Seven Myths About Edward Snowden, NSA Whistleblower

[xchrom]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174963/seven-myths-about-edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower#axzz2WlPuTg00

***SNIP

Myth 1: Leaks of top-secret material are exceedingly rare, so Edward Snowden’s transgression obviously cries out for punishment.

From the banshee reactions of various pols and pundits one might have thought that showing classified material to the media is Washington’s ultimate taboo. What rot! Official leaks are common as dirt, and one can barely go a week without reading in The New York Times or The Washington Post some story built on an unnamed high official’s confidential leaks. Good thing too, because it’s thanks to leaks that we learned the truth about the Watergate break-in, the Vietnam War, Obama’s officially “secret” drone strike program. The Bush-Cheney administration leaked classified prewar intel on Iraq to suit its interests (h/t Jack Shafer), and a top-secret memo on military strategy from Obama’s ambassador to Afghanistan, retired general Karl Eikenberry, wound up on the front page of The New York Times. (Many believe it was the White House itself that leaked that one.) Obama’s former chief of staff William Daley bragged of his leaking prowess to Politico, but made sure to give props to his predecessor Rahm Emanuel as the ultimate “leaker-in-chief.”

***SNIP

Myth 2: The NSA surveillance program has prevented dozens of terrorist attacks, and now Edward Snowden has ruined it!

Ah, but what role has NSA surveillance played in preventing terror attacks? To state the obvious, the balancing act between security and liberty assumes that the intrusive security measures are effective. Have they been?

***SNIP

Myth 3: Glenn Greenwald committed a crime by breaking the NSA/Snowden story.

Greenwald, an American lawyer turned blogger turned columnist and reporter for The Guardian, broke the story of NSA dragnet surveillance, and his important scoop has some people upset.

***SNIP

Myth 4. Snowden isn’t a real whistleblower because he spilled to the media instead of taking his concerns to his superiors at NSA.

Last week USA Today scored a videojournalism coup by sitting down a group of former NSA officials-turned-whistleblowers who between them had a century of experience at the agency. Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe did not agree on everything, but they reached an instant consensus that Snowden did exactly the right thing in bypassing the NSA’s internal system and leaking to the press, given that the NSA had fobbed off or bottled up their own complaints for years without taking any action. It would, of course, be peachy if our security institutions responded to internal criticism, but that, according to long-serving veterans of those institutions, is not their nature.



Read more: Seven Myths About Edward Snowden, NSA Whistleblower | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/174963/seven-myths-about-edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower#ixzz2XE66GMX0
Follow us: @thenation on Twitter | TheNationMagazine on Facebook

[RetroLounge]

1. Oh, now you've gone and done it...

RL

[xchrom]

2. hey handsome!

[RetroLounge]

55. ...

RL

[In_The_Wind]

3. Kicked & Recommended

[baldguy]

4. Myth 8: The NSA is listening to all your phone calls & reading all your emails.

Myth 9: Having the metadata about phone calls and emails is the same as the content & the identity of the sender and receiver.

Myth 10: Snowden, as the employee of a private contractor, could tap anyone's phone. Including the President's.

Myth 11: The programs Snowden exposed are unconstitutional or illegal.

Myth 12: Snowden has a very real fear that Barack Obama will order that he be assassinated.

[progressoid]

5. #11? Seriously?

Because if it's legal, it must be Okey Dokey.

[baldguy]

7. So you agree that "wrong" doesn't automatically mean "unconstitutional".

[progressoid]

9. Of couse. Just as a program that is "legal" or "constitutional" doesn't mean it's right.

From the link above...

Myth 7: Because the NSA spying program originated in our legal, legislative process, there just can’t be anything wrong with it.

From the president himself on down to lawyer-pundit Jeffrey Toobin, many have pooh-poohed concerns about NSA spying by assuring us that the surveillance was “legally authorized”—and if it’s legal, what could possibly be bad about it?

First, we might ask how “legal” the program is, based as it is on secret interpretations of the FISA law and secret decisions made by the FISA court. Is this good legal process? In its thirty-three years, the FISA court has rejected only eleven out of 33,900 FISA requests: effectively, a rubber stamp. The lead author of the Patriot Act, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who is most definitely not a card-carrying ACLU member, has repudiated the NSA surveillance as an unlawful abuse of the statute he wrote. (See also this brilliantly designed ACLU one-pager examining the dubious legal process that spawned the NSA surveillance program.)

Second, just because something is legally permissible does not mean it is wise, effective, just or terrific in any way. Jeffrey Toobin could legally have unprotected sex with a houseful of heroin addicts, then liquidate his assets and give the money to Sarah Palin’s PAC: all of this would be legal. Only a lawyer, and not a very good one, would ever take mere legality an indicator for wisdom, justice or efficacy. We have every right to be discontent with government actions that might be legal while being wrong and foolish for any number of other reasons.

...

The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/174963/seven-myths-about-edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower#ixzz2XEInTJ4b

[baldguy]

10. So, when the Paulite libertarian morons say that what Obama is doing is unconstitutional & illegal

I can be certain you'll pipe up and correct them. Right?

[progressoid]

15. I didn't say that at all.

I'm saying that defending these programs because they are legal isn't a valid defense.

[baldguy]

20. But criticizing these programs for being unconstitutional & illegal **IS A LIE**.

[Ms. Toad]

25. Not necessarily.

An activity doesn't become illegal or unconstitutional at the moment, and merely because, a court declares it so. If an activity is unconstitutional or illegal, it was so at the moment the act was performed.

And - these activities were designed so that their legality and constitutionality could not be tested. The ACLU actively sought to review the constitutionality of similar activities which were purportedly authorized by the Patriot Act - and the Supreme Court refused to review the activities or the law because the plaintiff could not prove the activities (like collecting meta data) had been directed at it - not because they weren't directed at it, but because the plaintiff could not prove they were BECAUSE the activities and their targets were kept secret.

So I believe these activities are both unconstitutional and illegal. It is not a lie to criticize them as such - anymore than arguing that Ohio's refusal to recognize my out of state marriage is unconstitutional based on Loving v. Virginia. You, of course, are free to argue that the activities are neither. It would, however, be a lie to declare that the courts have found them unconstitutional or illegal - or for you to declare that the court had declared them to be constitutional or legal - since they have not yet been reviewed.

[ret5hd]

28. Whooop! There it is!

thnx, ms. toad.

[baldguy]

38. "Unconstitutional" and "illegal" have specific definitions.

Which - unless you're a sitting federal judge - are in no way based upon your opinion.

The simple fact is that the laws that enable these programs have been reviewed by the courts and have been upheld. Right now, they are legal & constitutional. To claim otherwise is a lie.

[Ms. Toad]

56. Please provide a link to the review finding the law constitutional.

Or better yet, here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/supreme-court-dismisses-challenge-fisa-warrantless-wiretapping-law-effs-lawsuit

"Yesterday, the Supreme Court sadly dismissed the ACLU’s case, Clapper v. Amnesty International, which challenged the FISA Amendments Act (FAA)—the unconstitutional law that allows the government to wiretap Americans communcating with people overseas. Under the FAA, the government can conduct this surveillance without naming individuals and without a traditional probable cause warrant, as the Fourth Amendment requires.

The court didn’t address the constitutionality of the FAA itself, but instead ruled that the plaintiffs—a group of lawyers, journalists, and human rights advocates who regularly communicate with likely "targets" of FAA wiretapping—couldn’t prove the surveillance was "certainly impending," so therefore didn’t have the "standing" necessary to sue."

A substantially similar suit was refiled a few days after Snowden's disclosure. http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program

The ACLU's 2008 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act, which authorized the so-called "warrantless wiretapping program," was dismissed 5–4 by the Supreme Court in February on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove that they had been monitored. ACLU attorneys working on today's complaint said they do not expect the issue of standing to be a problem in this case because of the FISA Court order revealed last week.

Unless you happen to know of a court higher than the Supreme Court.

And, although I am not currently in a position to write an opinion on the constitutionality of this particular law, I have - in the capacity of legal extern to a sitting federal judge - written opinions which have been signed by said sitting federal judge and which are published opinions of the court regarding the constitutionality of matters before it. My research and analysis has also appeared in briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court on matters of the constitutionality of the death penalty.

So I have some passing familiarity with the meaning of unconstitutional and illegal - probably more intimate familiarity with it than you.

[baldguy]

57. The ACLU's lawsuit was dismissed, therefore the program is not considered to be unconstitutional.

Unless you're trying to argue that duly enacted laws are assumed to be unconstitutional unless they're reviewed by a court?

[Ms. Toad]

58. No. You misunderstand the court case.

The Supreme Court expressly refused to decide whether the law was constitutional or not.

Duly enacted laws may be constitutional, or unconstitutional. Congress is sometimes ignorant of the constitution (not all of them are lawyers) and sometimes Congress enacts laws for purposes of political posturing (knowing they are unconstitutional - like anti-flag burning laws, for example). The constitutionality of a law is a matter ultimately to be decided by the Supreme Court - which has expressly declined to review the applicable portion of this law.

But the date the Supreme Court issues its ruling is not generally the date on which the law is unconstitutional. In some cases, a law is declared unconstitutional from the moment of enactment and - if it is - it may be declared void ab initio - in simple terms, if the court determines a law was unconstitutional the moment it was enacted into law, it may be treated from a legal perspective as if the law never existed. If that is ultimately the case with the FISA Amendments Act, the acts engaged by the government under the authority of a law which is treated as never existing (because it was unconstitutional from the moment it was enacted) may well be illegal.

If that happens, though, it is far more likely there will be some practical compromise - because void ab initio determinations create legal havoc when entities which act under the color of law are suddenly caught acting without authority. That is a messiness the courts try to avoid. It doesn't change the reality that the law was unconstitutional, or the actions illegal, but it typically changes the consequences of those actions so as not to penalize entities acting with the good faith belief they were within the boundaries of a valid law.

(There are lots of other variations on the interplay between enactment of a law, application of a law, and the constitutionality of the law, and the legality of actions engaged in under color of the law - I am just addressing the statement that it is a lie to say that the acts are illegal and the law unconstitutional.)

But back to the primary discussion here - the moment at which a law is unconstitutional (or doing acts authorized by it are illegal) is not necessarily, anyway, the moment the court issues the order. The order is just formal acknowledgement of something which very often was the reality at an earlier time.

So it is not a lie to argue that the acts are currently illegal and the law is currently unconstitutional, any more than it is a lie to argue that they are currently legal and the law currently constitutional. And, in both circumstances it would be a lie to state that the courts have already made that determination. In addition it would be legally inaccurate to say that a law is constitutional merely because the Supreme Court has not yet decided that it is not.

[baldguy]

59. You're misrepresenting how laws are enacted & how govt programs are authorized.

Saying that the FISA courts or the PRISM program are unconstitutional or illegal is a lie simply because they have not been ruled to be so by a federal court. Even if Congress passes legislation to discontinue them & even if the President signs such legislation into law, they would still be constitutional & legal, they would just be no longer part of current law. Just because an individual other than the presiding judge has a different opinion doesn't change that fact.

There are so-called "sovereign citizens" who believe that every federal law ever enacted & every federal program ever authorized is unconstitutional & illegal. These "sovereign citizens" regularly file lawsuits to undermine federal laws, which are just as regularly dismissed. That doesn't change the actual status of those laws & programs.

Similarly, just because the ACLU is of the opinion that FISA and PRISM are unconstitutional & illegal does not make it so. The only thing that would is a judgment by a court in their favor. They may very well succeed in the future, but at this time, unless and until that happens, saying that FISA and PRISM are unconstitutional or illegal is still a lie

[Ms. Toad]

61. Careful reading, and a good high school civics class, is your friend.

The Supreme Court, not Congress, is the final arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not. So your comments of what laws Congress may enact or terminate are entirely irrelevant. It is simply not their job to decide if a law is constitutional or not. If the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional on its face, it simply vanishes - at least going forward (and potentially more broadly - see the next paragraph). Congress does not go back after a Supreme Court decision and "discontinue" a law which the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional.

When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional, it has the power to decide when, if ever, the law had effect. It may declare the law void ab initio - in other words it may declare the law never existed - sort of like annulling a marriage. That is not its only option, but it is one of its options. Contrary to your understanding, the Supreme Court is not required to merely terminate the impact of an unconstitutional law going forward; retroactively terminating it is also an option.

As to these particular laws, in February, the Supreme court expressly refused to even think about whether the FISA Amendments Act IS or IS NOT constitutional. Not because it believes the law is constitutional - but because the plaintiffs could not prove the government had gathered data on them, and only someone who can prove the law directly impacted them has the right to have the Supreme Court look at the law.

Let that sink in. All this stuff is secret because the law says it has to be kept secret. Because it is all secret, the people (all of us) whose data is being gathered cannot prove it. Because no one could prove the government had gathered data on them - specifically - (until now) no one had the right to ask the Supreme Court to even look at the the law.

That means, until Snowden leaked the Verizon order we had no opportunity to test whether the law was constitutional or not - because the Supreme Court said allegations that data was being gathered on US citizens was pure speculation. It didn't say it was constitutional to gather the data - it said, figuratively - sticking its hands in its ears, and closing its eyes - "Not gonna decide yet, because I can't hear you." (That is a little facetious on my part - there are good reasons for not allowing a court issue advisory opinions (that's what an opinion is called that purely examines the law - without an injured party in front of it) - but Congress should not be able to insulate a law from review by declaring that no one can talk about it because that means the Supreme Court can never do its job unless someone breaks the law and starts talking. In this case, that was Snowden.)

But none of that has anything to do with people who call themselves "sovereign citizens." Putting it kindly, those people have lost touch with reality (and in my capacity as a (former) judicial attorney, I have run into enough of them to know what I'm talking about).

All of the above is standard constitutional review of a law, based on cases brought by plaintiffs who have good faith reasons to challenge the law - and on the range of outcomes that are possible based on a good faith challenge to the constitutionality of the law. You may not like it, but until the Supreme Court decides the matter, both sides are free to argue either it is constitutional or it is not constitutional - and neither side is lying just because the other side doesn't agree.

And - in case you aren't aware - the ACLU has a pretty decent track record of identifying unconstitutional laws, filing challenges to them, and winning.

[baldguy]

62. If you can't provide a court decision showing that FISA or PRISM are unconstitutional or illegal

Then they're not unconstitutional or illegal. Otherwise you've lost touch with reality, just like those "sovereign citizens".

[Ms. Toad]

63. Get back to me after you've graduated

from law school second to none, passed one or more state bar exams second to none, and worked for both federal and state judges reviewing the constitutionality of both federal and state laws. Then we can have a conversation about who has a better grasp on the nuances of constitutional law.

[baldguy]

66. Just look at how DOMA has been treated.

For years there have been people who believed that it was unconstitutional, and morons who believed it wasn't. But IN THE LAW AND IN FACT it WAS NOT unconstitutional - until this morning when SCOTUS said it was.

If you can't provide a court decision showing that FISA or PRISM are unconstitutional or illegal THE THEY ARE NOT unconstitutional or illegal. Just like DOMA until this morning.

The fact that you don't understand that simple fact makes your claims of special legal knowledge highly suspect.

[whttevrr]

67. But now today...

We can indeed say that it WAS unconstitutional on the very day that it was passed and every day up to and including today.

[baldguy]

69. DOMA was constitutional in law and in fact until SCOTUS said it wasn't.

Until there is a similar ruling for FISA and PRISM, they are constitutional as well.

[Ms. Toad]

77. The how come Edie Windsor gets those big bucks?

Hint: She gets them because the law is unconstitutional not only going forward - but years ago when the Federal Government used it against her to deprive her of the right to the marital estate tax free.

And - all those couples since New York started recognizing same gender marriages? They get to amend their federal tax returns for all those years because the law which prohibited them from filing jointly was unconstitutional at the time it deprived them of that right. Not just next year's returns - but also all past year's returns as well**

(**assuming they are in open tax years - beyond that, it would take another court case because the right to amend tax returns beyond 3 years is a different law).

[Ms. Toad]

76. That is exactly what the court said. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

74. Actually, you are wrong - and I was just headed here to tell you this was a perfect example

of what I have been trying to tell you.

Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional all along - void ab inito (although the decision did not use that language). The decision today merely announced that it was, after a thorough consideration of the merits. That decision that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional from the day it was enacted has implications both going forward (your contention - the law that is now unconstitutional just vanishes), and retroactively (it not only vanishes, it is treated as if it never existed).

The prohibition on federal recognition of same gender marriages in New York was unconstitutional all along - from the day New York recognized same gender marriages. Couples who were prohibited from filing joint tax returns because of DOMA will now amend those returns to claim what was rightfully theirs all along. They don't just get to file joint returns going forward - it is a retroactive right because the law was unconstitutional at the time (in the past) when it was used to prohibit them from filing joint returns.

Really just stop and use a little reasoning. If the law is only unconstitutional today, then how come Edie Windsor - whose injury was in the past - gets those big bucks?

(And, just for completeness - for those with some legal knowledge who know there are many nuances when a law is declared unconstitutional - had it been struck down narrowly on the facts of Edie Windsor's case, it would not necessarily be retroactive for everyone because that would mean it was only unconstitutional as applied to Edie Windsor. But it was struck down broadly - on its face - which means is is a declaration that the law was always unconstitutional no matter how or to whom it applied. There may still be some legal wrangling over the details - but the principle is that the law is now - and was always - unconstitutional.)

[baldguy]

78. I see you bloviating & repeating the same misrepresentations.

I don't see you providing any court decision showing that FISA or PRISM are unconstitutional or illegal.

[Ms. Toad]

79. This is getting tiring.

As I have told you repeatedly - until the Supreme Court reviews the FISA Amendments Act both sides are free to argue their case, and neither is lying. That's how the law works. But then again, perhaps you believe the President was lying when he declared DOMA unconstitutional.

After plaintiff filed her complaint, the Attorney General sent a notification to Congress under 28 U.S.C. 530D that the President and he had determined that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law.

(BTW: That is from the brief filed in the case in February, and he also said so outside of the brief much earlier. And in case you haven't looked at the calendar, February was a while ago)

I would have said (and did say) the same thing yesterday, or a month ago, or 2 years ago. Those statements of mine were no more lies than when President Obama said the same thing - and not only were they not lies, they were legally accurate. Edith Windsor is receiving benefits from an unconstitutonal injury at the hands of DOMA which occurred years ago - if - as you argue - DOMA was constitutional until 10 AM this morning, she would not be receiving those benefits. Neither would the hundreds or thousands of individuals in New York and other states who may now file amended tax returns for past years.

You really don't understand a bit about what happens when a law is declared unconstitutional. As I said before, feel free to come back and debate me when you've been through law school, but I'm done trying to explain the law to someone who clearly has no interest in understanding the process of reviewing a law for a determination of whether it is constitutional, and what the implications (including retroactive implications) of a decision that a law is unconstitutional might be.

[baldguy]

80. Still waiting for you to show when FISA or PRISM was ruled unconstitutional or illegal.

Until then, they are neither. And your arguments are the same as those batshit crazy (and Ron Paul fans) "sovereign citizens" who say that federal courts have no jurisdiction over them.

[Ms. Toad]

81. Glad to know you believe President Obama

is batshit crazy and a Ron Paul fan.

Long before today's ruling, President Obama declared that DOMA was unconstitutional. And, just in case you believe Presidents get some special dispensation to declare a law unconstitutional before the Supreme Court does:

Bill Clinton: March 8, 2013: Clinton said he has “come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.”

Barney Frank: May 31, 2012: The current situation, in which the rights of some couples married in other states are recognized, while the rights of other couples married in those states are denied, is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

John Kerry: March 17, 2011: In his op-ed, Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the law is unconstitutional

Each of those dates is earlier than June 26, 2013, so none of these prominent and respected Democrats had a Supreme Court decision ruling DOMA unconstitutional to show you when they made their declarations that it was unconstitutional, so I guess (1) they were lying and (2) if declaring that I believe a statute (whether it is DOMA or the FISA Amendments Act) is unconstitutional before the Supreme Court rules on it makes me "batshit crazy" and a "Ron Paul fan," I'm in pretty good company.

And, Psst, Barney Frank also believes "the FISA Amendments Act violates all of these constitutional guarantees. A vote to reauthorize the FISA Amendments Act without reforms is a vote against Americans' constitutional freedom.&quot Guess he's a double dose of batshit crazy, Huh.

[HardTimes99]

68. You are displaying the patience of Job, for which I salute you. You can lead a

horse to water . . .

[Ms. Toad]

75. I know.

But when the horse is in danger of dying of dehydration I have to keep trying.

[grantcart]

21. Quite correct. However if the action that is being exposed is not unlawful or illegal then

it cannot be classified as 'whistleblowing' as that pertains to actions that are being undertaken that are either illegal, against stated policy or are being done for personal gain.

In exposing some of the myths (and I agree with most of them including clearing GG of criminal accusations for publishing classified material) he has strengthened the case that he violated the espionage act.

[progressoid]

33. Considering how the rule of law has been twisted and mangled in the last decade,

I'm not sure it matters if this is classified as whistleblowing or not.

It's not like a whistleblower has much chance of legal protections anyway.

[truebluegreen]

26. I don't think there has been any way to determine

if the program is unconstitutional. Since secret interpretations of the laws have been applied in secret, with congresscritters unable to talk about them, or even take notes, the program(s) could never be challenged in court: no one could have "standing" because no one could even allege harm from a secret program.

How can constitutionality ever be determined if no court can ever examine the program(s)? Examining the law is insufficient, since interpretations make a difference--look at the IRS flap over 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s.

[Demit]

6. Cute. Now do the work of writing a few grafs backing up your assertions,

the way the writer for the Nation did.

[snooper2]

44. you don't write with grafs LOL

That would be silly!

[MADem]

27. +1,000 nt

[ProSense]

32. I stopped at Myth 1

Myth 1: Leaks of top-secret material are exceedingly rare, so Edward Snowden’s transgression obviously cries out for punishment.

From the banshee reactions of various pols and pundits one might have thought that showing classified material to the media is Washington’s ultimate taboo. What rot! Official leaks are common as dirt, and one can barely go a week without reading in The New York Times or The Washington Post some story built on an unnamed high official’s confidential leaks. Good thing too, because it’s thanks to leaks that we learned the truth about the Watergate break-in, the Vietnam War, Obama’s officially “secret” drone strike program. The Bush-Cheney administration leaked classified prewar intel on Iraq to suit its interests (h/t Jack Shafer), and a top-secret memo on military strategy from Obama’s ambassador to Afghanistan, retired general Karl Eikenberry, wound up on the front page of The New York Times. (Many believe it was the White House itself that leaked that one.) Obama’s former chief of staff William Daley bragged of his leaking prowess to Politico, but made sure to give props to his predecessor Rahm Emanuel as the ultimate “leaker-in-chief.”

He didn't commit a crime because everybody does it?

[backscatter712]

40. *plonk*

I'm out of patience arguing with police-state fanatics.

[arely staircase]

42. Myth 13: Snowden didn't share US secrets with foreign governments

nt

[baldguy]

54. The Chinese are very good at covertly reading data off hard drives with none being the wiser.

Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)

So much so that corporations who do business with them routinely give their employees new, clean computers when they visit China on business. They are required to leave their personal and work computers at home.

Verizon report: China behind 96% of all cyber-espionage data breaches

...most often targeting manufacturing, professional and transportation industries. The assets China targeted within those industries included laptop/desktop, file server, mail server and directory server, in order to steal credentials, internal organization data, trade secrets and system info.

more:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/verizon-report-china-behind-96-all-cyber-espionage-data-breaches

Which means we can assume that every intel service in any country Snowden visits has all the data he's carrying.

But I guess giving China, Russia and Cuba all our secrets is A-OK! Right?

[rhett o rick]

60. Plez. I know you know better than that. You are showing signs of desperation. nm

[leveymg]

64. Okay. You just repeated misleading talking points 8-12. Congratulations.

Anything else you want to share with us?

[baldguy]

65. Show me where I'm wrong.

[leftynyc]

8. I don't think Greenwald

committed a crime in reporting the story. He's a lawyer and he says he's been in contact with snowden since Feb (before he took the contracting job). It was reported yesterday that snowden took the job expressly to steal the information. If Greenwald knew snowden was going to break the law, he was obligated, as an officer of the court, to turn him in. That's where he's in trouble. And snowden was never a whistleblower - he's a leaker of classified information.

[MADem]

30. Yep--that's a conflating strawman, designed to puff up some poutrage.

The headline is "Myths about Snowden" but they want you to get all sweaty and dramatic about GeeGee...it's a push piece.

I, too, am still working under the assumption that GeeGee didn't urge "Ed" to take that job to steal the data. If that is shown to be the case, however, I'd revise my POV to match yours.

[FarCenter]

34. Is Greenwald an "officer of the court"? Is he a member of any bar?

I thought that he had terminated his law career?

[leftynyc]

46. I heard him refer to himself as a lawyer

Maybe it just depends on what's going on in his head.

[FarCenter]

48. A lawyer who is not a member of a bar is not an officer of the court

I've not heard that Greenwald was disbarred, but he may have let his membership lapse, since he is no longer practising.

[leftynyc]

49. So he's just a person

(who calls himself a journalist and a lawyer) who encouraged Snowden to break the law?

[FarCenter]

51. A lawyer, but not an attorney at law; a journalist, but not a reporter.

[Puzzledtraveller]

11. k&r

[steve2470]

12. k&r nt

[marions ghost]

13. Excellent!

I like this bottom line:

"...just because something is legally permissible does not mean it is wise, effective, just or terrific in any way. Jeffrey Toobin could legally have unprotected sex with a houseful of heroin addicts, then liquidate his assets and give the money to Sarah Palin’s PAC: all of this would be legal. Only a lawyer, and not a very good one, would ever take mere legality an indicator for wisdom, justice or efficacy. We have every right to be discontent with government actions that might be legal while being wrong and foolish for any number of other reasons."

------------

This needs to be said. "Mere legality"...remember that many laws are unjust.

[datasuspect]

16. the "legalistic" intellect

is usually the least formed intellect a person can have.

that's why i just dismiss them out of hand. like pseudoscience proponents or paranormal researchers

[marions ghost]

22. yes

the kind of people who can reduce a complicated case like this to just a matter of following "the rule of law"--

Those people have a lot more trust than I do in those who make the laws.

[backscatter712]

43. That!

I have no patience with arguing with them.

They're not going to be persuaded.

[WillyT]

14. K & R !!!

[question everything]

45. Secretary Kerry blasted his selection of totalitarian regimes

like China and Russia.

Or is John Kerry no longer welcomed on DU?

My, how times have changed.

Yes, I question the groupthink of DU. Seems that blasting our government and defending China, Russia, Venezuela and Cuba is the acceptable norm that get K&R on these pages.

Of course, there is no DU in these countries.

How sad.

[Hydra]

52. Secretary Kerry has had a Colin Powell moment

And while he seems like he's a nice enough person, he's signed on with the establishment to push an illegal policy.

When he's fighting for something progressive, I'll be happy to laud him. This time he's on the wrong side. Happens to the best of us, even Dean or Gore.

[HardTimes99]

70. Kerry, to his everlasting ignominy and shame, voted for the war if Iraq. And then, in 2004,

the putz said he would still have voted to invade Iraq even if he knew Saddam had no WMDs.

I swear, you cannot make this shit up.

[Hydra]

72. I remember him siding with the IWR

I didn't see where he said he'd have done it anyway, but it's consistent with our actual policies there- loot and pillage.

This is a good reason why I hate the hero worship here. These politicians and public servants are not gods. I'm sure Clapper and the others think they are more than public servants, but they aren't.

They're human. They do stupid, evil and greedy things at times. They also do amazing things or have moments where they show the best of what we are as a species.

We need to question, to wonder, to evaluate because we can't simply trust that people are doing what's best for everyone. If they are, it will show itself to be so. If they're not, it has to be stopped.

[HardTimes99]

73. Oh yeah. In Colorado Springs, CO, during the 2004 General Election campaign,

a reporter asked Kerry if he would have voted for the IWR even if he knew Saddam had no WMD.

"Yes," Kerry replied.

After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I turned to my wife and said, "It's all over but the counting." The race actually ended up being closer than it should have been after that piece of putzery on Kerry's part.

I'm sure some pro-Kerry folk will come by to defend his lunacy (both the original vote and his statement in 2004). You'll be in for an entertaining sub-thread when that happens.

[MindPilot]

17. The espionage accusation just doesn't make sense

If you have state secrets you are trying to sell to the enemy, you generally don't announce it to the entire world.

Secondly if you believe anything from any country's media, especially China and the US, about Snowden, you are probably a frequent bridge buyer.

[leftynyc]

47. You don't have to sell them

You just need to give them up...which he did to China and it's sounding like Russia as well.

[MindPilot]

50. But to what end?

This guy is risking his life. Discounting a complete disconnect with reality there are only two motivations; publicly expose a very serious wrongdoing that cannot be addressed any other way, or personal gain. If it is for personal gain, then Snowden is a complete fuckup.

If it is to publicly expose a wrongdoing, then he has succeeded admirably.

[leftynyc]

53. I'd like to know who is paying his bills

and a peek at his bank account might be interesting. Frankly, I don't think he had any idea what he was getting himself into and I think he was used by Greenwald for selfish purposes.

[Civilization2]

18. Directly destroys the lame attacks bandied about here,. with fact, logic, and reason.

keep your emotional, knee-jerk, "but the govment is always right" (when it is a dem!) crap to yourselves.

[Buns_of_Fire]

23. Which leads to the final paragraph (something to think about):

Though the surveillance enjoys support from Democrats and Republicans alike­, the opposition to it is equally bipartisan, with veteran social democrat Representative John Conyers co-sponsoring a bill to rein in the NSA with Tea Party freshman Representative Justin Amash, two ideologically antipodal Michiganders united in defense of civil liberties. Nice Democrats, please know this: the NSA surveillance program will someday be in the hands of a Republican president—will you support it then?

[boilerbabe]

19. I appreciate your posts and read and recommend everyone.

who knew all the trustworthy leftie sources would now be considered suspect. YOU WOULD THINK SOMEBODY WOULD BUY a CLUE.

[winter is coming]

24. What's even more interesting than the myths is watching who actively promotes them. Cui bono? n/t

[MuseRider]

29. Thanks again xchrom

bookmarked to read later.

[marble falls]

31. Why is this about Snowden and not the NSA spyingon all of us?

[Turbineguy]

36. Because it can only be

one OR the other. Those are the rules.

Spying on us is bad, therefore Snowden is good. OR: Snowden is a traitor, therefore spying on us is OK.

[The Green Manalishi]

35. Kicked and Rec'd

I want Snowden, Manning and Ellsberg on Mt. Rushmore.

[JaneyVee]

37. I'm confused, is it about Snowden or is it not about Snowden?

[backscatter712]

39. Stop shutting down the disrupters here with facts!

[ReRe]

41. K&R

Greenwald's field of law is Constitutional Law. He's NOT an ambulance chaser. Just sayin'.

[whttevrr]

71. Can anyone show me a link to the remote proximity draining of a laptop?

This could be a myth as well. Can they log in through the wifi nic?

Maybe... But wouldn't an NSA laptop have encryption and pretty sophisticated login credentials?

Which brings me to another myth (maybe): Why would anyone worth his salary in tech carry around four laptops?

It is the data that matters. He might not be able to take the hard drives out of the laptops but data unable to be transferred is pretty much useless data. So there has to be some mechanism for transferring the actual data contained within the files of import. He would not be carrying four laptops. He would transfer the data onto external hard drives. Obviously the data is not locked to the hardware because he has transferred it from the server to the "mythical Laptops". If it can be transferred, no one would leave it on a laptop. It does not make technical sense.

Which brings me to the original question. Who has the technical expertise to remotely power the data storage device and actually access an encrypted storage device remotely.

Does anyone know of a link to anyone who has done anything like this?

How exactly does one remotely drain a laptop? I do not see this happening anywhere except in a Hollywood movie. Just because a fiction writer can do it, does not mean a real world person can.

Anyone have a proof of concept link for such a technological feat?