Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments

[ProSense]

Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments

As a new poll shows widespread American approval for him, the NSA whistlelbower vehemently denies media claims

Glenn Greenwald

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, in an interview on Saturday and then again Tuesday afternoon, vehemently denied media claims that he gave classified information to the governments of China or Russia. He also denied assertions that one or both governments had succeeded in "draining the contents of his laptops". "I never gave any information to either government, and they never took anything from my laptops", he said.

The extraordinary claim that China had drained the contents of Snowden's laptops first appeared in the New York Times in a June 24 article. The paper published the claim with no evidence and without any attribution to any identified sources.

In lieu of any evidence, the NYT circulated this obviously significant assertion by quoting what it called "two Western intelligence experts" who "worked for major government spy agencies". Those "experts" were not identified. The article then stated that these experts "said they believed that the Chinese government had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong" (emphasis added).

So that's how this "China-drained-his-laptops" claim was created: by the New York Times citing two anonymous sources saying they "believed" this happened. From there, it predictably spread everywhere as truth.

- more -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/snowden-denies-information-russia-china

Does Greenwald think this is helping Snowden's case?

Fugitive Snowden likely Venezuela bound, says U.S. journalist (Greenwald)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023213235

[randome]

1. Well, the Chinese newspaper said they were shown details, including IP addresses.

I'm sure that won't mean the same to Snowden-Rooters but it is still giving classified information to individuals not cleared to see it.

Still a violation of law.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ProSense]

2. That's the rub. n/t

[Hissyspit]

3. I'm sure it won't mean the same to EVERYBODY, right?

What with it NOT BEING THE SAME THING.

Snowden has admitted he broke laws.

[ProSense]

4. Yeah,

"Snowden has admitted he broke laws."

...Ellsberg was wrong to claim that "Snowden believes that he has done nothing wrong."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3196916

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023198589

[think]

5. Ellsberg broke the law to tell the truth too. But whistleblowers should be punished.

We can't have them telling us the truth that the govt is breaking the law.

So put a gag order on them. That'll shut them up unless they want to spend some time in solitary...

[ProSense]

7. Fine,

"Ellsberg broke the law to tell the truth too. But whistleblowers should be punished."

...then claiming that Snowden believe he did nothing wrong is bizarre, especially given that he has admitted doing so.

"We can't have them telling us the truth that the govt is breaking the law. "

Snowden didn't reveal anything that shows the "govt is breaking the law."

In fact, the problem I have with Snowden are his distorted claims and his decision to release U.S. state secrets to other countries.

Snowden Mentioned ‘Direct Access’ In Interview With The Guardian
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023205264

"it's not about Snowden or Greenwald!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023213580

[think]

13. Both Ellsberg & Snowden broke the law. John Kiriakou broke law for telling us

that our govt used torture. No one in the US Govt has gone to jail for torture.

Bradley Manning went to solitary for exposing war crimes as understood by the Geneva convention. No one in the military has been prosecuted for those war crimes. Well that can't be. Donald Rumsfeld secretly re wrote the laws of engagement so that those acts weren't war crimes by US law....


Damn law breakers.....

[ProSense]

16. And

"Both Ellsberg & Snowden broke the law. John Kiriaku broke law for telling us that our govt used torture. No one in the US Govt has gone to jail for torture."

...neither of them fled the country and gave U.S. state secrets to other countries.

Snowden didn't reveal any wrongdoing, he bypassed any whistleblower protections, he fled the country and gave U.S. state secrets to other countries.

[think]

20. Do you feel John Kiriakou deserves to be in jail? Simple question.

[ProSense]

26. Yes,

On Monday, January 23, 2012, Kiriakou was charged with repeatedly disclosing classified information to journalists, including the name of a covert CIA officer and information revealing the role of another CIA employee, Deuce Martinez, in classified activities.[24][25][26] In addition to leaking the names and roles of CIA officers, Kiriakou was alleged to have lied to the CIA to get his book published.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou#Trial

...and he was sentenced to 30 months. Snowden blew it by fleeing the country, and his actions overseas made it worse.

William Binney, Thomas Drake, and Thomas Tamm are whistleblowers who stayed and faced the consequences of their actions. They were not persecuted, they faced prosecution. They are not in jail. In fact, Tamm was the one who exposed Bush's illegal eavesdropping on Americans.

Remember whistleblower Thomas Tamm?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032225

Had Snowden remained in the country, he would likely have been charged and released on bail.

WASHINGTON — A federal grand jury in Washington has indicted a State Department analyst suspected of disclosing top-secret information about North Korea to Fox News, the third time the Obama administration has filed criminal charges accusing people of leaks to the news media.

The indictment, dated Aug. 19 and unsealed on Friday, named Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, 43, of McLean, Va., a specialist in nuclear proliferation who worked as a contractor for the State Department. Mr. Kim, who has worked as a high-level foreign affairs analyst for a decade for various federal agencies, is accused of disclosing the information in June 2009 and of lying to the F.B.I. in September 2009.

Mr. Kim, an American citizen, pleaded not guilty on Friday in Federal District Court before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and was released on $100,000 bond.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/world/americas/28leak.html

[think]

30. So his crime was releasing classified information proving torture was used

Has anyone been brought up on charges based on these documented claims of tortures via water boarding in the United States?

No....

[ProSense]

33. No,

"So his crime was releasing classified information proving torture was used"

...evidently the crime was releasing the names of CIA operatives and lying to the government.

[think]

43. OK /nt

[think]

40. Dick Cheney must feel good knowing the whistleblower who revealed water torture

is safety behind bars where he can't hurt anyone else

He feels so good he openly boasts of his support for water boarding:

I for one believe John Kiriakou did the right thing and probably put an end to water boarding much sooner than he had not done so.

For his unwavering support for the rule of law & respect for human rights I hold John Kiriakou in high esteem. What ever crime of releasing classified documents should have been rescinded in light of the illegal activity uncovered.

Like Ellsberg John Kiriakou is an American patriot and hero.

[KittyWampus]

11. clarification- whistleblowers bring info to Congress first. Leakers do not. From what I've read

there is a difference.

[think]

19. Yep. Then their name is sent to the DOJ to be brought up on charges.

Then the FBI comes and arrests you and ransack your house.

Ask Thomas Drake how that working with in the system thing went for him.

Wikipedia: Thomas Drake 2007 FBI raids

In July 2007, armed FBI agents raided the homes of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe, the same people who had filed the complaint with the DoD Inspector General in 2002.[27] Binney claims they pointed guns at his wife and himself. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union.[21] None of these people were charged with any crimes. In November 2007, there was a raid on Drake's residence. His computers, documents, and books were confiscated. He was never charged with giving any sensitive information to anyone; the charge actually brought against him is for 'retaining' information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e)).[20] The FBI tried to get Roark to testify against Drake; she refused.[21] Reporter Gorman was not contacted by the FBI.[15][22]

Drake initially cooperated with the investigation, telling the FBI about the alleged illegality of the NSA's activities.[21] The government created a 'draft indictment' of Drake, prepared by prosecutor Steven Tyrrell. It listed charges as "disclosing classified information to a newspaper reporter and for conspiracy". Diane Roark, Binney, Wiebe, and Loomis (the complainants to the DoD IG in 2002) were also allegedly listed as "unindicted co-conspirators".[27] In 2009 a new prosecutor came on the case, William Welch II,[15][21] and changed the indictment. Some charges were removed, as was any naming of 'co-conspirators'. The new case only contained charges against Drake.[27]

Prosecutors wanted Drake to plead guilty, but he refused. He believed that he was innocent of the charges against him.[15] The government wanted him to help prosecute the other whistleblowers. He refused this as well.[21] He later explained his motivations to the Ridenhour Prizes organization:...


Full Entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake#2007_FBI_raids

Then ask Binney, Tice, Weibe, Edmonds etc etc etc how that working within the current law structure created under Bush and epitomized by the Patriot Act....

[Hissyspit]

6. You know damn well

the differences involved between morality and law.

And I wasn't even talking about that, was I?

[ProSense]

8. Yeah,

"the differences involved between morality and law. "

...and you admitted that he knows he broke the law. You know "damn well" that he did, and I agree.

[Hissyspit]

17. Your games are embarrassing.

[ProSense]

21. The fact that you think anyone is playing "games" is "embarrassing"

You have no point.

[Hissyspit]

25. Yes I do.

Moving the goal posts and deflection are games, not serious arguments.

You have simply to go back to my initial post and the post to which I was responding to see my point.

[ProSense]

29. You mean

"Moving the goal posts and deflection are games, not serious arguments.

You have simply to go back to my initial post and the post to which I was responding to see my point."

...like "moving the goal posts" from a discussion about Snowden admitting he broke the law to claiming, "Your games are embarrassing"?

You're the one involved in "deflection."

[RC]

37. It would make your posts easier to decipher if you would use the 'excerpt' when quoiting people.

But then your purpose is not so much to clarify, but of obfuscate.

[Hissyspit]

39. Oh, for fuck's sake.

[ProSense]

47. Spare me. n/t

[Hissyspit]

42. Name-calling all you got?

Where have I called Snowden a hero?

Show me. NOW.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[NuclearDem]

51. And as we know, the law is never morally wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

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

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

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

[ProSense]

58. That

"And as we know, the law is never morally wrong."

...makes no sense. You're holding up immoral, unjust laws as if to imply that the law against leaking classified information is "morally wrong."

It wasn't "morally wrong" in the Plame case, and it still isn't. Leaking classified information is a crime, which in some cases constitutes treason.

Edward Snowden broke the law by releasing classified information. This isn't under debate; it's something everyone with a security clearance knows. It's written in plain English on the documents you have to sign when you get a security clearance, and it's part of the culture. The law is there for a good reason, and secrecy has an important role in military defense.

But before the Justice Department prosecutes Snowden, there are some other investigations that ought to happen.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/prosecuting_sno.html

Jimmy Carter on Snowden: "He's obviously violated the laws of America, for which he's responsible."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023119933

Whistleblower protections are in place to protect those who reveal government wrongdoing. Snowden chose to forego the channels that would have afforded him such protections, and fleeing the country didn't help his case, and neither did releasing U.S. state secrets to other countries.

[NuclearDem]

62. When the law is being used to intimidate people...

...from exposing war crimes and civil right violations, it absolutely is immoral. The Plame leak was a vindictive attack on one of Bush's critics, not even remotely similar to the Pentagon Papers, Iraq War logs, or PRISM leaks.

Whisteblower protection at the Federal level in no way guarantees the information will be made public. In fact, most organizations handle the problem in-house; the public is never the wiser. For that reason, it's essentially a system of zero accountability. And even if the IG pursues a matter, very often it only takes cases about FWA--war crimes and civil rights violations tend to get swept under the rug.

The system is corrupt, and whether you like Snowden or not, the avenue he chose was the only one that was ever going to get anything done.

[ProSense]

63. That

"When the law is being used to intimidate people...from exposing war crimes and civil right violations, it absolutely is immoral. The Plame leak was a vindictive attack on one of Bush's critics, not even remotely similar to the Pentagon Papers, Iraq War logs, or PRISM leaks."

...has nothing to do with the law being "immoral." It isn't selectively "immoral."

[BenzoDia]

34. Yep yup. Exactly.

[Bonobo]

48. Well shit, if a Chinese State-run newspaper says it, it must be true.

They would't say a thing like that just to tweak the US's nose or anything.

[The Straight Story]

9. Wait a sec..two experts working for spy agencies leaked this info?

oh, that is classic.

[ProSense]

10. ? n/t

[The Straight Story]

14. From the article:

In lieu of any evidence, the NYT circulated this obviously significant assertion by quoting what it called "two Western intelligence experts" who "worked for major government spy agencies". Those "experts" were not identified. The article then stated that these experts "said they believed that the Chinese government had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong"

[ProSense]

18. Wait,

In lieu of any evidence, the NYT circulated this obviously significant assertion by quoting what it called "two Western intelligence experts" who "worked for major government spy agencies". Those "experts" were not identified. The article then stated that these experts "said they believed that the Chinese government had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong"

...you think they "leaked" the claim about Snowden?

[The Straight Story]

22. well

First off, why would it take two experts to say they believe something that many here on web already stated they believed given the circumstances?

Second, and more likely, is that they knew and used the word believe to cover their asses. And if they knew something like that I am guessing it was not meant to be public knowledge (like some other things were not supposed to be). Wonder if anyone is going to investigate these two unnamed sources?

Guess it is ok to release information when it fits what the government wants us to believe....

[ProSense]

31. First

First off, why would it take two experts to say they believe something that many here on web already stated they believed given the circumstances?

Second, and more likely, is that they knew and used the word believe to cover their asses. And if they knew something like that I am guessing it was not meant to be public knowledge (like some other things were not supposed to be). Wonder if anyone is going to investigate these two unnamed sources?

Guess it is ok to release information when it fits what the government wants us to believe....

...the claim is not top secret or classified information. Second, why would they "investigate" someone for being quoted by the NYT?

[brush]

52. Guess we have to believe Snowden

that the Chinese didn't get information from him.

That's a little hard to believe if you ask me.

And why should we believe him that the Chinese government wouldn't take advantage of United States classified info falling into it's lap?

The Chinese gov., just out of the goodness of its heart, not only didn't extradite but provided lodging at a luxury hotel, food and who knows what else in exchange for nothing?

That's a tough sell there, Snowden.

[Recursion]

27. No, two "experts" working for NYT made it up (nt)

[MjolnirTime]

41. Wait a sec... You trusted Snowden??? hahahahahahahahahahaaha

Some people want to believe something so badly that they'll swallow anything.

[treestar]

12. His word is worth zero

We will see how things shake out - it may become apparent from Chinese actions what they know.

[Hissyspit]

15. And the word of those who claim it happened with zero proof is worth?

[dipsydoodle]

24. is worth

sfa.

[kentuck]

23. But we know better..

Don't we?

[MjolnirTime]

36. you don't seem to know much.

[leeroysphitz]

28. I feel better knowing that a guy who can't be trusted with secrets

SAYS he didn't give away any secrets.

[blm]

32. I suppose Snowden never slept, either. Or slept like a baby, assured by Chinese officials

that no one would touch his stuff. Ya see, China and Russia would NEVER even think of gathering information on their citizens and must have shared Snowden's outrage over the program........right?

Geez - Snowden was probably knocked out by the second drink he was given.

[ProSense]

46. The denials are interesting.

Does anyone see a distinction between the government and the press in China?

What are the chances that the Chinese press didn't turn the information over to the government?

Did he think about that or is he naive?

[blm]

60. Especially that the Chinese 'press' was owned by a longtime friend of Bush family?

This whole Snowden deal has looked from the beginning like a standard op from BushInc. They ALWAYS manage to thwart any US-China overture that doesn't come from them.

[ProSense]

61. The fleeing to Hong Kong never made sense. n/t

[MjolnirTime]

35. The why did he go to China and Russia? He could have gone straight to Venezuela.

Snowden is full of shit.

If he had any information with him, it has been taken. He has no way to stop it.
Sure, maybe he didn't give. They took whether he liked it or not.

[RC]

44. 20/20 hind sight there?

Why didn't' he go straight to Venezuela? Maybe his crystal ball is a little more cloudier than yours.

[NoOneMan]

54. I think it was good to be somewhere big when everyone was in a tizzy

The US isn't going to invade or drone bomb Russia or China.

[Comrade Grumpy]

68. And you know this because you were there, right?

Or are you just pulling it out your ass?

[Cleita]

45. I don't think Snowden really cares about what does or doesn't help his case. The

important thing is that we get to the truth and right now we don't know what has happened to the laptops or Snowden for that matter. There are so many conflicting stories out there right now, it's best not to believe any of them. When this story comes to a conclusion and we know exactly what has transpired then speculation like that can be made not before.

[Bonobo]

49. At this point, why would he lie?

I can see why a Chinese state-run newspaper might lie, but Snowden? With the deep shit he's already in, why bother?

I think the Greenwald piece definitely helps.

People often ask here "If it isn't true, why doesn't Snowden deny it?"

Well, he did. Right here. Take it or leave it.

[ProSense]

50. Do you

"At this point, why would he lie? I can see why a Chinese state-run newspaper might lie, but Snowden? With the deep shit he's already in, why bother? "

...really wonder why? Do you think he would acknowledge this knowing it would make things worse?

Does anyone see a distinction between the government and the press in China?

What are the chances that the Chinese press didn't turn the information over to the government?

Did he think about that or is he naive? Could that be the reason for his repeated denials?

[Bonobo]

56. China media is notorious for being controlled.

If they thought it would pe a stick in the eye to the USA, they would do it by all means.

Do you REALY believe that China newspapers are free?

[ProSense]

59. Actually,

"Do you REALY believe that China newspapers are free?"

...that's my point. Why would Snowden see a distinction unless he is naive?

[HipChick]

53. For someone that cant keep secrets..

why should anyone believe him?

[snappyturtle]

65. Besides Bonobo's reasons, think about it, e.g. Clapper lied to Congress &

admitted such. If you can give me some examples of the gov;t saying Snowden is lying, I'd like the links.

[think]

55. Rather it emboldened previous whistle blowers like Russ Tice to step forward again

to tell more of the sordid details.

Were he lying why would these other whistte blowers make statements defending him and risk persecution to reveal more info?

And in the case of Russ Tice, to speak up only to be censored by MSNBC:

MSNBC Censors NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice Minutes Before Interview
Friday, 21. June 2013

“We Don’t Want a Word on Your Allegations Pertaining to NSA Wiretapping of Obama, Judges & Activists”


~Snip~

In a correspondence with Boiling Frogs Post immediately following his censored interview with MSNBC Mr. Tice stated:

“When they were placing the ear-phone in my ear with less than ten minutes left till my air time, the producer in New York said that their lawyers were discussing the material, and at this time, they did not want me to mention anything about the NSA wiretaps against all the people and organizations that I mentioned. That is how it went down. I did say on the air that I know it is much worse and would like to talk about that some time.”

~snip~

See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/21/msnbc-censors-nsa-whistleblower-russ-tice-minutes-before-interview/#sthash.KOtVrY4p.dpuf

[Dreamer Tatum]

57. Is he willing to swear an oath to that effect?

Oh wait. Never mind .

[grasswire]

64. The NYT hasn't exactly earned our trust over the past eleven years or so.

Two words: Judith Miller.

Moral: Never trust unidentified sources.

[CakeGrrl]

66. Please proceed, Greenwald.

Something tells me that the more he talks, the deeper he'll insinuate himself.

Again, HOW are these interviews being conducted? If the NSA knows all, don't they have a record?

[ProSense]

69. Yup, Snowden

did what he did, and announced his rationale. Greenwald's denials are only drawing more focus to the issue.

<...>

Within hours of news breaking that the US had filed charges against Snowden, the South China Morning Post reported that the whistleblower had handed over a series of documents to the paper detailing how the US had targeted Chinese phone companies as part of a widespread attempt to get its hands on a mass of data.

Text messaging is the most popular form of communication in mainland China where more than 900bn SMS messages were exchanged in 2012.Snowden reportedly told the paper: "The NSA does all kinds of things like hack Chinese cellphone companies to steal all of your SMS data."

The paper said Snowden had also passed on information detailing NSA attacks on China's prestigious Tsinghua University, the hub of a major digital network from which data on millions of Chinese citizens could be harvested.

As Snowden made his latest disclosures, the US issued an extradition request to Hong Kong and piled pressure on the territory to respond swiftly. "If Hong Kong doesn't act soon, it will complicate our bilateral relations and raise questions about Hong Kong's commitment to the rule of law," a senior Obama administration official said.

- more -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/22/edward-snowden-us-china

Snowden plans more leaks...will let foreign press decide if leaks endanger Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023084875

[polichick]

67. Private contractors have one goal: profits...

Do you really think they're not selling info to the highest bidders?

Snowden is the least of our worries.

It's absurd that anyone in the government thinks private companies are trustworthy - American corporations aren't even patriotic enough to pay their share of taxes.


On edit: Case in point - have taxpayers ever been paid back for all the money Halliburton couldn't account for during the Iraq war? No. Instead of risking a court case, they moved headquarters to the Middle East. And does "our" gov't still use Halliburton? Of course.