when they could just as easily break into the system steal the first-hand data for themselves.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Sique]

Cold fjord is in reality Edward Snowden in disguise, trying to make it look as if the U.S. government uses paid shills for character assassination to make the U.S. look more bad and let him shine more brightly in contrast. Cold fjord: Prove that you are not Edward Snowden or shut up forever!

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

He also seriously believes that Obamacare and taxes are a worse tyranny than having to explain yourself to a bunch of thugs because you chose the wrong brand of cereal. He's a true neo-conservative. His reward is that if they ever choose to start lining people up along walls and shooting them, he'll be granted the right to be the last one to die.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I have them.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cold has commented on other topics here. Edward Snowden seems smarter.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[khallow]

Speaking of lying, I'm more concerned about how radically the Obama administration changed its stories after Snowden's revelations. Basically, a bunch of officials were caught lying and only changed their story due to Snowden. It sure looks to me also like there is far more going on than most people want to believe.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how much do you get paid being a bootlicking shill of the US government? A traitor to the people masquerading as "patriot". How pathetic this country has become.

So he's completely wrong and a "bootlicking shill" because he disagrees with you and has actual citations to support his position.

I understand. I wish you had a newsletter.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[10101001 10101001]

Turning documents over to journalists, or anybody employed in any other profession, does not make them magically uninterceptable, unreadable, or unposessable by Russians, Chinese, or anybody else.

Reading comprehension fail? Clearly the statement is that Snowden turned the documents directly over to journalists without some intermediary and not to known Russian or Chinese government agents. Obviously, Snoweden wouldn't know if he's handing over documents to Russian agents embedded in the journalistic field any more than he'd know, while he was still in the NSA's employ, handing over documents to Russian agents embedded in the NSA.

He has no control over the distribution after he hands it off to anybody, and the people who have the stuff might not even know if someone else is reading it.

Like how the NSA has no control over Snowden handing over documents to the Russians or Chinese once they handed over [access to] documents to him? Why, it's turtles all the way down!

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[AHuxley]

Russia and China have a long history of reflecting on MI6 and CIA altered documents. It usually ends with having to not trust an entire staff, factory, project, regional political structure. Years later they work out the truth and are a bit more careful now.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[interkin3tic]

You're right, but I'm going to forgive him for engaging in hyperbole, given that the other side flat out lied about much bigger issues, while under oath to congress.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[10101001 10101001]

So he's completely wrong and a "bootlicking shill" because he disagrees with you and has actual citations to support his position.

And Clinton was a horrible President because he had marital affairs and lied about it. But Reagan was a great President because he directly or indirectly negotiated with terrorists and sold weapons to the Iranians to fund the Contra all while lying about it^W^W^W forgetting about it.

You see what I did there? The two aspects are unrelated. Besides, the fact remains that (a) Snowden lying to get access to documents may be unethical but it may be moral and (b) every other citation was about the *Russians* lying (at a time before Russia necessarily was fully committed and didn't wish to tip their hand on their plans) with the implication that the Russians would only go to such great lengths in exchange for documents. But, could it be that the Russians presumed too much or Snowden lied/implied to them too much? Or maybe it was enough that Russia's leaders are still embedded in the Cold War mindset that states it is enough to give the US a black eye, by implying they're a champion of freedom, to give amnesty to an "enemy of the US [government]"?

Honestly, we don't have any concrete facts about what is or is not true. The best we have are statements made by people who were personally involved (Snowden) and innuendo and implication along with claims that certain people or entities are liars (people discrediting the one person who would know, Snowden). Well, even liars tell the truth some times--or do you accept an always liar that says "I am lying"?

So, the only thing left is either the GGP is some sort of bootlicking shill, a paid shill, a bigot, or some line of that. Because nothing he has stated provides anything remotely like concrete evidence that Snowden can't be taken at his word in this specific instance.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad that a confessed criminal is treated like a deity and any facts that may seem blasphemous is modded down while anonymous accusations are modded up.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading comprehension fail?

On your part, obviously.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Or the Chinese or Russians, Iranians, Israelis . . .

All of whom, not being incompetent at the spy game, probably already had them. Just like we probably have a lot of secret docs from a lot of governments and aren't admitting it...

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

>now imagine what that means for actual professionals.

Exactly.

Or maybe Snowden is OUR agent, put there to snooker the opposition? When it comes to intelligence/counter-intelligence, it puzzle palace time, enigmas inside conundrums inside intentionally misleading disinformation.

And we'll never know...

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring the reality that if Snowden could read it, so could other countries?

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[TWiTfan]

Don't worry. James Clapper says that everything is cool.

Re:Zero Percent Chance?

[BenfromMO]

There is always far more going on than most people want to believe. The problem is figuring out what exactly is going on. Governments have become experts and indeed surgeons at obfuscation in general, and they cloud up every issue with so much information that the average person only remembers the vague details like how "people who state that the NSA is recording your every internet stop" as being "tinfoil nutters". This was what people stated before Snowden released the proof that the NSA was doing that.....And the Government wants to spin this incident as "nothing to see here, move along", when the truth is that the NSA has been taking a back-door to our constitutional rights and not telling us. Now they will continue to do this out in the public eye and appologize to no one. The very real fact that most of the people who were supposed to be playing "gate-keepers" in congress were on board with this tells us everything we need to know that the US Government is not going to stop spying on every single citizen anytime soon.

Look, you are absolutely right that this is one of the bad parts of the revelations, but the most troubling part of it has nothing to do with how we were lied to, the most troubling part is that this information is now in the public domain and nothing has changed and nothing is being done to change it. The only result is that our Government wants to shoot the messenger who told mommy on it. That is the most troubling aspect...in that our Government is either so incompetent or so full of shit that the best they can do to fix themselves is shoot the messenger. Or how they do not even attempt to fix problems, but instead shoot the people who tell on them or waste so much time on wasting money as with the IRS. The Government is dysfunctional, and has been for some time where instead of firing those who screw up, those who screw up are given promotions to keep their mouths shut. They are only mad at Snowden after all because he told on them.

Trust

[benjfowler]

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

The Russians have taken in traitors/defectors from the West; but they know that traitors are the scum of the Earth, and can never, ever be fully trusted.

Re:Trust

[segedunum]

Stabbing who in the back, exactly?

Re:Trust

[Austrian Anarchy]

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

The Russians have taken in traitors/defectors from the West; but they know that traitors are the scum of the Earth, and can never, ever be fully trusted.

If he would have gone to Cuba he could get a tan working in the sugar cane fields.

Re:Trust

[cheekyjohnson]

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

Precisely. Nonsensical things such as freedom and the constitution are overshadowed by the threat of the bogeymen who are out to get us.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, fuck the people, the government agencies illegally spying on them are all that count.

Re:Trust

[aaaaaaargh!]

1. He has done the US a great service in the long run.

2. He is personally more trustworthy than the people in the US government and the intelligence community who have been caught lying already.

My 2 cents.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's rewind 30 years or so to put it into perspective.

"He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

The Americans have taken in traitors/defectors from the Soviet; but they know that traitors are the scum of the Earth, and can never, ever be fully trusted."

Re:Trust

[ClassicASP]

I dunno....I'd say he stabbed his country's _government_ in the back. I wouldn't say he stabbed his country in the back though. So far I haven't heard anything that would indicate that Snowden hates America.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

Well, while I do think that anyone working for the NSA is a backstabber and possibly a traitor to the country I would say that Snowden have made up for his past mistakes and clearly shown that he is willing to go to great lengths to protect the country, even from a corrupt government.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

He's only "stabbed you in the back" if you're a bootlicker. Not all of us piss ourselves over "teh terrists" and need Big Brother to monitor our lives 24/7 "for our safety". He's no more stabbed anyone in the back than the persons who leaked the Pentagon Papers and the information on the Watergate scandal. Stop being a compliant ninny.

Re:Trust

[TWiTfan]

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

Because he's been telling the truth and the NSA definitely haven't?

Re:Trust

[intermodal]

He's at least as trustworthy as the agencies for whom he has done work.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but only traitors and "terrists" tell the truth, Citizen. Telling the truth about our deeds only seeks to help Eurasia who we have always been at war with. Now please return to watching American Idol before you must face punishment.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I don't get this. The NSA has broken some of the most basic principals as outlined in the constitution. 10's of thousands of Americans going against the entire spirit of our constitution as their daily job, and Snowden is the traitor? I don't think so.

Re:Trust

[cold fjord]

I'm pretty sure "bogeymen" don't have body counts from massacres, or a record of arrests and convictions for plotted massacres.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

The government and the NSA are NOT the Country. The PEOPLE are the Country.

What makes him think that everyone should believe him now?

Wrong question.
The correct question is- WHO should we believe MORE, Snowden or the NSA? We know Snowden scooped up docs and turned them over to journalists in a responsible fashion. We also know the NSA has been lying to Congress and the Courts as well as the American People, violating their own policies and violating Court orders.
Given their respective track records, only a complete fool would take the side of the NSA in this.

The Russians have taken in traitors/defectors from the West;

He's neither a traitor nor is he a defector. He has made absolutely no efforts or claims to renounce his citizenship, he has not taken up arms or given aid or succor to an Enemy of the State. Thus, he is also not a Traitor.
If you have evidence otherwise, I'm sure the NSA in particular would love to hear about it.

Re:Trust

[fredrated]

Thanks for verifying the statement "some nerds are idiots", though I already knew it was true.

Re:Trust

[Desler]

And how large are those "body counts"? Are we to ignore that more people in the US die from falling in their homes than have been killed by terrorists? Just so you know, 21000 adults died in 2010 of unintentional falls. That's 7 times the amount of people who died in 9/11. Sorry, but the "dirty Mooslems" hiding behind every corner trying to "kill us for our freedoms" just don't rate as much of a threat.

Re:Trust

[TheCarp]

Funny, as one of his countrymen, I don't feel stabbed in the back at all, at least, not by him. I feel more like....I thought there was a knife in myback, I wasn't sure exactly how big or how far it was in, or what it looked like, but I felt it was likely there.

What I see him having done is tell me about that knife, exactly whose hand was on it, and how deep it was into my back.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

This is gonna sound like a troll but I'm genuinely curious since your constitution is not my constitution and I'm not well versed in US jurisprudence.

Which parts of the US constitution has the NSA broken? What would the NSA reply if they were confronted with these claims? Cynicism aside, why are the responsible parties at the NSA not prosecuted for breaking the law?

My point is, if these illegal acts are so manifestly illegal... why is no-one prosecuting? We prosecute our own secret services from time to time where I live. They even lose some times as well.

Re:Trust

[helobugz]

That's pushing it a bit far, because I think he left me wondering how much further the knife would be pressed in, in coming years...

NOTHING that Snowden revealed was a "secret." His revelations are simply not confined to the realm of conspiracy theory, anymore.

Re:Trust

[Desler]

Which parts of the US constitution has the NSA broken? What would the NSA reply if they were confronted with these claims? Cynicism aside, why are the responsible parties at the NSA not prosecuted for breaking the law?

I can only hope this is supposed to be a parody post. Otherwise one can only assume you're being intentionally dense and naïve.

Re:Trust

[phayes]

Ah, so now he's George Washington and cannot tell a lie?

Much like Assange, Obama, Bush, Kennedy, Churchill & everyone else, Snowden will and does lie & bend his tale to justify his acts. Pretending otherwise just exposes you as a zealot.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

When you claim the US should operate more like Russia, and claim the constitution should be ignored, and when you claim torture and murder are perfectly OK as long as the public doesn't get to know about it - You have lost all rights to talk about being stabbed in the back, you traitor.

If you really believe what you say, then come here and let us all murder you. I promise to not tell anyone, just like you want!

If you want to live in that world so much, just MOVE to fucking Russia dumbass! Stop trying to change other countries into the fucked up hell you desire so badly.

Re:Trust

[Bucc5062]

Yes, but they didn't fall all at the same time, thus not a threat . In one sense we are paying not for the lose of 3000+ people, but for the towers. The spectacle of the towers coming down is what is sealed in peoples minds. That made the event larger then it really was and shaped our actions since.

I think it is the "Mass" in mass hysteria that drives the security machine and the spending of Billions on a very low probability act. More people die from shootings in this country then 9/11 and again, in such small numbers, spread out that the attitude is, wont happen to me. People don't like random acts of violence that they can't control, so they turn to the Government and say, control it please. Government does not do small thus the TSA and HLS when all we really needed was just better communication. Until I fall, I believe I am safe in my house. Walking down a street in I have no control over what will happen. Personally, I don't care or I just adjust where I go, but most people....they accept the false security of Government oversight and die any way (Boston).

Re:Trust

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Chandra :HAL was told to lie... by people who find it easy to lie. HAL doesn't know how, so he couldn't function. He became paranoid.

Dr. Heywood Floyd : Those sons of bitches. I didn't know. I didn't know!

Re:Trust

[khallow]

Which parts of the US constitution has the NSA broken?

Fourth, Tenth, Fourteenth Amendments.

My point is, if these illegal acts are so manifestly illegal... why is no-one prosecuting?

"Treason doth never prosper: whatâ(TM)s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

Re:Trust

[cheekyjohnson]

Heard it before. Terrorists are largely little more than bogeymen as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic we can eliminate all secrets by simply employing an infinate amount of typewriting monkeys...

Re:Trust

[khallow]

The Obama administration and the NSA chief have already radically changed the stories they were telling because of Snowden.

Snowden will and does lie & bend his tale to justify his acts

That's why we look at evidence and not just make up shit. The Obama administration has vast resources at its disposal with which to disprove Snowden assertions. It hasn't chosen to do so for some reason. I wager it is because Snowden's assertions and accompanying evidence are close enough to truth.

Re:Trust

[khallow]

He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.

Trust that we see was poorly placed in the federal government.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so now he's George Washington and cannot tell a lie?

Much like Assange, Obama, Bush, Kennedy, Churchill & everyone else, Snowden will and does lie & bend his tale to justify his acts. Pretending otherwise just exposes you as a zealot.

Prove it. That is the thing. What he has said has been repeatedly verifiable and not one thing yet has been proven false. Those that chose to discredit him have been proven to be liars with verifiable facts over and over again. Just because many people lie does not mean we should assume everyone is lying about everything all the time lest we become 'zealots'.

Given the choice between known repeated unabashed liars and someone that has yet to be proven wrong and often has objective proof of his honesty I will chose the latter.

Re:Trust

[AHuxley]

The US constitution is sort of the top law of the land. No other orders, laws, letters, findings, color of laws, the allies asked us, a thinktank said it was ok, the bad guys.... just obeying orders.. can escape the US constitution.
The US constitution does not like the gov looking into domestic papers without a real US court been involved. One gov letter to make it legal for the entire nation is good enough. All staff know this.
The press around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake was really the first good hint: Trailblazer, ThinThread in 2000.

Re: Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

So what about Hurricane Katrina. It's not like that was a one time occurance.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. squirrels bite people every year and spread rabies. Their body counts and picnic massacres are a unimaginable threat to our American populace. I propose locking down all natural habitats to prevent these types of attacks from ocurring again. They are as much if not a greater threat than terroists and the response should be as sensical and massive.

Re:Trust

[phayes]

It also means that we do not attempt to whitewash Snowden or attempt to paint him into being some kind of idol that is only here to do good & has never done any wrong. The word of Snowden is no more gospel than the word of Assange, Obama or Bush & those of his allegations which are unsupported and self serving are no more credible.

Because you do believe that Snowden has his own agenda and are not blindly following it right?

Re:Trust

[cold fjord]

Traffic accidents alone killed 13x the number of people killed at Pearl Harbor that year, and yet the US still went to war. There must be something you are missing in the way you are analyzing the manner in which deaths influence public policy.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

The state is the nation, citizen.

Re:Trust

[TheCarp]

> NOTHING that Snowden revealed was a "secret."
> His revelations are simply not confined to the realm of conspiracy theory, anymore.

I think I take issue with both of these statements.

The truth was indeed secret. What we had were not conspiracy theories, but speculation. We all knew the NSA existed, we all knew some minor details about their operation. People had good reason to suspect some of their capabilities and how they would or could really spy on people if they wanted to.

What he did was expose the secret truth, which happened to be not far off from the speculation and rumors that were the result of many educated people making guesses based on what they saw as possible.

It was widely speculated that massive internet monitoring was possible and even feasible if you had the ability to be inserted at the right places on the network backbone. It was widely speculated that if anybody could be inserted in enough of the right places, it was the NSA.

However, being that it was possible and that they had the resources to do it, doesn't mean we knew they did it. Now we know they did.

Conspiracy theory is when you assert unproven connections to explain events. Like when you posit that a conspiracy of people working together prepared the towers to come down. That is conspiracy theory. Not all speculation is conspiracy theory.

Re:Trust

[dosilegecko]

Yeah truly, who actually trusts the government? I wouldn't trust them to make sure my toilet paper was safe, let alone any other part of my life.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

1. He has done the US a great service in the long run.

2. He is personally more trustworthy than the people in the US government and the intelligence community who have been caught lying already.

My 2 cents.

You forgot

3. He is not a current threat. The people in the US government and the intelligence community who have been caught lying are. They have picked up Bin Laden's fight against democracy and freedom and are blowing it to insane proportions while people haggle over Snowden, an inconsequential distraction and pawn.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you do believe that Snowden has his own agenda and are not blindly following it right?

Snowden's own agenda is immaterial compared to Obama's and the NSA's own agenda. The latter are capable and willing of doing a lot more damage to the U.S.A.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Until I fall, I believe I am safe in my house. Walking down a street in I have no control over what will happen. Personally, I don't care or I just adjust where I go, but most people....they accept the false security of Government oversight and die any way (Boston).

Hahahaha, talking about a false sense of security. Safe in your house and not on the street?? How long will you feel that save when you have a SWAT team breaking down your door for just a suspicion. I think a lot more people die in their own home then walking down the street.

You have no control, any control you think you have can be taken away at any time.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

What he did was expose the secret truth, which happened to be not far off from the speculation and rumors that were the result of many educated people making guesses based on what they saw as possible.

Which is why he didn't do any "harm" to the actual intelligence gathering. Pretty much anyone with something to hide and 1/10 of a brain assumed the NSA could snoop like this already and took measures to thwart them.

Re:Trust

[Hatta]

He's neither a traitor nor is he a defector.

Indeed. He is a refugee.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

If 'stabbing in the back' means opening eyes to all of the security cameras all over the damn place that shouldn't be there, then sure... I'd consider it more of a 'tap on the shoulder' than a 'stab in the back' but if you are spineless, than I guess a little tap on the shoulder might cause your vertebrae to all collapse... which appears to be the case here based on your comment...

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Which state? There are about 50 or so of them in the US.

Re:Trust

[myowntrueself]

"Never trust a traitor, not even one you create." -- Baron Vladimir Harkonnen.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Which parts of the US constitution has the NSA broken? What would the NSA reply if they were confronted with these claims? Cynicism aside, why are the responsible parties at the NSA not prosecuted for breaking the law?

I can only hope this is supposed to be a parody post. Otherwise one can only assume you're being intentionally dense and naïve.

That's not an answer.

Re:Trust

[khallow]

No, it means we look at evidence. For example, Snowden's release of information forced the powers that be to change their story. That's evidence not merely taking the words of someone as "gospel".

Re:Trust

[khallow]

Quite a few people trust them. For example, entitlement advocates do since the government is the ones writing the checks and accessing the information needed to comply with the conditions of the entitlement.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an analogy here somewhere. Pot, Kettle / Zealot, ??? I just can't find it. I'll try this: Who is the zealot here?

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever. I knew for damn sure this was going on. Been telling people for years. You can call it speculation, or you can call it conspiracy theory, I don't care. I call it recognizing human nature. Far as I can tell, you idiots are all 12 years old, with no real understanding of yourselves, or other humans. That is who Snowden did this for, all you 12 year olds, still believing your mommy when she says America is good, and you are special.

Re:Trust

[EuclideanSilence]

Then, while not strictly speaking an issue of Constitutional jurisdiction, there is the whole issue of perjury in front of congress.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

So we can not trust the US Government then? you know because they were the ones who because traitors when they failed to uphold the Constitution of The United States and in turn the People of the United States, are those the traitors you are talking about?

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

you cant for get our Territories either. Some of them are soon to become states if they ever get around to it.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Chandra, will I dream?

Re:Trust

[Qzukk]

why is no-one prosecuting?

Because the founders made the US Constitution the supreme law of the land, but forgot to put anything in there about what happens if you break it, so we've basically been making that part up as you go along. So far, the only thing we've come up with is along the lines of "if you're arrested by someone violating the constitution you get a get out of jail free card".

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

*whom

Everyone in his country, obviously.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

why are the responsible parties at the NSA not prosecuted for breaking the law?

The real, true, honest-to-god, actual, factual, correct, accurate answer that you seek is also one you discount as cynical.

Imagine why [many] Americans are so furious with our dictators right now.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

you cannot lump all Government in to good or bad. There are faction to the government. For example I trust our Legal system to do its job if I am taken to court, but I dont trust the department of Homeland Security to actually protect me from terrorist. you cannot make sweeping generalization for such a large entity.

Its like say all trucks are Fords, when it is just not the case.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Traffic accidents alone killed 13x the number of people killed at Pearl Harbor that year, and yet the US still went to war. There must be something you are missing in the way you are analyzing the manner in which deaths influence public policy.

He did make a mistake, but so do you. You don't just compare to random unrelated deaths, you need to compare versus the number of deaths caused by our reaction to decide of this reaction was prudent. If I may extend your traffic accident idea: the TSA has caused so many people to drive instead of fly that more people have died from increased traffic accidents than died in 9/11. Unlike falls at home, these deaths are a direct result of our attempt to fight terrorism and could have easily been prevented.

In the case of going to war, we need to weigh the costs of war versus the costs of not going to war. In WWII we had to either fight or watch the Axis conquer the world. If we expected more Americans to die in the war than would die under fascist rule, then it would have been logical to remain isolationist (until it was too late). But Al-Qaeda never had any chance of conquering the world - they were just completely delusional.

I know it's difficult and messy to predict the chances that Outside Group X can reproduce an attack, but it's nonetheless very important if you want to rationally decide who to fight. Personally I don't think Al-Qaeda could have repeated 9/11 as easily as Japan could have repeated Pearl Harbor. Japan built their own planes JUST for crashing into ships, but Al-Qaeda's airplane supply was crippled merely by requiring locked cockpits.

Re:Trust

[khallow]

Actually, yes you can since the "bad" parts have access to the information of the "good" parts. The example you give is from a case where deliberate divisions of power and control were made. Most entitlements don't do that.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't need to justify his acts, his acts are just per se.

Re:Trust

[cold fjord]

The nations that the Russians and Chinese have nuclear weapons pointed at and have flooded with spies. The nations that al Qaida is attempting to attack. That's a start.

Re:Trust

[cold fjord]

There are going to be claims that NSA broke the 4th amendment to the US Constitution, and maybe some others. That will be the key one though. Unfortunately for those claims the question has gone before the courts before and they have found on more than one occasion that Article II of the US Constitution provides the power for much of the activity in certain contexts. The people making those claims are relying upon a simplistic reading of the text without that understanding and the benefit of the precedents of the courts in dealing with the necessary questions. They mean well, but get it wrong as things stand. It could be that a future court will change the shape of the law, as has happened in other areas of the war against al Qaida, but I wouldn't count on it. NSA surveillance has pretty much had the backing of all three branches of government as long as it stayed in its lane.

Re:Trust

[cold fjord]

You misspelled "fugitive".

Re:Trust

[Desler]

There must be. Because I don't see the threat in the imaginary boogeyman and piss myself like you seem to.

Re:Trust

[cheekyjohnson]

you need to compare versus the number of deaths caused by our reaction to decide of this reaction was prudent.

You don't even need to do that. You just need to ask yourself something to the effect of, "Do these policies the government implemented/is planning to implement violate essential individual liberties?" If the answer to that question is yes, must be scrapped/forbidden from ever becoming law.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

That's silly. The government knowing where you are almost all the time and spying on many of your communications is in a whole different league than them merely having enough information about you to grant you entitlements.

Certain powers are simply far more likely to be used to abuse people's fundamental rights than others, and it is silly to pretend as if they're all nearly the same.

Re:Trust

[phayes]

You missed my point. When there is no evidence but only Snowden's unsupported allegations, how do we react?

Way to many people around here are abandoning all critical thought as soon as "Snowden reports from Moscow" is in the byline.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you misspelled "refugee" even after the error was pointed out. That makes you an idiot. Or, rather, it proves that you are one, yet again. And by idiot, I mean useful idiot. You are obviously literate, even somewhat intelligent. However, you have no credibility, cold fjord. It's time for you to realize that fact.

Re:Trust

[khallow]

The government knowing where you are almost all the time and spying on many of your communications is in a whole different league than them merely having enough information about you to grant you entitlements./quote There's nothing silly about it. The latter is an easy gateway to the former since it builds up the database which a government will need for 24/7 spying on its citizens. That's a big reason I oppose them.

Re:Trust

[khallow]

When there is no evidence but only Snowden's unsupported allegations, how do we react?

You miss my point. This isn't the situation we are in! We have evidence supporting Snowden's allegations.

Re:Trust

[khallow]

Sigh, trying this again since I mangled it last time.

The government knowing where you are almost all the time and spying on many of your communications is in a whole different league than them merely having enough information about you to grant you entitlements.

There's nothing silly about it. The latter is an easy gateway to the former since it builds up the database which a government will need for 24/7 spying on its citizens. That's a big reason I oppose them.

I think people are being very foolish to give a government willing to spy on its own citizens without cause all this extra data just because they want more free bread and circuses.

Re:Trust

[phayes]

No, I clearly see that for you, everything that purportedly comes from Snowden is accepted as the one true gospel, without any critical thought whatsoever. You clearly think that Snowden is a modern Washington who cannot tell a lie whereas I believe Snowden when he has supporting documentation but not necessarily when he makes allegations that are unsupported. Your elevation of Snowden into some kind of uncorruptable & infallible prophet is precisely the point I have been criticizing.

Re:Trust

[ClassicASP]

Is not! If that were true, you wouldn't have just called me "citizen". Clearly you have a strong understanding of the difference between a general member of a country, and a member of the government. And anyhow, if you're going to try to sound butch, don't post with a screen name that has the word "Coward" in it. Jerk.

BS

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BULL SHIT!

He'd better have something.....

[Anonymous Coward]

He'd better have something he can dole out to keep himself relevant. His life will (soon?) reach a point where any information he has will be less valuable that his death. No matter how he dies, the U.S. will get the blame - and THAT can have a value to some.

Re:He'd better have something.....

[Errol backfiring]

He does not need to remain relevant. I think he just wants a boring life now, possibly including some potatoes. He already knows that "May you live in interesting times" is a curse. And as long as he remains in a country that is willing to stick up a finger to the USA, he is probably safe.

Re:He'd better have something.....

[Austrian Anarchy]

He'd better have something he can dole out to keep himself relevant. His life will (soon?) reach a point where any information he has will be less valuable that his death. No matter how he dies, the U.S. will get the blame - and THAT can have a value to some.

Maybe Putin is starting a US expatriates of conscience theme park, like Houari Boumediene did for the Black Panthers and others?

Re:He'd better have something.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be more simple, like he prefers Russian strippers over Hawaiian strippers?

Re:He'd better have something.....

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia finger sticks up USA.

Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing

[TheRaven64]

The important thing to remember is that if it was so easy for him to get these documents, then that also means that there are about a million other people with the same clearance level as him who would find it equally easy. What's the betting that none of those are Chinese agents? Especially given how many Russian agents we've learned were working for the NSA and CIA during the cold war.

People focus on Snowden's disclosure as if it's possibly giving information to America's enemies (or, at least, not-so-friendly friends), but any of them that doesn't have a completely inept intelligence agency of their own will already have the information he's released. It was only secret from the people to whom these agencies should be accountable.

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing

[mjr167]

We require you to have American citizenship to get a clearance so we know none of our cleared people are Russian or Chinese!

The system totally works.

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing

[phayes]

So the NSA employs "a million" sysadmins who steal their colleagues & bosses credentials so that they can gan access to files they normally wouldn't be able to see? So glad nobody on Snowden's side is using hyperbole...

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing

[Anonymous Coward]

GP said "who would find it", not "who do find it", or who do what you are saying. That's a large pool of people to stick a mole into. It's much different than say "there are 10 people who could have done this" - that's a much easier group to validate. You should pause a bit and maybe read a post another time or two before responding when you're feeling so reactive.

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing

[TheRaven64]

There are currently a million people who have Top Secret or above security clearance. That means, one million people who may be sharing secrets with a foreign power if they are bribed or blackmailed into doing so. Do you really trust the vetting to have managed to find a million incorruptible people in the USA?

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing

[Anonymous Coward]

So the NSA employs "a million" sysadmins who steal their colleagues & bosses credentials so that they can gan access to files they normally wouldn't be able to see? So glad nobody on Snowden's side is using hyperbole...

I would bet that at least an admin password to a sensitive system is contained in a document put on a system available to thousand of people working at the NSA.

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing

[Sarten-X]

any of them that doesn't have a completely inept intelligence agency of their own will already have the information he's released.

But that's not the concern. Anyone with an intelligence agency capable of getting the information directly from the NSA would probably also have the resources to have a custom encryption mechanism that the NSA can't read, anyway, and enough steganography to avoid suspicion.

The enemies that the NSA's mechanism is effective against are the poorly-funded individuals and small groups who don't have their own sophisticated intelligence agency, which means they're also not the big and easy-to-find groups. They're just regular schmucks who want to blow up a building or kill some random people. You know... those terrorists the government keeps telling us about.

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing

[phayes]

Ah, and they are all sysadmins who are abusing their privileges without being detected because the NSA is incapable of learning anything from Snowden & say eliminating any/all sysadmins in whom they have the slightest doubt. No, no, that couldn't possibly be true...

Glad to see that you didn't completely miss my point.

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing

[CanadianRealist]

TheRaven64 says there are a million people with the same clearance level and asks what are the chances that none are Chinese agents. You counter by making them all sysadmins who are all* stealing other people's credentials. And you think he's using hyperbole?

The opposite of none is at least one, not all of them.

* I know you don't use the word "all" but it is clearly implied in what you wrote. Compare the following: "There are a million people who have cancer." and "There are a million people, some of whom have cancer."

Re:Not shared by him doesn't mean a thing

[phayes]

You clearly have little idea of how clearances work. Many moons ago, I had a security clearance because I was a military photographer. All Military photographers have secret level clearance as when one is needed for something sensitive they don't want to have to screw around with having to find one that has the necessary clearance level. Thus back then, I would have been included in theraven's OMG ONE MILLION people yet there was no way for me to know anything other than the operations I was involved in.

Need to know & access opportunities mean that even someone in Snowden's position following regulations couldn't have access to all the info that he stole. He had to steal the credentials of people with higher level access than what he had. As a sysadmin, he was able to do so.

Not everyone with a security clearance is a sysadmin & indeed the NSA drastically reduced the number of it's sysadmin's since Snowden. 1 million people with security clearances != The same amount of people with access to the same amount of info as Snowden. Do I need to draw the lines between the dots any finer or do you at last get the point?

Some accused him of giving the files to Russia

[thue]

There has been various accusations that Snowden leaked the documents to Russia, willingly or unwillingly. This should (in a perfect world) make those accusations less valid. Also, this shows against that Snowden is damn brave and clever - it must have been very tempting to hold on to the documents, which he paid so dearly for.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174983/did-russia-china-harvest-snowdens-secrets#

Re:Some accused him of giving the files to Russia

[phayes]

There has been various accusations that Snowden leaked the documents to Russia, willingly or unwillingly. This should (in a perfect world) make those accusations less valid.

How so? Because Snowden purportedly says so?

Well then, that's clear, then isn't it. Absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that anything Snowden says could be anything but the gospel as Snowden is the only true prophet & can tell no lies...

Re:Some accused him of giving the files to Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

How so? Because Snowden purportedly says so?

Well then, that's clear, then isn't it. Absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that anything Snowden says could be anything but the gospel as Snowden is the only true prophet & can tell no lies...

His track record with regard to lying to the public is a lot better than that of the government officials involved in the affair, from the president down. For some reason, however, nobody can feel bothered about them, even though their lies are an ongoing threat to democracy.

Snowden is unimportant, yet people are more focused on smearing him than following up on the proven lies and perjury of their government.

What gives?

Re:Some accused him of giving the files to Russia

[gl4ss]

Russians already had all the data available to thousands of contractors.

that's the problem with the huge security apparatus with central database.

Re:Some accused him of giving the files to Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's more believable? The guy who has been (apparently) up-front about his motives and methods providing a logical explanation for why he wouldn't want to keep the documents himself, or the thousands of bleating commentators and spooks with a clear agenda and clumsy messages that have been beaten down to a pulp time and time again throughout the last 4 months? There's reasons why support for Snowden on Slashdot is high, but it's not (just) because of the hivemind.

Re:Some accused him of giving the files to Russia

[phayes]

Good to have the final word straight from the kremlin, thanks.

snowdens got balls

[Anonymous Coward]

snowdens got balls man, i dont even have the courage to stand up and ask why we use "apollo vcl" at work

From TFA: Snowden says SECRECY, not spying is prob

[barlevg]

“So long as there’s broad support amongst a people, it can be argued there’s a level of legitimacy even to the most invasive and morally wrong program, as it was an informed and willing decision”

He's basically claiming that the problem with all this spying isn't so much it's going on, but that it's going on in secret, without oversight. Fascinating, and it makes sense: take CCTV in the UK--far reaching, nearly ubiquitous, yet everyone knows it's there, and while there are privacy hawks who are against it, there's not nearly the level of outrage as there has been in the US over NSA's spying.

everything snowden had...

[johnjones]

everyone else has...

if you where to think otherwise would be a strategic error...
huawei own too much of the interconnect to not have the majority of the same information as NSA...
signing authorities are compromised...

move on and self sign

thanks

John Jones

 

meaningless phrase

[Anonymous Coward]

It is just like Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman". We all know what turned out to mean.

Damn, I have become a cynic. I sea new-speak everywhere. I wonder why.

Re:meaningless phrase

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't.

"Sexual relations" has a specific legal meaning thanks to family law reform from the 70's & 80's. Non-reproductive fun doesn't qualify.

Also, the weasel words in that statement are "_that_ woman'. To whom was he referring, eh?

NSA & CIA Security Clearance process mgmt soft

[Anonymous Coward]

...is ImageNow from Perceptive Software, a document, content, and workflow management system built in Kansas City.

ImageNow is also now integrated with Lexmark printers (sniffing & OCR'ing print jobs), and it is used to spy on federal workers to confirm that they are not leaking classified information via MFPs/MFDs. The project was code-named Discovery Vault, and it was prototyped for the Turkish secret police before the NSA became interested. See, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ycQQSt6mX0.

Hopefully you are right

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you are right, I hope there is more details that MI5 and GCHQ are so afraid of. Because I want to hear as much detail of what my government (UK) has been doing against British wishes. To me it's every simple, Russia is a nothing threat, Al Qaida is a minor threat (and CIA trained one at that), Iran is a minor threat and potential co-operative supplied of oil, in fact the biggest threat to democracy in the UK now is the NSA & CIA.

So I want to know what causes Andrew Parker to attack the free press, reporting facts. As though facts can only be reported if he approves of them. [To put it more bluntly who does the little sh*t think he is?? Who put him in charge of what can and cannot be reported, it wasn't Parliament and there's no legal power above them so he should f**ing resign, who dare he attack the press for reporting the truth about major crimes committed by him and his office!].

I also like that Snowden told me about GCHQ. Parliament would never grant GCHQ the right to spy for the Americans against the British, so I'm very grateful to Snowden for revealing how far off the rails they got. More than that, I see comments from shocked Lords and MPs who are on the committees that monitor GCHQ and were never told about Tempora. So I realize how close we are to dictatorship by a foreign power. We're like a year away from NSA via MI5 and GCHQ taking over.

And he warned us, and I'm grateful. And no "red menace" 50's propaganda will remove that gratitude.

I think the balance to "collect it all" is "reveal it all".

Re:From TFA: Snowden says SECRECY, not spying is p

[kwbauer]

"not nearly the level of outrage" That is because you long ago accepted the fact that the government is your mommy and should have complete control over your lives. You never gave up the monarchy and simply transferred some of the power into a group of people that are not the monarch.

In contrast, the US gave up the monarchy and lived for a while under the premise that the government is not our mommy. The people started getting this feeling that it would be better if the government were our mommy and we are desperately trying to "catch up." Some of us still don't want to "catch up." That is what all the commotion is about.

Tap the Guardian? Impossible!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if they do have them they got them from the Guardian?

Re:From TFA: Snowden says SECRECY, not spying is p

[barlevg]

I never said I was British (I'm American, like you, actually). Nor did I say whether I agree with Snowden's argument. But getting past all your Brit-hate and vitriol, your core argument that it's cultural differences, not levels of secrecy, that color the two countries' responses to ubiquitous surveillance, seems a good one.

1 year temp visa

[SiggyRadiation]

Wait until the Russians tell him his Visa will expire and they're planning to send him off back to his old friends at the CIA. He'll give them his dropbox address in an instant. :-)

Hero - despite the guerilla propagandists posting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden is a Hero.

The propagandists want us to think him a traitor, to kill the messenger and hide the message.

Traitor or Patriot

[PortHaven]

Well, if true....this = Patriot

Here is just one major item breached....

[PortHaven]

U.S. CONSTITUTION : AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION : ARTICLE IV
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I'd say...

[PortHaven]

He stabbed a rogue government agency acting outside the bounds of law and morality in the back, and did so to protect millions of his fellow citizens.

The Nation

[PortHaven]

Is the people...

Everything he revealed was a secret....

[PortHaven]

But, we suspected it all. But here is the issue, we had ZERO legal proof. And that's all that matters. When my mom's house was broken into and her laptop stolen. We knew exactly who did it. But we had no legal proof to prosecute. That was the state the American people were in.

Now we have legal proof, and it's acknowledged in part just by how many FOIA requests have been submitted and processed.

The real sad part is dumb !@#$% like Senator McCain rant and rail against Snowden rather than against the NSA's Constitutional violations. I really can't wait till McCain's neck just explodes. And we can be done with him in DC.

I wager...

[PortHaven]

He has a death contingency. If he was smart, he has given three people copies of all the materials with explicit instructions to do NOTHING with it, unless he is killed. In which case they are to dump the entire unaltered files out for public consumption.

Best Snowden Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"...you have to report wrongdoing to those most responsible for it.”

People this is not flamebait

[Sycraft-fu]

Slashdot needs to stop with the hero worship. Any time there is a person who does something people on Slashdot deem good and beneficial, it seems they go in to full on hero-worship mode, where said person can do NO WRONG, and whatever they say must be true and so on. We saw it with Hans Reiser. Tons of people whining and bitching about him being arrested and then convicted of murder. How he was set up, how the government was laying, etc, etc. Of course then he confessed and led police to the body.

Look guys, everyone, including heroes, are human, and can have flaws. You can view Snowden as a hero for what we did. However that does not mean he is above reproach, it does not mean that he never lies, it does not mean that he can do no wrong. People can do both right and wrong, even good people.

For example, here's another possibility (not saying it is the truth, or even that likely): Snowden brought classified documents to Russia. That is why they chose to give him asylum and put him under state protection. After all, this is a nation with a pretty poor human rights and transparency record, not a shining bastion of freedom. So he gave them these to buy his way in. However the Russians don't want the US to know that, and Snowden doesn't want to tarnish his reputation admitting he sold out, so he makes these claims.

The parent is very valid is saying that Snowden's statements shouldn't have any relevance to the validity of the claims that he gave data to the Russians. The reason is that a person's claims generally aren't useful. If you are innocent of what you are accused of, you of course say you didn't do it since you in fact didn't. However if you are guilty of what you are accused of, you also very often say you didn't do it since you don't want to be saddled with that.

I mean look at athletes and steroids: How many of the athletes busted doping straight up came out and immediately said "Yep, I doped, I probably shouldn't have but everyone else was doing it, what choice did I have?" and how many said "No, I never doped, these accusations are false, etc, etc."

You can't take Snowden's denial as evidence for or against anything. It is what it is. People need to stop acting as though the guy is above reproach, as though he can do no wrong. That he did something heroic does not mean he doesn't have flaws and couldn't do something else non-heroic.

A pattern emerges

[bytesex]

"He did so by adding some code and text âoein a nonmalicious mannerâ to his evaluation document that showed that the vulnerability existed, he said. His immediate supervisor signed off on it and sent it through the system, but a more senior manager â" the man Mr. Snowden had challenged earlier â" was furious and filed a critical comment in Mr. Snowdenâ(TM)s personnel file, he said."

"But the incident, Mr. Snowden said, convinced him that trying to work through the system would only lead to punishment."

So, once again, we have a petty middle manager who can't stand uppity nerds, and if only he hadn't involved himself, this whole affair wouldn't have happened. I'm sure that that middle manager feels mighty proud of himself now.

China and Russia don't care about the documents

[Anonymous Coward]

But they do care about how he got them.

The information is pretty much useless, the source and means of how he obtained them is worth gold. And only he knows, which to Russia and China (and any other country) is cash.