Feinstein and Rogers: No Clemency For Snowden

Ars Technica reports, probably to no one's surprise, that U.S. elected officials are unlikely to start seeing Edward Snowden as a righteous whistleblower rather than a traitor to the U.S. government. From the article:"[Sunday], the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and her House counterpart, Mike Rogers (R-MI), both emphasized there would be no mercy coming from Washington. 'He was trusted; he stripped our system; he had an opportunity—if what he was, was a whistle-blower—to pick up the phone and call the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and say I have some information,' Feinstein told CBS' Face The Nation. 'But that didn’t happen. He’s done this enormous disservice to our country, and I think the answer is no clemency.'"

Comments

At which point

[Anonymous Coward]

He'd be kept quiet one way or another.

Re:At which point

[flyneye]

Someday there will be no clemency for Feinstein and Rodgers.

You know, I've been thinking recently, we watch this from our perspective. Snowden, who loves the People of the United States, does the morally right thing, because it is RIGHT. We know it is right because those exposed are doing WRONG. Further ,their WRONGDOING which was exposed is costing us Allies and resources, because, who wants a bunch of untrustworthy assholes like the Obama Administration, his Congress and Senate and the puppet SCOTUS for friends and allies?
They'll just turn around and get all the dirt they can, to use out of context to get what they want later. If a friend of mine turned out to be treating me thus; I'm afraid I'd have to beat him so hard he would have an extended hospital stay and permanent damage. Luckily, our "Allies" are above that, but, what of the future with these people now? I don't give a damn if they are spying too, We are responsible for US and have to live with ourselves. If we persist in doing business that requires secrecy, we will never be trusted again. If we can't do business above the table with the current economic strategy, perhaps it is time to evacuate D.C., flush, wipe, and quit putting Repubmocrats in office, in order to proceed as a once again great country with actual FREEDOM instead of this joke, where they tell us we are still free in spite of the Repubmocrats stripping freedom away over the last century.
I doubt voting will solve the problem, they will just lie and say they won , probably like they have done for a century anyway. Damn, all they do is lie and cheat people out of their rights to make things more convenient to their ambitions. Why choose between two liars? Vote for someone, just not a Repub or a Dem. Its easy!! Even a nut would be preferential to a lying thieving confidence man.

Re:At which point

[erikkemperman]

I doubt voting will solve the problem, they will just lie and say they won , probably like they have done for a century anyway. Damn, all they do is lie and cheat people out of their rights to make things more convenient to their ambitions. Why choose between two liars? Vote for someone, just not a Repub or a Dem. Its easy!! Even a nut would be preferential to a lying thieving confidence man.

I appreciate the sentiment, but am starting to think that maybe it is time to stop voting as long as there are only lesser evils to choose from. We're encouraging them. I think Russel Brand is a bit of a douche, but this editorial strikes me as rather spot on.

Re:At which point

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Czech republic, one office worker reported corruption on Ministry of the Environment to the Prime Minister. The only thing that happened was that the office worker was fired by the end of week. So he gave all the evidence to media and now he's a senator (sponsored in the elections by Pirate Party, Greens and Christian Democrats).

Re:At which point

[umghhh]

these are indeed allies. It seems they were spying along and working together on 'interpreting' relevant acts of law so that they can do what they want freely.

This really gives an evil face to the 'black helicopter' jokes made by agents in HQ of The Guardian while destroying the Snowden disks. It looks to me now that they just wanted to show the power that they have in an unnecessary act of stupidity because they just can.

Re:At which point

[halexists]

He'd be kept quiet one way or another.

Agreed. To fix Feinstein's quote: "He’s done this enormous service to our country, and I think the answer is no clemency."

I understand why he can't be offered clemency by the overseers of the system he has revealed. But the state is insular, the security apparatus more so. To suggest that whistleblowing within the ranks would have produced the sort of system review that's been going on is intentionally naive on her part.

Snowden did what any honest president with a backbone could have (legally) done upon learning about the overreach of the US security apparatus. Reveal the key abuses, start a public dialog about how the abuses came to be, and initiate reforms to correct the abuses. It's hard to remember, but this is the course of action you would have expected from Obama's pre-election rhetoric. He was for transparency and reigning in the constitutional abuse brought on by the war on terror.

The difference between a president and an underling doing it is that the underling is not authorized, and therefore by definition is revealing state secrets, and his mechanism is solely public pressure. Snowden has accomplished the first two objectives (reveal and start a public dialog). It's up to us to push the third.

Re:At which point

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't who is in office anymore, it's that the *system* itself is broken. Vote in or out anyone, it doesn't matter, the system, as it is, will either corrupt them into it or marginalize them completely out of it. It's like slowly building a machine who's purpose is to kill/maim people, including those who built it... and then, after realizing what you've built, saying "well, if we change out these gears over here with new gears that will fill the same role, it'll change it" - nope, it'll still be a machine that kills/maims. POSWID - the Purpose Of a System Is What It Does. The only real solution is to dismantle the entire machine (system), and start over.

Re:At which point

[Kazoo the Clown]

No, don't stop voting. Just stop voting for Republicans OR Democrats. Write someone in if that is the only options. At least we could make them pass a law against write-ins, if it turned out write ins got more votes than either of them. At least you send a message. If you don't vote, you can't be differentiated from someone too lazy or too uninformed to vote. I want them to know I'm not too lazy to vote AND that I'm not voting for them.

Re:At which point

[TWiTfan]

if what he was, was a whistle-blower—to pick up the phone and call the House Intelligence Committee

I think this is what you were referencing. And, yes, the idea that the House Intelligence Committee was going to do something to stop the Unconstitutional programs that THEY THEMSELVES HAD KNOWN OF AND APPROVED, is laughable. If Snowden had called them, he would have been immediately fired, his security clearance revoked--and to this day none of us would have ever known that the NSA is vacuuming up the phone calls, emails, and web histories of EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN (yes, YOU TOO), not to mention pretty much everyone else in the world (including supposed allies).

Re:At which point

[mjr167]

They want you to stop voting. Keep voting. Just don't vote D or R. There other choices. And you can always write in a vote for Mickey Mouse. And if you can't write in a vote, then you need to sue and there are plenty of people who would help you.

Re:At which point

[mevets]

I agree with most of Russelâ(TM)s essay, but not voting is a poor choice of protest. I think that the best way to scare a politician is with huge voter turnout. In the long run, it probably matters less who you vote for than the fact that you vote.
The ruling class are meek; not voting emboldens them.

Re:At which point

[Anonymous Coward]

Not clemency, perhaps, but pardon.

As a first step, immunity so that he can testify in person.

Not being willing to grant him even that much is a pretty strong indication that they already know what the worst he can say is likely to be and they want to suppress at all costs his ability to say it.

Re:At which point

[FridayBob]

I doubt voting will solve the problem, ...

Yes it will, but there's something else that we have to do first.

The problem is that the vast majority of Repubmocrats don't work for us anymore: they work for the corporations. Feinstein and Rogers, for instance, they speak for companies like Booz Allen Hamilton -- their donors -- so of course they condemn Snowdon.

The reason why US politics is like this nowadays is because bribery is legal. Those in Congress know that 94-95% of the time the candidate with the most money wins, so they spend most of their time "following the green" in order to stay in office. And since that kind of money always comes with strings attached, they do exactly what their donors tell them to do. If not, the donors will simply back another candidate. Obviously, this is not how it should be.

To fix that and many other problems, we first need to get money out of politics.

If that makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators (who tend not to be nearly as corrupt as those who run for federal office) propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles.

.

*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.

**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.

Re:At which point

[erikkemperman]

If you don't vote, you can't be differentiated from someone too lazy or too uninformed to vote.

Well that works both ways, though doesn't it? If you do vote, there is no way of telling if you really support that candidate or just narrowly came down on the lesser evil, from your point of view. So the winner will just go ahead and claim all votes for him/her are true believers, and feel empowered by a mandate that is way out of proportion.

I am not sure either way, but a radical drop in voter turn out is a signal that hasn't been tried yet, afaik.

Re: At which point

[Bruha]

And you lost me the second you started ripping Obama over this. This shit has Cheney's fingerprints all over it. Bush was just the tool.

What's most disturbing is the economic spying. I want to know who it's being given to. That there would be proof that corporations have subverted the government for their own profits.

Re:At which point

[WillAdams]

One can express one's lack of support by showing up to vote and not voting for candidates when one disapproves of the available choices --- I've done this on a number of occasions.

Write-ins are a good choice, so long as they are formally declared and there will be other people writing in said candidate --- the Registrar has to fill out paperwork for each candidate that receives a vote --- just adds to the bureaucratic paperwork to have them do it for a single name/vote pair.

Re:At which point

[tbannist]

The problem is that the vast majority of Repubmocrats don't work for us anymore: they work for the corporations.

Gerrymandering contributes to this problem. Congressional representatives with safe seats (which is around 410 out of 435 seats) are required to raise a certain amount of money for the party if they want to keep them. Effectively, they are guaranteed re-election as long as they appease the corporate doners and keep the cash rolling in. Is any wonder the U.S. government responds poorly to the public when, in additional to rampant yellow journalism, the vast majority of your elected representatives are minimally, if at all, responsible to their constituents.

Re:At which point

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

The reason why US politics is like this nowadays is because bribery is legal. ...To fix that and many other problems, we first need to get money out of politics

We can't get money out of politics when voters keep voting for whoever spends the most on television advertisements.
God forbid voters actually read about the candidates, from sources that don't just echo their current views back to them.

Re:At which point

[tippe]

Hey, I have an idea for a great social experiment! It seems like a lot of people are in the same boat as you; thinking that in the best case, voting is some sort of pointless endeavour, and in the worst case it's part of the actual problem. How about throwing a wrench in the entire system by coming up with a way to "democratically" selecting (via technology) which non-"Repubmocrat" candidate that EVERYONE will vote for in the next election?

I'm not too familiar with American politics, so please forgive me if this can't possibly work, but one idea would be to have some sort of app for your Android or iPhone device which determines (based on location) what non-"Repubmocrat" political parties and representatives are in your area, and would give you the option of specifying your preference(s), if any. However, in the back-end, everyone's preferences are compared (and perhaps compared to other external sources, like results from some of the more official political polls, like Gallup). Based on all of this information, popular opinion, etc., one representative would be selected in region such that their chance of winning against the "Repubmocrat" reps in that region is maximized.

This, of course, would all be completely transparent (everyone would know at any one time who the leading candidates were, how their support was faring against the "Repubmocrat" competition, etc) and would be ongoing months before an actual election. News outlets would pick up on it, talking about this popular app which young kids were downloading and which was going to select everyone's vote for them. This news would get even more people (and older people) interested, and app downloads would increase exponentially. Meanwhile, "Repubmocrats" would catch wind of what was going on and would probably download the app themselves to see what the fuss was about. Upon seeing that an election was busy being decided and they aren't even on the candidate list, they would undoubtedly react badly, raving about how the app was a tool of "The Terrorists" to undermine the democratic process and must be stopped, and this reaction would piss off (even more) those that take the app seriously, further solidifying their resolve in actually showing up on election night and voting for the app-selected candidate.

The weeks leading up to the election would be pure chaos, with repubmocrats panicking and shitting cinder-block-sized bricks all over the place, while the 3rd party candidates are suddenly thrust into the spotlight, further increasing their visibility to everyone. Front-page newspaper captions like "Is This Your Next President?" (showing the leader of some currently-unknown political party) might even jar some grandmas and grandpas out of their usual behaviour and might get them thinking about voting for somebody other than a Repubmocrat. The app would of course make available all media related to this fallout, to keep users interested and coming back to the app to see what the latest developments were. Facebook stock would plummet.

The circus would go on until the day of the election, with more scandals, accusations, false promises, lies and tension than usual. This would be a time of pure hell for the American political establishment and all of the corporations that back it, but for everyone else (including the world at large) it would be the best show on earth. John Stewart and Stephen Colbert would have a goldmine of new story ideas; enough to last them until the following election 4 years hence.

On the day of election, the app would remind everyone to go vote and would give them the candidate to vote for. Something magical might happen then and all of the people who used the app might actually show up at polling booths and for the first time in who-knows-how-long vote in a totally new political party which will be impervious to corruption and will transform the US back into a land of rainbows and ponies. Or, maybe the existing tyrants in Washington will find some way to rig the election, preserving their power,

Re:At which point

[Anonymous Coward]

The big problem with this is when you vote, not voting D or R doesn't really help a lot of the time.

I can't say how many times I've gone into the voting booth and looked at my options and of the 7 options available, 4 of them were the same person with a different party name over their head. Then the next 3 were one other person. So 7 parties. 2 options.

In fact, I'm fairly sure that I've seen people who were listed as both the Republican and Democrat option for some local elections.

I agree that not voting is not the answer however. Surest way to make a police state is to willingly give up voting rights.

Re:At which point

[elistan]

You know, I've been thinking recently

flyneye, you are hereby ordered to immediately report to the nearest Adjustment Center, reference 45323835.

With love,
Your all-seeing overlords

Re:At which point

[TheRaven64]

That's why he's telling you to vote for a third party candidate, even if it's a write in. Your candidate almost certainly won't win, but now the winner will have one more vote against them and find it that little bit harder to claim that they have a mandate. It's easy to claim that you represent the people when 25% vote for you, 20% vote for you, and 55% don't bother to vote. It's much harder when 25% vote for you, 20% vote for the other guy, and 10% vote for write ins. Now only 45% of those that bothered to vote voted for you, not 55%.

Re:At which point

[erikkemperman]

Point taken. I really hope there will be 3rd party candidate next time around worthy of this dubious "honour". Jello Biafra for president!

Re:At which point

[mrchaotica]

To suggest that whistleblowing within the ranks would have produced the sort of system review that's been going on is intentionally naive on her part.

You're still managing to give Feinstein way too much benefit of the doubt. To suggest that is really blatantly and intentionally deceitful on her part, carefully calculated to bolster her fascist agenda.

Re:At which point

[captain_nifty]

The most effective write in would be one that unambiguously shows your disdain for the process, this is normally done by voting for a cartoon character, say Micky Mouse or Donald Duck, but I think a more effective method would be to gather a large number of votes for a candidate that sends a very clear message to those in power who continue to violate the law in the execution of policies to increase their power.

Vote Edward Snowden for all federal elections!

Re:At which point

[meerling]

You can't 'blow the whistle' to someone whom you believe is complicit.
You can't call up the president to do so either.
On the other hand, the public was both available and non-complicit.

With the b.s. the three letter acronym government agencies get away with, if I caught them red handed I'd think about an exit plan as well, I just doubt I'd choose Russia. (Actually I can't think of anywhere I could go to be 'safe' that I would like to be, but it's still understandable.)

Re:At which point

[Chas]

He'd be kept quiet one way or another.

Exactly. The "intelligence" committees first and only response to this kind of stuff is "shut up or we shut you up".

This kind of shit is the thing Americans NEED to know and understand about the government. They're NOT your friends.
And, as much as it hurts US interests abroad, this kind of shenanigans needs to be know there too.

People need to get pissed off about being forced to live in a panopticon state. People need to start pushing back at the government. And the government needs to learn that they're a bunch of expendable employees, not the bosses.

Re:At which point

[kharchenko]

That's because you have a populace that gives a shit.

Re:At which point

[erikkemperman]

Of course it does. You can't expect to have any credibility if significant numbers of the electorate don't show up. I see how you could argue that voting for a 3rd party would be a more powerful signal though.

Re: At which point

[Hatta]

While I have no doubt that Cheney instigated all of this, Obama has had 5 years to bring the NSA back into its constitutional limits, and has not. When the revelations were made, he didn't take the opportunity to spearhead reform. He circled the wagons and defended his policies. He continues to employ a known perjurer as head of the NSA. It was clear from the start that Obama has no respect for the 4th amendment, as he was in favor of retroactive immunity for telcos complicit in illegal surveillance as far back as 2006 when he was senator.

You have to realize that both D and R are on the same team, opposing the people, and they're winning. As long as you think that you're making anything better by voting Democrat, they'll continue to win.

Re:At which point

[Altrag]

Write in Edward Snowden. Imagine what it would say about the current state of affairs if even a couple % of the people did that.

Re:At which point

[flyneye]

Libertarian? Afraid not. A simplistic view is favorable to a distorted one.
Using a coin to divine truth from crap isn't going to produce very good results for you either.
Keep working on it though, you'll have a carnival act before you know it.

Re:At which point

[flyneye]

Well, yeah, but if you fix a system, don't reload it with the same players.
The problem has always been that we had a system that required a few tweaks to be perfect, but was sound to begin with. The breaking of the system was due to fixing things that weren't broken, with the biggest example being "The New Deal" marking the snide but ironic slam of the "Repubmocrat Tyranny for the last Century". Honestly, it was just an analogy to begin with, but has proved useful to dig out the most moronic apologists and Poli-Sci students and profs for amusement and venting. Serves them right if they take their drivel too seriously. Plus, even with no real conspiracy to be proved, it turns ironically true when viewed through the lens of history AND daily media releases.
Some real Tin Foil Hats should check into this.....

Re: At which point

[flyneye]

Nope , not just Obama and his pack of retarded clowns, but also Bush, Clinton, Bush,Reagan,Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy..etc.....Roosevelt, Wilson. Not one fit to lick my ass, every one an enemy of the People of the Several United States, their rights,their lives and their future, forever and irrevocably , fuck 'em.
So , you see, it wasn't just your cutely pathetic ,hypnotic, admiration of the man, I was slamming, but all those who can't learn their lesson in spite of banging their head each time, their whole lives, making the same mistake over and over, then having the gall to complain about it.
Nothing personal, no insult intended.

Re:At which point

[flyneye]

LOL!!
  +1 good one.

Re:At which point

[flyneye]

If this were the case, Snowden should just come back and get his medal, after all , spying is no big deal, Omama and Co. aren't really embarrased, it's just all for a laugh and publicity. Ha, and we actually bought the bit about the NSA collecting everyones information. Well what a relief, I can always count on an anonymous coward to step forward and minimize the situation down to nothing.
You're a real credit to your kind.

Re:At which point

[NoImNotNineVolt]

That's a good idea.

Which is, of course, why it won't happen :)

Re:At which point

[jwhitener]

I wonder if Russel's not voting has something to do with the election system specific to Britain.

Yeah, right...

[msauve]

"f what he was, was a whistle-blowerâ"to pick up the phone and call the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee,"

Those thugs continue to support government spying on citizens. Whistleblowing does nothing unless it's brought to the attention of someone who both cares and is in a position to do something.

BTW, Mike Rogers is complaining that "Federal data hub threatens privacy," with regard to the Federal Data Services Hub, a component of the health insurance exchanges created by Obamacare, but supports the NSA. He's a disingenuous hypocrite.

Re:Yeah, right...

[bfandreas]

It gets better.

The German parliament wants to interview him. The current discussion is wether he can come to Germany to do so. And maybe even stay here. There are rumors there may be a legal loophole to not extradite him to the US if he sets foot on German turf. There is a slim majority for that in the German parliament.

All this is obviously pretty hypothetical. What isn't hypothetical is the preemptive US extradition request that arrived pretty much immediately after this has hit the headlines.

Re: Yeah, right...

[Anonymous Coward]

everything that has happened in the world since January 21 1976 has been a lie intended to cover up the truth that aliens landed on earth and took over our goverment

Re: Yeah, right...

[ebno-10db]

If only that were true.

Re:Yeah, right...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Why would somebody with the information he had call Congress? The house and senate intelligence committees have been the staunchest in the collective insistence that "Absolutely nothing even slightly wicked happened, simply nothing. And, if it did, we were kept fully apprized of it at all times, and it was For America and 100% legal." Plus, 'called'? that'll throw the NSA off your trail...

Re:Yeah, right...

[bfandreas]

All this is obviously pretty hypothetical. What isn't hypothetical is the preemptive US extradition request that arrived pretty much immediately after this has hit the headlines.

...seems like this preemptive extradition request wasn't issued in response to the latest German involvement. The US pretty much carpet-bombed the world with those yonks ago. Personally delivered by carrier-drone, presumably.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ve haff vays of making you talk.

Re:Yeah, right...

[redcaboodle]

And this will stop the USA from conducting another illegal extradition?.

Re:Yeah, right...

[GarethIwanFairclough]

Apartheid was South Africa...

Re: Yeah, right...

[EdIII]

Yes. They might be forcing the most intelligent and beautiful humans to pair off and mate thereby giving us a chance at doing it.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Captain_Cozmic]

Most likely Snowden would have disappeared and no one would ever know about this massive criminal operation taking place. And both Feinstein and Rogers act like little children saying "I don't like the way you play. I'm taking my ball and going home." Neither of them should be allowed in Congress for their violation of their oath of office. More appropriate would be serious jail time for their crimes in allowing this to take place.

Re: Yeah, right...

[mysidia]

everything that has happened in the world since January 21 1976 has been a lie intended to cover up the truth that aliens landed on earth and took over our goverment

You do mean January 21, 1876; correct?

And "The Aliens" is a codeword, for the powers that be, correct?

Re:Yeah, right...

[mcneely.mike]

Und, loving it!

Re:Yeah, right...

[feral-troll]

All this is obviously pretty hypothetical. What isn't hypothetical is the preemptive US extradition request that arrived pretty much immediately after this has hit the headlines.

...seems like this preemptive extradition request wasn't issued in response to the latest German involvement. The US pretty much carpet-bombed the world with those yonks ago. Personally delivered by carrier-drone, presumably.

... and scotch-taped to a 2000lb JDAM.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly certain that if they pull this stunt here, they can say byebye to at least one of their major military bases on german soil. That'd be the price the public will demand. Are the US willing to pay it? I do not know, but they better be aware there'd be some truly major fallout about abducing someone like Snowden from here.

Re:Yeah, right...

[bfandreas]

And this will stop the USA from conducting another illegal extradition?.

If he gets sanctuary in Germany then this would be a litte bit too high-profile for something like that. At least for the next couple of years. After that he would be forgotten like Bobby Fischer.

Since he is a civilian he wouldn't be tried in front of a kangaroo military court. This would be a civilian trial. And there would be a lot of publicity surrounding that. No trial of this caliber could be kept as secret as the current would like it to be. This is bound to be leaky. I would say they are not interested in another trial like this and are completely happy about him being elsewhere. Assuming he already has handed over all of his material to The Grauniad.

Re: Yeah, right...

[Sponge Bath]

...aliens landed on earth and took over our goverment

Ricky Spanish

Re:Yeah, right...

[swalve]

If he had done that, they might have figured out the documents were fake.

Re:Yeah, right...

[gnasher719]

The German parliament wants to interview him. The current discussion is wether he can come to Germany to do so. And maybe even stay here. There are rumors there may be a legal loophole to not extradite him to the US if he sets foot on German turf. There is a slim majority for that in the German parliament.

Whistleblowing on illegal activities of the US government seems to be illegal in the USA. Whistleblowing on illegal activities of the German government may well be illegal in Germany, I don't know. I'm quite sure that whistleblowing on illegal activities of the US government is not illegal in Germany.

You can only get extradited from Germany for things that are illegal according to German law. So that would be the loophole. If the USA doesn't accept that, then surely they will have to extradite anyone to Germany who has been spying on German politicians.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ebno-10db]

You mean the Germans will do us a favor and save us a bunch of money? That seems like an odd response.

Re:Yeah, right...

[dunkelfalke]

If he gets sanctuary in Germany

That would, unfortunately, never happen. Right until it came out that Merkel was spied on, our minister of the interior accused all the NSA critics of anti-Americanism and insisted that USA never has spied on Germans. Our current government is quiter far up Obama's arse and the next one won't be that much different.

Re:Yeah, right...

[ebno-10db]

No trial of this caliber could be kept as secret as the current would like it to be.

The Constitution says that all trials must be public. Oh wait, I'm living in the past.

Re:Yeah, right...

[bfandreas]

If he gets sanctuary in Germany

That would, unfortunately, never happen. Right until it came out that Merkel was spied on, our minister of the interior accused all the NSA critics of anti-Americanism and insisted that USA never has spied on Germans. Our current government is quiter far up Obama's arse and the next one won't be that much different.

Nope. That was BEFORE they were caught spying on Mutti. Afterwards everything he said before was obviously misinterpreted.

You turn if you want to. The German government officials are not for turning.

Re:Yeah, right...

[mrchaotica]

In SA it was called "apartheid," in the US it was called "segregation;" I don't know if one term is more generic than the other.

Re:Yeah, right...

[dunkelfalke]

Yeah, right.

Just like I said, would never happen.

Re:Yeah, right...

[mrchaotica]

Indeed. Feinsten's "advice" amounts to "if you want to blow the whistle, call the goddamned ringleaders so that we can disappear you easier!

Re:Yeah, right...

[amicusNYCL]

A legal loophole not to extradite him? Why would that matter to the fine folks of the 66th Military Intelligence Command, based at Lucius D. Clay Kaserne? Or why would that matter to the fine folks at Dagger Complex, which is operated on behalf on the NSA? Look at the list of US military installations in Germany. You want to know what one of the best things about Russia is, as far as Snowden is concerned? No US bases. Certainly not any US bases specifically for NSA personnel.

What are the Germans going to do if the NSA abducts and renditions Snowden when he is Germany? Are they going to claim that wasn't legal? Oooooooooh, that really scares the completely law-abiding NSA.

Re:Yeah, right...

[bfandreas]

This is where the executive and legislative branch are at odds, true. Interestingly the situation in the US is quite similar. The houses are furious now that it emerges that they had exactly zero oversight capabilities. The US executive branch(which oddly includes the head of the state...what a weird thing to do in a democracy) sits in the same boat as the German executive branch. All this mess is their responsibility and so they are a bit on the defensive there.

While it is true that having friendly relations with the US is important the long-term relations are much more important than being all buddy-buddy with the current administration.

During the Iraq crisis ten years ago the French(and also Germany and a couple of other countries) didn't want to play ball and help the way they did in Afghanistan. The diplomatic tensions over this were quite severe. Let's remember Rumsfeld's "old Europe" and other hawkish remarks back then. Let's remember renaming french fries into Freedom Fries just to piss the Belgians off. Now, ten years later nobody wants to remember that silly episode. In ten years time we will not look kindly upon Obama's "I'm good at killing people" drone war and the security services running amuck. Make no mistake, all security services worldwide have crossed the line. The only country unable to deal with that properly seems to be the UK. French and German secret services will propably be the next target but since they are not part of the "Five Eyes" there isn't much but a hint here and there. We shall see.

The fate of one man is a small matter when looking at this from that angle. I would say Germany would be doing the US a huge favour by taking Snowden in. It's embarrassing enough he had to take refuge with Russia. The same Russia that somehow mislaid one of the Pussy Riot detainees.

Fuck the current German and US administrations. They'll be long gone when we start to think of this like we now think of the Dreyfuss affair. If there is the right thing to do then we should do it. Let the usual diplomatic channels negotiate some token ineffectual repercussions over this for appearances sake so they can keep on rattling their limp sabres and be done with it.


For the record: Jingoism is the worst mass hysteria a nation can suffer from and at the moment to the dismay of the UK and US administrations this time around the rabble is not buying it.

Re:Yeah, right...

[jwhitener]

Whistleblowing on illegal activities is legal in the US. Snowden revealed programs which are currently legal.

Common sense tells us that future court challenges will likely rule the NSA mass data gathering as unconstitutional, but for now, the secret intelligence court ruled it constitutional. I hope some group also challenges the existence of the secret court itself.

Ah right, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

he and others did and were ignored or worse prosecuted.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-09/world/39856622_1_intelligence-powers-single-point

And what good would that have done?

[JeffOwl]

Does anyone actually believe that if he had gone to the Senate or the House that anything would change, that the concerns would have been addressed?

Re:And what good would that have done?

[poodlediagram]

Quite agree.

Given that James Clapper was perfectly willing to lie to Congress, what would the NSA administration have done to a 29 year old system administrator, had he aired his views to them? He would have been sidelined, fired or arrested, that's what. And we would be none the wiser.

It is amusing that politicians will express the need for public discussion about NSA surveillance and then condemn Snowden in the next sentence. You can't have one without the other.

In my opinion, he is the definitive whistle-blower. He had only one way to reveal the NSA/GCHQ excesses and revealed them in the right way. Further, he gained nothing personally from all this: no money and he seems to dislike the attention. And spending a month in a Russian airport can't be much fun.

He has my gratitude and admiration, and I wish him well.

Re:And what good would that have done?

[Mitreya]

Does anyone actually believe that if he had gone to the Senate or the House that anything would change, that the concerns would have been addressed?

Not only that, but does anyone believe that he would not have been redirected to one of the NSA agents to air his concerns? I am sure Senate/House intelligence committees just stand by to address people's complaints (and is not spending all of their time fundraising).

Re:And what good would that have done?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because Congress is full of traitors to this country who choose not to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States by looking the other way while the federal government spies on citizens, helps militarize police, engages in useless security theater at airports and now others places--and they dare to want to silence anybody who points all that out.

Those who continue to support this national security state are the real traitors to our country.

Re:And what good would that have done?

[countach]

Yeah, they ought to put up a statue of him in Washington Mall. The only difference between him and the founding fathers is the founding fathers got away with overthrowing the corrupt establishment, and he didn't.

Re:And what good would that have done?

[erikkemperman]

We don't have to guess. There were people who tried to report problems the "right way", it didn't work.

Same goes with the Manning case. There were plenty of people that only reported injustices through the chain of command, nothing happened.

Indeed. See here if you're not sure.

Re:And what good would that have done?

[AHuxley]

At best he would have got a closed hearing with a tame security cleared lawyer. His CIA past and ability to get a contracting job at the NSA would have become the leaked 'story'.
That aspect would have been cleared up and then lost in the 24h news cycle. The public would still give weight to sock puppets telling us encryption is safe, lawyers will save us, politicians will save us, the marketplace will save us, data is too big to keep and work on, its illegal... never been any domestic spying, never spy with and on allies...
Snowden did the right thing allowing developers, lawyers, politicians, the press and historians to finally and fully understand an illegal chapter in US domestic surveillance.
Law reform can be started, US hardware and software brands reconsidered, local staff will get jobs over 'big' brands. Junk encryption 'pushed' by US gov agencies and tame academics is now exposed as been useless.
Thanks to Snowden more people in the US have a better understanding of the law, privacy and globally software can be coded to better standards.

Re:And what good would that have done?

[warm_warmer]

The current admin aggressively discourages whistle-blowers, so if Snowden wanted to inform the people for whom the US government supposedly works, he did the most logical thing.

Re:And what good would that have done?

[SternisheFan]

Mod up! Very interesting. From your Wiki link:

In 2011 Drake was awarded the Ridenhour Prize for Truth Telling and was co-recipient of the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) award. Accepting the SAAII award he said, with references to an 1857 speech of Frederick Douglass:

"Power and those in control concede nothing ... without a demand. They never have and they never will. ...each and every one of us must keep demanding, must keep fighting, must keep thundering, must keep plowing, must keep on keeping things struggling, must speak out and must speak up until justice is served because where there is no justice there can be no peace."

Drake has become an activist against the surveillance state, frequently giving interviews and speaking at events such as Restore the Fourth. One of the themes of his speeches and interviews is a "privacy exercise" as follows "Put your entire life in a box, your documents, bank accounts, your passwords, everything -- and give it to a complete stranger -- a fellow American for safekeeping. Would you do it?" he states that he has yet to encounter a "yes."

Drake reportedly inspired Edward Snowden to leak information on the NSA spying program PRISM in June 2013.

In a September 2013 interview Drake re-affirmed his belief that the problems of the NSA are so chronic and systemic that the only solution would be to completely dismantle and subsequently rebuild the entire organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

Re:And what good would that have done?

[bstag]

amen brother.

Re:And what good would that have done?

[SirGarlon]

It ain't over till it's over.

Re:And what good would that have done?

[cold fjord]

Even if you think what Snowden did was praiseworthy, if you are intellectually honest you must admit that there is at the least controversy and some "complexity" in accessing his actions. There are many who consider his leaks showing surveillance of the American people to be excusable, but not the leaks about American intelligence operations overseas. There is a precedent for acknowledging that sort complexity. If he is to have any memorials, they should be informed by the handling of another similarly "complex" figure.. Personally I think the other "complex" man was more of a genuine American hero than Snowden since he at least helped America to win some victories. Snowden, on the other hand, has brought naught but damage to America and its allies, and may have handed the keys to future victories to adversaries of America and the West. At least the Russians are getting something useful from him. Perhaps they'll give him a plaque as they gave another hero in Russia.

Re:And what good would that have done?

[countach]

Yes well, you're assessing people in terms of victory to America vs victory to England, Germany, Russia etc etc. The rest of us are thinking about victory for the people vs the surveillance state, which we think is a more important battle than killing the occasional wild muslim.

measures

[Vintermann]

By the measure you use, it will be measured up to you. It might have been outrageous to think so before, but maybe there will come a day where you'll have to answer for what you did - and risk losing something more than reelection prospects.

In other news.

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. elected officials are unlikely to start seeing Edward Snowden as a righteous whistleblower rather than a traitor to the U.S. government.

Then it seems unlikely that the people will see U.S. elected officials as something else than traitors to the U.S. population.
You see, being a traitor to the government is not the same thing as being a traitor to the nation or the people.

Re:In other news.

[SuricouRaven]

The US population have a very simple standard.

politician.traitor = (politician.party != self.party);

Disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

He was trusted; he stripped our system; he had an opportunityâ"if what he was, was a whistle-blowerâ"to pick up the phone and call the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and say I have some information

What is she talking about? They all already knew what the NSA was doing. They OK'd it right along with the NSA budget.

I'm no Snowden fan, but if he had come forward he would have been dealt with as a "security risk" in a very permanent way. The only whistling would have been from the government "Whew, that was another close one."

Redux

[ebno-10db]

he had an opportunity - if what he was, was a whistle-blower - to pick up the phone and call the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and say I have some information

Plausible deniability by Congress. "We didn't know". It's like Reagan and Iran-Contra. People said he didn't know. I figured there were two possibilities. Either he knew or he didn't, and I'm not sure which was worse.

Re:Redux

[cold fjord]

Plausible deniability by Congress? I don't think so. It has been pointed out that they knew about several of the programs that are part of the controversy even if some people skipped the briefings.

Re:Redux

[ganjadude]

why go all the way back to reagan? how many issues can we say that with obama? benghazi? obamacare website? the list goes on and on about things im not sure is better, him lying about knowing or not really knowing

So what exactly are the phone numbers?

[tlambert]

So what exactly are the phone numbers for the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, so that, you know, future whistle blowers can call them up, and not end up like Snowden?

Re:So what exactly are the phone numbers?

[ebno-10db]

1-800-JAIL4ME

Re:So what exactly are the phone numbers?

[alphatel]

1-800-JAIL4ME

Followed by a hell of a lot more secret courts, classified documents, and non disclosures. Until your country-liberating ass is forgotten until the next 8 year term presidency.

Re:So what exactly are the phone numbers?

[Rick Richardson]

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/

211 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 Phone: 202-224-1700

Re:So what exactly are the phone numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I guess someone better call and inform them about the NSA surveillance.
I'm sure they'd put a stop to it if only they only knew.

Re:So what exactly are the phone numbers?

[cold fjord]

1-800-JAIL4ME

Can you point to people going to jail for talking directly to Congress? Congress has responsibility for oversight. The people that are in danger of going to jail are the people that don't go to Congress but instead go directly to the media with classified information.

Re:So what exactly are the phone numbers?

[Toad-san]

http://intelligence.house.gov/contact-us

                        Majority Staff Minority Staff
Office: 202 225-4121 202 225-7690
Fax: 202 225-1991 202 226-5068

No, I haven't tried to report any flaws or problems in our nation's spying on friends and allies. Wouldn't be prudent.

'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[SpaghettiPattern]

'He was trusted; he stripped our system...' Snowden could claim exactly that against the NSA. This is beyond the pot calling the kettle black.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[Vintermann]

Yeah. It's a bit rich to complain of breach of trust when you've just been caught listening in on the phone calls of allied political leaders.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[Anonymous Coward]

"Been caught" being the operative term. Every modern country does this kind of stuff, and everyone else knows it. This whole charade of shock and disgust -- from Russia and other US frenemies offering Snowden asylum to European countries feigning ignorance -- is merely an attempt by other countries at scoring political points, while desperately trying to keep a lid on their own domestic programs. I mean, seriously... Russia was recently caught poisoning a potential defector with a rare radioactive isotope, presumably to ensure that their official denials would be discounted by others of a similar mind.

Does anyone really think -- I mean, really think -- that the entities screaming the loudest about this stuff are in any way concerned about your freedom and/or privacy? Grow the fuck up; the real world doesn't operate like that.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[c0lo]

'He was trusted; he stripped our system...' Snowden could claim exactly that against the NSA.

From outside US: until the phase above won't naturally come as "We claim exactly that against the NSA" (instead of "Snowden could...") nothing is going to change in this regard.
You are cheering for Snowden in his "match" against NSA, but not actually supporting him.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you please stop propagating the 'spying on polical leaders' talking point?

It seems to me as a (conscious?) distraction effort by various media. The real issue is mass surveillance on the general population. Polticial leaders are the most standard targets of all, and that relevation can be shrugged off with all kinds of rhetorics a while from now, when the biggest public outrage has subsided.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowdens 'crime' was merely malum prohibitum, whereas the crimes of the U.S. government and its agencies constitute malum in se. That is the crucial point here. In my opinion, doning something that is not legally allowed to prevent or end something that is fundamentally wrong is good, as long as there is no way that is likely to accomplish the same without breaking the law.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[SpaghettiPattern]

>You are cheering for Snowden in his "match" against NSA, but not actually supporting him.

You're overreacting a bit here. I'm not a USA citizen and I would do more harm than good by stating "We claim...". Diplomacy is a kind of art that takes its time and is largely unaffected by shouting down. Don't underestimate the intentions of countries "victim" of the NSA in knowing how badly they have been treated by the USA/NSA. The inertia of diplomacy can be frustrating to people that have already digested the matter. But voices for change are getting louder.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[kharchenko]

Agree. In fact, I really wish Snowden has limited his revelations to domestic programs. The foreign intelligence is the direct mission of the NSA, and while they might've done too much in some cases you can hardly blame them for being successful at it.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[chihowa]

I think all of the more recent releases of international spying are because:

a) Informing the US population that their own government is spying on them generated almost no real reaction. It was a complete waste of airtime and I'm not sure what you could possibly release to get a reaction here.

b) The Guardian is in the UK and so international spying is a larger concern to them. To their credit, the international spying revelation has generated considerably more outrage.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[10101001 10101001]

It seems to me as a (conscious?) distraction effort by various media. The real issue is mass surveillance on the general population.

The people, long ago, accepted their role as serfs. They have accepted that to spy on them is meaningless because they have nothing of value and nothing to hide. But to spy on their kings^Wpolitical leaders? Why, that could have a real effect!

Polticial leaders are the most standard targets of all, and that relevation can be shrugged off with all kinds of rhetorics a while from now, when the biggest public outrage has subsided.

Where's that public outrage you speak of? Seriously, it's political leaders who are crying about being spied on. The media can try to rile up the public, but it's clearly not working. Even if the public were being abused by leaders, foreign or domestic, in a more physical sense, people would just shrug it off. "One bad apple spoils the barrel", they'd say, so to gas millions to catch a few "terrorists" must be okay.

The real thing 9/11 showed was just how little backbone most people have. I mean, for fuck sake, the American Revolution started over (from a public support perspective) pretty pathetic tax increases on tea, sugar, and legal documents and some pretty irrelevant, to the people, hassling of the British King of colonial political leaders. But, in the end, it could be said it was because the people saw that the very framework of which they live was being violated so wholly (for them, that the taxed were to have representation in Parliament). Well, we're well past that point. So, where is the outrage?

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[mrchaotica]

No, it doesn't boil down to that. Any directive to keep the damning information secret was an illegal order and thus must not be followed according to the Constitution. Snowden acted entirely legally; it is only the corruption of the treasonous fascists in charge that prevents his actions from being recognized as such!

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[sI4shd0rk]

"Everybody else is doing it" is a useless observation, even if true.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[Actually, I do RTFA]

you've just been caught listening in on the phone calls of allied political leaders.

That's the NSA's job. I mean, to gather information on what other countries are doing to inform US policy.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[Vintermann]

No, they are not. It would be great if regular people had as much clout as heads of state. But there's actually a lot of personal trust involved between heads of state, along with personal power. They aren't just tools of their systems.

Betraying that personal trust is a big deal. Maybe the attacks on our liberties should be a bigger deal in the perfect world. But it isn't. Right now the best we can hope for is that your pseudo-autarch faces some consequences from our pseudo-autarch for his bad behavior.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[Vintermann]

Whatever the mission of the NSA is, you're not supposed to breach trust. Get this?

You're never supposed to promise a leader "We'll not spy on you" and then go on to spy. You never say "We'll not attack" and then attack. No matter your views of your superiority and exceptionalism, promises like these undermine themselves. If you keep making and breaking them eventually no one will believe them. Then there will be no trust between you.

It's generally thought that trust is valuable - that keeping it is worth occasionally telling truths when lies would have been easier.

If no, the concept of "allies" is a sham, and it would come out eventually anyway.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[Vintermann]

Never mind the NSA then, if you want to give them the benefit of "just following orders". It's still the responsibility of the US president to not betray the trust of your allies, not lie to them. At least not if he wants to stay allied with them.

Re:'He was trusted; he stripped our system...'

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Never mind the NSA then, if you want to give them the benefit of "just following orders"

I'm not saying that. I'm saying, that's the job my taxdollars pay them for. I don't excuse the individual agents. I'm saying I actively desire that they do.

It's still the responsibility of the US president to not betray the trust of your allies, not lie to them. At least not if he wants to stay allied with them.

I tend to assume every government tries to hear what every other government's commander-in-chief is saying. I don't get the "trust" issue.

I get it if you're just two people hanging out, it's a violation of trust. I'm not saying it's good because the people doing the tapping are the NSA, I'm saying it's okay because Merkle is not a private citizen.

FTFY

[TitusGroan8856]

"Weâ(TM)ve done this enormous disservice to our country, and he's exposed us for that."

Re:FTFY

[Nerdfest]

I was going to say the same. From what I can see, he did a disservice to parts of the government flagrantly violating the constitution. The did a very important service for the people of the country.

Disservice? What disservice?

[jamesl]

" ... pick up the phone and call the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and say I have some information,' Feinstein told CBS' Face The Nation."

You mean the House and Senate Intelligence Committees didn't know about this already? Aren't they in charge? Don't they make the rules? Didn't they say, and aren't they still saying, that it's all legal? In what alternate universe would Snowden think telling the intelligence committees would change anything.

Feinstein thinks we're all ignorant idiots.

Re:Disservice? What disservice?

[Anonymous Coward]

pick up the phone?!?!? you must be retardant! Feinstone works for the israelis!
youtube.com/watch?v=9uateluavJQ the AIPAC lobbyists and the media networks are trying SOOOOO hard to keep AMDOCS hushed up...

Slashdot is in desparate need of a -1 Crank mod

Re:Disservice? What disservice?

[91degrees]

From reports, it seems that they didn't know. Feinstein has made several statements critical of the NSA both for overreach and for not keeping the Senate Intelligence committee informed.

Re:Disservice? What disservice?

[knarf]

" ... pick up the phone and call the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and say I have some information,' Feinstein told CBS' Face The Nation."

...to either silently disappear and a bit later show up 'dead after a car crash, obsiously drugs were involved, probably had been molesting children and puppies' or be arrested on whatever charges, painted blacker than black by the 'media' and hurried off to a federal labour facility for the next umpteen years.

Strange. I would have written something like this about, say, Sacharov, before the Wall fell. It did not take all that long for the tables to be turned, did it?

Re:Disservice? What disservice?

[cold fjord]

Strange. I would have written something like this about, say, Sacharov, before the Wall fell. It did not take all that long for the tables to be turned, did it?

Would you really have written such... on both sides of the Wall falling? Rhetorically it is an easy change to make. Factually it is a different question.

If you have any evidence of a systematic use of the US government powers to engage in that sort of behavior against its own citizens, I would love to see it. It's an easy charge to make without evidence. Its just as easy to charge you as an agent provocateur of the FSB. Oh look! A terrible charge without evidence! It must be true because it's bad!

Re:Disservice? What disservice?

[knarf]

Evidence? No, I don't have evidence. Neither do I suspect that the US government is a monolithic institute which plots to disappear (in its verbal sense) troublemakers. That troublemakers sometimes are harassed - from not being allowed to fly to being subjected to unreasonable search and seizure - has been documented often enough.

Before Snowden started the ball rolling, people talking about ECHELON and using M-x spook on Emacs to insert 'rebellious' phrases in their mail were all seen as the tin foil brigade. Now, not so much. Deluded, maybe - M-x spook is not going to overload any surveillance system after all.

oil nitrate White Water Maple CDC Rand Corporation broadside Project Monarch SP4 Lon Horiuchi North Korea Iran emc CESID bootleg

If he had reported it through official channels...

[the grace of R'hllor]

Especially channels amenable to spying on US citizens, we would never have heard of Snowden or the spy programs. If he had then tried to publish via other means, neither would his family.

At the risk of Godwin:
If you were, say, a German administrator learning about the death camps and being absolutely appalled, reporting it to any senior Nazi official wouldn't do much good.

Traitor to the government---of course.

[serviscope_minor]

This shows how messed these people are. Of course he was a traitor to the government. But he and no one else owes loyalty to the government. The fact that these people believe that they, personally, are owed loyalty says far more about them than it does about Snowden. If he's a traitor then the question is if he was a traitor to the country and it's citizens.

I'm inclined to go with "no".

Re:Traitor to the government---of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you think of what Snowden did, the simple fact is that he is not a traitor. The US Constitution has a very clear definition of treason, specifically, aiding or giving comfort to an enemy at a time of war declared by Congress. Congress hasn't declared war since 1942.

Re:Traitor to the government---of course.

[qwijibo]

Each senator and congress vermin takes the oath of office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#United_States):

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

This must fall under the category of ceremonies with no legal consequences for overt violation.

Re:Traitor to the government---of course.

[Eunuchswear]

Uh, the "messed up person" was Timothy.

The phrase "Traitor to the [US] Government", or even the word "Traitor" don't appear in the original article.

The hardest it gets is:

"But that didn’t happen. He’s done this enormous disservice to our country, and I think the answer is no clemency.”

No accusation of treachery, to the people, the country or the government.

Vote Feinstein for moar war!1!!

[jmcvetta]

How is this fucking authoritarian fascist even sort-of, possibly, slightly representative of the views of the majority of Californians?

Re:Vote Feinstein for moar war!1!!

[felrom]

The majority of Californians sympathize with the Democrat platform.
The Democrat platform is all about more government control of (almost) everything: healthcare, education, regulation, business... everything.
When you've been elected to go to Washington and gain control over everything, it shouldn't surprise those who elected you that you run a giant spying apparatus to watch the same citizens who elected you to control them.
The only thing that should surprise any honest person is that the people who elected Feinstein over and over are angry that she went to Washington and did exactly what they elected her to do: grow the government, give it more power, and let it control everything it touches.

I'd say she is representing the views of the majority of Californians quite well. They're just suffering mass cognitive dissonance over the fact that they're being forced to reap what they've sown.

Re:Vote Feinstein for moar war!1!!

[kharchenko]

She's 80, and her current term doesn't run out until 2016. So she probably couldn't care less as to how the public opinion swings by these types of coverup attempts.

Re:Vote Feinstein for moar war!1!!

[ebno-10db]

The Democrat platform is all about more government control of (almost) everything: healthcare, education, regulation, business... everything. When you've been elected to go to Washington and gain control over everything, it shouldn't surprise those who elected you that you run a giant spying apparatus to watch the same citizens who elected you to control them.

Putting aside the obvious point that this started under Bush (not a Democrat AFAIK), your reasoning is interesting. Let's say they got rid of Social Security, Medicare, the ACA, Dept. of Education, the EPA and OSHA. How exactly would that eliminate abuses by the NSA?

Re:Vote Feinstein for moar war!1!!

[undeadbill]

She doesn't.

She did, however, have two complete loons run against her in the last state election. The Republican was some religious frothy mouthed nut job, and the other was a nut job from the Libertarian party. What do I mean by nut job? Campaigning against all of the other things that Feinstein knows to stay the hell away from- gutting labor protections for workers, gutting educational funding, and generally bringing California back to the religious roots in never had in the first place. Also, both candidates wanted to repeal rules that would then enable them to be even more corrupt than Feinstein. All any candidate had to do was hit Feinstein on known issues of crony power brokering and corruption as relates to her own family and business associates, or her voting record on privacy and civil rights, or any number of issues that many Californians hold dear but are otherwise not informed of by the local news on a nightly basis.

Nope. Lets turn CA into Californiastan, the newest Tea Party Republic while I line my pockets! - that was the Republican and Libertarian solution offered.

So, um, no... nobody likes her, but nobody with more than half a brain has run against her. Until then, people will vote *AGAINST* worse candidates, which is what happened in the last election.

Re:Vote Feinstein for moar war!1!!

[ultranova]

authoritarian fascist

As opposed to all the fascists who are staunch supporters of freedom and personal liberties?

Re:Vote Feinstein for moar war!1!!

[felrom]

I think my answer would be that all the wayward programs you mention are only symptoms. The sickness that causes them all is the desire to have the government manage everything for you. So in that sense, getting rid of any one, or even all, of those programs wouldn't stop the NSA's illegal activities, and neither did any of those programs somehow spawn the NSA in its current out-of-control state. You would instead have to change the culture of people who think the government can manage their lives better than they themselves can.

And make no mistake, this isn't purely an R vs D issue. There are more than enough R's who love them some fascist control of the populace. The only difference is that it's enshrined in the Democrat party platform, and there are at least a few Republicans who fight to shrink the government's power over our lives. No one would ever argue that Bush was for limited government or expanding civil liberties.

Re:Vote Feinstein for moar war!1!!

[Areyoukiddingme]

I found out something. Posting anonymously silently undoes all your moderations. It doesn't prompt you. It just eliminates them. I'm not sure if logging out would work either. I'll have to experiment to find out if it's an IP check or an account check.

I bet he called... and got rebuffed

[strredwolf]

Someone get those call logs! I bet he called and nobody listened!

Re:I bet he called... and got rebuffed

[Noughmad]

Yeah, there must be an agency in the US that stores all telephone call logs. Oh, wait...

clemency?

[duckintheface]

There is a lot more that Snowden has not released yet. He is wisely using the drip, drip, drip method of disclosure so the press and public have time to digest each successive piece of information. Before it's done, it will become clear that the House and Senate oversight committees were either derelict in their duties or complicit in illegal activities. They either knew or they didn't. Either way, eventually they will be the ones asking for clemency.

Re:clemency?

[drinkypoo]

Snowden says there's nothing more he hasn't released yet. He's released all the data to the media. Now he's just commenting on what they release.

Re:clemency?

[Noryungi]

Or, as the Brits used to say:

Either they knew, and, therefore, they are not fit to oversee the NSA. Or they did not know, and, therefore, they are not fit to oversee the NSA.

Re:clemency?

[duckintheface]

That's what I would say too.... if I had a target on my back. If he has disclosed everything, there is no reason to take him out.

Re:clemency?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I would say too.... if I had a target on my back. If he has disclosed everything, there is no reason to take him out.

Except for revenge ... and to send a message to any future leakers.

Re:clemency?

[Zimluura]

...eventually they will be the ones asking for clemency.

I hope you're right, but I really worry that U.S. citizens are no longer up to the challenge of holding a politician's feet to the fire. Maybe it's our news networks colluding with politicians on damage control. Ayway, Nixon spied on another political party and it was somehow a bigger deal than the NSA spying on everyone.

NSA = Gladys Kravitz

Re:clemency?

[Anonymous Coward]

' Feinstein told CBS' Face The Nation. 'But that didn’t happen. He’s done this enormous disservice to our country, and I think the answer is no clemency.'

Translation: Mr Snowden embarrased me and all my no-a-count friends, so we are going to be a cunt about it.

Re:clemency?

[Sockatume]

Or to use an Americanism, they're either assholes or morons.

Re:clemency?

[jd2112]

Or to use an Americanism, they're either assholes or morons.

Those terms are not mutually exclusive.

Re:clemency?

[Anonymous Coward]

...eventually they will be the ones asking for clemency.

I hope you're right, but I really worry that U.S. citizens are no longer up to the challenge of holding a politician's feet to the fire. Maybe it's our news networks colluding with politicians on damage control. Ayway, Nixon spied on another political party and it was somehow a bigger deal than the NSA spying on everyone.

NSA = Gladys Kravitz

You're assuming that U.S. citizens have the power to hold a politician's feet to the fire. Personally, I think that's something we lost, no, gave away when we let our politicians "protect" us with things like the PATRIOT act. The U.S. is really a fascist state that now caters to corporations, who are the real constituency of the U.S. government. The rest of us amount to the same as red blood cells in the body. We carry nutrients for the corporations. We happy to do so as long as we can get the latest smart phone and access to Facebook.

Re:clemency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo, that is the thing people don't realize. If there isn't a corporate sponsor (like in the case of the Tea Party), what happens with any grassroots movements more specific than a few Facebook posts is what happened with Occupy -- a concerted, blitzkreig strike removing them off the board.

People forget the US is a police state. There are no knocks on the door like the Stasi; the door is kicked down, and the target wakes up with a taser pointed at their eyeball. In fact the city I live in has building codes requiring large windows in all new structures so a police sniper has a clean shot to at least 85-90% of the building from outside.

Americans can outvote what's in power just like East Germans had the power in the 1960s to out-vote the Stasi and the building of the Berlin Wall.

Occupy was America's Tienanmen Square. No, it wasn't anywhere near as brutal, but it doesn't take much for anyone living in the US to disappear into the private [1] prison system. There is no real way for people to protest. Take it to the street? It gets kettled. Take it to a park? Most parks are privatized, so people get rounded up wholesale for trespass. Take it to Facebook? Anything gets infiltrated and sabotaged, similar to how the Tea Party started out with legitimate grievances, but then got taken over and is now just another corporate mouthpiece. Even Occupy got overrun with anti-US Arabic propaganda towards the end (not many Americans use "down with the zionists" as a political slogan.)

It isn't a matter of won't, but can't. The US congress has a lower approval rating than "blue waffles" [2] for crying out loud.

Europe shouldn't feel contempt... it is pity. The problem is that a revolution is -impossible-. A UAV piloted by a mercenary from the Middle East (it won't be an American doing the dirty work) lobbing a few cans of VX gas at a few towns and farms, and the so-called "gun behind every blade of grass" would be lining up to surrender en masse, just like the Iraqis did in Desert Storm.

[1]: Yes, private, with its own lobby and campaign funding so only people who dish out maximum sentences stay in office come DA and judge elections. The two private prison corporations are some of the few stocks which have seen anywhere near Apple's prosperity with regards to prices. Not as earth-shattering, but doubling every few years.

[2]: NSFW, google the reference on an empty stomach.

Re:clemency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rumor has it that Snowden has some sort of dead man's switch that triggers the immediate release of all the files, unredacted, if he is harmed or imprisoned.

There has to be a reason why the US hasn't sent in special forces to extricate Snowden already.

Re:clemency?

[jalopezp]

What kind of logic is that? "He's already shot his wife, no reason to go after him." They'll go after him to satisfy their sense of justice, exact their revenge, and warn any other future whistle blowers of the consequences of their whistle blowing.

Re:clemency?

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent is absolutely correct in the translation...
The real issue here has to be the realization of who has done the damage and disservice (Feinstein is at the top of the list). Basically her response is that of the bankrobber who is angry and blaiming his friends for turning him in rather than himself for being caught with the cash. This is a crook not wanting to face her crime.
As to Snowden, no argument can be rationally made that any benefit exists for the USA to continue this snit by Feinstein etc. Every day they leave him in Moscow they damage the USA greatly. The best and finest solution would be to bring Mr Snowden home completely free to do as he proposed and even to build a monument to him on the mall. Honestly those same politicians who built the monument to Dr. Martin Luther King on the mall were in many cases the ones who had opposed every effort to do decent things he asked for. I lived through those times I know! Let us hope that they don't wait until Mr Snowden is dead to build the monument he so richly deserves. He should be treated as a national hero!

Re:clemency?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Feinstein is real "Game of Thrones" material. She'll have Snowden's head, impaled at the gates...

Re:clemency?

[bfandreas]

That's what I would say too.... if I had a target on my back. If he has disclosed everything, there is no reason to take him out.

Alan Rusbridger said they were still sifting through the data. Up to now nothing has been published that would put lives at risk. And they are very conscientious about how they publish. One would assume Snowden has handed over the whole lot. And he has promised Putin not to release any embarassing stuff while he is in Russia...

Re:clemency?

[Teancum]

If they don't spy then you might as well close the doors and send them all home.

For myself, I think that sounds like an excellent thing to have happen to the NSA. They might have served a purpose in the American Republic once upon a time, but at this point they are doing far more harm than good.

The NSA, together with the TSA, are both agencies that should simply be disbanded completely with nothing to replace them. Neither agency really protects ordinary citizens.

Re:clemency?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

How does that work with digital files? Is there something he has to check in with every week or so or it gets sent out?

Re:clemency?

[melikamp]

Don't be so harsh on them. The congress used up all of its clemency on James Clapper, who lied under oath and now seems to be proud of it. I am afraid the only way they can replenish their clemency pool is by taking a long paid vacation.

Re:clemency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Feinstein is real "Game of Thrones" material. She'll have Snowden's head, impaled at the gates...

I think it is time for Feinstein and her Intelligence Committee cronies to go. Whatever pork she might be bringing home to her constituents is greatly outweighed by the treasons that she and her buddies are have committed and continue to commit against the principles upon which the USA was founded.

Don't wait for elections, petition a recall. Surely there must be someone in her state who can defend the nation against becoming everything we've ever scorned. Even a Republican who'll spend all of his time on anti-abortion legislation would be acting in more in the interest of liberal citizens than a Democrat who defends the tools of tyranny.

Re:clemency?

[mrchaotica]

Fascist != "true democrat." Fascism is as much a corruption of democratic ideals as it is republican ones.

(If you're interested in non-fascist liberalism or conservatism, look towards the Green and Libertarian parties, respectively.)

Re:clemency?

[PopeRatzo]

There has to be a reason why the US hasn't sent in special forces to extricate Snowden already.

Send US special forces into Russia? I don't think so. There might be some pushback from - I don't know, maybe Russia?

What do you think the US would do if Russian special forces ran an op in Chicago?

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

In a world where all is love and peace, maybe. In the world we live in? Hell NO!

Re:clemency?

[Greg01851]

I thought part of his deal with Russia was that he'd not release any more information? What we are hearing now is just what the media is releasing.

Re:clemency?

[cusco]

Do you know why the Stasi operated essentially without any outside controls? They either had or manufactured dirt on everyone who was supposed to keep them in check. Why do you think the NSA has been operating essentially without any outside controls?

Hope you're looking forward to being stopped at the checkpoint on your way to work and asked, "Your papers please, comrade." That's where this goes if we give the alphabet soup of intel agencies free rein.

Re:clemency?

[TemperedAlchemist]

Sounds like this whole situation could have been prevented if the NSA didn't overstep their authority.

Re:clemency?

[cusco]

building codes requiring large windows in all new structures

Those are called "egress windows", they've been required by the fire code since the late 1970s in most large cities and since the 1980s in most of the rest of the country. They're so that the fire department can extract residents in an emergency.

Re:clemency?

[TheCarp]

> He is wisely using the drip, drip, drip method of disclosure so the press and public have time to
> digest each successive piece of information

Not only that, but he gave the people in power time to LIE about it, and then get caught.

If he gave it out all at once, they could go over it, come up with their response and their lies and nobody would be able to refute them. However, forcing them to make their admissions and coverup lies one at a time put them at a huge disadvantage.

It was masterful.

Re:clemency?

[countach74]

Ah yes, and opinions such as this is exactly why they are able to go rogue on their own agenda. It is dangerous to operate out of fear, which is exactly what you are doing if you believe things like, "I want them looking at everyone because you never know where the threat is coming from."

Re:clemency?

[bsane]

That and she already fucking knew what was going on. The very agencies she wanted him to go to were part of the conspiracy. I'm sure Snowden knew that, so why would he go to them?

Re:clemency?

[Runaway1956]

"There has to be a reason why the US hasn't sent in special forces to extricate Snowden already."

Well, of course there's a reason. The decision makers have brains that are at least as large as their balls. WTF, you think we could send a hit team into Russia, to hit a high profile guest, without repercussions? Repercussions such as a couple dozen dead American special forces being displayed on television by Russian television?

Derp . . . .

Re:clemency?

[erikkemperman]

He is wisely using the drip, drip, drip method of disclosure so the press and public have time to
digest each successive piece of information

Not only that, but he gave the people in power time to LIE about it, and then get caught.

If he gave it out all at once, they could go over it, come up with their response and their lies and nobody would be able to refute them. However, forcing them to make their admissions and coverup lies one at a time put them at a huge disadvantage.

It was masterful.

Absolutely. Furthermore, I don't think it was a coincidence that the stories about warrantless spying on US citizens appeared well before the current stories about spying on supposed allies. Perhaps, if the American public had not (on average) reacted to the first batch with such contemptible apathy, the latter batch would have remained unreleased. No way to be sure, of course. But the order in which this happened can't have been an accident.

Re:clemency?

[Stargoat]

Probably the same thing the British did when the Russians sent an assassin into London in 2006. Which is to say, nothing at all.

Re:clemency?

[ShanghaiBill]

Rumor has it that Snowden has some sort of dead man's switch that triggers the immediate release of all the files, unredacted, if he is harmed or imprisoned.

That would make him even more of a target, by people that would like everything released immediately and unredacted. Such as the Russians.

Re:clemency?

[Stargoat]

I'm not sure this is a troll. Disagreeing with a moron is not a reason to mod someone down.

That being said, the NSA can spy as much as they want on foreign countries. However, the people have the right 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. The emails and faxes definitively qualify as papers and effects. The 100% capture of these constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. The NSA has prima facie been violating the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Their actions are unconstitutional. It's as simple as that.

No man can be a traitor for upholding or protecting the Constitution, which is what Snowden did.

Re:clemency?

[duckintheface]

I know a (former) CIA agent who did operations inside China and Russia. They didn't catch him so they didn't do anything.

I've had two responses to my suggestion that Snowden is safer because he claims to have divulged all. One says he was never in danger because the US could not get to him in Russia. The other says he would be killed anyway just to prove a point.

Of course Snowden is a smart guy. The way to really make himself safe is to hold the most embarrassing information in a safe place with instructions to release it if he is killed. That's what a smart guy would do. And the US agencies know he is a smart guy.

Re:clemency?

[TheGratefulNet]

that's what 'they' want you to think. 'you need us! don't disband us!!'

oh, none of us who are aware of thre reality would weep any tears if the tsa, nsa and even cia went away tomorrow.

all these are the evil sides of our government. we would do VERY well without any/all of them. our everyday lives would not be impacted even the tiniest bit, other than the COST SAVINGS and enhanced privacy we once thought we had.

all those opaque cant-see-thru orgs have no reason to exist other than TO exist and keep themselves in power. blech! the american public (and world public) has had enough of this BS!

WE WANT A NEW NEW DEAL.

Re:clemency?

[Archangel Michael]

Which is to say, it is the evidence that there is no functional difference between the Democrats and Republicans. And all you Demicans and Republicrats can call each other names and try to drive a wedge between people and the truth. I won't be buying your lies.

If enough people stop voting for the two parties, then and only then will things actually change in DC.

Re:clemency?

[FlyHelicopters]

There is a world of difference between sending in a lone assassin who works quietly and sending in a 24 man SEAL team with attack helicopters and armed drones for over-watch. I think if we did in Russia what we did in Pakistan to get Bin Laden, Russia might well put up just a tad bit of protest.

Re:clemency?

[Immerman]

As one possibility - wikileaks released a large encrypted file labeled "insurance" about the time Snowden came forward, you can be pretty sure that file is sitting on a lot of hard drives of interested individuals and governments all over the world. The "kill switch" could easily be as technologically unsophisticated as having a group of trusted people with a copy of the key that they will post online in as many high-profile places as possible as quickly as possible if anything happens to Snowden.

Re:clemency?

[FlyHelicopters]

If the op in Chicago was to clean out the criminals in the local government there, I'd give them a ticket tape parade! :)

All joking aside, if someone like Bin Laden who attacked Russia in the same way was hiding in America, I'd understand. I wouldn't be thrilled, but I'd be inclined to give Russia a pass on that one...

Re:clemency?

[sethstorm]

The problem with that is it allows enough time to replace people who end up doing the same thing. The worst that happens is that you get the Nixon situation where nearly everyone gets pardoned and Snowden falls just short of his goal. The NSA has seen his kind before and will route around the damage that he is causing.

In the short run, he may score a PR victory. In the long run, he will fail.

Re:clemency?

[Wrath0fb0b]

. Before it's done, it will become clear that the House and Senate oversight committees were either derelict in their duties or complicit in illegal activities. They either knew or they didn't. Either way, eventually they will be the ones asking for clemency.

Huh? I don't agree with the behavior or the votes of the Intelligence Committees but it's hard for me to accept that this constitutes some sort of criminal act because I disagree with their (vile) politics. This is getting perilously close to criminalizing legislators over holding divergent views about the proper role of secrecy and surveillance. What happens if some next neo-con administration accuses the SSCI of treason over denying some operation or publicizing some classified fact?

Is it no longer enough to disagree with our political opponents that we have to accuse them of criminality at every turn?

Re:clemency?

[jythie]

Exactly. The US has been willing to send special forces into countries who really can not do anything back to us, but I doubt they would be so foolish as to send the military into a country that can actually DO something about it.

Which is another good example of why one can not fault NK and Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. The US happily violates other countrie's sovereignty when they do not get what they want through law or diplomacy.

Re:clemency?

[Loki_1929]

SEALs don't work in 24-man teams; that'd be too noisy. A SEAL team is typically made up of 6-8 individuals, each with a specific specialty.

Re:clemency?

[jythie]

*nod* a single assassin is a quiet thing, both countries can fend off public inquiry about it to some degree. A military attack through is harder to ignore without loss of face and public backlash. If Russia sent a team into Chicago or the US sent a team into Moscow, either of our publics would be up in arms demanding something be done.

Re:clemency?

[Enigma2175]

Hope you're looking forward to being stopped at the checkpoint on your way to work and asked, "Your papers please, comrade." That's where this goes if we give the alphabet soup of intel agencies free rein.

What do you mean "That's where this goes"? Between suspicionless "DUI" police checkpoints and customs setting up random checkpoints in non-border locations the police state is already a reality. The sad thing is, the majority of Americans either support such intrusions or are too apathetic to care.

Re:clemency?

[jythie]

They spy, but they are also supposed to follow the rules. In theory they are bound by the constitution just like the rest of our government and thus there are limits on what they can and can not do. The outrage is generally over the perception that they were working outside the law or at minimal the law was adjusted in unconstitutional ways to give them power outside what they should have. This was amplified by the revelation that other parts of our government knew what they were doing and not only did they not stop them but are actively protecting the NSA. So if nothing else there is outrage over the idea that a powerful government group was violating the law and or constitution and, unlike ordinary citizens, are not going to be punished for it.

I agree more outrage should be directed at congress, but it appears only a select 'inside' group within congress actually had knowledge of their actions. Even with that though, even if they had a mandate from congress, the NSA took various actions, and 'but they said I could!' is not an excuse.

Re:clemency?

[geekoid]

So you have a premise, facts counter the premise is presented, and then you start making shit up to support your initial disproved premise.

That's some great thinking you got going on there.

Re:clemency?

[C0R1D4N]

Having nukes didn't protect Pakistan from SEAL team six. I am betting the NSA and CIA hate Snowden more than they did Osama.

Re:clemency?

[PraiseBob]

Except he didn't give the info to Wikileaks ?

Re:clemency?

[FlyHelicopters]

Fair enough, but they do have support, someone has to fly the helicopters after all. :) The point remains, an armed uniformed military team is different than a lone person working undercover.

Re:clemency?

[FlyHelicopters]

While that is true, I would also like to think there are cases where it would become acceptable. Bin Laden was understandable, Pakistan has made some noise about it, but largely they did understand, even if they had to at least pretend to protest.

If Russia did that in America and the reason they did it was great enough, I would like to think that we'd understand.

Re:clemency?

[Galactic Dominator]

Having nukes didn't protect Pakistan from SEAL team six.

SEAL team six didn't attack a Pakistani resident under diplomatic protection. And despite Snowden's high value, it's nowhere near what bin Laden's was. It's more the range Assange and we can all see what's happened there.

Re:clemency?

[PRMan]

Exactly. He would go to Feinstein because she has proven herself to be SOOOO trustworthy.

Re:clemency?

[PRMan]

Nixon was a Republican. The media are liberal.

Re:clemency?

[jythie]

This is true, they are far from being a panacea. There are a whole bunch of political and military factors that go into such an equation, and in the end the US just didn't care what Pakistan thought.

Re:clemency?

[jythie]

I doubt it would pan out that way. If someone was in the US that the US did not want to hand over, I would wager there would be enough press supporting the person's case for being here that the public perception would be that Russia's need was not good enough. After all, if Russia had a true ethical claim on the person's life, why would the US government block extradition?

With Pakistan, I do not think it was that they understood.. there were significant protests there and people are still pretty upset. It was more that their government, which is weak and unstable, could not risk being upset. They are too dependent on the US for keeping their power base, esp with India looming right next to them.

Re:clemency?

[Chas]

Well, first of all, sending them to Chicago would be stupid.

If the local populace didn't kill them out of hand, they'd at least be in for a "tune up" by the local CPD officers.

Re:clemency?

[hoboroadie]

I would like to think that we'd understand.

-Haaah! you make me laugh. (do you post from Fort Mead?) Most sensible folks in the Western Hemisphere seem to concur that Snowden did a great service to The People. Feinstein has been a well-known enemy of freedom for most of my adult life, I guess I'll be adding Rogers to my watch-list.

Re:clemency?

[kanweg]

Well, if they do that, they increase the threat level, because non-threating people start to get pissed.

It is a bit like killing civilians in another country. These people get mad. If they have a religion (not unlikely), and it is different from yours (also not unlikely), doubly so. They could go really crazy and fly a plane into building. Or something.

So, remember: Pissing off other people indiscriminately: Not good.

Bert

Re:clemency?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Basically her response is that of the bankrobber who is angry and blaiming his friends for turning him in rather than himself for being caught with the cash.

The response of the entire administration has been the response of a spoiled, petulant teenager.

In fact, this has been the response of the administration -- and the previous one -- to just about any development or obstancle they don't like.

The US is no longer a nation of laws. It is a nation of men (and some women) who are impulsive, incompetent, largely juvenile, disrespectful of their offices, and contemptuous of both the public and the law. The Administration is being run by people with the mentality and motives of a cast of Saturday morning cartoon, or late Thursday night TV villains. Unfortunately these people have one common talent -- they are all connected to each other like threads in a rotten carpet.

Not a nation of laws. A nation of men. And a particularly base and uninspiring kind of man at that. Central and South American countries have been run by such men for centuries. Run into the ground. The US, for all its power and potential, is now being run into the ground as well.

The end result is probably something like Singapore. Ostensibly free, but scratch the surface and you quickly hit authoritarianism and an oligarchy of connected families and companies. The problem is, most of the US governing class would see little wrong with such an outcome.

Re:clemency?

[Kilo Kilo]

However, the people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,.

You forget that when you add "on a computer" to something, that instantly makes it completely different from a hard copy.

The Govt. has been using a huge double standard when it comes to our Constitutional rights. Unless it's expressly stated in the Constitution, it's illegal for a citizen. However, unless it's expressly forbidden in the Constitution, it's perfectly legal for the Govt.

Actually, my double standard isn't a very good example since they do whatever they want anyway. I would like to take this time to thank the people of California and Michigan for electing these two pillars of freedom. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I hear a drone headed my way...

Re:clemency?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the op in Chicago was to clean out the criminals in the local government there...

Who'd be left?

Re:clemency?

[Immerman]

Didn't he? I haven't been paying much attention to the details of that facet of the drama. Are you sure he didn't at least give them his encrypted insurance package to distribute? He wouldn't necessarily have to give them the accessible info, he might have kept the keys to himself.

Or the Wikileaks insurance package could be something completely unrelated, and they just took advantage of the timing to get more people to mirror it. We'll probably know for sure only if it ever gets used.

Re:clemency?

[FlyHelicopters]

Don't misunderstand, I'd give Snowden the Presidential Medal of Freedom if I could, I was simply saying that if a Bin Laden type was in the US, I'd understand Russian Special Forces going after him. I didn't mean to imply that Snowden deserved the same treatment.

Re:clemency?

[TheCarp]

That was definitely good. Actually a friend of mine was ranting about this especially in relation to one of the Democrat congresscritters, I forget who. Didn't care one bit about mass surveillance, suddenly up in arms about Merkel being spied on.

Almost like.... mass surveillance of the public, a bunch of no-account faceless nobodies, that is fine, but, when you do it Mrs Merkel, well...she is a REAL PERSON!

Re:clemency?

[frank_adrian314159]

Not a nation of laws. A nation of men. And a particularly base and uninspiring kind of man at that.

We get the men and women we deserve as leaders, as we keep voting them in to oversee the decline of the American empire. The only thing that Franklin got wrong with the quote "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." is that he was expecting the plebeians to engineer this decline, not ones who were the top holders of wealth in the country. But that's what always happens in the empire game... Franklin was always a bit naive.

Re:clemency?

[bdwebb]

I am part of Feinstein's constituency and she doesn't bring shit home for us. No one that I ever talk to supports her or any of her whack-job policies. As soon as I see a petition for recall, I'm signing.

She used to just be a bunch of blubber spouting out harmless nothings to which the Senate responded 'oh that's just crazy Feinstein' but now she is getting involved in actual policies that have a chance to be pushed through and large sweeping statements like this one that don't reflect how the people of her constituency think and she really has to be stopped.

If my job didn't involve travel and I could beat the pavement hard to get a petition signed by thousands, I would do it myself.

Re:clemency?

[Zimluura]

Hmm, could be...

Though, not all the media are liberal, but lately the conservative media has the habit of pissing away any shard of credibility. I think this is mostly due to selecting raving idiots (O'Reilly & Limbaugh spring to mind) for the spotlight.

My mainstream news sources are limited, have you heard much mainstream news call for impeaching Obama over the NSA's mass surveillance? I just assumed the republican politicians weren't saying anything because it's something they approve of.

Re:clemency?

[Rinikusu]

Just a minor nitpick, but I used to think the Tea Party had genuine grassroots, as well, but:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/11/1186268/-Koch-Planning-Tea-Party-Since-2002-New-Research-Paper-Reveals

Now I'm not so sure.

Re:clemency?

[Yakasha]

The NSA has prima facie been violating the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Their actions are unconstitutional. It's as simple as that.

Considering the 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and you failed to define the word "unreasonable", there has been no violation of the 4th amendment as of yet. Certainly not one as obvious as you're claiming. (Do we even need to go into the fact that the Constitution does not specify who can issue warrants?)

No man can be a traitor for upholding or protecting the Constitution, which is what Snowden did.

Can, have, and will again. Check your history books. The Constitution is up for (ever changing) interpretation. Today's villain is tomorrow's hero and vice versa.

Additionally, ever heard the term "two wrongs don't make a right"? The Constitution lays out the framework for our courts. They are the ones that are supposed to be reviewing the constitutionality of laws & actions of the federal government. Breaking a law that has not been flagged as unconstitutional is violating the Constitution. Bypassing the courts (& congress as the OP says) is not in any way upholding the Constitution, it is bypassing it.

Disagreeing with a moron is not a reason to mod someone down

Calling them a moron is somehow better? Bigotry such as yours is arguably the cause of much of the woes in politics today. Believe it or not, two people can have diametrically opposed opinions and yet, somehow, both be correct.

Its sad that discussion stopping posts like yours are regularly modded up here just because you sheepishly agree with the mob, no matter the insults, condescension, or other anti-social, anti-intellectual garbage you spew.

Next time, try inviting disagreement. Ask for clarification or facts to back up an unpopular opinion. It is an opportunity to learn, think, and grow. If you just want people to agree with you, there are a variety of TV personalities like Rush Limbaugh, that serve that purpose well.

Sorry in advance for appearing to pick on you. You earned my wrath for simply being the first "I'm an elitist jerk" post I've seen today. Have a glorious day.

Re:clemency?

[sI4shd0rk]

What's with this government cheerleading? Are you so naive and ignorant of history that you're willing to give the government the power to spy on just about everyone's communications simply because some people might be terrorists? Do you despise freedom so greatly that you don't care if the government violates the constitution if it's in the name of keeping you safe? No government throughout history has been filled with perfect angels, and all have abused their powers in egregious ways; why would you trust the current government, and all the people in the future who will be part of it, with this information? How could anyone be so disgustingly naive?

Re:clemency?

[sI4shd0rk]

Considering the 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and you failed to define the word "unreasonable", there has been no violation of the 4th amendment as of yet.

So, he failed to mention what he thinks is unreasonable (clearly the NSA's actions are unreasonable to him), so that means there has been no violation of the constitution? What absurd logic.

General warrants are unconstitutional, you know. The fact that some judge, who is part of a secretive court, rubberstamped general warrants doesn't change anything. If you honestly think that spying on nearly everyone's communications is constitutional or okay, then you're a naive ignoramus.

The Constitution is up for (ever changing) interpretation.

They use whatever interpretation is most convenient for the government.

There is a reason that organizations dedicated to protecting our rights, such as the EFF and the ACLU, are up in arms about this. Think about it.

Re:clemency?

[Nexion]

Don't you love a traitor pointing the finger and yelling "traitor!". Feinstein needs her own tribunal. I wish that wrinkled old bag would do California a favor and retire already. From the ravages of nature clearly seen upon her face one wonders why she is still here, and if somehow she is actually among the undead. Whatever witchcraft not only sustains her rotting corpse, but somehow manages to get her reelected time and time again is beyond my comprehension.

Re:clemency?

[Yakasha]

What absurd logic.

General warrants are unconstitutional, you know.

If you honestly think that spying on nearly everyone's communications is constitutional or okay, then you're a naive ignoramus.

If you want a discussion, don't be a condescending, insulting, jerk. Reword your post to exclude this combative b.s. and I'd be happy to talk about whatever points you brought up.

Re:clemency?

[epyT-R]

They're supposed to monitor foreign activity. They're not supposed to spy on civilian americans. Everyone working there knows that, which makes just about all of them traitors.

Re:clemency?

[epyT-R]

I think your correlation lacks valid cause-effect.

Re:clemency?

[Teun]

For your own health you are a little too smart...

Re:clemency?

[Teun]

have committed and continue to commit against the principles upon which the USA was founded.

Come on man, that constitution is old hat, you sound like someone who after a weakness was discovered in Win8.1 would revert to Win95.

Re:clemency?

[Teun]

Nor is their order important.

Re:clemency?

[epyT-R]

People like you always fall back on the 'if it's deemed legal, it's ok' excuse. This is what the government does. We both know that while 'unreasonable' is left undefined, it's obviously being expanded constantly towards the meaning of "do whatever you want."

Multiple 'wrongs' can and do make a 'right'. It just depends on the subjective definitions of each. Besides, governments engaging in illegal activities have not business calling other people traitors. It just compounds the lie.

'The mob'? Interesting choice of vocabulary. One of the definitions of mob is "a secret organized group of criminals." I think that applies more to people, like feinstein, who are members of the two big elite parties, and the last few administrations, than it does to snowden, or ordinary americans who are rightfully angry over having their freedoms, rights, and liberty taken away a piece at a time. You're right. There's a big case of narcissistic, histrionic elitism here, but you've wrongly identified the 'patients.'

Re:clemency?

[cusco]

As far as I can see THE THREAT is coming from the frelling intel agencies. I assume you mean THE THREAT to freedom and liberty, but if you mean THE THREAT to life and property instead you don't need to look far to find the very, very long list of false flag attacks generated by those same intel agencies.

The law says that they're allowed to spy on non-US citizens. When you propose to let them ignore that law because you're afraid of the boogie man under your bed what makes you think they'll not ignore all the other laws that were created to rein them in?

Re:clemency?

[Teancum]

America can survive just fine without either agency. The services which the TSA is currently providing can be amply performed by state and local police agencies, where they would be much more accountable to ordinary citizens and quite possibly be performing actual security of airports rather than treating every citizen as a criminal. Seriously, there is absolutely nothing the TSA is doing which wasn't better done by other agencies before it was created.

As for the NSA, if most citizens realized the sheer waste of resources being spent by that organization, much less the intrusive nature and sheer violations of civil rights that happen, they would immediately support its elimination as an agency. It has nothing to do about a world full of love and peace, as I'm not asking for an elimination of legitimate military intelligence or even foreign espionage. But the NSA as it is currently constituted and especially its domestic surveillance efforts need to end completely along with any tools that could even remotely be used for such things. The NSA has simply failed as an agency and needs to be eliminated.

Neither agency does much if anything to protect me as an ordinary citizen, but they do help protect the "rich and powerful" who really don't need those agencies in the first place and are both used as tools to intimidate ordinary citizens in the most cruel and irresponsible ways. Furthermore, neither agency has any sort of constitutional authority for their existence.

Re:clemency?

[Teancum]

It shows a significant symptom of the military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned about and how the citizens of America are being transformed into subjects and serfs. The NSA may not be directly responsible for losing all of the wars in recent memory (that 0-5 figure can be argued), but it is showing how the U.S. government doesn't really seem to concern itself with protecting ordinary citizens and is more interested in protecting the politically well connected.

Re:clemency?

[Teun]

Personally, I think that's something we lost, no, gave away when we let our politicians "protect" us with things like the PATRIOT act.

An at least as big an issue is that a thriving democratic system requires an independent judiciary, something that went out of the US window with the decision corporations were for the purpose of election finances to be treated like individual voters.

The U.S. is really a fascist state that now caters to corporations, who are the real constituency of the U.S. government.

Indeed, to level the playing field the courts need to limit political donations to something like US$ 10.- p/a per natural person.

Re:clemency?

[cold fjord]

oh, none of us who are aware of thre reality would weep any tears if the tsa, nsa and even cia went away tomorrow.

I'm curious, does the "reality" you inhabit have foreign nations simultaneously revealing their nuclear submarine force along with state media published maps of nuclear strikes against the US?

Does your "reality" include another foreign nations probing the defenses of the US and its allies with nuclear bombers?

Russian bombers buzz U.S. territory — again
Russian Bombers Perform Simulated "Strikes" on Sweden, U.S.
US scrambles jet fighters after Russian nuclear bombers circle American airspace over Guam
Pictured: The moment RAF jets intercepted Russian bombers flying in British airspace

Do US allies in your "reality" worry about invasion or blackmail by rearming adversaries?

NATO stages exercise as rearming Russia worries some allies

Did the TSA in your "reality" keep 1,549 firearms off planes, not to mention other weapons?

TSA Finds Guns on Hundreds of Passengers Each Year

all those opaque cant-see-thru orgs have no reason to exist other than TO exist and keep themselves in power. blech! the american public (and world public) has had enough of this BS!

The TSA, CIA, NSA aren't "in power." They answer to the government in power, just like the FBI, Interior Department, Coast Guard, Social Security administration, and a host of other government agencies.

Re:clemency?

[Stargoat]

A capture rate of 100% is unreasonable. By definition, every document is grabbed and analyzed. It is unreasonable because there is no reason for the seizure of the documents. There must be a reason for the necessary warrant in order to capture of the documents.

The government's behavior in that manner is completely contrary to the protections laid out in the 4th Amendment. Anyone who disagrees with this is wrong, full stop. As there is no war declared, there can no national security argument to be made to override the Constitution. Until we repeal the 4th, a capture rate of 100% is unconstitutional because there is no specific warrant process. The judiciary may not exempt themselves form the warrant process, nor may the Congress pass a law declaring warrants unnecessary - the Constitution overrides both these actions (or inactions).

Thank you for calling me out about the moron part. But respectfully, I disagree with you. I will not be kind, nor civil to someone who disagrees with me on this point of Constitutional interpretation. Anyone who trades freedom for security (in peacetime) is wrong - morally, ethically, and practically. As there is no declaration of war, these Government actions are illegal and the support of these actions traitorous. The people who enacted these warrantless programs should be tried, found guilty, and then places in jail / banished / put to death / pardoned (pardoning would be best, much as Ford pardoned Nixon).

Re:clemency?

[Yakasha]

People like you always fall back on the 'if it's deemed legal, it's ok' excuse.

You really know nothing about me or my positions, please don't assume such. I simply used a few extra words to request his definition of "unreasonable" as that, to me, is the very heart of any intelligent debate here and he completely skipped it. The law has been reviewed and found constitutional. The actions of the NSA have been reviewed and found Constitutional in theory and only in specific, albeit common, practice unconstitutional. The debate as I've seen it has been on the difference between Feinstien et. all's definition of reasonable, and the 99%'s definition of reasonable (My use of "99%" is an exaggerated presumption; it just sounds nice to steal it).

This is what the government does. We both know that while 'unreasonable' is left undefined, it's obviously being expanded constantly towards the meaning of "do whatever you want."

That it is (Especially the commerce clause recently which, by its exact definition today absurdly covers everything). Customs & Border Patrol already have the right to search & seize anything and everything as long as their activities are "routine". Considering that a very common argument against the NSA's tapping & meta-data related activities include the Government's pedantic differentiation of physical papers from electronic files, it would seem logical that the same people presenting that argument against would accept the converse: it is constitutional for an agency with a different name to perform the same type of routine investigations of electronic traffic crossing virtual international borders. So, what is the definition of unreasonable as it pertains to the 4th Amendment and the electronic searches?

Multiple 'wrongs' can and do make a 'right'. It just depends on the subjective definitions of each. Besides, governments engaging in illegal activities have not business calling other people traitors.

All governments engage in illegal activity at some point or another. Does that mean there can never be traitors? Governments are still composed of individual humans and are still constrained by human flaws. Including mob mentality, going with the flow, not making waves, or whatever phrase you want to use to describe it. What you're saying sounds to me like you're refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of our Federal government (Or maybe you're just an anarchist?). Feinstein is not "The Government". She is one (powerful) individual that consistently wins re-election in a liberal leaning state, indicating the people's support of her positions and actions. Neither is amiga3D "The Government". (S)He is one individual that expressed support for the NSA's position and was not only flagged a troll, but was called a moron for having an opinion that differs from the /. group-think.

It just compounds the lie.

'The mob'? Interesting choice of vocabulary. One of the definitions of mob is "a secret organized group of criminals." I think that applies more to people, like feinstein, who are members of the two big elite parties, and the last few administrations, than it does to snowden, or ordinary americans who are rightfully angry over having their freedoms, rights, and liberty taken away a piece at a time. You're right. There's a big case of narcissistic, histrionic elitism here, but you've wrongly identified the 'patients.'

I did not apply the term to Snowden or his supporters or the government. I applied it to /. commentators and moderators. Like so many other stories, there is not 1 single dissenting comment in this board moderated to 5: insightful, informative, or even funny. However there are numerous posts, like amiga3D's, that are so very clearly moderated -1: disagree. Amiga3D didn't offer much in the way of facts, but there was certainly room there to bring thing

Re:clemency?

[Yakasha]

A capture rate of 100% is unreasonable. By definition, every document is grabbed and analyzed. It is unreasonable because there is no reason for the seizure of the documents.

How is their capture of the international traffic any less Constitutional from Customs searching every international package?

Until we repeal the 4th, a capture rate of 100% is unconstitutional because there is no specific warrant process.

That is incorrect by oversimplification according to current constitutional law; see above.

nor may the Congress pass a law declaring warrants unnecessary - the Constitution overrides both these actions (or inactions).

They can and have; and the laws have been reviewed and affirmed by the courts. See above and add in other exemptions such as exigent circumstances.

Thank you for calling me out about the moron part. But respectfully, I disagree with you. I will not be kind, nor civil to someone who disagrees with me on this point of Constitutional interpretation.

Then you will find yourself and your opinions consistently ignored. I don't mean here, by me (though I will ignore you if you're a jerk to me :), I mean in Government and social situations. The greatest opportunities to learn are by listening to people and positions you disagree with. You must understand the reasoning behind their own position to fully understand your own.

Re:clemency?

[sI4shd0rk]

What a fuckin' fucker cheeks patty you are! I bet you're slurpin' the governments boots as you please like corn on bajeebus! Vanish, already! Wow!

Re:clemency?

[sI4shd0rk]

The law has been reviewed and found constitutional.

At one point, the Supreme Court deemed it okay to arrest war protestors. Fortunately, that was later overturned to some degree. The point is that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, that doesn't mean it is, and that doesn't mean it's okay. Have a mind of your own, faggotry jones saga

(S)He is one individual that expressed support for the NSA's position and was not only flagged a troll, but was called a moron for having an opinion that differs from the /. group-think.

Well, that's because amiga3d's post was fuckin' garbage, even more so than yours. I'd say it's even worse than all those useless "nigger" posts, assuming he wasn't just trolling, because if enough morons support this unjust garbage, it will likely continue.

Browsing with a 5 threshold still leaves me with having to weed through trashtalking, insulting, harrumph harrumph, "I'm smart because everybody agrees with me although all I did was copy/paste somebody else's opinion from the internet" crap worthy of a Rush Limbaugh show.

That's interesting, because your comments are as generic as you believe everyone else's to be. Now, they may not contain a myriad of insults, but they demonstrate pretty much the same attitude that you're criticizing. And guess what? It doesn't fuckin' matter.

What an ignorant bootlicker you are! If you're not careful, I'll perform a grand slam of the ages...

Re:clemency?

[sI4shd0rk]

How is their capture of the international traffic any less Constitutional from Customs searching every international package?

Maybe customs shouldn't do that either?

That is incorrect by oversimplification according to current constitutional law; see above.

Look, just because you don't have a mind of your own, that doesn't mean that everyone else has to get rid of theirs. Not everyone cares about or accepts as true what those in power have to say.

They can and have; and the laws have been reviewed and affirmed by the courts. See above and add in other exemptions such as exigent circumstances.

Unconstitutional. That's an example of the government abusing their powers, which isn't at all a surprise; history is filled with examples of such things.

Then you will find yourself and your opinions consistently ignored. I don't mean here, by me (though I will ignore you if you're a jerk to me :), I mean in Government and social situations.

That's strange, because I don't find myself ignored, and I don't mean here. Perhaps it depends on the company you keep?

As for the government, well, I'm the one who gets to vote.

You must understand the reasoning behind their own position to fully understand your own.

Incorrect. There, done. I can make statements, too.

I've already heard their arguments and dismissed them; they're garbage, and so are you. But I have to say, your snap is mighty scrumpyoly... might have to slurp it off!

Re:clemency?

[sI4shd0rk]

Anyone who trades freedom for security (in peacetime)

Wow. I'd say the only time you can prove that you have any principles at all is when the situation forces you to make a decision. In peacetime, do you think it is at all impressive to say you'd prefer freedom over security? Not too much. Only when your ideals are tested can you find out whether or not you have any principles. This is why I find it rather unsettling that you willingly admit that freedom only matters in peacetime. I reject such thinking altogether.

No. You can't trade away your freedom even when you're at war. Freedom is simply more important than safety. Considering the topic, I presumed you meant fundamental freedoms and the constitution; those things can't just be traded away, even in war.

Re:clemency?

[memnock]

Fuck that no-account whore.

Re:clemency?

[Sabriel]

Like (I hope) most people, I do understand that we can't simply close down the various TLAs and expect peace and rainbows to erupt worldwide. I do understand that the various organisations that defend us are necessary to that defence.

However. I also understand that when a government decides that it is acceptable to bend or ignore the rules to make a hard job easier, and the agencies tasked with carrying out that job answer "yes sir", those agencies are part of the problem; they are taking the law into their own hands, thus they are "in power". It's the intrinsic nature of the beast - "if you dob us in for doing something bad, we'll dob you in for asking us to do it, so now you're going to ignore the other bad things we're going to do or you can kiss your comfortable retirement goodbye".

And what we have is a culture of government+agencies where this is happening. We need to stop denying that we are on the slippery slope. We need to put the brakes on and take our medicine. Manning, Snowden, et al - they aren't the disease. They're the symptoms. They're the warning signs that the checks and balances of a healthy government are being compromised from within. And people like Feinstein and Rogers, even if they're not complicit themselves, are still holding their hands over their ears singing "la la la" while they try to shoot the messengers.

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

It is what it is. It's not the spying that harms anyone, it's only if they abuse the data they intercept. I want them looking but I want someone to have oversight so that they don't use the information for the wrong purposes.

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

Yes, the tired old argument about how the poor terrorists are only defending themselves by slaughtering anyone they can regardless if they have anything to do with anything. These assholes need to be killed and idiots like you that support them need to be locked away.

Re:clemency?

[shutdown -p now]

If Russia did that in America and the reason they did it was great enough, I would like to think that we'd understand.

Hahahahahaha. No.

The only reason why this might be acceptable in practice (short of war), is when the government of the country is in agreement that the target of the raid is valid, but they cannot capture or destroy that target themselves. This would pretty much imply the lack of effective sovereignty in that location, which is something that no self-respecting country will admit, even if true (and it should not be true for any actually respectable country).

Re:clemency?

[shutdown -p now]

Nukes are not relevant here. A functioning military, including anti-air and early reaction special forces, would be quite relevant. I don't think anyone can reasonably believe that a fully equipped spec ops team can be inserted into Moscow without being undetected, and even if they do, that they would get away after securing Snowden.

An assassin, now, is another matter. They wouldn't even need to send anyone to Russia, just hire one of the locals - it's a booming industry. The price tag would, of course, be high for such a high-profile target, but since when did that stop the US government?

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

I don't like people eavesdropping on me all that much but I much prefer it to someone blowing me and my family up. In all reality I don't really feel all that threatened by some civil servant listening to me talk dirty to my wife.

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

Are you really that afraid of someone overhearing your conversations? I mean, I understand you don't like it much. But what are you so afraid of the NSA for? They're looking for people who are a threat to the US government. If it ever gets to the point that the average Joe has to worry about some spy agency with a three letter acronym then things are far worse than worrying over eavesdropping.

Re:clemency?

[cheekyjohnson]

It's not the spying that harms anyone

I'd say violating our freedom, privacy, and constitution hurts everyone.

it's only if they abuse the data they intercept

What do you mean by "if"? History shows that it's almost an inevitability.

Re:clemency?

[cheekyjohnson]

You're so scared of the bogeymen that you'll give up your freedom and privacy in an effort to stop them, as well as everyone else's freedom and privacy? Quite principled, aren't we?

Re:clemency?

[FlyHelicopters]

Do you really believe that the USA would go to war with Russia if they sent in a Spetsnaz team into the USA to take out (or capture) a single target? Do you believe that they would go to war with us if we did the same? Sure, there would be some fall out, lots of words exchanged, but unless it became a common event, neither of us are going to start a war over it.

Re:clemency?

[cheekyjohnson]

They're looking for people who are a threat to the US government.

You are, of course, assuming that the people in the government are perfect angels who would never intentionally harm you or make a mistake; I think history shows us that that's not a very good assumption to make. It also means that you're willing to trust all future governments with this information and this power. I think the sheer naivete that one must possess to actually trust the government with all of this is simply astounding. Furthermore, why do you seem so eager to trade away everyone's constitutional rights so you can feel safe? Do our rights and the constitution mean nothing to you?

I think there's a reason that organizations such as the ACLU and EFF, who try to defend our liberties, are rather upset about all this. I think there's a reason that many people who care about freedom in general are upset about all this.

Re:clemency?

[ahabswhale]

You're doing a great job appealing to the /. echo chamber. Snowden is a traitor because he released tons of information about classified intelligence without any regard to whether that intelligence gathering is legal or not. Had he focused on just releasing the material that shows where the NSA has broken the law, he would deserve to be called a whistle blower. Instead, he let the whole cat out of the bag and people like you praise him like he's some kind of hero. It's sad that you don't understand the difference. On the other hand, 99% of the population of /. is similarly afflicted.

Re:clemency?

[shutdown -p now]

No-one will go to war, and I never claimed that they would - my mention of war was in the context of something like this being normal if you already are in a state of war with the other country.

What will happen is that the team in question will be destroyed and/or captured, most likely when trying to infiltrate, but if not then certainly so during exfil; and then you'll get the usual recalling/evicting ambassadors, maybe some economic sanctions, almost certainly some saber rattling in form of "planned military exercises" etc.

All in all, it's a very good way to piss off both the government and the populace of the other country, the effect of which will be felt in international relations for years to come.

Re:clemency?

[shutdown -p now]

You're assuming that U.S. citizens have the power to hold a politician's feet to the fire.

Collectively, yes, you do. Come next election, do the following.

Register in the primaries, for one or both (where possible) parties. In those primaries, vote for any candidates, no matter how fringe and unpopular otherwise, who prominently feature electoral reform to proportional representation in their platform. It doesn't matter if the guy is a genuine commie or a deluded anarcho-capitalist, just do it.

When it comes to general election, unless any candidate from the primaries that you voted for actually won the race (probably not anytime soon), vote against any Democratic and Republican candidate and for any third party candidate that prominently features electoral reform in their platform. Again, it doesn't matter who that is, commie or green or libertarian (you've got options, as most third parties are in favor of such a reform).

The key part short term is consistently voting against the established parties. Treat "Democrat" and "Republican" as a label that automatically disqualifies the person who voluntarily associates it with themselves from any political office. Do not listen to their pre-election promises and other propaganda - there is ample track record proving that not a single word of it can ever be trusted. Democrat? you're the enemy of the people, GTFO. Republican? you're the enemy of the people, GTFO.

When enough people do so, then you'll see change.

Re:clemency?

[shutdown -p now]

And if you're interested in genuine centrism, look at the Modern Whigs.

But the short-term goal is to get true proportional representation in place, so that citizens can actually meaningfully vote for the above choices, and be represented in accordance with their vote.

Re:clemency?

[cusco]

By all the gods, are you really that frightened of the terriers? Wow, that's a level of cowardice that I'm almost unable to imagine.

The largest threat to the US government isn't from outside at all, it's an internal coup from inside the military/intel establishment (if it hasn't already happened).

Re:clemency?

[cold fjord]

There is another interpretation which based on what I know appears to be the correct one. The issue isn't necessarily that the government is bending the rules, ignoring the Constitution, but that there is widespread misconception of what the rules actually are under the specific situation under consideration as it exists in law and as interpreted by the courts. Part of the root of the misconception is that people are applying the rules as applied to criminal procedure without considering the national security powers under article II of the Constitution in time of war when combined with the previous decisions of the court. The government is actually following the rules, but many people fail to understand what the rules actually are and mistakenly believe the law is being broken. This understandably produces outrage and various comments about traitor this and that.

Snowden and Manning aren't necessarily symptoms of a government run amok, but rather the result of the synergistic misunderstanding regarding the law combined with the ideology of "information wants to be free," and leftist politics. They were no doubt both well schooled in the ideological position of the US being the great evil in the world as in common in some circles. It is a toxic mix, and one which will be afflicting the US for decades to come. Prior to the second world war Britain was afflicted by pacifism which delayed British rearmament in the face of the German threat. It cost them dearly during the war. As it stands now, anyone, including al Qaida, China, Iran, Russian, or anyone else, that wants what had been some of the most closely guarded secrets of the US and its allies need only go to the web site of a few common newspapers to find them and use them to their own advantage. One can only wonder what the leaks of Snowden and Manning will end up costing the US. It could be dear indeed. Britain nearly succumbed to starvation by submarine warfare, and almost certainly would have if the secret that they had broken the Enigma codes had leaked out. John Walker gave the Soviets the means to read US military codes and the Soviets probably would have defeated the US Navy at sea if a shooting war had come about in the late 1960s - 1980s. That could very well have meant slavery for Europe and the crushing of America. What will the loss of these secrets cost?

Re:clemency?

[tragedy]

SEALs don't work in 24-man teams; that'd be too noisy. A SEAL team is typically made up of 6-8 individuals, each with a specific specialty.

A SEAL team typically has 120 members. There are three troops in each team, and each troop has two platoons. Those then break down into squads and then fire teams. It sounds like what you're describing is a squad. Also, the actual raid in Abottabad, which is being discussed here, involved approximately 24 SEALs in two blackhawks with another 24 SEALs on standby inside Pakistan, but not at the compound with backup Chinooks, then another 24 SEALS waiting just over the border with more chinooks. There were also drones and fighters providing intelligence and air support. They also had a dog.

Re:clemency?

[Pseudonym Authority]

Feinstein might think it's worth it.

Re:clemency?

[FlyHelicopters]

Maybe in Russia, but I doubt we'd capture or kill them so easily. We don't seem to keep much in the way of military force actually ready in the US, heck on our own military bases almost no one is allowed to even carry a gun. They could be in and out before anything got going, and for sure the local police dept (no matter how cool their SWAT team thinks they are) wouldn't be able to do much. The whole idea is timing, they have a very short window before anyone can respond. I'm not endorsing it, just saying that we aren't sitting around ready to "repel invaders" at a moments notice. There are sections of the South West that have border incursions all the time by drug cartels and we don't seem to be able to stop that, what makes you think we could stop a real military?

Re:clemency?

[Sabriel]

The government is actually following the rules, but many people fail to understand what the rules actually are and mistakenly believe the law is being broken.

Is it the people that are failing to understand the rules, or is it the government that is failing to explain them? In my opinion it's a bit of both, but as government is the side of the equation that has been granted the privilege of coercive force, it's government that has the much greater obligation.

They were no doubt both well schooled in the ideological position of the US being the great evil in the world as in common in some circles.

What if they weren't? What if their ideological position is that the US is still a great good in the world, but that due to a (long-ongoing) lack of vigilance, its great power has also been co-opted by those with evil intent? After all, with great power comes great responsibility - and in that regard, it's notable that you mention John (Anthony) Walker. When asked how he managed to pass top secret intelligence to the Russians for 18 years before being caught in 1985, he was quoted as responding, "KMart has better security than the Navy". While Walker was clearly a traitor, rather than a whistleblower like Manning and Snowden, the latter are also on record concerning the systemic lack of security - i.e. vigilance, responsibility - that enabled them to obtain and release the data they revealed to the world.

Re:clemency?

[soccerisgod]

Are you getting paid for that idiotic nonsense you're spouting? I for one have some trouble understanding how reading my email will improve your security. Does your NSA think I'll start with the submarine warfare tomorrow? Please explain.

Re:clemency?

[alexo]

[...] they are bound by the constitution just like the rest of our government

If there are no penalties for violating the constitution, is it really binding?

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

I'm giving up no freedom at all. I can go anywhere and do almost anything I want to. I can speak my mind freely. I can even have a private conversation....just not over a damn cell phone. But let me tell you about communications in the US. There are people in the system that can listen to you at any time. I once worked comm in the US Air Force and lowly techs working in a control facility have the capability to listen to private conversations. Not the dreaded NSA but just some bored E-3 airman listening for kicks. I know, I've seen it. I know if it happens there it most likely happens all through communications systems worldwide. If you're up to something you don't want anyone to know about don't do it over the phone or the internet.

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

I'm not totally happy about the way it's being done. Congress is failing to exercise proper oversight. All told though I'm far less worried about eavesdropping than a lot of other things going on in the world. I'll let you and the ACLU and EFF be upset for me.

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

You need to watch less TV. I think you're the one who's frightened, quaking in your slippers over someone listening to your phone calls. If they're listening to mine they are in danger of dying from boredom. "Honey, I need you to stop and get a loaf of bread and some Rice Krispies at the store on your way home." "Okay." That oughta get Seal Team Six in motion I tell ya! To be fair I think they way the NSA is handling this is wrong and that Congress should take these guys in hand and straighten them out. But you guys lack any sense of proportion and are freaking out over a minor issue.

Re:clemency?

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm giving up no freedom at all.

I suppose if the government started arresting people who criticize it to 'keep us safe,' you would say, "We're giving up no freedom at all."? If not, well, you can't just deny the existence of existing rights and parts of the constitution (privacy, the fourth amendment), and then pretend that people aren't affected by this.

I can go anywhere and do almost anything I want to. I can speak my mind freely.

And you're losing some of your rights, even if not those ones.

There are people in the system that can listen to you at any time.

And? You're trivializing the collection of all this information, and I really can't understand why.

If you're up to something you don't want anyone to know about don't do it over the phone or the internet.

The government makes the laws. Just because you think that you're doing something perfectly innocent, that doesn't mean the government thinks so as well; they could misinterpret you, or they could simply be malicious. There have been cases of the government misinterpreting jokes and harassing the individuals who made them; the same could happen with this so-called 'metadata,' and it most likely has and/or will.

I think it is unfortunate that you're naive enough to trust the government with all this information when all government in history, including the US government, used their powers to abuse the citizens. You're also trusting all the people who will be in the government in the future, and it's at the point where I think your level of naivete is astounding. If you want to see what governments are capable of, I suggest you move to North Korea rather than trying to ruin the US even further.

Re:clemency?

[cheekyjohnson]

Congress is failing to exercise proper oversight.

There is no public oversight, so that makes complete sense. And to begin with, the problem is not entirely the lack of oversight; I do not think this information should be collected even if people could provide oversight.

Re:clemency?

[cheekyjohnson]

You need to watch less TV.

I'd say you need to read up on history. The people in the government aren't the perfect angels you seem to want them to be.

Re:clemency?

[Cybele352]

That being said, the NSA can spy as much as they want on foreign countries.

So, if I understand you well : "It's ok to spy on other countries, to do some economic spying and pass the information on american companies so that they can get contracts even though their products are a danger on the public (i.e. Boeing, Petroleum and Nuclear consortiums), but it is not ok to spy on our dear fellow american citizen" ?
Did I rephrase you right ?

What a joke!
Then the US and US citizen are no better than China and the Chinese citizen aka known the Puppeteer and the Puppets. Except that in the US it's a never ending Muppet Show...

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

There are no perfect angels in this world. That's why we have the NSA.

Re:clemency?

[cheekyjohnson]

The NSA is able to do what it does because there are plenty of pretend patriots in this country who don't actually believe in the constitution or in freedom in general. As soon as you let your government become the bad guy, I think you've already lost.

Again, read up on some history; you seem profoundly ignorant of what governments are capable of doing when they have too much power. Don't cower under a bed in fear of some largely exaggerated bogeymen when the constitution and freedom are on the line.

Re:clemency?

[Rakarra]

Make an account, Dianne.

Re:clemency?

[Stargoat]

I did not say it was OK. I said they can. It is not unconstitutional for them to do this. Your indignation is amusing though. I agree with you. It's a stupid move, particularly the getting caught part.

Re:clemency?

[hardwarefreak]

Of course Snowden is a smart guy.... And the US agencies know he is a smart guy.

This is factually incorrect. A *smart* guy would have played this like "deep throat" and remained in the shadows for 40 years, completely anonymous. A smart guy would not have sought the lime light. A smart guy would not have been forced to flee his home and live under the thumb of the quasi dictator of a hostile foreign country, whose language he doesn't speak, whose culture he doesn't understand. A smart guy would not have sacrificed having control over his own life and future. Snowden is definitely not a smart guy.

Snowden was motivated by the attention lavished upon Julian Assange. Snowden was motivated by the "James Bond" factor. Snowden was motivated by his chance at 15 minutes of fame. Snowden was NOT motivated by a sense of patriotic duty to reveal truths about questionable NSA espionage tactics. This was simply a convenient means to an end. Snowden sought notoriety, and saw this as his only chance in life at achieving it. The opportunity presented itself, so he took it. Period. Snowden is not a hero. Snowden is an opportunist.

Re:clemency?

[gmanterry]

There is a lot more that Snowden has not released yet. He is wisely using the drip, drip, drip method of disclosure so the press and public have time to digest each successive piece of information. Before it's done, it will become clear that the House and Senate oversight committees were either derelict in their duties or complicit in illegal activities. They either knew or they didn't. Either way, eventually they will be the ones asking for clemency.

We can only hope. The Senate (House of Lords?) Seems to love this spying and the police state.

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

I think you've let your paranoia run wild. I know what governments are capable of but I think you've let your fear get the best of your brain. Put the tin-foil hat away and calm yourself. The fact that the NSA likes to listen in on phone calls is a minor problem. If there were truly a problem then you could not come here to this public forum and bitch about the NSA. It's all a matter of perspective and you need to develop one. Just because I don't sweat a bunch of feather merchants listening in on my communications hardly means I don't believe in the Constitution. That's like me telling an anti-gun advocate he doesn't believe in freedom (and we've heard the NRA with that mantra many a time.) It's not a perfect world but that doesn't mean we are living in tyranny. Get a grip.

Re:clemency?

[cheekyjohnson]

I think you've let your paranoia run wild.

You say that, and yet you're terrified of the terrorist bogeymen.

I know what governments are capable of but I think you've let your fear get the best of your brain.

No, I'm just not ignorant of history. You're far too trusting of those who have power and authority over you, I think.

Put the tin-foil hat away and calm yourself.

I believe that the notion that I must have a tinfoil hat merely because I don't think the people who work for the government are perfect angels who should be given massive amounts of information about citizens is positively absurd. I suggest you pick up a history book; I can't stress that enough.

If there were truly a problem then you could not come here to this public forum and bitch about the NSA.

You assume--foolishly, I think--that they won't harass certain people in near secrecy. Why do you think that we need to transform into a full-blown police state before there is a problem? Why do you trust the government to such a degree?

Just because I don't sweat a bunch of feather merchants listening in on my communications hardly means I don't believe in the Constitution.

You've quite clearly demonstrated that you don't care for freedom or the constitution. Why else would you come out in support of the NSA's actions? Those positions are mutually exclusive, or at least that's how I see.

That's like me telling an anti-gun advocate he doesn't believe in freedom

Most likely true.

It's not a perfect world but that doesn't mean we are living in tyranny.

And you're willing to attack people who want to stop us from descending into the realm of tyranny by defending the NSA's actions and pretending as if violating people's privacy and the constitution is no big deal; I believe it is this attitude that is the problem.

I think your trust in the current government and all future governments is extremely misplaced and undeserved.

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

It's not your distrust of the government I object to as that is actually a healthy attitude. It's the overblown reaction to minor incidents and the attacking of anyone who tries to say that maybe it's not such a big deal. You've accused me of being against the Constitution and freedom when I've stated no such thing. The world is all about balance. Maybe the NSA have gone too far but things are far, far from the horrible state you are claiming. Step back, take a deep breath and relax some. It's really not so bad.

Re:clemency?

[Teancum]

Part of the root of the misconception is that people are applying the rules as applied to criminal procedure without considering the national security powers under article II of the Constitution in time of war when combined with the previous decisions of the court.

Of course it would help if there actually was a declaration of war given by Congress. It should be noted that the last actual declaration of war happened on December 10th, 1941, and that declaration supposedly ended with a pair of peace treaties signed with the governments of the respective targets of such declarations. An argument could be made that World War II actually ended with the reunification treaty of Germany, but that is really splitting hairs.

No doubt there are people who wish to do evil to America, but this singular failure to even bother with a formal declaration of war is something that should also show up in the legal and constitutional responsibilities of the federal government. There is also a huge difference between cracking the Enigma code (or other clearly internal government communications of a potential military rival) and intercepting the internal communications of formally allied countries, and even more so for internal domestic communications between private citizens.

I had relatives who lived in "military secure areas" during World War II (again, it was a declared war, so different rules can and should apply) where their private snail mail was openly censored against revealing military secrets. She occasionally wrote something like "the USS Missouri is passing by my house as I'm writing this" simply to make sure that a black magic marker would be used on her letter. Regardless, there is an end to such wars and restrictions, and this state of perpetual war which causes anything resembling civilian control of the government to be a complete farce need to end. There certainly was no need to monitor and censor civilian communications in the 1970's in order to allow the U.S. Navy to protect America against the Soviet Union.

The fact that the NSA sees no distinction between civilian and military communications is precisely why it needs to be shut down as an agency altogether.

Re:clemency?

[cheekyjohnson]

You've accused me of being against the Constitution and freedom when I've stated no such thing.

As far as I'm concerned, you've implicitly stated it many times by coming out in support of the NSA's unconstitutional actions. I believe the fact that the government is violating any part of the constitution is a huge cause for concern.

The world is all about balance.

I don't think we should compromise away fundamental freedoms, or the constitution. Forget "balance."

Maybe the NSA have gone too far but things are far, far from the horrible state you are claiming.

Perhaps it's not horrible for you, but it is for those of us who care about the constitution, and even more so for those few who get abused by the government thanks to this information. You're also not thinking in the long-term at all, and instead are seemingly choosing to blindly trust the government with this large repository of information on basically everyone.

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

If you're scared of this little thing you must be shitting your pants over the new obamacare system. Basically the government is going to have control of all your info to the most remote data. Talk about trust. The decision to trust the government with our lives was made decades ago. Bitching about a little eavesdropping is silly. They allready know pretty much everything about me. If you can't trust them you're fucked.

Re:clemency?

[cheekyjohnson]

If you're scared of this little thing you must be shitting your pants over the new obamacare system.

If you think this is "little," you must be ignoring history, the risks, and pretty much everything else.

Basically the government is going to have control of all your info to the most remote data.

Whatever you think of Obamacare, spying on people's communications gives them far more information than merely knowing some basic facts that they already know and some health information. I'm more worried about the spying.

Bitching about a little eavesdropping is silly.

Indeed, to describe this as "a little eavesdropping" means you likely don't care about the constitution; thanks for confirming that once more. You are ignoring all the ways that this information could be abused, ignoring the fact that the people in the government are not perfect angels, ignoring the fact that people other than yourself could be targeted and harassed, and ignoring the fact that this is a blatant violation of the constitution. You're ignoring everything inconvenient merely so you can trivialize the issue.

I think the fact that you believe defending the rule of law, freedom, and the constitution is "silly" demonstrates profound ignorance on your part.

Re:clemency?

[Teancum]

That is precisely why a declaration of war is so utterly important in these situations. I agree with you that basic freedoms should almost always be preserved.

The question I need to ask in return is why do you think it is no longer important to even bother with a war declaration? The current thinking is that we are always at war, therefore there is no need to declare that any specific state of war is happening.

Re:clemency?

[amiga3D]

"I think the fact that you believe defending the rule of law, freedom, and the constitution is "silly" demonstrates profound ignorance on your part."

Well I shouldn't be amazed you assume all that but I guess I still am. I have great respect for rule of law, freedom and the Constitution. Just because I view eavesdropping as trivial, which it is, doesn't mean I'm apathetic about freedom. I've known for decades though, that all communications in this country were vulnerable to this kind of thing. Advances in technology may make it easier today but it's not a new thing. Maybe you've just tuned into it so that's why you are so strident in your objections. I don't say it's a good thing but it's here and it's not going away. You can scream all you want but only a handful will agree with you that it's a major issue. That's because our government leaves us mostly alone to live our lives so most people are comfortable with this kind of thing. The government knows how far they can go and really have no reason to go farther. Of all the issues in my life this doesn't rank in the top ten. You keep on tilting at those windmills there Don Q. Luck.

Re:clemency?

[cheekyjohnson]

I have great respect for rule of law, freedom and the Constitution.

I seriously doubt that, given that you're practically cheering on the NSA and trying to trivialize violations of the constitution.

Just because I view eavesdropping as trivial

I do not think that collecting such a massive amount of information randomly is trivial.

I've known for decades though, that all communications in this country were vulnerable to this kind of thing.

Whether it's new or not (I know that it's not new) is 100% irrelevant to me. Change never comes to those who give up.

I don't say it's a good thing

Yet you said you want them looking at everyone.

The government knows how far they can go

They can target certain individuals with impunity because people generally only seem to care about themselves and not about freedom in general. Rarely do police states try to make life as much of a living hell for everyone as they do for certain dissidents.

Thanks to people trivializing this issue and acting apathetically towards it (like you), we're likely one step closer to a police state.

Of all the issues in my life this doesn't rank in the top ten.

The constitution? How trivial. Freedom? Inconsequential. None of that trivial nonsense matters.

It's puzzling to me how many people who live in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free can be so apathetic or even opposed to the very principles the country was founded about, and freedom in general.

Re:clemency?

[Teancum]

There are always exceptions. A good example is during massive civil unrest and riots where there is a point to a complete suspension of civil rights of any kind and pure brutal marshal law. This is something that was even stated as a potential exception in the U.S. Constitution, so it was at least considered as something to be worried about.

Then again, such periods were seen as unusual, short, and always facing the very real possibility that the military power used to put down such civil unrest could just as easily be used to overthrow the civilian government as well... something that subsequent history has shown to be largely correct too.

Note that a formal declaration of war is something that voters will care about and will respond to in terms of representatives playing roughshod over that power. I seriously doubt that any of the military fiascos America has faced over the past 60+ years would have happened had elected representatives been forced to take a vote on those misadventures as a formal war declaration. The "authorization of the use of force" for the Iraq War was seen as a war declaration, but without any teeth and was even seen that way by ordinary citizens. A half-ass solution to a political quandry that silly politicians didn't want to really face if they were honest.

Re:clemency?

[crimson tsunami]

you failed to define the word "unreasonable"

If its reasonable to search everyone, all the time , then why bother having the amendment?

Re:clemency?

[Yakasha]

you failed to define the word "unreasonable"

If its reasonable to search everyone, all the time , then why bother having the amendment?

But that is not what they're doing or what the law allows. They're searching information outside the United States. Customs & Border Patrol already have that right for everything physical. The law simply gave the power to the NSA for everything electronic.

If an electronic file is subject to the same 4th Amendment protections as a physical file (as is claimed in most posts here), then it is subject to the same limitations on the 4th Amendment's protections. If the Feds have the power to inspect every physical object leaving or entering the US (SCOTUS agrees with this), then one of the following is also true:

1. The Feds have the power to inspect every electronic file leaving or entering the US
2. Electronic files are not subject to the same protections as physical files, therefore the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.

So my point still stands: You must define "unreasonable" for the 4th Amendment to apply.

Re:clemency?

[crimson tsunami]

So either
1.It doesn't apply or
2.It doesn't apply.
Therefore its pointless to have it.
No need to define "unreasonable" if the amendment never applies in the first place.

Re:clemency?

[Yakasha]

So either 1.It doesn't apply or 2.It doesn't apply. Therefore its pointless to have it. No need to define "unreasonable" if the amendment never applies in the first place.

That is not what I said. You're choosing to ignore important words in the middle of sentences, changing their meanings. Why, I don't know nor care. I'm not here to educate you on English comprehension, logic, or the law. I'm here to discuss the topic. Have a wonderful day.

Re:clemency?

[Joce640k]

Yes.

He Blew the Whistle on Them

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Every time Rogers opens his mouth he says that the intelligence committee was fully briefed and that they knew what was going on. What Feinstein and Rogers are implicitly admitting is that Snowden didn't just blow the whistle on the NSA. He blew it on the intelligence committee too for not doing their job of oversight.

Its just silly to think he should have reported to them that they were corrupt and/or incompetent.

Re:He Blew the Whistle on Them

[bill_mcgonigle]

Its just silly to think he should have reported to them that they were corrupt and/or incompetent.

Exactly right. We'll probably also find out in a future Snowden briefing that NSA is actively blackmailing some of the members of those committees. Remember, they have all of their phone calls, locations, and financial records. Probably close to their primaries or the general election.

Snowden legal defense fund is at: 1snowqQP5VmZgU47i5AWwz9fsgHQg94Fa.

Re:He Blew the Whistle on Them

[mrchaotica]

Why does everybody keep assuming that Feinstein, Rogers et. al. are incompetent or under blackmail or something? They are not only perfectly happy with what the NSA has done, they're also probably the ones who told the NSA to do it in the first place!

Chances are, Feinstein and Rogers are the goddamn traitorous RINGLEADERS, not puppets!

Re:He Blew the Whistle on Them

[bill_mcgonigle]

Chances are, Feinstein and Rogers are the goddamn traitorous RINGLEADERS, not puppets!

It could be they're doing this to cement their power in the Congress. But it does make them vulnerable to electoral challenges, and they don't seem like particularly clever folks who could have gotten to where they are on their own. Useful idiots, perhaps.

Yeah, right.

[jcr]

Feinstein knows full well that this country doesn't have a functioning justice system. If we did, she'd be behind bars herself.

-jcr

Re:Yeah, right.

[DaMattster]

Mod parent up! Snowden is a true patriot!

Disservice?

[GrahamCox]

The disservice was done by the secret courts, the spooks and the "state within". They got caught, and in the long run, that can only be a huge service to the country. Who knows, they might even eventually come up with foreign policy that doesn't piss a lot of people off, thus making the whole apparatus for mitigating it unnecessary.

What about the PREVIOUS whistleblowers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, Ms. Feinstein, what about the PREVIOUS whistleblowers? The ones you studiously ignored? They followed your inane demands, and got nothing but CRIMINAL PROSECUTION out of it. Therefore, we have clear proof you are lying through your teeth.

Re:What about the PREVIOUS whistleblowers?

[jmcvetta]

nothing but CRIMINAL PERSECUTION out of it.

FTFY

A Thank you

[DaMattster]

We have a big thank you to Snowden for making us aware of what is actually going on behind the scenes. As a result, I've taken extra security precautions. I don't really know whether or not they will do any good but suffice it to say that I'm taking it more seriously. And, by the way, the old argument, "If you have nothing to hide, you need not worry" is bullshit. Look at the innocent people that get wrapped up in the Criminal Injustice System.

Re:A Thank you

[cyber-vandal]

"If you have nothing to hide you need not worry" is especially appropriate here.

who's asking them?

[kharchenko]

Why exactly do they get to have a say in this? Why are we even listening to them?
Feinstein and Rogers are the two key figures responsible for most of these violations in the first place. They are the ones who tacitly sanctioned wholesale violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches. Yet their opinion on Snowden's guilt is somehow all over the news. It's amazing that the press is quoting Rogers' preaches on how Snowden has broken the law and needs to be persecuted, when both of these bozos voted to grant retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretaps they've sanctioned under earlier administration. As far as I am concerned, asking for their opinion is like asking a robber on what to do with a good Samaritan who stopped the robbery.

Re:who's asking them?

[AHuxley]

Retroactive immunity was chilling, welcome to the legal domestic court friendly digital locked box.
Everything you ever did on the 'net' or with a 'phone' could soon be presentable in a state or federal court setting, sealed and in private.
Then the final legal change - your security cleared lawyer can't challenge any of the evidence - ever :)

Re:who's asking them?

[mrchaotica]

They are the ones who tacitly sanctioned wholesale violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches.

"Tacitly sanctioned?" Why are you giving them so much benefit of the doubt which they do not deserve? Chances are, they explicitly ordered the unconstitutional behavior!

Snowden & rest:

[Mister Liberty]

No clemency for Feinstein and Rogers.

And if they didn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the SIC didn't know already, now that they DO know, what are they doing about it?

Finding those who broke the law and punishing them?

Or demanding extraordinary measures to get the one who told of the crimes killed?

THAT is why he didn't go through channels.

Oh?

[sabbede]

Dianne, as chair of the Senate intel committee, don't you already get to see everything Snowden revealed?

Are you upset because he's also blowing the whistle on you?

It no longer matters

[water-and-sewer]

The cart has run away with the horse. It doesn't matter what they do now, he's a popular hero whose reputation is growing as fast as popular discontent/outrage is growing against the tactics of the NSA and the failures of the administration to stop it or even come clean about who knows what and when.

This is a huge problem for the government - once the popular hero becomes truly a hero, their every effort to try him or bring him to justice deepens the hole they're in, and god help the US government if Snowden goes to jail - he'll immediately become a demigod.

They should use this as a wake-up call and change tactics or hopefully even policy. But it doesn't seem like that's going to happen.

Run, Snowden, run.

Re:It no longer matters

[AHuxley]

What will matter is how all the nations react:
So many of their gov networking staff, top private sector telco leaders and spies been so helpful to the NSA and GCHQ.
Different countries top political staff have been made fools of with junk encryption open to the US/UK and any interested US/UK/local contractors.
Generations of political leaders will now be very careful about trusting any of their own 'tech' or 'security' staff ever again.
This could see a change of power from/to military or domestic spy agencies as political access and funding shifts after closed hearings.
This is not one person e.g. a secretary or advisor copying documents in bulk - entire teams of top cleared staff seem to have betrayed their nations telco systems for years to the US/UK, trusted friends of the US/UK and assorted contractors....

US regime busy legitimizing NSA transgressions

[boorack]

In the meantime Feinstein is busy pushing a new bill through Congress. It will not only legitmize NSA spying on everyone but also impose even harsher penalties for anyone who dares speak out. Despite of majority of citizens now being clearly against it (despite of all bullshit and propaganda thrown at them by corporate media). I know it makes many Americans angry but I don't see much difference between civil liberties in US and China right now, the only one being that US regime is far superior in concealing itself behind "freedom and democracy" mirage.

Re:US regime busy legitimizing NSA transgressions

[BlueStrat]

I know it makes many Americans angry but I don't see much difference between civil liberties in US and China right now, the only one being that US regime is far superior in concealing itself behind "freedom and democracy" mirage.

Not all that long ago, I would have been one of those angry and would have replied with a scathing rebuttal.

These days? No anger. Not at you, certainly.

I think what I feel would more closely track in nature with grief at loss. I don't believe that the US is totally lost. However, I believe it's government has been largely suborned from within.

As I've written in other posts in the past, the metric is not the particular architecture of any system of government (aka force), ie communism, capitalism, fascism, socialism, left, right, etc etc. It is where, on the scale extending from anarchy to tyranny, that system is, Any form of government can become tyrannical, and history shows this is a general rule, when government becomes too powerful, controls too much of people's lives, and unduly limits individual choices.

Strat

Re:US regime busy legitimizing NSA transgressions

[Teancum]

No, there is no legal mechanism for a national referendum in America. Then again, there was supposedly never a need to have such a thing as the NSA prying into your private lives.

Re:US regime busy legitimizing NSA transgressions

[cusco]

Nope. Representative republic, the people we vote for are supposed to be our voice. We've let them get away with becoming the voice of the rich and powerful instead.

Re:US regime busy legitimizing NSA transgressions

[TheGratefulNet]

or, perhaps, the NSA has dirt on all of them and this is exactly what keeps the power base 'stable'.

it all makes sense when you think in these terms. why protect the NSA so much? because they have dirt on you! duh!

any teenager could see this. does not take a lot of wisdom to understand how the modern high-power government works.

Re:US regime busy legitimizing NSA transgressions

[Phrogman]

Very well said. The best form of government it seems to me, is the one that grants the government only the power and authority it needs to function and no more - as defined by the citizens not the government :P

Re:US regime busy legitimizing NSA transgressions

[Teun]

They already do have such, as a matter of fact they have several, typically every four years.

Re:US regime busy legitimizing NSA transgressions

[gordo3000]

Americans who are informed won't be angry at you for saying something against America, we'll just pity your ignorance. At the end of the day, your physical person, and to a high degree, your financial person is safe. And your family and friends don't get tortured for your perceived slights.

In China, Snowden's family would be in a secret jail, not traveling to Russia to see him. If you can't see the vast chasm that separates the two, it's an issue with you.

I'm not legitimizing what the US does or coming down against it, just pointing out your equivalence could only be based on two things:
1.ignorance of what happens to dissenters in China
or
2. you believe that the government reading your email is such an incredible travesty, you can't discern a noticeable difference between someone reading your email and someone torturing your family to punish you.

Confusion

[sociocapitalist]

It's not mutually exclusive.

"..as a righteous whistleblower rather than a traitor to the U.S. government."

'The government' is not the same thing as 'the country'.

Snowden is..

...a righteous whistleblower.

...a traitor to the U.S. government.

...not a traitor to the US and its people.

Protect Snowden

[amoeba1911]

Majority of Americans know that Snowden isn't a traitor. This means if Snowden is a traitor in government's eyes, then the majority of Americans are also traitors in government's eyes. If majority of American are considered traitors,

Godwin has been suspended...

[Grog6]

As long as American Nazis are in charge.

Please make a note of it.

Who cares.. Our "officials" are the problem....

[Lumpy]

Snowden is a freaking hero just Like Manning. Snowden knew the shitstorm he was going to step into when he did what he did.. And contrary to the liars in the government what he released did not risk anyone or "aid the enemy" unless the American public is by their definition the enemy..

The fact that they all are trying to play it down and it's working because americans in general are stupid as a box of rocks and are not screaming at the top of their lungs in the streets about this is proof.

I am pretty disgusted with my fellow citizens and how they happily give up their rights for the sake of fake security...

Re:You are to Blame

[Lumpy]

Replace them with what? More rich assholes that have their own agenda and have no interest in anything but getting re-elected? Oh yay...

Re:If he had reported it through official channels

[feral-troll]

Especially channels amenable to spying on US citizens, we would never have heard of Snowden or the spy programs. If he had then tried to publish via other means, neither would his family. At the risk of Godwin: If you were, say, a German administrator learning about the death camps and being absolutely appalled, reporting it to any senior Nazi official wouldn't do much good.

And it didn't for those who naively did tried to do this. Case in point, John Rabe, a Siemens employee in China saved the lives of tens of thousands of Chinese civilians in during the rape of Nanking. He was rewarded with a gag order upon his return to Germany for embarrassing an ally. Post war he was brutally interrogated by the NKVD and then by the British and died in abject poverty sustained by money and food donated by the people of Nanking. Rabe he was one of the lucky ones. Many altruistic individuals who saved lives during WWII ended up being punished by their own countries for what they did.

You are kidding...right? RIGHT?!?

[Guru80]

he had an opportunity—if what he was, was a whistle-blower—to pick up the phone and call the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and say I have some information,' Feinstein told CBS' Face The Nation.

We all know what happens to whistle-blowers that blow within....they are quieted, discredited, fired and smeared before they have a chance to tell any that would actually do anything about it. Had he done that business would be continuing as normal and of course that's what they prefer.

Ugh - Feinstein really shouldn't be off her leash

[MikeLip]

Feinstein just gives me the creeps. She'd just LOVE to put us all in little boxes, with a camera and microphone running 24/7.

Re:You are to Blame

[AHuxley]

The same could be said for the once trusted brands, privacy lawyers, top academics, cleared developers and counter surveillance teams globally.
Unless they all had a feeling something was wrong and just used US digital networking for local disinformation.

Snowden for Nobel Peace Prize

[korbulon]

I can't think of a case in recent history where the actions of a single individual have had such far-reaching, global consequences. At the very least awarding Snowden the peace prize would be a political black-eye for the Obama administration and would help to cast these lickspittles and apologists and other assorted voices of Sauron as being ethically retarded. It would also go towards repairing the prize's failing reputation, especially in light of the 2009 award.

I'm going to come out right now and say it: Snowden is a fucking hero. However pure or impure his intentions were, the fact remains that a lot of very powerful people are now having to go into damage control and make excuses and otherwise cover their asses. It remains to be seen whether this will have long-lasting political ramifications. Although, given that the American political system is fundamentally corrupt - the political parties are basically two sides of the same filthy coin - I have my doubts.

Re:Snowden for Nobel Peace Prize

[ebno-10db]

awarding Snowden the peace prize would be a political black-eye for the Obama administration

What would be even funnier is that they'd both have Nobel Peace Prizes.

Bah

[koan]

There was no disservice done to me from what Snowden released, if the governments honestly didn't know they were being bugged they are too stupid to last.
In fact, no matter what you think of Snowden it's pretty clear that our "security" services are incompetent, so he did us the favour of clearly exposing that.
In addition, the rhetoric coming from the likes of Feinstein and her ilk (Bloomberg, Schumer, etc) is what really concerns me.

Re:Who cares.. Our "officials" are the problem....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please don't put Snowden and that steaming asshat in the same bucket. Snowden did something beneficial to all Americans. Manning did not. Manning did what he did to make a name for himself. He used a shotgun approach, probably got a lot of people killed, ruined our ability to effectively operate in a foreign war, and gave aid and comfort to our enemies. No. Manning deserves to be drawn and quartered. Now Snowden probably could have been a little more diplomatic about what he did, but I do believe that he had the country's best interests at heart.

Re:Ugh - Feinstein really shouldn't be off her lea

[koan]

You're correct to feel that way, she *is* the enemy.

Snowden's revelations were banal

[Andover Chick]

Revealing the NSA/CIA spies on everyone was no more interesting than knowing the MSS, FSB, Mossad, or BND does the exact same thing. The fact that the NSA was monitoring the same data as Chinese Unit 61398 regularly does was a surprise to no one. If you're anyone who uses modern digital communication then assume you've on a party line with numerous countries listening in. Why narcissistic Snowden thinks he should get clemency, for revealing something any intelligent person knows happens anyways, is baffling.

It all depends on your breadth of view

[LostMonk]

It all depends on your breadth and length of view.
Over the past months and the near future, Snowden is definitely causing USA damage.
In the long run though, he just might help to make the world a better place... and at a huge personal sacrifice no less. In my book that's the definition of a hero!

... Proper disclosure: I'm not an American.

He Is a Hero

[b4upoo]

Snowden is a hero and needs no clemency. It is one thing for a government to spy upon people but it is quite another to pretend not to spy on the public. If the government had simply announced a need to study the public electronically and with other means as well many of us would care less. But a government based upon lies makes us all wonder if the government is not an enemy.
                  As far as turning information into other government agencies that would be useless. The Warren Commission's laughable look at the JFK assassination ruins the notion of trusted governmental inquiries.

Re:Of course

[Eunuchswear]

if what he was, was a whistle-blower—to pick up the phone and call the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and say I have some information,

...then he would have been driven to the nearest desert in a nice black SUV, given a shovel and told to dig his own grave and disposed of nicely and quietly.

Hysterical bullshit.

He would have been ignored, like all the others.

What, you didn't know there were others? Blame the US press.

One of the earliest renditions was in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

This was this weird story in 2002 or so about a German businessman who was of Arabic extraction who claimed to have been kidnapped by the US military. Once it was realized that he merely shared a surname with someone he was released after a few weeks. I believe they tried to get him to sign something that he wouldn't sue and was dropped off somewhere in Europe. At the time he was accused of being having cracked up.

If they've kidnapped people from Germany before, I'd imagine they'd do it again.

Drink the Koolaid

[kn9sli001]

Pick up the phone, say I have some information? And be disappeared off the face of the planet.

This is really simple actually

[slashmydots]

Hmm let's see. There's this one thing called public opinion and voting. So, if they don't want a big, fat, "you're fired" come election time, they better start supporting Snowden. You're either against the big, evil, spying government or you are it.

House Unintelligence Committee

[PortHaven]

If calling the House Unintelligence Committee would have done jack. Then those pinpricks would be doing something now.

Now, Fienstein should be removed in the next election. Hell, I think there is more of a case to be made for treason and hanging on the part of Feinstein.

Re:House Unintelligence Committee

[Bob_Who]

Agreed. She's losing votes that she has counted on for decades. Career politics is not democracy. After a while, its all about them.

Because moron

[PortHaven]

America is NOT supposed to be China.

We have laws that declared doing these actions are illegal.

You do realize that...

[PortHaven]

A lot of our elections are rigged. This is why so many results do NOT coincide with polls.

It's a good soundbite

[interkin3tic]

Yes, I think that voters looking for a reason to continue to be apathetic will readily believe it. They might even assume that the government will go ahead and fix itself "even though Snowden brought this up the 'wrong' way." Feinstein and Rogers aren't making these statements because they fail to realize their hypocrisy. They're saying this shit because they're very cunning politicians who know how to play the press and defend their benefactors in the intelligence community. I think this WILL mollify a disturbing number of people. These congress people didn't bumble their way to the near top.

It's hard for me to blame the voters too. Most people don't have the time or mental energy to support themselves and their families AND maintain government against shit like this. I'd be happy if most voters stopped being paranoid about foreign threats. People are aware of the dangers of big government, their concerns are just eclipsed by fears of islamic cultists with pipe bombs. Cure that and I think it will be possible to trim back the NSA and military industrial complex. I think it will clear up before too long though: the paranoia seems to be driven by the 24 hour cable news culture, it's very effective at making people worried all the time. And I see the cable news watching population getting older and not being replaced by younger generations. It will be a lot harder to construct the same threats to justify the NSA to the public online, at least as it is now. With cable news, you get the soundbite, no cross-talk, and before you can question it, it's moved onto something else. You walk away with the idea that Snowden is a traitor and OH NO! TERRORISTS!!!

Cable news needs to hurry up and collapse, or we need real leaders to cure us of our paranoia. I'm prepared for a long wait.

Just goes to show the lack of political divide.

[intermodal]

We have two parties, both establishment-supporting. They've taken away all effectiveness in our systems intended to petition for redress, and then they demonize anyone who doesn't stick to just these channels.

Any lawmaker who believes our present official-channel redress methods genuinely offer legitimate chances of redress should be voted out of office. Preferrably by their own party in primaries, otherwise you just get someone equally dirty from the other side. Though in California, having been a California voter, I can honestly say the California version of both parties are as filthy as they come these days.

Seconded

[Phoenix666]

No clemency for Feinstein, Rogers, Obama, Bush, Cheney, Clapper, Alexander, or any other the hundred or more other people who swore oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. They are the rankest, vilest of traitors and have done more damage to our country than anyone else in history. They deserve the death penalty.

I'm not sure they understand how this works.

[mosb1000]

He was trusted; he stripped our system; he had an opportunity—if what he was, was a whistle-blower—to pick up the phone and call the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and say I have some information

It wouldn't exactly be smart for a whistle blower to go the people he intends to blow the whistle on first. Not unless he wan't to go for a swim in a pair of concrete boots or something like that.

Re:I'm not sure they understand how this works.

[rubycodez]

nonsense, you are confused, those committees you name are part of the problem, they are building the police state and are corporate fascists in the pockets of large corporations

Re:Because imbicile

[Andover Chick]

Err, if you can read, imbecile, you can see I've listed other countries besides China, including other democracies. Just face it. Snowden is a BORING loser who revealed nothing new or important.

Re:Who cares.. Our "officials" are the problem....

[sootman]

> Snowden is a freaking hero just like Manning.

Agree. Too early to start printing "Snowden/Manning 2016" bumper stickers?

Feinstein and Rogers

[macraig]

So they're butthurt that Snowden did an end-run around them and the rest of crony-crammed Congress - because he knew they couldn't be trusted to be forthright - and took what he'd learned straight to the press and the public, and now determined to see him get a lethal injection in retaliation for the snub? Do they need to be reminded again that they work for us and our interests?

Think twice before you help re-elect either one of them.

Right, Senator.

[oDDmON oUT]

If he'd picked up the phone, would it have been the last thing he'd have done as a free man before he disappeared into the black rendition gulag?

Lamest.excuse.ever.

Re:Because imbicile

[rubycodez]

you are ignorant, those other "democracies" don't have a Bill of RIghts such as the USA has

Popular sentiment

[WaffleMonster]

Always interesting to hear politicians make such forceful unqualified statements when they know more than half the country (Significant numbers of D's and R's) think this guy is a hero.

With any luck Feinstein and Mr "You can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated" will find themselves looking for work when their term is up for renewal.

Feinstein

[mu51c10rd]

Perhaps adding more fuel to the fire...but Senator Feinstein was also the one who shortly after Sandy Hook was attempting to disarm the populace as well. So her perfect world is an unarmed populace with 24/7 government surveillance. Did she sleep through US Heritage classes in college?

Feinstein and Rogers are TRAITORS

[mrchaotica]

Feinstein and Rogers undoubtedly completely understand and heartily agree with what the NSA is doing in the first place. They should be tried for treason (along with the entire NSA leadership) and be executed once their guilt is established.

No clemency for Feinstein!

[BubbaDave]

Feinstein is my enemy, and the enemy of all who would not be subservient to the state.

No clemency for Feinstein!

Re:"pick up the phone..."

[mrchaotica]

More like:

Snowden: "Hello, Senator? The NSA is tapping the phones of US citizens"

Senator: "I know; I told them to do so. And you're not going to tell anyone else about it, ever again. (You hear that, NSA rendition team?)"

NSA tech: "Yep, we heard it -- we're breaking down his door now"

Senator: "Keep up the good work!"

If the administration was republican....

[c-A-d]

these same people would be hoisting him up as a hero. However, it was their man that was caught out and their administration that was caught out so now he's a villian.

The victors rewrite history in their favour.

RE:most embarrassing info released if he is killed

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: hold the most embarrassing information in a safe place with instructions to release it if he is killed. That's what a smart guy would do. And the US agencies know he is a smart guy.

Thus giving Iran, China, Russia and really most of the rest of the non-US world a great incentive to kill Snowden?

Yeah, smart, real smart.

Unredacted Copies?

[ScottCooperDotNet]

Rumor has it that Snowden has some sort of dead man's switch that triggers the immediate release of all the files, unredacted, if he is harmed or imprisoned.

That would make him even more of a target, by people that would like everything released immediately and unredacted. Such as the Russians.

You're assuming he's not traded the unredacted copies to the Russians for security. Although if that were the case, I'd expect he'd live there permanently. Perhaps in this scenario, the Russians have already decided that, but to limit the damage in Capitalist America, aren't saying so.

As much as it pains me to say it...

[fzammett]

...I actually agree with that she-bitch Feinstein that he shouldn't get clemency. However, that's where it ends for me. Not giving clemency is different than hunting down.

To me, leave the guy alone. Let him live out his life in whatever country he wants that isn't America, free from the threat of assassination or jail. The only caveat is he's lost his U.S. privileges. It's kinda like Wallace in Pulp Fiction: "You lost your L.A. privileges".

Here's my thing: he DID break the law. Now, me, I say he did it for the right reasons and I'm glad he did... but he still did leak classified information and that can't go unpunished. But, to me, the punishment of never being able to set foot in his home country again is plenty. I don't need him dead and I don't want him in jail. There's plenty of other nice countries out there Mr. Snowden- pick one and make it your home and enjoy the rest of your days. But you don't get to come back here either.

Singapore sounds better than where we're headed.

[zooblethorpe]

The end result is probably something like Singapore. Ostensibly free, but scratch the surface and you quickly hit authoritarianism and an oligarchy of connected families and companies. The problem is, most of the US governing class would see little wrong with such an outcome.

From the things I've read, Singapore has better social services.

"Everyone would do it"

[soccerisgod]

Maybe, maybe not. But can't we at least agree that none of this, not even one measly percent, is about security, least of all for ordinary citizens? It's about hegemonial goals. It's about having an edge over the competition (both the guys you call 'friends' as well as the guys you call names), both in terms of politics, policies and economy. It has nothing to do with crazed terrorists or bomb-carrying Iraqis. Can we please agree on this? That'd enrich the whole debate with at least a smidgeon of honesty.

Why the hassle ?

[DrYak]

Thus giving Iran, China, Russia and really most of the rest of the non-US world a great incentive to kill Snowden?

If they are really interested in embarrassing the US no matter the cost, why the hassle with killing Snowden?
Russia and China could simply "accidentally" leak the information themselves to the press.
What, you though that Snowden managed to gather any information that wasn't already known since long time to the FSB and MSS ?

Re:Why the hassle ?

[PopeRatzo]

Russia and China could simply "accidentally" leak the information themselves to the press.

Russia and China do not have the Snowden information.

I recommend the Barton Gellman stories about the Snowden affair in the Washington Post. He's had the most balanced reporting on the subject and has done extensive work, including a great deal of direct contact with Snowden. He says he has every reason to believe that Snowden put the NSA files out of the reach of China or Russia. It's not like he had them in his backpack or anything, and certainly not on his computer or cell phone. According to Gellman, the only people who got any access to the documents were the small handful of reporters who Snowden chose very carefully.

You can say a lot of things about Snowden, but he appears not to be a dummy and seems to know a bit about computer security and how to protect data from unauthorized intrusion.

Seriously, I highly recommend reading Gellman's stories. They changed my mind about the whole affair.

They could leak it themselve

[DrYak]

by people that would like everything released immediately and unredacted. Such as the Russians.

If the Russians were that much eager to publicly display US wrong doings, they could simply "accidentally leak" it from they own source.
I seriously doubt that Snowden managed to gather info about something that the FSB hasn't known for a long time already.

What would they learn

[DrYak]

You're assuming he's not traded the unredacted copies to the Russians for security.

And would the FSB learn from them that they didn't know already?
You're forgetting that the FSB (formely known as KGB, formely known as TcheKa ...) has been at this "spying" game for a much longer time than even the NSA themselves.

I really think that Snowden tells the truth when he declares that both Russia and China haven't accessed the information he has gathered.
- It's highly unlikely that there anything in there that the FSB and MSS haven't already learned long before.
- It would be diplomatically problematic for them to do it. Better continue gathering their information through their own ways (completely secret to the USA and the general public - well at least for some. I think there are quite enough people aware of China back-dooring as much equipment they ship as possible) than risking tapping into this publicly controversed source.
All in all, the content isn't worth the hassle. Let Snowden in peace, and take the opportunity of letting him publicly paint the USA as the bad guy without even *needing* them to publicly point fingers (and thus needing to admit their own treasure trove of spied informations)

Although if that were the case, I'd expect he'd live there permanently.

Probably not, they'll keep a few year though. By then, the public and the political scene would have completely forgotten him and moved to the next sex scandal, or next over-blown and over-reacted holywood terrorist plot, etc.

Mod parent up.

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Mod parent up.

WOLF-PAC (despite the ridiculous name) is a great organization, and possibly the best chance we have at fixing our government.

I highly recommend everyone at least reads up about them.

Getting involved with WOLF-PAC is easy, free, and lets you get involved with your representatives at a local level. At the very least, it's a great way to get personally involved in politics. It's fine to bullshit about politics online. It's good to go out and vote. But it's great to actually get involved.

Support WOLF-PAC and help reclaim our government. Please.

Stupid Arguement

[DarthVain]

My simple question for Feinstein would be thus:

"What Snowden has released has been literally going on for years. How has there been no report, release, or action by the House Intelligence Committee, or the Senate Intelligence Committee thus far? Was Snowden the only one with sole access to this information? Clearly your current method is non-functional. Who is doing the real disservice to their country?"

Freedom fighter

[NewYork]

A terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side.

Oh well, no case for extradition either then.

[RockDoctor]

No civilized country could extradite someone to a country where his conviction is taken as a fait accompli, and which deploys the death penalty with reckless abandon. So he's safe from being extradited to America, at least while still alive.

Which doesn't say much for his life expectancy, But as things stand, the US "Justice" system isn't going to be getting their hands on him.

Don't steal what you already own

[DrYak]

Russia and China do not have the Snowden information.

If you mean "Russia and China ignore the information that Snowden knows", I really doubt it.
FSB and MSS (and numerous other organisations) have been at this spying game for much long. Chance are that they have gathered similar knowledge through their own channels for a long time.
Probably nothing that Snowden and co will reveal will be any surprise for them.

That's why I say "they could accidentally leak them".
If they only exclusively wanted to throw mud at the USA (as the parent poster proposed), they could probably have more than enough to throw from all they have collected over the year (they've been at this since even before Snowden was even born).

He says he has every reason to believe that Snowden put the NSA files out of the reach of China or Russia. It's not like he had them in his backpack or anything, and certainly not on his computer or cell phone. According to Gellman, the only people who got any access to the documents were the small handful of reporters who Snowden chose very carefully.

I'm not arguing that Snowden didn't follow perfect data security procedure (It's after all his specialty, he was pretty much aware of proper procedure, simply as part of his job. Unlike other whistleblowers full of big idea but no good plan to remain safe).

I'm arguing that these files were never a surprise to China and Russia.
They haven't even tried to get ahold of them probably because they're not going to learn much new stuff that they didn't know already through their own channels.

Also, trying to get access to Snowden files would very probably turn out diplomatically problematic (depending on how they try doing it, Snowden or others might be able to expose them).

Better avoid the public outcry, avoid touching Snowden's stuff:
it's not worth the hassle, and they probably know already the information which is inside.

I recommend the Barton Gellman stories about the Snowden affair in the Washington Post. {...} You can say a lot of things about Snowden, but he appears not to be a dummy and seems to know a bit about computer security and how to protect data from unauthorized intrusion.

I read quite a lot about this from various sources. Indeed Snowden seem to know his stuff and follow proper procedures (And that's no surprise. Security WAS his job until he decided to blow the whistle, so it should be expected from him to know his stuff). Same as the other guy involved (Bruce Schneier has also written about the subjet of how to remain secure).

But on the other hand think about it:
- snowden was just one single guy. working as a consultant as a sysadmin. gathering document over a few months. working alone. Although he is very bright, he has limited resource.
And he managed still to pull this stunt.
- Russia and China have highly trained personnel, probably as bright as Snowden. But they have way much more resource than him and have been a this game much longer (as far back as the FSB was still called KGB, and even before that when it was the Tcheka).
Ask your self: what did *THEY* gather as information over these decades?
Could there anything be then in Snowden's files that Russia and China haven't already known for ages ?

To make a carricature: I might sai that movies' double and triple agents are an understatement, in reality all these organisations are probably full of people working for five countries at the same time out of witch three countries are probably secretly aware of each other.

Re:Don't steal what you already own

[PopeRatzo]

I agree with you DrYak. China and Russia have probably already gotten the information that Snowden has.

My point is that they did not get it from Snowden.

Huge disconnect and so many questions

[I_say]

How come government officials are reacting the exact opposite fashion of what most Americans are reacting? Majority agree that Snowden did us a great favor, as citizens, but still the people who take our money and supposedly speak for us are labelling him a villain? It's not just the typically backwards GOP, this time; it's the Democrats, too. How are things this bad? If we voted for you, why do you hate us?