Honest questions on NSA and Snowden

[Just Saying]

1) Did the Obama administration break any laws? You can disagree with the law but I'm asking if they broke any.

2) If not, how is Snowden a whistleblower and not just a guy who leaked classified information? If so, did Snowden break laws also and does he deserve protection from prosecution?

I still trying to understand how this is a scandal.

[Poll_Blind]

1. Answers:

First 1:35 of this video (to understand the context of the second video):

Then this whole video (2 minutes) from Sen. Merkley, himself:

Overreached and arguably broke laws, yes.

So your second question? Snowden is a whistleblower.

PB

[Poll_Blind]

2. That's right. I'm kicking my own response. nt

PB

[Just Saying]

5. Overreached and arguably

Doesn't sound all that certain to me. I understand that be sure these programs are wrapped in secrecy as they're related to intelligence gathering thru the NSA but I'm not clear on what's new about this.

There were bills to protect telecoms under Bush because if the data mining that was going on! And that was back in 2006-7 I believe.

I'm not disputing that The Patriot Act or at least parts of it may be unConstitutional but that's not the same thing as illegal.

I'm not sure Snowden told us anything we shouldn't have already known. I don't know enough about him to get exactly where he's coming from but it's all very odd.

[renie408]

37. "I'm not sure Snowden told us anything we shouldn't have already known."

See, that's kinda where I'm at. I sort of thought they had been doing this shit all along. I was more surprised by the public reaction than by the leak itself.

I mean, didn't we go through Bush actually wiretapping bunches of Americans and all the hoo ha over that seven or eight years ago?

[Just Saying]

40. Yes, we did.

And he was actually doing it without warrants then got it set up to be retroactive.

I'm trying to discuss it to understand what's new here.

[Daemonaquila]

3. Sorry you don't get it.

1) These internal spying programs were unconstitutional when Shrub started them, and they're still unconstitutional under Obama. The fact that they're "legal" because (a) they're questionably covered under some provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (which is just as "legal" as various state legislators saying that they will not recognize federal gun control legislation), and (b) courts won't actually deem them illegal/unconstitutional because that would require disclosure of state secrets and the courts so far won't go toe-to-to with the government in that arena, doesn't mean that they're actually legal.

2) Even if the programs were deemed legal, informing the public of secret spying programs that threaten our democracy is a patriotic act of whistleblowing. This question is such foolishness. It was legal, in the USSR, to disappear people off to gulags in the far north of Russia for speaking ill of the government. That doesn't make it right, and that doesn't make an insider dissident who screams out to the world that these abuses are occuring some mere criminal "leaker of classified information." The same principle applies here. Snowden will almost certainly be prosecuted, if not simply disappeared. He deserves a medal, but his life is basically over because he did right by his fellow citizens.

It's a scandal because Obama not only continued but expanded the crimes of the Bush administration. It's a scandal because he talked the good game of transparency, turning back the illegal activities of Shrub, etc. Instead, off we go to 1984, just with a Dem at the helm. If you don't get that, it's sad.

[Just Saying]

7. Interesting response.

1) Okay, YOU say they're unconstitutional but that's up to the Supreme Court to decide. I know parts of the Patriot Act have been upheld by them. And as I said upthread there is a difference between following a law that's unconstitutional and breaking the law. That's not to say it's ethical.

It's not valid to compare the government following a law (whether ethical or unconstitutional aside) to state governments ignoring federal law.

2). Now we're Russia? This law has nothing to do with making people disappear in Russia. I'm not sure Snowden did right by us. He did certainly leak classified info. While I know our government is capable of many bad things, I'm not sure "disappearing" this guy is one of them. I'm just not that paranoid.

The government has been collecting phone data since way back during the Bush administration. Now unconstitutional or not, it has been and is the law. We can change that thru Congress but I don't see that happening. Do you? Things may change if the USSC decides parts or all of PA are unconstitutional or a president decides to stop the program. Bet your life if we were attacked after a president stepped back from PA, he would be called weak on terror and those programs reinstated fast enough to make your head spin!

Let's take care with terms. Doing something unethical isn't a crime. Following a law that is unconstitutional is not a crime. How did Obama "expand" what you feel the Bush admin was doing wrong? You do understand that all things can't be transparent when it comes to national security?

Throwing out proclamations about 1984 and gulags just seems reactionary. I was worried about the Patriot Act way back in 2001 when it passed so I have a hard time working myself into a frenzy over it now.

[renie408]

39. Can every national security measure be transparent and still work as a national security measure?

Obama can be the most transparent President ever and still keep some secrets. In fact, I would kinda expect him to.

I am not sure about this whole thing. I keep trying to get excited about it, but I just haven't yet. I worry that means I am a sheep or something, but I am having a hard time getting worked up over the government knowing that my number called another number and spoke to somebody for 2 minutes and 18 seconds.

And all that crap about them recording all the calls and storing the data somewhere forever...doesn't that seem a little far fetched?

I dunno. This just doesn't seem like as big a deal as the actual wiretapping that was being done before.

[Just Saying]

41. I'm far from a sheep

Which is why I don't jump on "the sky is falling" scandal panic just because other people are. But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing others's point of view.

Maybe I'm missing something so I'm trying to talk about it. Not easy because some people only seem to go on message boards to be nasty!

I keep hearing different things about the so-called whistleblower that are completely contradictory. Even his own statements seem off somehow. I'm trying to understand what he did and why he did. I feel like, as usual, we don't have the whole story.

[backscatter712]

4. 1. He broke the highest law of the land, the Constitution. 2. That means he's a whistleblower. n/t

[Just Saying]

8. Uh no,

He didn't break the Constitution. (You make it sound like he tripped carrying it. Oops!). One could argue that The Patriot Act is unconstitutional but so far the USSC hasn't said so. The President is following a law, passed by Congress that the USSP has upheld on several occasions. It's possible that could happen but that still wouldn't make this a crime.

[FSogol]

10. Careful, someone is going to post a Klingon picture at you.

Correct analysis, BTW.

[Just Saying]

15. I've been called worse.

And I have thick skin.


Thanks for the warning though.

[backscatter712]

46. You shall never reach Sto-vo-kor!

[ljm2002]

6. A whistleblower exposes wrongdoing...

...whether that wrongdoing is done under color of law or not.

Now obviously, there is some disagreement over whether Snowden actually exposed wrongdoing. But you should never mistake "it's legal" for "it's right". Anytime you find yourself doing that, just remember that laws against interracial marriage were still on the books in many states until 1967.

In other words, people should stop trying to hang their hats on the "but it was all legal" hook. It really misses the point entirely.

BTW, I'm beginning to treat the phrase "An honest question:" with about as much weight as when someone says "Trust me". In either case, it is usually a prelude to something that belies the original phrase.

[CJCRANE]

11. I agree with the OP's take on this but

you're right that whenever someone posts an "honest question" it actually means "I've already formed my opinion so this a rhetorical question to which I already know the answer and I'll disagree with you if you say the opposite".

[ljm2002]

16. Thanks for that...

...it is good we can agree on some things and not on others and still remain civil about it.

[Just Saying]

17. I certainly have some opinions

But people are so passionate about this and I'm trying to understand exactly why. I'm not under the delusion that we'll all agree.

I feel like this is old news whether or not I like it. I'm wondering if I'm missing some big piece and should be more pissed off.

[Just Saying]

13. Wrongdoing seems like a subjective term.

Whether we're talking legally, ethically or Constitutionally it can be taken differently. Let me put it this way, Benedict Arnold was a traitor to the USA yet a whistleblower for the Brits.

Certainly ethics and legality are two different things, but we're not all going to agree on concepts like right and wrong necessarily.

So what is the point if it's not whether or not this is legal? If its what to do about it then our options are to attempt to get the President not to do it voluntarily (even though he has the legal right and pressure to continue), the Congress to overturn it (good luck) or the Supreme Court to find the Act or portions unconstitutional.

I am genuinely trying to understand the outrage whether you believe it or not. This seems like old news to me so watching people freak out is intriguing. I keep seeing things about East Gemany, Gulags and 1984. Seems a bit over the top.

And I'll wait to decide how I feel about Snowden.

[ljm2002]

24. Definitely, wrongdoing is a subjective term...

...and that is an essential part of whistleblower status, so it gets complicated.

We may not all agree on what is right and what is wrong. That is why we have debates. It is why we have laws. But our concepts of what is right and what is wrong may also evolve, and then the laws based on these ideas evolve as well. It's a process. We need only think of slavery, anti-miscegination laws and the like, to remind ourselves that "it's legal" is not the same thing as "it's right".

As to why this "old news" is suddenly gaining traction, well, you're right that it is passing strange that it never gained traction before. And I absolutely acknowledge that some people have suddenly become interested in the topic because it is Obama at the helm rather than Romney. Also, the way that Snowden chose to do this had maximum impact. It's big news when someone publicly takes on the US government in this way, and his being in Hong Kong makes it just intrinsically more interesting.

Whatever Snowden's motives are, whatever the motives are of people who are only now becoming interested in this topic, I am very glad to see the discussion taking place. It's about time we all got out of our denial that we are building a surveillance state.

[Just Saying]

43. Thank you for the response.

"it's legal" is not the same thing as "it's right".

Couldn't agree more!

It throws me when the term "whistleblower" is used for a story I feel like I've heard several times, years before. I don't trust the media to give me anything resembling accurate info, I read/watch different sources and I'm getting such differing opinions.

I think this is complex because it gets into how much secrecy is okay and how much do people trust the government. Do we want them to be vigilant about terrorism? Or is that just an excuse to spend tax dollars and spy on political opponents?

It seems odd that Snowden is in Hong Kong of all places. If he is exposing wrongdoing, is it acceptable he revealed classified info even if it weakens our safety?

I can understand holding Obama to a higher standard than Bush or Romney, but then they set the bar so low!

What are your expectations of how Obama should have handled this?

In what way do you feel he took this farther than Bush?

What can he do now to stop it? (Can he stop it?)

[FSogol]

9. It is a "scandal" because the GOP and some libertarians WANT it to be a scandal.

See Benghazi, Acorn, the IRS, the birth certificate, ACA, etc, etc.

[Just Saying]

22. There is such scandal overload!

Its tough to tell what's real and what's crying wolf yet again.

I'm trying to see the scandal point of view on this one to see if there's any there there. With so many on the left upset it makes me want to know more.

[cali]

12. Let me make this clear for about the hundredth time:

whether or not it's fucking legal is of little account to me. the fucking Nuremberg Laws were legal. Jim Crow was legal. Lots of deeply ugly shit throughout history has been fucking legal. I fucking expect DUers to know that and not to use that fucking disgusting cheesy ass argument.

Got it?

Good.

[Just Saying]

19. You have the right to your opinion

Even if you have to say fucking five times to state it. We disagree. And I don't have to swear at you once to say it.

Since Snowden did break the law I find it very relevant whether this is legal or not. Ethics and constitutionality are another issue. I'm the type of person who doesn't just pile on or panic because everyone else is. I like to be logical. I want to know what happened, why and if necessary, how do we change it.

I guess anger and paranoia is another way to go.

[cali]

28. As most people who know me here are aware

I enjoy saying fucking. sorry you have a fucking problem with my fucking language.

I don't have to say fucking. I like saying fucking.

and I'm not even a little bit angry or a tiny bit paranoid.

and no, you're not logical if you completely ignore my point. And you are.

[cali]

14. btw, there's NOTHING honest about your questions.

Your responses in this thread make that completely clear as does the initial op.

[Just Saying]

20. You don't have any idea what's in my head.

Nor what is honest or otherwise. I'm trying to understand other posters point of view on this since so many are so passionate.

Some are even irrational.

[DesMoinesDem]

18. This article will answer your questions

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/put_the_nsa_on_trial/

Here are some excerpts but you need to read the whole thing.

The idea here, which has quickly become the standard talking point for partisans trying to defend the NSA program and the Obama administration, is that while you may object to the NSA’s mass surveillance system, it is nonetheless perfectly legal as is the conduct surrounding it. Therefore, the logic goes, Snowden isn’t an honorable “whistle-blower” he’s a traitorous “leaker,” and the only criminal in this case is Snowden and Snowden alone.

The first — and most simple — way to debunk this talking point is to simply behold two sets of testimony by Obama administration national security officials. In one, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper categorically denies that the government “collect(s) any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” In another, the Guardian reports that NSA Director General Keith Alexander “denied point-blank that the agency had the figures on how many Americans had their electronic communications collected or reviewed.”

Both of those claims, of course, were exposed as lies by Snowden’s disclosures. So at minimum Snowden deserves the title “whistle-blower” (and the attendant protections that are supposed to come with such a title) because his disclosures outed Clapper and Alexander’s statements as probable cases of illegal perjury before Congress. In other words, in terms of perjury, the disclosures didn’t expose controversial-but-legal activity, they exposed illegal behavior.

There’s also the issue of whether the NSA’s surveillance itself is legal, and whether Snowden’s disclosures show the NSA is continuing to break U.S. federal statutes (we’ll get to the Constitution in a second). Yes, you read that right: The word “continuing” is appropriate because back in 2009, NSA officials admitted they were breaking the law.

As the New York Times reported at the time, the agency “intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress.” Additionally, the Times noted that “several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed” about the illegal activity “described the practice as significant and systemic.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., yesterday declared that his review of the program proved it violates federal statutes.

...

In light of the NSA itself already admitting it broke the law in “systemic” fashion; in light of a prominent senator saying the program is illegal; and in light of the “Boundless Informant” disclosure showing the NSA may be broadly surveilling domestic (rather than exclusively foreign) communications as statutes are supposed to curtail: In light of all that, why would anyone simply assume at face value that the program Snowden exposed is perfectly legal?

Thus, the administration’s strategy is to at once stonewall on the details and insist ad nauseam that everything is perfectly legal, when that assertion is, at best, a fact-free assumption, and more likely a devious misdirect. That Permanent Washington and so many Obama loyalists would nonetheless echo such a misdirect is a commentary on how political self-interest and partisanship now trumps everything else — even the law of the land.

[LondonReign2]

34. Thansk for the link DMD

[Just Saying]

42. I'm checking it out. Thanks! N/t

[LondonReign2]

21. From your responses in this thread your "honest questions" are a charade

You already knew what you wanted the answers to be.

Which is fine, it just makes the questions dishonest rather than honest

[Just Saying]

25. Wrong

But move on and don't respond.

I'm not looking for a specific answer but trying to understand a different point of view. Try it some time!

[HangOnKids]

27. COMEDY GOLD!!!!

But don't give up your day job.

[cali]

30. bwahahahahaha, hon.

[randome]

33. You're good.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Just Saying]

36. Yes I see plenty of nasty snarky people here on DU.

The right has no lock on folks like that! They seem to think they're the smartest boy on the message board and we all should just feel lucky to have their attention.

Since they add little to nothing to any debate, I'll simply pat them on the head and move on to conversation with grown ups.


* pat pat *

[HangOnKids]

26. Winner Winner Winner

[cali]

29. exactly. an obvious charade. not even well done.

[Enrique]

32. exactly

[Monkie]

23. its hard to tell when we are told the interpretation of the law is a secret?

it has already been shown the clapper lied due to these releases, these releases could help in the court cases that were dismissed because the government claimed people did not have standing to sue cause they could not prove they were being spied on, which i personally thought was quite a brilliant tactic.

and just today we have this:

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York accuses Mueller of giving a misleading answer to a question about whether agents need to seek further permission before examining individual calls.

Mueller said that agents need to do so. But Nadler says that answer conflicts with an answer given in a private hearing to Congress on Tuesday.

[Just Saying]

38. This is part of the challenge for sure.

And this is a complicated issue as we debate security vs. privacy and whether or not the war on terror is a valid intelligence challenge or an excuse to spend more money on defense and spying.

I've heard that there's been perjury from the NSA but what are these people with all this classified and secret dealings obligated to tell us? Where do we draw the line between secrecy and transparency when it comes to government?

Then we have to try to decipher what's being said between the public and private hearings.

[Progressive dog]

31. Obama administration did not break the law

based on claims made about program to store phone records.

Snowden is not a whistleblower. What he leaked about prism was already available through previous disclosures.

[LondonReign2]

35. See post #18

[limpyhobbler]

44. attempts at an answer

1) Did the Obama administration break any laws?

Sort of. The created a secret interpretation of the law and said anybody who revealed their secret interpretation would be guilty of treason. Then they used their secret interpretation of the law to record the private communications of everybody, storing all the info in a gigantic library, so it could be pulled out and used later by someone else.

So yes they did violate most people's understanding of the law. But they had a secret interpretation of the law that nobody knew about. Senator Wyden and a few others did know about it and tried to warn us for the past several years that this was going on. But they couldn't specifically reveal the secret interpretation of the law because it was classified.

Obama weaseled his way around the law, by secretly claiming internally that the law doesn't really mean what the public thinks it means.

2) If not, how is Snowden a whistleblower and not just a guy who leaked classified information?

Snowden is a whistleblower because he revealed that the gov't was secretly recording the communications of the people, and that they had been lying to us about whether they were doing that. In other words, he exposed government wrongdoing.

I hope this helps you understand why this is such a big deal.

[Just Saying]

45. I'm getting a headache,

Is it any wonder people are confused?

So part of the problem is that so much of what they're doing is classified and they decided to interpret the law (which may or may not be constitutional or ethical) beyond what was outlined by Congress, they lied about and Snowden proved it. In a nutshell?

But I get what you're saying and that was probably the most clear explanation I've gotten so thank you!