Much of Snowden's resume is made up of exaggerations or outright lies.

[Cali_Democrat]

This article states that Snowden took "college courses at five different institutions without bothering to seek a diploma."

Here are some notable exaggerations/lies from Snowden:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-fears-edward-snowden-defect-china-sources/story?id=19389672

Snowden told the Guardian he enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2003 in an effort to become an Army Green Beret – dropping out when he broke both legs in a training accident.

<...>

Army officials at the Pentagon said Snowden actually didn't enlist until May 7, 2004

<...>

Adding another wrinkle, Army officials at Fort Benning said extensive searches of their records showed there was no evidence that Snowden had ever reported for duty at the base.

Snowden's Army record show he attended Catonsville Community College in 2002 and attended Anne Arundel Community College in Arnold, Maryland.

Catonsville Community College actually became the Community College of Baltimore County Catonsville in 1998. Hope Davis, spokesperson for CCBC says they have "no record" of a student with that name ever attending school there.

A source told ABC News Snowden also said he attended classes at Johns Hopkins on a campus in Columbia, Maryland. A spokeswoman for Johns Hopkins University said they have "no record" of Edward Snowden taking classes there.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-fears-edward-snowden-defect-china-sources/story?id=19389672


Yes, I know. I'm evil for daring to question Edward Snowden.

What I'm doing is frightening, horrendous......yada yada yada.

This goes to his credibility. If he exaggerates this much about his resume, he's more than likely to exaggerate about US surveillance program.

Yes, I'm a quisling, right?

[warrior1]

1. Something is fishy about this guy.

[sibelian]

21. Meat spoils if you leave it near him.

He has a third nipple.

No-one has ever heard him say the word "love".

[Whisp]

64. why are we not to wonder about this guy?

We know almost Nothing about him except that he is a liar.

I don't get this Cloak of Protection some are giving him here. The only thing I can think of, is embarrassment over the fact that so many here were calling him a freaking HERO when they knew squat about him and now we are not supposed to talk about him. The hero stories had plenty of talk, but now it should be zip.com.

What nonsense. It's all about egg-on-face and I can't figure out what the big deal is about accepting that one may be wrong about something. That's what is fucked up in this world - everyone's ego is so much more important than the truth and they would rather stick by lies than just simply fess up they were wrong.

[sibelian]

107. He has hypnotised me with his mesmeric spell.

How can I help myself? I am drawn ever inwards to his labyrinthine mind of spooky interestingness.

The more I think about him the more fascinating he becomes. I really am making a complete fool of myself.

SNOWDEN. SNOWDEN. SNOWDEN.

One day we shall meet on a dark hill in a forest and his deep eyes will bore into mine.

"Who are you really?" I will whisper beneath my breath.

"Ah HA! Ah HA HA HA!! NO-ONE!" He shall say, and whisk his dark cloak around himself and disappear into a stealth copter disguised as a spindly tree.

Its not use. I just can't stop thinking about uim.

WHAT IS HE ALL ABOUT?

[WeekendWarrior]

112. I see what you're trying to do here, but

I actually believe you.

[Whisp]

113. you were hypnotized by what you WANTED him to be. n/t

[Cha]

190. He can't give you straight answer because he doesn't care

if there's anything fishy about Snowden. And, we should stop asking questions.

their job is to stifle. Not doing a good job of it.

[sibelian]

212. Well, if you want to show how anything about him

has anything to do with domestic surveillance beyond the fact that he's pointed out that it's happening, I'd very much like to know what it is.

The facts revealed remain revealed whether he's "fishy" or not.

Perhaps he's a cross-dresser. It doesn't change the actions of the NSA.

Does it?

[sibelian]

213. Was I?

When did that happen?



Whisp, go check out my threads on the guy.

[marions ghost]

114. !!!!!

[kiva]

135. It's true, it's almost as though we have become...

Snowdenbots!

[randome]

72. Don't start THAT again!

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

[Initech]

119. I'm wondering if this guy even exists to begin with.

I mean really how can a guy with absolutely zero secondary education or military training obtain a high level security clearance, override NSA protocols, leak the information to the media, flee to Hong Kong, and leave behind an attractive pole dancing fiancee who he was about to get married to?

[DevonRex]

192. I'm wondering if a mole in the CIA developed him as a

spy the minute he got in trouble over his enlistment for Special Forces. We know he lied about schools he attended in his enlistment paperwork. So he lied in his secret clearance application, too, and sign under penalties of perjury. You have to have that clearance for Special Forces. The investigation begins immediately. That's obviously why there's no record of him ever reporting for training or receiving any training.

He got a job as a security guard at NSA. Big letdown from being in the Green Berets. He'd be ripe for someone to recruit to spy for another government, especially if he's a decent hacker. He's a delusional loser who thinks he's hot stuff. His poor parents.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-fears-edward-snowden-defect-china-sources/story?id=19389672&page=2#.UbpN2BPnYgU
David Charney, a psychiatrist who works regularly with CIA agents and who has personally evaluated some of the nation's most notorious spies, said in an interview that Snowden appears to fit a familiar archetype – that of a man who is perpetually trying to prove that he is smarter than his resume may indicate.

"He comes across to me as being fiercely bright and articulate, there's a mismatch between how his life went before and what he is actually," Charney said. "And that discrepancy is the thing that makes some people say, 'I'm going to prove to the world, I'm going to show everybody that I'm smarter than they think I am.'"

[clarice]

2. And to the actual facts of this case? ....

You sound like you just got stood up for the prom.

[randome]

3. He's starting to remind me of House, M.D.

Has this guy been hallucinating for the past few months? Making up a past for himself?

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

[Marie Marie]

100. I love House!

[randome]

124. Who doesn't?

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

[LittleBlue]

4. So this is full-blown deflection

The issue of surveillance no longer matters, character assassination is the #1 priority

I swear to god this forum is infested with political operatives.

[Corruption Inc]

67. It is

Although allowing the operatives their freedom to make it obvious who they are is a good thing.

[pnwmom]

116. His character matters because he's making some serious assertions that aren't backed up

by his slides and are disputed by others.

[treestar]

130. LOL

We're the political operatives, not Eddie.

We're CIA with nothing better to do than post on DU.

[Puzzledtraveller]

5. Again?

[sibelian]

18. They're not in a position to let go.

This game is all they've got.

[bvar22]

65. Pathetic.

These Ad Hominem attacks on Snowden Reek of desperation,
and in NO WAY discount or discredit his exposures of the mamoth Surveillance/Security System our government (Democrats & republicans) are cementing in place.
I'm embarrassed for DU.

[font size=5]It is NOT about Snowden.
He is just The Messenger.
It IS about the US Government spying on its citizens!!![/font]

Excuse me for shouting.
I can't seem to get through The Bubble.

[font size=3]The Conservative Bubble

It isn't just for Republicans anymore![/font]




You will know them by their WORKS.

[sibelian]

75. The division across DU on this issue does seem to be unusually clear, doesn't it?

The skin of the bubble is becoming increasingly well defined.

[Cali_Democrat]

103. Why do you insist on typing in caps all the time?

[treestar]

131. Keeping that data and "spying on citizens" are two different things

And no one has explained what motive there is for the federal government to "spy on the citizens" or shown a case where it was used to stop somebody from protesting or something.

[bvar22]

151. We do NOT have to show a case where the data was used for this purpose.

We only have to show that it might be POSSIBLE to use this data against anyone the government chooses,
and THAT has been demonstrated numerous times.

Are you seriously going to dispute that this data could be used in that capacity?
Your Trust the Government defense of the indefensible is laughable.
The cartoon hat is on YOUR head for the failed and desperate attempt at obfuscation.

[randome]

154. It's also possible the NSA is combing through your garbage. Hiding under your bed.

You have any evidence this is happening?

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

[bvar22]

180. It is NOT possible that the NSA is "combing through my garbage."

I live in the woods, and compost, burn, or bury my garbage.
I KNOW whenever anyone comes on or near our property.

But it is quite possible that every single post I have ever made on Democratic Underground still exists somewhere in the bowels of our burgeoning Intelligence Apparatus.

I don't think that I am currently a person of interest that the government considers a threat,
but if I became active in any of several organizations that challenge the Established Authorities, or had access to information politically embarrassing to the Established Authorities,
then it IS possible that these files could be resurrected,
combed over,
and used in an attempt to discredit me.


My garbage?
No.
That was and embarrassing attempt to discredit my position.

[treestar]

162. How could it?

Why would it be worth anyone's bother? Most people just want to do their jobs and go home at night. How do they use this data to find a political opponent? What can they do to the opponent with that data? The names aren't even attached. Even the politicians have a bigger interest in preventing terror than they do in becoming the next Nixon.

Bush had greater powers as he pushed the limits and what happened during his term? There was no mass disappearance. Democrats still managed to win elections. People on both extremes have protested loudly.

Anything could be abused. But there's a point where we have to start living and dealing with things as they come.

[Summer Hathaway]

168. "We only have to show

that it might be possible ..."

It is more than possible that your doctor, lawyer, accountant, shrink, etc. could use the personal information they have about you against you.

Do you also object to those persons retaining records because abuse might be possible?

[bvar22]

179. So you agree with me that I don't have to show a documented case of abuse.

That it only matters that the possibility exists,
and will be much greater under a President Palin.

Thanks for the assist.

[Summer Hathaway]

199. I agree you don't have to show a documented

case of abuse in order to prove that the possibility of abuse exists.

But if you advocate that all systems that retain personal data should be shut down on the basis that the possibility of abuse exists, you would have to include all of the records retained by your bank, your doctor, your lawyer, your accountant, your shrink, your phone service provider, etc. because the possibility of abuse exists within all of them.

[bvar22]

214. And THAT is a Strawman.

I am an advocate for THIS:

[font size=3]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/font]

The Rubber Stamp FISA Court issuing blanket warrants to seize the data of MILLIONS of Americans IS an gross violation of the 4th Amendment.
The NSA petitioned the secret FISA COurt for "warrants 1,789 times last year. The secret FISA Court denied ZERO.

I am NOT willing to sacrifice the essential liberties provided by the 4th Amendment for the appearance of "protection" in the bogus War on Terror or bogus War on Drugs.

I am disgusted to so many here SUPPORT this, but am glad to see you have enough sense to not dive in wholeheartedly by admitting that Snowden has a valid point.

[Summer Hathaway]

223. I was not opining on the validity of Snowden's point

or anything broader than your specific statement that a system should be shut down on the basis that the possibility of abuse exists within it.

The reality is that in any system whereby personal information is recorded and retained, the possibility of abuse always exists.

[Sanity Claws]

6. This just raises the question of why Booz Allen hired him into a six-figure job

and how he allegedly got a security clearance.

Whatever dirt lands on Snowden also lands on Booz Allen and the out of control information industrial complex doing outsourced government work.

[pnwmom]

118. He already had the clearance, which was probably a key reason he got hired. n/t

[DevonRex]

122. No. Why did the CIA hire him. BAH can be forgiven for thinking the CIA did their job.

They're the ones who gave him the initial TS/SI clearance. I want to know WHO at CIA bored hi, did the background check, etc.

[delrem]

182. Don't expect to learn anything about the CIA. Just sayin'....

[DevonRex]

188. It's the investigation

that's happening now. We probably won't know the outcome. But we sure as hell have to concentrate on the right questions. Not that the contractor gets off Scot free, either. But there's definitely either a Republican causing problems or a lazy-ass background investigator. Worst case is a mole in CIA who saw Snowden as a loser with a beef against the U.S. government for not letting him be a Green Beret. And told him he could help bring it down. It'd appeal to his ego.

Edited for spelling. Sheesh. Sorry about that. My cat is all over me.

[lanlady]

145. I beg to differ

I work at Booz Allen. Intel is only one of part of our business. Most of what we do relates to IT, systems and database administration, organizational strategy, network security, cyber security, health care, all sorts of areas. The company is chock-a-block with talented, smart, dedicated people. We are not "out of control." Our customers love us because we do great work.

[randome]

150. Jumping on the 'Hate Booz Allen' bandwagon is too easy.

If nothing else, BA wants to protect their reputation, right? Snowden is a gigantic black eye for them but I would bet you're right and the agency is pretty well respected.

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

[railsback]

7. I hear we're not supposed to 'attack the messenger'

His mentality is off the table, and we should only be focusing on the subject matter of the NSA that Snowden leaked because he was.. sacrificing.. himself for the.. good of.. the country. Oh, I get it. We're supposed to cherry pick.

[sibelian]

17. There's nobody anywhere doing any supposing about you, railsback.

What you choose to think about is up to you.

[cascadiance]

38. Yeah, I guess we should look more at finding the truth of massage therapist groping by Al Gore!...

We shouldn't just be cherry picking stuff like what he's said about "climate change" that people are talking about to obfuscate these personal flaws of his that should keep anyone from taking him seriously! Should be boycotting Current TV too now, especially once he sold it to Al Jazeera!

[Pholus]

59. Devastating comeback! Too bad it goes whoosh with the deflectors!

You'll know them by their tactics.

[yodermon]

89. Analogy fail. The "groping" had nothing to do with his credibility on climate chagne

He had other qualifications, like being a Senator and lemme think, Vice President, and oh yeah, winning the election in 2000.. stuff like that.

Comparing him to Snowden?? on ANY LEVEL? Rilly? k.

[tridim]

8. How does one attain top secret clearance without a background check?

A basic background check on this idiot would have exposed him as a the liar he is.

I've had background checks for jobs that pay $10.00/hr.

[flamingdem]

33. Andrea Mitchell discussed an NSA big cheese who attended hacker conventions

encouraging attendees to apply.

They think those guys are geniuses because they are young and know the tricks

[DevonRex]

125. But it was CIA who gave him TS/SI clearance. Before that he was just a security GUARD

at NSA. That can mean he had no inside access at all. NSA normally hires already-cleared ex-MPs from the military for classified work, or ex-agents who've retired. Not brand spanking newbies that they have to go through the whole process on.

[JackN415]

48. Over 25 yrs ago, when I was hired for defense work, FBI came to talk with..

my former roommates, even my buddies from the Wilderness and Outing Club. And that was only for secret clearance (which isn't much*), not top secret.

I heard that the standard and thoroughness of background investigation has eroded quite a bit over the years, especially with respect to employees of defense contractors.
-----------------------
*We used to joke that classified stuffs are those in the NYTimes, and became classified when some officer put a stamp secret on it.

[HipChick]

66. FBI still verify, but they are using contractors to do the verification more and more

[Monkie]

58. so if the CIA and the NSA are so incompetent, why do you trust them with your data?

just saying?
he enlisted in the army, worked for the cia, worked for the NSA, various contractors, but nobody notice he was a lying chinese spy?
i wonder if alex jones or glenn beck has a slot free on one of his radio shows, if you can convince yourself of these conspiracies theories i see a bright future ahead for you.

[DevonRex]

127. This speaks to a wider op in the CIA. A mole who's still there. maybe foreign but

could be domestic working against Democrats.

So far, it looks like it starts at CIA. He was just a security guard at NSA. Don't even known if he was allowed IN the building or not.

[Whisp]

60. why would he say those things if they weren't true?

knowing that the microscope would be on him. That just doesn't figure right.

I see forgetting exactly when you went where for how long in regards to college and past jobs and stuff in a lifetime, but he's young!

There's not all that much to remember.

[HipChick]

68. He sounds like a wannabe hacker..they love to brag

[DevonRex]

128. I think he created documents to "prove" some of it & his background check is suspicious.

Just my opinion, but they don't take documents at face value so something's wrong. Either it wasn't done or somebody overruled the opinion of the investigator.

[MADem]

206. I'd check his Army recruiter.

Recruiters can get desperate if they aren't making goal. Some have been known to gundeck/manufacture documents. I'd check every contract his recruiter wrote, paying close attention to the GEDs, the green card applicants, and the upper mental groups who needed criminal waivers. If the recruiter forged one document, odds are good he forged many.

[Igel]

123. Not really an issue.

What he said on his application, what the checkers verified, might be completely different from what he's telling the media.

If he's to be believed, he's a liar. He lied to his employer(s) in numerous ways in violating confidentiality and getting around safeguards. I don't know why it's a leap to think he's lying to the media. Perhaps because some want to believe him and what he says matches their confirmation bias so well?


Which is the point. Much of what he says the documents mean, much of what's going on around the documents themselves, whether we accept the authenticity of all the documents themselves, depend on whether he's telling us the truth.

In this, the "ad hominem" attacks are no different than many attacks on people on the 'net and in conversation. Don't like Limbaugh? Attack his character. Don't like somebody else who attacks those you support? Don't bother digging into how accurate their claims are, how much is spin, and how much the spin matters. Denounce their motives ("big pharma paid for this research, so the researchers can't be trusted&quot or their backgrounds ("the researcher had an affair and lied to his wife, he can't be trusted&quot or something else.

With Snowden, you can't check up on the truthfulness of much of what he says. So it stands or falls with his reliability.

[DevonRex]

138. Problem is TS/SI clearances depend on character. His Army application? All lies.

Apparently those lies continued with claims of Green Beret training and breaking both his legs. I'll tell you exactly why he didn't report for duty. They began his secret clearance background check, found out about his bogus school claims and informed him he had lied under penalties of perjury on his clearance application.

They thought they put the fear of God in him and didn't take any action. He was young, right? Ha. Instead the SOB decided to get even with the intelligence community for daring to question him and deny him anything.

He's a delusional loser who thinks he's hot stuff. His poor parents.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-fears-edward-snowden-defect-china-sources/story?id=19389672&page=2#.UbpN2BPnYgU
David Charney, a psychiatrist who works regularly with CIA agents and who has personally evaluated some of the nation's most notorious spies, said in an interview that Snowden appears to fit a familiar archetype – that of a man who is perpetually trying to prove that he is smarter than his resume may indicate.

"He comes across to me as being fiercely bright and articulate, there's a mismatch between how his life went before and what he is actually," Charney said. "And that discrepancy is the thing that makes some people say, 'I'm going to prove to the world, I'm going to show everybody that I'm smarter than they think I am.'"

[jeff47]

161. They don't use your resume for the background check.

They use your responses to a very, very long list of questions. So you can easily lie on your resume while not lying when getting the clearance.

[alsame]

9. Let me know when

someone proves he lied about the NSA.

[IMG][/IMG]

[A Simple Game]

111. The Swiss seem to give him some credibility.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/06/switzerland-questions-u-s-over-cia-drunk-driving-gambit/

Never mind, it's that Republican rag site ABC News.

[DevonRex]

142. And Switzerland has its own system.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyx_(interception_system)

And you might be interested in this http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

[A Simple Game]

156. And Switzerland has its own system of what? If your links have any meaning

or were a joke, I have to admit it went over my head.

It doesn't appear that you read the article at my link. Below is the pertinent paragraph.

At the time of the alleged incident, Snowden said he was working undercover for the CIA in Geneva maintaining computer network security. The CIA has declined to comment on Snowden’s case, but the Swiss foreign ministry confirmed that he publicly held the position of “an attaché” with the permanent U.S. mission to the United Nations in Geneva from March 2007 to February 2009. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this report.

The CIA doesn't deny he worked for them and the Swiss say he was "an attache" with the U.S. mission to the United Nations in Geneva. Somebody gave him clearance of some sort and why wouldn't the CIA deny he ever worked for them even if he did? I doubt the CIA is above lying to the press.

[DevonRex]

158. LOL, it appears

a jokester changed the link.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyx_(interception_system)

[DevonRex]

159. So here's what you do...

Click the link.
Then click disambiguation
Then click technology
Then click onyx (satellite system)

I swear.

ETA I swear until Switzerland changes the link again.

[sibelian]

10. You're not a quisling.

You're an attention sink.

[Puzzledtraveller]

20. I was thinking obsessed.

[sibelian]

32. Underpaid, probably.

Nasty office, no windows.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. Cubicle. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

90. I'm a paid operative for the Obama Administration

we have one directive...DESTROY SNOWDEN!!!

[sibelian]

94. Are you?

Goodness, you're not doing very well. Nevermind, maybe you can defect to Walmart.

[Cali_Democrat]

102. What do you mean I'm not doing well?

I get paid handsomely by the Obama Administration.

Duh!

[delrem]

185. You're doing very well, Cali_Democrat.

Every hit counts against Snowden.

But there's another side to the story. Yes, it's necessary to totally smear and discredit Snowden, to soften things up for what comes next. But even more important is to drill the American people in the truth that the NSA operations that he revealed are not only legal, but are perfectly OK. So not only does he stink worse than shit, but he didn't actually do anything of consequence. If that second part doesn't get done then the total vindication of George W. Bush just won't happen. So you can see this is a serious issue and I hope you agree that more attention should be placed on that second part. Not to say that I don't congratulate you on your contribution to the first part of it.

[BlueCheese]

11. Don't they check these things when giving someone a top secret clearance?

How did this guy get through?

[JackN415]

23. I used to work in defense and had top secret clearance also 20 yrs ago. I heard..

they became sloppy in recent years because of insufficient qualified people

[avaistheone1]

52. I was interviewed by the FBI on two occasions regarding applicants.

I think they are fairly thorough. I have a friend who conducts security investigations on behalf of the government. I have never of course seen him conduct an interview but given his background, personality as well as character I would think he that is quite thorough as well.

[HipChick]

24. Depends on the Agency that did it...but looks like they didn't verify shit..

[BlueCheese]

29. But this is a top secret clearance!

I know people who much lower levels of clearance, and they got more scrutiny than this.

Heck, my employer even ran a background check on me, verifying certain facts on my resume, and I have nothing to do with government or government contracting.

[gulliver]

12. The real security problem...

...is the NSA letting Snowden even work there. And Wapo also dropped its guard. This is the story of a two-bit con man. A whole bunch of people have taken the bait...hook, line, sinker.

[JackN415]

19. Exactly. Many defense or homeland security contractors are very slack in hiring...

[HipChick]

70. Bigger problem...many contractors are foreign born

naturalized citizens...often IT workers

[Jamaal510]

80. +1

[HipChick]

13. But..But...he's a national hero...

His lies be damned..

[MNBrewer]

16. If you're more concerned about his lies than Clapper's....

[bvar22]

95. THAT really does "say it all."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-10-2013/good-news--you-re-not-paranoid---nsa-oversight





You will know them by their WORKS.

[MNBrewer]

14. Makes me wonder

if the security contractor company is run that poorly, what OTHER abuses that Snowden didn't see are going on.

[JackN415]

15. You did right. The guy appeared flakey to me from the beginning

[Marrah_G]

22. So how do you feel about your phone calls and emails not being private? n/t

[sibelian]

34. SHHHHHHH!!!!!

This a DIFFERENT thread that's JUST AS IMPORTANT.

[forestpath]

25. And he was hired by an Obama administration contractor why?

[tridim]

28. LOL @ "Obama admin contractor"

You really need to try harder than that dude.

[forestpath]

39. So, you can't answer the question. And I'm not a dude so save the condescending crap.

[tridim]

41. Nope, I'm laughing too hard. nt

[forestpath]

47. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Drew Richards]

91. are you high? where do you get this crap? Booze-Allen is about as Reich-wing as they come since

the 1950's...and they have been around quite a long time.



"you will know them by their words"...

[DesMoinesDem]

26. Please post a copy of his resume. Thanks.

[tridim]

27. I'll bet any amount of money that his pole-dancing-stripper-ballerina girlfriend doesn't exist.

[freshwest]

194. Oh, no. She's for realz!!! She posted 'scantily clad photographs' of herself.

Yucky source for the photograph above:

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/edward-snowdens-girlfriend-feels-lost.html

She is telling stories of their romance, llving months together at exotic locales. Nothing about work or where the money came from. Many pictures are being posted like this one:



From The Times UK:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3787991.ece

She has a blog titled "Adventures of a world-traveling, pole-dancing super hero."

Lovely couple. It was true love. For her anyway. Him, maybe not so much. You will have to decide for yourself.

Edward Snowden's girlfriend Lindsay Mills 'lost and alone' after whistleblower flees to Hong Kong

The glamorous dancer girlfriend of NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden has revealed her devastation at his decision to go on the run without her.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10112012/Edward-Snowdens-girlfriend-Lindsay-Mills-lost-and-alone-after-whistleblower-flees-to-Hong-Kong.html

It's as good as movie, sex, danger, traveling around the world in luxury. Sometimes, I wonder if these stories just the liberal version of what David Frum has called the 'Conservative Entertainment Complex.'

Cryptic Overtures and a Clandestine Meeting Gave Birth to a Blockbuster Story

By CHARLIE SAVAGE and MARK MAZZETTI
June 10, 2013

WASHINGTON — The source had instructed his media contacts to come to Hong Kong, visit a particular out-of-the-way corner of a certain hotel, and ask — loudly — for directions to another part of the hotel. If all seemed well, the source would walk past holding a Rubik’s Cube.

So three people — Glenn Greenwald, a civil-liberties writer who recently moved his blog to The Guardian; Laura Poitras, a documentary filmmaker who specializes in surveillance; and Ewen MacAskill, a Guardian reporter — flew from New York to Hong Kong about 12 days ago. They followed the directions. A man with a Rubik’s Cube appeared.

It was Edward J. Snowden, who looked even younger than his 29 years — an appearance, Mr. Greenwald recalled in an interview from Hong Kong on Monday, that shocked him because he had been expecting, given the classified surveillance programs the man had access to, someone far more senior. Mr. Snowden has now turned over archives of “thousands” of documents, according to Mr. Greenwald, and “dozens” are newsworthy.

Mr. Snowden’s ability to burrow deep into America’s national security apparatus and emerge clutching some of its most closely guarded secrets is partly a story of the post-Sept. 11 era, when the government’s expanding surveillance Leviathan and complex computer systems have given network specialists with technical skills tremendous power.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/how-edward-j-snowden-orchestrated-a-blockbuster-story.html

I wonder when it's going to hit the theatres. What do you think, is she for real or was this all put together as a dramatic promotion or preview of coming attractions?

[ucrdem]

196. Wow. Good stuff freshwest.

Quite a tale isn't it? Real summer blockbuster potential. Looks like it's already tanked though and brought the studio down with it. What a shame.

[freshwest]

198. Ah, yes, the daring adventures of the one percent. Don't worry, they'll be fine...

[flamingdem]

30. I figured as much. Colleges on CVs don't often get checked

He knew he wouldn't get busted for it -

[DesMoinesDem]

36. You think the CIA and the NSA doesn't check colleges?

LOL. Have you even seen his resume? Has anyone here seen his resume?? Anyone?

[MattSh]

31. It must suck

to believe that his resume is more important than the constitution.

[davidn3600]

35. At this point, who cares about Snowden when the Constitution is burning?

The government has already admitted PRISM exists. They are collecting vast amounts of data on every American.

This information is not in doubt. They have admitted it.

[KurtNYC]

37. and yet they hired him -- this cuts both ways

neither of which has any bearing on the 4th amendment issues. You are saying that they did not do a thorough background check, did not even verify his resume, before giving him the keys to the kingdom -- so how safe are your phone calls and other data stored by PRISM?

It's not about Snowden. They are recording ALL of your phone calls with no probable cause.

[treestar]

133. They are not recording all phone calls

[KurtNYC]

209. According to FBI counter terrorism agent Tim Clemente and others (who would know) they ARE.

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston

Also -- Court rules against secret surveillance practices, government seals court ruling:

the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.

This important case—all the more relevant in the wake of this week's disclosures—was triggered after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, started crying foul in 2011 about US government snooping. As a member of the intelligence committee, he had learned about domestic surveillance activity affecting American citizens that he believed was improper. He and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), another intelligence committee member, raised only vague warnings about this data collection, because they could not reveal the details of the classified program that concerned them.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

Also:

It is not really a secret anymore.

[treestar]

210. He only said they can

Of course they can, they have been able to do that since the 70s if not earlier.

They do not record all conversations. They even need a FISA warrant to do it. Bush said he didn't need one and Obama has backed off on that and respected that he needs one.

[SlimJimmy]

40. This an excellent piece, and helps to clear up why BAH hired Snowden. It's about

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

twenty minutes in length, but well worth the time to get through it. For those that can't load it, it's an interview with a former whistle blower and intel guy that explains that internet and computer skills are highly sought after these days, and that Snowden had great skills in that area despite his lack of a formal education in computer science. He also explains why the type of program the NSA has can be quite dangerous and may in fact violate the fourth amendment.

Added Transcript:

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We want to go on to the National Security Agency director, General Keith Alexander, who testified before Congress Wednesday, a week after a trove of secret documents about his agency’s widespread surveillance program stunned the nation and sparked heated debate. During his testimony, Alexander denied claims he has personal wiretapping abilities at the agency and insisted phone data collection has helped prevent dozens of terrorist attacks. He refused to publicly answer questions about how the NSA had made the transition to collecting phone records of Americans. Alexander also said he hoped for greater transparency around the surveillance programs, but he argued some secrecy helps the agency’s mission. He was also asked about the impact of the NSA leaks. This was his response.

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: Great harm has already been done by opening this up. And the consequence, I believe, is our security is jeopardized. There is no doubt in my mind that we will lose capabilities as a result of this and that not only the United States, but those allies that we have helped, will no longer be as safe as they were two weeks ago. And so, I am really concerned about that. I’m also concerned that, as we go forward, we now know that some of this has been released. So what does it make sense to explain to the American people so they have confidence that their government is doing the right thing? Because I believe we are, and we have to show them that.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The disclosure of the secret NSA surveillance program was based on information leaked by Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee who most recently worked inside the NSA’s Hawaii office for the private firm Booz Allen Hamilton. In an exclusive interview with the South China Morning Post, Snowden said, quote, "I’m neither traitor nor hero, I’m an American." He also said he intends to stay in Hong Kong until he’s asked to leave, and he intends to fight any extradition attempts by the U.S. government. Snowden also told the paper, quote, "People who think I made a mistake in picking as a location misunderstand my intentions. I am not here to hide from justice; I am here to reveal criminality."

AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we’re joined by Christopher Pyle, who first exposed domestic spying in the 1970s here in the U.S. Pyle discovered the CIA was spying on millions of Americans engaged in lawful activity while he was in the Army and worked as an instructor. After he left, he wrote about the Army’s vast and growing spy operations. His article from 1971 began, quote, "For the past four years, the U.S. Army has been closely watching civilian political activity within the United States." Pyle’s story prompted Senate hearings, including Senator Frank Church’s Select Committee on Intelligence. These ultimately led to a series of laws aimed at curbing government abuse. Chris Pyle is the co-author of Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics, Getting Away with Torture and The Constitution Under Siege. He now teaches constitutional law and civil liberties at Mount Holyoke College and recently wrote a piece headlined, "Edward Snowden and the Real Issues." He joins us from Chicopee, Massachusetts.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Pyle. Talk about what you feel those real issues are. But before you do, explain what happened to you, how it was you revealed in the early ’70s what was going on in the military.

CHRISTOPHER PYLE: I received a briefing at the U.S. Army Intelligence Command that showed me the extent of the surveillance system. There were about 1,500 Army agents in plain clothes watching every demonstration in the United States of 20 people or more. There was also a records system in a giant warehouse on about six million people. I disclosed the existence of that surveillance and then recruited 125 of the Army’s counterintelligence agents to tell what they knew about the spying to Congress, the courts and the press. As a result of those disclosures and the congressional hearings, the entire U.S. Army Intelligence Command was abolished. This was before Watergate.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Professor Pyle, did you, at that time, suffer any repercussions from your willingness to step forward and reveal what was going on to Congress?

CHRISTOPHER PYLE: Well, two things happened. The Army created a 50-man unit in the Pentagon whose sole job was to discredit my disclosures. That effort failed: The disclosures were all quite accurate. I was also put on President Nixon’s enemies list, which resulted in a tax audit.

AMY GOODMAN: Christopher Pyle, let’s turn for a minute to the Church Committee’s special Senate investigation of government misconduct, which you played a key role in the mid-'70s, U.S. Senate committee chaired by Democratic Senator Frank Church of Idaho, who conducted a massive investigation of the CIA and FBI's misuse of power at home and abroad, the multi-year investigation examining domestic spying, the CIA’s attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, the FBI and CIA’s efforts to infiltrate and disrupt leftist organizations, and a lot more. This is Senator Frank Church speaking during one of the committee’s hearings.

SEN. FRANK CHURCH: You have seen today the dark side of those activities, where many Americans who were not even suspected of crime were not only spied upon, but they were harassed, they were discredited and, at times, endangered.


AMY GOODMAN: And this is another clip from the Church Committee Senate hearing. This is CIA Director William Colby testifying. He was asked if he found the work of the committee unwelcome.

WILLIAM COLBY: No, I do not. I’ve—as I’ve said to the chairman, I welcome the chance to try to describe to the American people what intelligence is really about today. It’s a—it is an opportunity to show how we Americans have modernized the whole concept of intelligence.


AMY GOODMAN: That was then-CIA Director William Colby. So, if you would, Chris Pyle, take this forward, from what came out of the Church Committee hearings, that started with your exposé from being a military whistleblower, to what you’re seeing today with Edward Snowden.

CHRISTOPHER PYLE: Well, what we’ve seen in the ensuing years has been a vast explosion in intelligence-gathering capabilities. But the most significant part of that is the fact that civilian corporations are now doing the government’s work. Seventy percent of the intelligence budget of the United States today goes to private contractors like Booz Allen, which employed Edward Snowden. This is a major change in the power of surveillance. It now goes not only to the government, but to private corporations.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, you seem—in a recent article, you seem to raise what you think are the real issues in these Snowden leaks. You mention, one, the inability of Congress to actually do legitimate oversight over intelligence. You say that the secrecy system is out of control. And you also say that the system is also profoundly corrupt because of all this use of private contractors who make huge amounts of money that no one can actually hold them accountable for. Could you talk about those issues?

CHRISTOPHER PYLE: Yes. The forerunner of the PRISM system that Snowden disclosed was called Trailblazer. It wasted $1 billion on private contracts. It replaced a much less expensive system called ThinThread, which had more privacy protections and had been developed inside the government. Now, the reason that private contractors get this business is because members of Congress intercede with them with government agencies. And we now have a situation where members of the Intelligence Committee and other committees of Congress intercede with the bureaucracy to get sweetheart contracts for companies that waste taxpayers’ money and also violate the Constitution and the privacy of citizens. This is a very serious situation, because it means that it’s much more difficult to get effective oversight from Congress.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go back to the Senate Appropriation Committee hearing with the NSA director, General Keith Alexander, defending the phone surveillance practices exposed by Edward Snowden.

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: I thought the great part about this program was that we brought Congress, the administration and the courts all together. We did that. That’s what our government stands for, under the same Constitution. We follow that Constitution. We swear an oath to it. So I am concerned, and I think we have to balance that. I will not—I would rather take a public beating and people think I’m hiding something than to jeopardize the security of this country.


AMY GOODMAN: Professor Pyle, could you respond?

CHRISTOPHER PYLE: Well, we all want to protect the security of the country. We all want to protect the Constitution. But when government agencies are totally unaccountable, we can’t do that. Members of Congress do not go to those briefings, even if they’re offered, because once you go to the briefing, then you can’t talk about what you’ve been told, because it’s classified. So the briefing system is designed to silence Congress, not to promote effective oversight.

Members of Congress don’t want to spend time on oversight. They’re too busy raising money. New members of the House of Representatives this winter were told by the Democratic Campaign Committee that they should spend between four and six hours a day dialing for dollars. They have no time to do the public’s business. They’re too busy begging for money. President Obama himself attended 220 fundraisers last year. Where does he get the time to be president when he’s spending so much time asking wealthy people for money to support his campaign?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Chris Pyle, in Wednesday’s Senate hearing, Senator Dick Durbin asked NSA director, General Keith Alexander, why someone like Booz Allen employee Edward Snowden was in a position in which he had access to the classified information he leaked.

SEN. DICK DURBIN: He was a high school dropout. He was a community college dropout. He had a GED degree. He was injured in training for the U.S. Army and had to leave as a result of that. And he took a job as a security guard for the NSA in Maryland. Shortly thereafter, he took a job for the CIA in what is characterized as IT security in The Guardian piece that was published. At age 23, he was stationed in an undercover manner overseas for the CIA and was given clearance and access to a wide—a wide array of classified documents. At age 25, he went to work for a private contractor and most recently worked for Booz Allen, another private contractor working for our government. I’m trying to look at this résumé and background—it says he ended up earning somewhere between $122,000 and $200,000 a year. I’m trying to look at the résumé background for this individual who had access to this highly classified information at such a young age, with a limited educational and work experience, part of it as a security guard, and ask you if you’re troubled that he was given that kind of opportunity to be so close to important information that was critical to the security of our nation?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: I do have concerns about that, over the process, Senator. I have grave concerns over that, the access that he had, the process that we did. And those are things that I have to look into and fix from my end, and that across the intel community, Director Clapper said we’re going to look across that, as well. I think those absolutely need to be looked at. I would point out that in the IT arena, in the cyber-arena, some of these folks have tremendous skills to operate networks. That was his job, for the most part, from the 2009-'10, was as an IT, a system administrator within those networks. He had great skills in that areas. But the rest of it, you've hit on—you’ve hit on the head. We do have to go back and look at these processes, the oversight in those—we have those—where they went wrong, and how we fix those.


JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was NSA director, General Keith Alexander, speaking before the Senate on Wednesday. Well, in 2012, General Alexander spoke at DEF CON, the annual hacker convention. During his speech, Alexander tried to court hackers to work at the National Security Agency. The third bullet on his PowerPoint presentation that he refers to is privacy and civil liberties must be protected.

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: I think the third bullet down is what we really want to do is innovate freedom, how we’re going to look at where we take this next. This is a great opportunity for not only our nation, but for the world. And, you know, one of the things that I’m really proud of saying is, when you look at Vint Cerf and the others, we’re the ones who helped develop, we’re the ones who built this Internet. And we ought to be the first ones to secure it. And I think you folks can help us do that.


JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was General Keith Alexander speaking in 2012 at DEF CON. For our radio listeners, I should note that he was in a black T-shirt and wearing jeans as he spoke to the hackers. Chris Pyle, your response?

CHRISTOPHER PYLE: Well, it’s true. NSA doesn’t want to hire people like you and me. We don’t know enough about the Internet. That said, it’s important to note that the vice chairman of Booz Allen happens to be Mike McConnell, who was former director of NSA and of national intelligence. There is a revolving door between high government positions and private corporations, and this revolving door allows these people to make a great deal more money upon leaving the government, and then being rented back to the government in a contractor capacity. And that’s part of the corruption of the system.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, one of the things you’ve also said is that the top-secret designation is a way to—is more of a way for the government officials, the bureaucrats and the contractors not to be held accountable than it is to actually protect secrets that the government needs to protect. Could you expand on that?

CHRISTOPHER PYLE: Well, yes. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, only binds the government, doesn’t bind corporations. That’s a serious problem. The reason we have privatization of prisons, in some ways, is for governments to escape liability. They put the liability on the private corporations that run the prisons, and they just charge their liabilities as an operating cost.

AMY GOODMAN: Chris Pyle, the attack on Edward Snowden—I mean, you’ve got the pundits. What Jeffrey Toobin, the legal pundit, quickly blogged: Snowden is "a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison." Thomas Friedman writes, "I don’t believe Edward Snowden, the leaker of all this secret material, is some heroic whistle-blower." David Brooks says, "Though obviously terrifically bright, he could not successfully work his way through the institution of high school. Then he failed to navigate his way through community college." That’s the pundits. And then, of course, there’s the NSA. Can you talk about the attack on the whistleblower today and back when you were blowing the whistle?

CHRISTOPHER PYLE: Well, when I was blowing the whistle and they couldn’t get any dirt on me—I had led a very uninteresting life—they made up dirt and tried to peddle it on Capitol Hill in order to discredit me and prevent me from testifying before Senator Ervin’s Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. Every bureaucracy hates dissenters. They must expel dissenters and discredit dissenters, because dissenters force them to reconsider what it is they’re doing, and no bureaucracy wants anybody to interrupt what they’re doing. And so, this is the natural, organic response of any bureaucracy or any establishment.

Now, I think it is inappropriate and quite irrelevant to analyze Ed Snowden’s motivations. It doesn’t matter much—except in court, to prove that he either did or did not intend to aid a foreign power or hurt the United States. But separate from that motivation, whether he’s a narcissist, like many people on television are, no, I don’t think that’s relevant at all. He’s neither a traitor nor a hero, and he says this himself. He’s just an ordinary American. He’s trying to start a debate in this nation over something that is critically important. He should be respected for that, taken at face value, and then we should move on to the big issues, including the corruption of our system that is done by massive secrecy and by massive amounts of money in politics.

AMY GOODMAN: Chris Pyle, we want to thank you for being with us, co-author of Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics, Getting Away with Torture and The Constitution Under Siege. In 1970, Christopher Pyle disclosed the military’s spying on civilians and worked for three congressional committees to end it, including Frank Church’s Select Committee on Intelligence. He now teaches constitutional law and civil liberties at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.

[hobbit709]

42. you're bound and determined to kill the messenger aren't you?

[backwoodsbob]

43. bottom line

Is what he released true?

[thucythucy]

109. How would we know?

The only thing I've actually seen is the warrant he released, which specifies that the metadata being requested "does NOT include the substantive content of any communication, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 2510 (8), or the name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer." This despite the allegation repeated on these threads, again and again and again and again, that "phonecalls are being listened to" and "my e-mails are being read," an allegation President Obama (remember him?) has denied. BTW, the warrant was also due to expire next month.

Please point me to some of these documents that confirm what Snowden has been saying. Not somebody repeating what Snowden has been saying, or repeating what somebody else said about what Snowden has been saying; not somebody outraged by what he thinks Snowden said or might have said or implied or hinted at or alleged. Not somebody expressing "concern" or covering their ass, but actual bonafide proof that what Snowden has said is true. Once that happens, then Snowden, however flawed and bogus a character he might be, ceases to be anything but a footnote to this story.

As I've said multiple times now, until I see that actual documentation, until I get some more data, I'm not pitching a fit and calling it quits as a Democrat because of yet another series of allegations against this administration or those who support it. Not after Bill Ayres, ACORN, birthergate, death panels, Benghazi, the IRS non-scandal etc. etc. etc.

Label me a partisan, an authoritarian, or what have you, but I want more information before I'm making anything like a final call on this. If that means I'm out of step with other "progressives" on this site, so be it.

[hrmjustin]

44. I don't trust Snowden at all, and I don't like what the NSA is doing.

The messenger is flawed and will likely go to jail and that his own fault. He made the choice to break the law and he has to live with it. The government should be made to answer for what they are doing as well.

[Cali_Democrat]

62. I agree with you completely

[DevonRex]

191. I have to say this.

We know he's a liar. About schools he says he went to that don't exist. About schools that exist and he says he went to, but they have no record of him ever attending.

I guarantee you the military started his secret clearance process since he signed up for Green Berets. God only knows what he told them. But you can't be a new recruit for Green Berets without a high school diploma. So, they found out he lied under penalties of perjury on his clearance paperwork. That's why he never reported for duty. All it takes is a couple of phone calls to verify he never graduated.

My question is: Why would anybody believe everything he has said about the programs without question? He isn't just imperfect. He was suspicious from a very young age and he's still suspicious, only now he has actually given classified information to another country. That's treason this time.

[Monkie]

45. but he DID enlist, he WAS in the cia, he WAS in the nsa, he DID have the access.

and this is what is really frightening to you?
mountains out of molehills is how i see this, because i dont see anything that suggests he was not in the CIA or NSA, and no credible claim that he did not have the access.
his credibility rests solely on the facts of the data he releases IF what he says about his access and background in these agencies is true. and so far his data has shown that clapper lied to congress.
i could not find the direct quote that proves he had the access he claims he did when government officials responded to questions from congress.

and yes i do find you scary, why is it so important for you and others to make this into a evil plot by the chinese and a fantasist who lied about everything it is possible to lie about? why the conspiracy theories that of the type i would normally expect from alex jones and david icke?

so why is it so hard to focus on what is true?

[Puzzledtraveller]

51. Pure cult of personality

that's all it is, any affront on any agency under this adminstration pisses them off, they think we are attacking the president.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

78. much like

how so many of you seem to obsessively think that anybody critical of the hero of the day(that has spoken negatively of Obama or the administration) is obviously just character assassination by a bunch of people who have been brainwashed by Obama even if what they say might be factual?

I don't think people in glass houses should be throwing rocks, and while i will admit that there are some on DU that will defend most of what Obama does, there is an even larger group that will latch onto anything thats even remotely negatively regarding the president and the administration and proclaim it as yet another betrayal(most Duers though luckily seem to want to know the facts before judging for or against an issue)

[randome]

83. Brainwashed by Obama. Pfft! How ridiculous.

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

[treestar]

134. Well said

And in addition, you don't have to be defending Obama. Merely questioning the latest outrage makes you an "Obamabot" from where they sit.

[aquart]

175. He was what in the CIA?

Are you telling me our intelligence agencies with access to all Americans' information can't check out a resume?

[randome]

46. Any body language experts out there care to take a stab at how he looks on video?

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

[Monkie]

54. how about a psychic? a mind reader?

how about using your own brain?
did you watch the video with a open mind? when i first heard about the video i was a bit worried, most people tend not to be used to speaking to a camera or in public, and i feared that his demeanor would overshadow the message, i was relieved to see he was calm and articulate.

[randome]

56. And a week into this, he still has offered no evidence.

Now his background appears to be...problematical. How he comes across is fine, it doesn't mean anything he says is true.

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

[TheKentuckian]

79. He doesn't have to since the Administration has not only copped but defended the practices.

The discrediting campaign is goofy what is the benefit of killing the messenger when the message is confirmed.

Worried about subsequent shoes dropping or what?

[randome]

82. Yes, they 'defended' the practices that were already known.

All of it done legally.

Where the messenger dropped the ball was in his claims that he could easily hack into anyone's email, including the President's.

He also claimed that the NSA has 'direct access' into all the Internet providers.

If he wanted to get 99% of the people in this country to believe what he says, you would think he'd offer some shred of evidence, say, an email from Obama, perhaps? I mean it's not like he's afraid to break the law or anything.

And that 'direct access'? All the major companies say that is not happening. Our own DU experts on network administration say it's not even possible.

I'll believe anything Snowden says -if he shows me some evidence. It doesn't need to be proof, even, just something.

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

[LondonReign2]

57. LMAO

I get it now. You're double opertaive being paid to make the administration look bad. Well played.

[JI7]

49. he kind of reminds me of those guys in LA who talk about how they wrote huge movie scripts

and other shit .

[snagglepuss]

50. Yet BoozAllen hired him. Revealing the utter incomptence of private spying companies is

reason enough to award Snowden a medal.

[Matariki]

55. Stop obsessing over Snowden

The issue is this:

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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

[SlimJimmy]

86. Just wanted to highlight some things in there to bring it into focus.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[treestar]

136. Which has been interpreted quite extensively

And allows for the FISA Act

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

[Matariki]

170. It doesn't allow for broad collection and storage of private data

The warrant should come *before* the collecting and storing.

[treestar]

211. That hasn't been decided yet

Someone with standing can challenge this in the courts, but until it is decided in the courts, it's still an issue.

[pschoeb]

61. ABC Community College info is wrong

Such garbage reporting by the ABC

There is a Catonsville Community College in Rosedale Maryland. They just got confused by the one that was actually in Cantonsville.


I'm pretty sure the rest of this garbage from corporate state media is as reliable

[SomethingFishy]

63. Yeah and Clapper lied to Congress under oath..

Gee who am I going to trust more. A low level employee who lied on his application or the goddamn Director of National Intelligence who lied to congress.

Yep it's a stumper alright..

[randome]

69. Those who work for spy agencies and give public testimony...

...are usually accorded some leeway. If your job is to keep something secret from the public, then you're in a difficult position when testifying in public.

Clapper said they were not 'collecting' information. I see the point that this is an outright lie but, again, he was not authorized to answer that question so he tried to fudge it and it still came out wrong.

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

[SomethingFishy]

74. ROFLMFAO...

Poor poor Clapper... Being the Director Of National Intelligence has it's drawbacks. No power being one of them...

[SlimJimmy]

85. He could have said, "I'll answer that in a classified briefing Congressman." That would

have been the most appropriate "less truthful answer."

[randome]

88. True. Maybe he wasn't thinking on his feet.

But your response would have been a better one. Of course not answering the question in some way would have been the same as saying 'Yes' to many but...

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

[jeff47]

163. No, he couldn't have.

There's no reason he would need a classified setting if the answer was "No".

As such, requesting a classified session would be the same as answering "Yes".

[SlimJimmy]

166. Not at all. He would merely be saying that the information was classified and that

he would brief Congress in a secure setting. The fact that *we* would automatically take that as a yes is the problem we have on DU all the time. Jumping to conclusions without any real basis in fact.

As such, requesting a classified session would be the same as answering "Yes".

[jeff47]

167. It was a "Yes" or "No" question.

There isn't any room for him to claim he needs a different setting to provide details.

[SlimJimmy]

169. Of course there is. He could have said "Congressman, it's not a simple yes or no,

and I will need to discuss this in a secure setting to give you a satisfactory answer."

There isn't any room for him to claim he needs a different setting to provide details.

[jeff47]

174. Your proposed answer reveals classified information.

Any answer other than "No" would mean there's a minimum of a little "Yes". And any "Yes" reveals classified information.

[SlimJimmy]

178. That's a pretty large leap to get to that answer. If I'm an intel guy and say

I can't really answer, exactly what classified material have I released? Others are free to make presumptions, but that wouldn't be based in fact. It's not that I don't understand where you are coming from, I do. We just have a different interpretation of the issue.

[jeff47]

219. There would be wiggle room if the question was open-ended. It wasn't.

It was a "yes or no" question. Wyden explicitly demanded a "yes or no" answer. If Wyden wanted a longer answer, that would have provided some wiggle room. But Wyden's goal was to eliminate wiggle room.

If I'm an intel guy and say I can't really answer, exactly what classified material have I released?

That the answer is "yes".

If the answer was "No", then you could answer. Because you can't answer, the answer has to be yes.

[SlimJimmy]

220. We're really just stuck on semantics here, Jeff. You say it *must* be answered as a yes/no

question. I say he could have said it requires more than that, and needed a secure session to answer fully. We are not contradicting each other, we just have different interpretations as to his possible choices.

[OilemFirchen]

143. Oh shit.

We have to pick one or the other?

I did not read the rules carefully.

[SomethingFishy]

144. The wise man wouldn't trust either of them...

The only reason I think the things Snowden released are true is because they geared up the machine against him. No one seems to be denying that what he spilled is true, they are just mad that he did it. Hence the "he left his girlfriend, he used a thumb drive, he lied on his resume, he's a high school dropout, he bakes puppies at 450 for 15 minutes"... No one is saying that what he released is false.

[OilemFirchen]

148. I'll try this again.

No one should doubt that what he released is true. It's not exactly breaking news that the NSA keeps telephone records.

Perhaps "they" "geared up the machine against him" because he broke the law?

It is possible to leak secret information, despite said information's essentially being public knowledge. I have a social security number. No one doubts that. Many people know what it is. If one publishes it, they've broken the law.

See how easy?

[SomethingFishy]

152. I doubt people had any idea of the scope of this program... and still don't.

The NSA by recording my phone calls, e-mails, texts, whether they listen to them or not, is violating my constitutional right to privacy. There is no doubt about that. It's right there in the 4th amendment.

Now you may think that this should be allowed in order to keep us secure. I happen to disagree with that. Fine we are allowed to disagree correct?

Now here is my problem. Without Snowden having told us what was going on, we wouldn't be having this debate. I wouldn't be in a position to decide whether or not I want to allow everything I say to be recorded. I'm still not, but at least now I know I'm getting screwed.

I'd bet if the tables were turned and Snowden had released info on something you thought was wrong and I thought was right we'd be having this conversation in reverse.

[OilemFirchen]

153. There is no evidence...

that the NSA is "recording [your] phone calls, e-mails, texts". That's against the law. If evidence is provided disabusing me of that understanding, I'll be outraged about that.

I'm not outraged that they're maintaining a database of encrypted phone numbers, dates, times and durations. There are no names attached to them, and no content. Frankly, they don't even know who's on the phone at either end.

If Snowden were to release any damning info, I'd have a different opinion of him and this "scandal".

[SomethingFishy]

155. Then I will check back with you...

peace..

[DesMoinesDem]

71. LOL at these pathetic smears.

His resume is all lies!!!!

Let me take a look at that resume.

I, nor anyone in the media, has seen his resume.

[NoodleyAppendage]

176. Just be patient. They are sick and responding to a serious conflict between core beliefs and...

politics. It's natural to have a denial reaction in those with weak egos.

J

[dgibby]

73. For the umptheenth time,

it's not about Snowden.

[treestar]

137. But he was OUR HERO the other day!

CAn't we be disappointed in him?

[bvar22]

164. Forget it.

For a special handful at DU,
nothing penetrates The Bubble.

[font size=4]The Conservative Bubble

Its not just for Republicans Anymore![/font]

[midnight]

76. O boy... a padded resume that gets passed the meta data folks... Snowden didn't exaggerate

that he had no special talents... Or something to that effect... This revelation also visited our awareness with the mortgage scandal. Banks hired those with little to no credentials for robo signing. This is very strange indeed... I don't think that this man is exaggerating about the pervasiveness of the private secret agency involved and the damage this snooping can do in the wrong hands...

[atreides1]

77. What about his time with the CIA?

Anyone got the info on that?

[HipChick]

81. Essentially he is a con man...and a lousy one at that too..

[burnodo]

84. What does this have to do with the government spying on Americans?

anything?

[sibelian]

106. Nothing.

But if people keep pretending it does...

No, actually it still acheives nothing.

[Vinnie From Indy]

87. The only relevance this factoid has to the revelation that

the NSA is capturing, recording and storing all digital communication of American citizens is that not only is the NSA recording everything, it appears they have very little control over the 500,000 private contractors that are engaged in the spying.

In short, your post makes the case even stronger that we need to hold the Obama Admin. even more accountable. I am quite sure that is not what you intended, but it is true nonetheless.

Cheers!

[HipChick]

92. You have your facts jumbled...not all of those 500,000 private contractors

are working for NSA

I wonder why you didn't hold the Bush admin as accountable..

[Vinnie From Indy]

115. I find it mildly amusing that you seem to believe that

a smilie and snark are actual, effective debate techniques. Good luck with that!

Cheers!

[QC]

93. Look! Look! Over there!

[sibelian]

96. OMG! SNOWDEN'S UNDRESSING!

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

[QC]

97. I saw the outline of his but-tocks through his underwear!

That means I have to marry him! It's the code of the hills!

[Bobbie Jo]

99. Looks like the "messenger" has major credibility issues.

This is not a difficult concept....

Liars generally aren't the best candidates when testifying for any cause.

[truebluegreen]

104. Um, so what?

Do you approve of the NSA program, or not? Who gives a rip whether you approve of Snowden?

[Cali_Democrat]

110. I've posted numerous times that I'm opposed to the program the way it's currently constituted

and it should be revised.

I've said it.

Many times.

[MisterP]

105. quisling? no--more like Larry Layton

[blackspade]

108. I have no doubt that there are gross exaggerations to this guy's resume

But that has nothing to do with the records that he has leaked.
Now, shit that he says with no documentation, on that there is an issue.

[pnwmom]

121. The records he leaked don't prove what he says they do.

They show that some data is given by the companies to the government, but they don't show the means of the transfer or how much data or whose data.

All those claims came out of Snowden's mouth alone, so his credibility is key.

[blackspade]

157. regardless of the means or amount, the documents are extremely troubling

for civil liberties.

All of this domestic NSA crap should be shut down. It serves no purpose.

[OilemFirchen]

117. Know what would have been really helpful?

If the guy who wrote the story for the Guardian had actually checked any of this out before publication.

I understand he's a Very Important Civil Libertarian, though, so he probably had other stuff on his mind.

[Bonobo]

120. You're not evil for bringing it up.

You're pathologically distracted.

[GoneFishin]

126. Yeah. He should have given the least untruthful information.

[Bonobo]

129. +1 nt

[longship]

132. As one who has actually had a secret clearance...

I can just say that I saw something fishy about this guy from the beginning.

Any DUer who has gone through the process to get a clearance knows that you do not lie, or exaggerate, or get dates wrong, or make shit up. If you do any of those things, at best you will be having a very embarrassing interview with some government people, and at worst, you go to jail. At any rate, you don't get the clearance and don't get to keep your job.

There's still something peculiar about this guy that I cannot put my finger on. And yes! Believe me, when it comes to these clearances it is all about the person. And they do go back and check things out before you're cleared.

Or, they did in the late 70's, early 80's. just maybe that's a story that's close to the crux of this matter.

All I know is that I doubt this guy gets a clearance when I got mine. He'd be turned down.

[Monkie]

141. fishy or the huge expansion in the national security apparatus after 9/11?

i tried to find the link, i cant remember if it was at a whitehouse briefing or a congressional one in the last few days, where it was admitted that he did have this clearance, did have broad access, and did know what he was doing, basically demolishing most of the objections made in this regard.

[HipChick]

149. Yep.. I have to agree...been saying this all along..

[jeff47]

165. The fact that he's lying on his resume doesn't mean he lied on his clearance paperwork. (nt)

[Historic NY]

205. Really how do you know?

Did you see the document? Its 127 pages, sure he would have had an opportunity to straighten it out with his interview. Some companies acually do the clearences for employee's also.

[jeff47]

217. I don't know. But lying on one doesn't guarentee he lied on the other. (nt)

[uponit7771]

216. THEY CHECK THAT TOO!!! Background checkers will ask your neighbors how many times did you

...miss taking out the trash

[jeff47]

218. Not really.

The background checks primarily look for two things:
1) Are you a spy, or otherwise ideologically predisposed to turning over secrets?
2) Can you handle your finances well enough so that you won't resort to selling secrets?

As a result, fudging on a resume is not a huge deal, as long as the data you give on your clearance paperwork is accurate.

[Bobbie Jo]

183. Exactly right. nt

[baldguy]

139. Big Brother, Member of the W German Stasi, on par N Korea's Internal Security,

You're part of the SAVAK, Nightwatch, Thought Police, NKVD, Oprichniki, Tokko, Gestapo, Tonton Macoutes, OVRA ... all rolled into one.

[DCBob]

140. not surprised.. this guy is full of shit.

I suspect his motives are more about money and fame than anything else.

[lanlady]

146. Snowden also lied about his Booz salary

He did not make $200K as he claimed. More like $110K. In this area, with his kinds of security clearances, that is not out of the ordinary.

[Android3.14]

147. And that's why it's fascism when Bush does it, but it's okay if Obama does it

Oooooooh. Noooow I get it.

[csziggy]

171. Is he Bob Lazar's son? He reminds me a lot of Lazar in looks and claims

For those who don't know, Bob Lazar is a UFOlogist who claimed to have worked at Area 51, claimed to have evidence of UFO, but who never actually came up with proof of anything. It hasn't stopped him from making a good living selling his BS for decades.

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

[aquart]

172. Nope. He hasn't struck a right note with me yet.

And I recall really liking Daniel Ellsberg.

[NoodleyAppendage]

173. Denial much?

Please let us know when you have worked out your Freudian defense mechanism problem. Anxiety...it's so pesky to some egos.

[bowens43]

177. who cares? It doesn't change the fact that Obama's administration is overseeing

is overseeing one of the worst violations of the civil rights of Americans in decades.

BTW the government has ADMITTED to this.

You apologist and spinners amaze me.

[delrem]

181. Snowden had the jobs he did. The info he released is genuine info. OK?

[HipChick]

184. Ok...if you say so, it must be true

He just lied about everything else

[delrem]

187. Well fer chrysake, do you *deny* that he held the jobs he did, that the info released was genuine?

lordy, the world is upside down.

[99Forever]

186. Talking shit about the person is...

.. just a way of NOT talking about the real issue, the blatantly UNConstitutional violation of the RIGHTS of many millions of American Citizens without probable cause.

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

[SlimJimmy]

221. Squirrel ...

[99Forever]

222. Let's your celebrate 2000th post.

Welcome to Ignored, Jimmieboy.

[SlimJimmy]

224. I was agreeing with you, 99. The reference is from the movie "UP". When the dogs

are engaged in something important, all it takes is a squirrel to draw their attention away from the important things. Just like *this* issue. Some would rather focus on the unimportant issue and not the violation of our fourth amendment rights. Really, all you had to do was ask if you thought it was a slight. I would have been happy to clarify.

[reusrename]

189. quisling? no, I don't think so.

But I'm pretty sure the concept of honesty is slighty beyond your grasp.

[Th1onein]

193. YOU MEAN LIKE CLAPPER'S CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY?

[freshwest]

195. No, Cali-Democrat, you're not a quisling. You're a whistleblower. We're all winners here!

[ucrdem]

197. And Snowden is the new Jay Gatsby

or is he Holden Caulfield? Just another episode of RNC Theatre Presents, this week targeting the lib-Lib sector of the low-information swing voter audience: "talk liberal, vote Libertarian."

Rotten tomatoes rating:

[freshwest]

200. You analyzed it correctly. Rotten tomatoes indeed. Ratfucking Central Casting flopped a bit.

This is much like the Bollywood routine. The masses go to watch the livestyles of the rich and famous with 'champagne wishes and caviar dreams' to forget their lives for a while and then return to their little flats.

But the actors don't live that great of lives, or at least they didn't used to live too long. I think we have a different genre going now, these are long running actors like Sir Julian.

These shows are much different to what I call the 'lifestyles of the rich and dangerous' like Kissinger and Cheney who go under armed guard, meet and live in undisclosed locations. Not too sexy there, but they're the ones who really run the show, men behind the curtain, as we say.

We'd love to pelt them with rotten tomatoes like Shrub was greeted with in 2001. He got a rousing send off, though:

[ucrdem]

201. The Mysterious Mr Snowden

“Somebody told me they thought he killed a man once.”

A thrill passed over all of us. . .

“Oh, no,” said the first girl, “it couldn’t be that, because he was in the American army during the war.” As our credulity switched back to her she leaned forward with enthusiasm. “You look at him sometimes when he thinks nobody’s looking at him. I’ll bet he killed a man.”

[freshwest]

202. 'That's Snowden. Edward Snowden. I'll take mine shaken, not stirred.'

[ucrdem]

203. We're gonna have fun with this story.

Life is good.

[randome]

207. No, Snowden is Harry Potter!

He waves his magic stick, mutters some random syllables and shit starts to happen!

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

[ucrdem]

208. He's dreamy!

[MADem]

204. Army recruiters....

I would find out who his recruiter was, and I would do a check of every CAT IV and NHSG that person accessed. I'd also pull out all of the green card holders this recruiter put in uniform and verify their status with the government.

I would look for record gundecking. It happens--more than people care to admit. If evidence of record gundecking is found, that recruiter needs to get a lawyer.

Someone who is smart like Snowden and likely scored as a Cat I or II on his ASVAB will not have their paperwork checked too closely. Recruiters have been known to "certify" that they've seen an original record, when in fact they've ginned up a forgery using someone else's document, a xerox machine, and a bit of white-out.

[hughee99]

215. I knew he was lying about everything once I heard he donated $250 to Ron Paul. n/t

[dreamnightwind]

225. Worst OP I've seen in awhile

You really want to go there? Unbelievable. We're hearing things from U.S. Congresspersons like what's come out so far is the tip of the iceberg (about NSA spying, not about Snowden).

Even if there's nothing more, what we already know is unacceptable in a democracy. You'd just have endless power manipulation through extortion. Which might explain a few things, actually.

[djsparks81]

226. The MILITARY can't seem to get their story straight....

Janice Burton from the Office of Strategic Communications in the Special Warfare Center & School told blogger Jim Hanson in an email:

Snowden was never a student at SWCS. He broke his legs while at Fort Benning. His intent was to enter the X-ray (18X) program – but that never happened and would not have happened because he only had a GED. Hope this helps.

The US army's chief civilian spokesman, George Wright, told the Guardian:

His records indicate he enlisted in the army reserve as a special forces recruit (18X) on 7 May 2004 but was discharged 28 September 2004

(So he was able to enlist in the X-ray program, despite only having a GED?)


And now ABC is reporting

Army officials at Fort Benning said extensive searches of their records showed there was no evidence that Snowden had ever reported for duty at the base. They referred further questions to the Pentagon.