The ACLU and others have been trying to redefine the term whistleblower to include Snowden.

[ProSense]

This was posted during the initial stages of the leak.

Michael Calderone

AP Editor: Do Not Describe Edward Snowden As A 'Whistleblower'

The Guardian has labeled Edward Snowden a whistleblower after the NSA contractor revealed himself Sunday as the source for several recent surveillance scoops.

But some news organization have been less quick to describe Snowden as a "whistleblower," opting instead for terms like "source" or "leaker."

Associated Press standards editor Tom Kent told staff Monday that "whether the actions exposed by Snowden and (WikiLeaks source Bradley) Manning constitute wrongdoing is hotly contested, so we should not call them whistle-blowers on our own at this point."

<...>

The AP's style guidelines are often followed in newsrooms, where discussions about Snowden -- and his motivations -- are surely taking place today among editors and reporters. The full memo is below:

Colleagues, With two secret-spilling stories in the news -- NSA/Snowden and Wikileaks/Manning -- let's review our use of the term "whistle-blower" (hyphenated, per the Stylebook).

A whistle-blower is a person who exposes wrongdoing. It's not a person who simply asserts that what he has uncovered is illegal or immoral. Whether the actions exposed by Snowden and Manning constitute wrongdoing is hotly contested, so we should not call them whistle-blowers on our own at this point. (Of course, we can quote other people who call them whistle-blowers.)

A better term to use on our own is "leakers." Or, in our general effort to avoid labels and instead describe behavior, we can simply write what they did: they leaked or exposed or revealed classified information.

Sometimes whether a person is a whistle-blower can be established only some time after the revelations, depending on what wrongdoing is confirmed or how public opinion eventually develops.

Tom

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-calderone/ap-snowden-whistleblower_b_3416380.html

The ACLU and others have been trying to redefine the term whistleblower to include Snowden.

There whistleblower protections in place, and the notion that anyone should simply be able to decide to leak classified information is absurd. The ACLU has been trying to redefine who qualifies as a whistleblower to include Snowden. Leaking classified information is a crime. Should anyone simply be allowed to leak classified information?

'Chicago Trib' Editorial: Reporters Should Testify in Plame Case

by: E&P Staff
Is the media now of two minds on press freedoms tested by the current Valerie Plame probe? The Chicago Tribune, in an editorial, argued today that certain reporters in the Plame case should be compelled to reveal confidential sources. The editorial also mentions that a leading First Amendment authority, and an advisory board member of the American Civil Liberties Union, feels the same way.

Special prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, has issued subpoenas to several journalists, including Matt Cooper of Time magazine, who co-wrote an article reporting that "some government officials" had revealed Plame's CIA identity to the magazine. "If so, that would make the recipient of the leak -- Cooper, a veteran Washington journalist -- a witness to a serious federal crime," the Tribune editorial declared. "When Cooper refused to appear before a grand jury to answer questions about the identity of his sources, a judge held him in contempt. Time was ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 a day and Cooper was ordered to jail, although these sanctions have been suspended pending an appeal of the judge's ruling.

"News organizations invariably resist subpoenas to name confidential sources, and with good reason," the Tribune editorial continued. But the piece concluded: "It would be hard to find a stronger case than Cooper's for demanding that a reporter identify a confidential source than when he has been an actual witness to a serious crime. University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, a member of the advisory board of the American Civil Liberties Union and a renowned First Amendment scholar, says Fitzgerald had every reason to subpoena Cooper, and that Cooper should testify.

"Should he refuse, it's only appropriate that he face the same consequences as any other citizen. If someone in the federal government knowingly outed Valerie Plame despite the danger it might create for her, that person deserves to feel the full force of the law. If any ordinary citizen had valuable information about the crime, he or she would have a duty to turn it over. In this instance, it's hard to see why Matt Cooper or any reporter should be excused from that duty."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/Archive/-Chicago-Trib-Editorial-Reporters-Should-Testify-in-Plame-Case

<...>

Continuing the analogy to the attorney-client privilege, that privilege is absolute for confidential communications made by a client to an attorney "for the purpose of receiving legal advice." If the client speaks with a lawyer not to receive legal advice, but to learn how to commit a criminal offense, whether the lawyer knows this or not, there is no privilege. The reason is obvious. The purpose of the privilege is to encourage clients to have certain kinds of conversations with lawyers -- those that further the goals of the legal system. The privilege is not intended to encourage clients to use lawyers for the purpose of learning how better to commit criminal offenses. Those communications are unprotected by the privilege and a lawyer can be compelled to disclose them.

The same logic holds true in the reporter-source context. The purpose of the reporter-source privilege is to encourage sources to disclose information of legitimate public concern to reporters so they can then inform the public. There is no public policy of encouraging sources to leak information when the leak itself is a crime and when the purpose and effect of the leak are to use the reporter to facilitate a criminal act.

The disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative by White House offcials violated federal law. In "leaking" this information, those officials were attempting to enlist reporters in a criminal act. Even under the most expansive conception of the journalist-source privilege, those sources have no privilege to do that, and thus Miller and Cooper are protecting no one but themselves. They are not Woodward and Bernstein.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/deep-throat-redux-are-mil_b_1947.html

Hre's a recent statement by the ACLU.

“As we have said before, we believe that the information Mr. Snowden has disclosed about the nature, scope, and putative legal authorization of the NSA’s surveillance operations has generated a remarkable and long-overdue public debate about the legality and propriety of the government’s surveillance activities,” the ACLU statement read. “The ACLU has long held the view that leaks to the press in the public interest should not be prosecutable under the nation’s espionage laws.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/edward-snowden-media-misled_n_3764560.html?1376612797

Here's a previous statement:

Congress passed the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act in 1998, but it is no more than a trap. It establishes a procedure for internal reporting within the agencies and through the Inspector General to the congressional intelligence committees, but it provides no remedy for reprisals that occur as a result. Reporting internally through the ICWPA only identifies the whistleblowers, leaving them vulnerable to retaliation. The examples of former NSA official Thomas Drake, former House Intelligence Committee staffer Diane Roark and former CIA officer Sabrina De Sousa show too well.

This lack of protection means that when intelligence community employees and contractors – who take an oath to defend the Constitution – see government illegality they must turn the other way, or risk their careers and possibly even their freedom. The people we trust to protect our nation from foreign enemies deserve legal protection when they blow the whistle on wrongdoing within government.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security/edward-snowden-whistleblower

The ACLU continues to advocate a position that isn't supported by law, and the last two paragraphs at the link indicate Snowden isn't a whistleblower.

Human Rights Watch (and this is from a piece critical of whistleblower protections - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023187207) :

The federal Whistleblower Protection Act exempts from its protections whistleblowers in the intelligence community, including defense contractors. The most legal protection on which such employees can rely is the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which provides a channel for whistleblowers to take matters of “urgent concern” first to the inspector general of the Department of Justice and then to a congressional intelligence oversight committee. However, this law does not provide any legal right of action for such whistleblowers to protect themselves against retaliation for reporting their concerns in these ways, and in practice, even continuing access to congressional committees can be thwarted by agency heads, who usually can identify the whistleblower concerned.[11]In October 2012, the Obama administration released a Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-19) intended to bolster protection for national security whistleblowers; it requires agencies to establish a process by which whistleblowers can seek review of prohibited retaliatory actions. The directive was widely criticized as window-dressing, however, because it explicitly denies whistleblowers the ability to obtain legal enforcement of any rights or procedures set forth under the directive.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/18/us-statement-protection-whistleblowers-security-sector#_ftnref5

He has no protection under the WPA, and failed to use the channel available to him.
I simply don't buy that they believe people should simply be able to leak information based on their own subjective criteria. Given that Snowden his past comments and the fact that he started collecting information since his days at Dell (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023468327), his excuse that he did this to expose "criminality" seems completely bogus.

Edward Snowden Reportedly Gives Interview To Chinese News Outlet

A Chinese news outlet said Wednesday that it landed the first interview with Edward Snowden since the 29-year-old former government contractor outed himself as the source the recent National Security Agency leaks.

"I'm neither traitor nor hero. I'm an American," Snowden said, according to the South China Morning Post.

The Morning Post said that Snowden confirmed he is still lying low in Hong Kong, and that he insisted he isn't hiding.

“People who think I made a mistake in picking HK as a location misunderstand my intentions. I am not here to hide from justice; I am here to reveal criminality," Snowden said, according to the outlet.

The report quoted him as saying his "intention is to ask the courts and people of Hong Kong" to decide his fate, adding: "I have been given no reason to doubt your system."

- more -

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/edward-snowden-reportedly-gives-interview-to-chinese-news

Remember this comment from Snowden's weird chat session:

Q: When did you decide to leak the documents?

A: "You see things that may be disturbing. When you see everything you realise that some of these things are abusive. The awareness of wrong-doing builds up. There was not one morning when I woke up (and decided this is it). It was a natural process.

"A lot of people in 2008 voted for Obama. I did not vote for him. I voted for a third party. But I believed in Obama's promises. I was going to disclose it (but waited because of his election). He continued with the policies of his predecessor."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-why

This from a guy who said....

Ed Snowden: Leakers “should be shot in the balls,” and "cut this Social Security bullshit"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023102239

Even if Snowden wasn't exempt from the WPA, his actions would still be called into question.

Those advocating Snowden's status as a whistleblower completely ignore the fact that he released U.S. state secrets to other countries (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023481722). They try to focus completely on Snowden's domestic claims. Still, even with that focus, the defense of Snowden relies on excuses and attempts to redefine the criteria for whistleblowing.

Then there is Greenwald's implicit threats (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023244823 http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023261520)

Look at where this is today: Back to being about Greenwald, not the NSA.

He's always misquoted...not really ("sorry" vs. "regret&quot

The reporting is always ends up being reporting about Greenwald walking shit back.

The Guardian fell prey to this with that bullshit John Lewis story.

Now, he's going to focus on the UK, that'll help the debate about NSA domestic surveillance, huh?

Another NSA "Bombshell" Starts to Fizzle Out, as Greenwald Pushes Government Conspiracy Theory
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023478767

The leak was an attempt to bolster the libertarian brand.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023481343

Snowden has no crediblity, and deserves no thanks.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023288332

[Harmony Blue]

1. Snowden is a whistleblower and a hero.

Thank you for everything Snowden.

[earthside]

12. The NSA Controversy is Ruining Pres. Obama

No links to a dozen 'news' reports or analysis articles .... just listening to what average, ordinary folks (albeit informed friends) have to say on this issue.

Pres. Obama has made a tremendous mistake in his approach to the NSA spying scandal -- and, yes, it is turning into a 'scandal'.

What is telling, of course, are the little jokes about the government knowing everything we are doing; the mockery towards the President for his telling us we should be having this discussion when if Snowden hadn't revealed there would be no discussion at all; the sad shaking of heads because we know the federal government isn't going to change the NSA.

Rail against Snowden and Greenwald all you want -- out here in real America most people don't care about them; but they are slowly, but surely having a raising level of disgust and chagrin the national government is spying on all of us. Parse words and call it metadata retrieval (hardly anybody knows what that means), Americans now know that we are under surveillance by our own government.

And Pres. Obama seems either petulant towards the revelation of these NSA programs or oddly indifferent towards the rising negative feelings of the American people about this activity.

It is a sad thing, but this scandal has really undercut some of the foundational aspects of what the Obama presidency was supposed to be about, i.e., openness, transparency, honesty, change, progress, etc. Of all the unfortunate things that Pres. Obama has had to deal with in the last five and half years, nothing has made him look so much a captive of the elite, national security establishment as these NSA revelations.

And he acts as if he doesn't really care, or that he is helpless, too, in the face of these programs.

I don't think this is going to hurt the Democrats in the 2014 elections, the lunacy of the Teapublicans will still cause them great loses I predict.

This is a personal political problem for Barack Obama, himself ... and I don't know what he can do to recover.

[uponit7771]

75. ...said FAUX news

[earthside]

77. There is a 'Liberal/MSNBC' bubble, too.

If you think this NSA controversy is just some kind of Tea Party-Fox News concoction, then you are inside the alternate reality bubble.

This is a serious issue, it is actually gaining traction in middle America and it is certainly not a positive for Pres. Obama.

[uponit7771]

73. No he's not, and screw Snowden the Paulian supporters

[Octafish]

2. Dehumanization - for effective psyops

Kill. Kill. Kill.

[Puzzledtraveller]

13. They already admitted they wouldnt be making these posts if a republican was in office.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3489923

[Octafish]

22. Thanks for the heads-up!

It's nice to know who believes in democracy.

[Little Star]

29. Wow! Just wow.

[ProSense]

34. I did.

"They already admitted they wouldnt be making these posts if a republican was in office."

Is there a reason you're extrapolating to others? Yes, I did admit that.

I mean, I opposed Bush's illegal spying. Bush is a liar. He bypassed the FISA court and actually eavesdropped on Americans. I think Republicans are liars so it's not unreasonable for me to admit that I "wouldnt be making these posts if a republican was in office."

You might not be worried about President Barack Obama abusing the immense surveillance powers of the U.S. government, but what if someone like Sarah Palin gets elected?

That is the argument Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) gave in support of his legislation to rein in the National Security Agency during a recent interview with Los Angeles activist Lauren Steiner.

“I heard Rush Limbaugh ranting almost incoherently about this just a few days ago on the radio,” the congressman said. “He is very concerned about the fact that ‘Dictator Obama’ can get this information. I’m more concerned about the possibility that Dictator Palin can get this information, but regardless of who we are concerned about, the fact is we are both concerned.”

Rep. Alan Grayson on NSA SPYING: What if ‘DICTATOR PALIN’ GETS ELECTED?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023432337

What's interesting about the most recent release is that the one incident that wasn't reported to Congress happened during the Bush administration, and it was reported to Congress by the Obama administration.

On the NSA, this is what happens when reports conflate the Bush and Obama administrations.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023471576

I can't make a similar correlation. I mean, the notion that the ideal progressive President wouldn't be questioned about the scope of surveillance is a hypothetical for which there is no basis for comparison in this country.

Snowden and Venezuela: My bizarre experience in the surveillance state

In 2009, a private call placed from the US by Isabel Lara to her mother was broadcast on Venezuelan state TV. Secretly taped calls are routinely used there to disgrace political enemies—or worse. To locals, the South American surveillance state is an odd place for government transparency advocate and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to end up.

Edward Snowden is heading to Venezuela? Seriously?

The Venezuelan government's offer of "humanitarian asylum" to Edward Snowden rang hollow to most Venezuelans, who are by now used to the government spying on opposition leaders, journalists and even their own loyalists. Not only does the government routinely record their phone conversations, it broadcasts them on government-owned TV channels.

The news that the NSA leaker has been offered asylum in Venezuela seems especially ironic to my mother and me. A few years ago, we had the bizarre experience of hearing one of our private phone calls aired on Venezuelan TV. It was played over and over again and "analyzed" by pro-government talk show host Mario Silva—a man who is now in disgrace himself because, in a weird twist of fate, a recording of him was leaked and broadcast on TV.

What was most surreal about our experience was that there was no excuse or justification for taping our phone conversation. None was needed. The government just had it.

- more -

http://boingboing.net/2013/07/08/snowden-and-venezuela-my-biza.html

[NuclearDem]

65. Wow, I hope that gets linked in every single one of these threads from now on.

[ProSense]

74. LOL!

[HardTimes99]

3. Snowden and Manning should each receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom and

should co-share a Nobel Peace Prize (each pursued change non-violently).

[dkf]

4. I'm beginning to think your obliviousness to reality is some sort of logic blind spot.

It really is getting to 2+2=5.

[ProSense]

5. Wait,

"I'm beginning to think your obliviousness to reality is some sort of logic blind spot. It really is getting to 2+2=5."

...whose "reality," yours? I mean, does "reality" mean being gullible to Greenwald/Snowden hype? Oh, and spare me the cheap insults, which is the only rebuttal Snowden fans appear to have when anyone disagrees with them.

Rep. John Lewis: No Praise for Snowden
Aug 8, 2013

“News reports about my interview with The Guardian are misleading, and they do not reflect my complete opinion. Let me be clear. I do not agree with what Mr. Snowden did. He has damaged American international relations and compromised our national security. He leaked classified information and may have jeopardized human lives. That must be condemned.

“ I never praised Mr. Snowden or said his actions rise to those of Mohandas Gandhi or other civil rights leaders. In fact, The Guardian itself agreed to retract the word “praise” from its headline.

“At the end of an interview about the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, I was asked what I thought about Mr. Snowden’s actions. I said he has a right as an individual to act according to the dictates of his conscience, but he must be prepared to pay the price for taking that action. In the movement, we were arrested, we went to jail, we were prepared to pay the price, even lose our lives if necessary. I cannot say and I did not say that what Mr. Snowden did is right. Others will be the judge of that.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023427908

Harry Reid: I think Snowden is a traitor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023485812

[dkf]

11. This isn't hype. It's the state of our government officials and their failure to uphold their duty,

Their oath to uphold the constitution.

Snowden gave us the tools to understand this reality, but its everything else that is emerging from the government that is eye opening.

I honestly hope you get it one day. What drives you anyway? Is it pure belief in Obama specifically or is it belief in the party or in government?

I'm just curious where you will be once Obama is out of office.

[ProSense]

16. You

"Snowden gave us the tools to understand this reality, but its everything else that is emerging from the government that is eye opening. "

...appear to be hung up on Snowden and insults.

"I honestly hope you get it one day. What drives you anyway? Is it pure belief in Obama specifically or is it belief in the party or in government? "

Get what? That the NSA exists? That it has a mission? That the FISA amendments are controversial? That the scope of the program is being challenged? That there is a debate about oversight?

What exactly do you think I "don't get"? Apparently, based on the responses (mostly personal attacks) to this OP, it's that Snowden is a "whistleblower."

He's not. What about the OP point, don't you get?

[cali]

6. more like rooted in loyalty to the President

[ProSense]

8. Is your comment "rooted in loyalty" to Snowden?

I mean, I made my case in the OP. Your response appears to be deflection.

[Harmony Blue]

10. Snowden is a handsome man

but I prefer the ladies. Thanks for asking though!

[cali]

18. Uh, have no loyalty to Snowden.

I'm glad that he did what he did as nothing else has sparked this kind of debate over mass surveillance and I don't blame him for hightailing it, but that's as far as it goes.

And you know that, pro.

[ProSense]

24. So why was your first response an attempt to deflect?

I'm glad that he did what he did as nothing else has sparked this kind of debate over mass surveillance and I don't blame him for hightailing it, but that's as far as it goes. "

Revealing U.S. state secrets to other countries has nothing to do with a debate over domestic surveillance.

The lawmakers, in a letter sent Monday to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, noted that the leaks involving Army Private Bradley Manning and National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden come two years after an executive order establishing accountability measures following revelations of previous security leaks. While there are guidelines in place to respond to such security breaches, the two Senators wrote, “What does appear lacking the aftermath of both leak cases is accountability.”

“We are not aware of any individuals or organizations that have been held responsible in the Manning or Snowden leak cases,” the lawmakers wrote. “While preventing unauthorized disclosures is increasingly challenging, the Department of Defense employs a vast security infrastructure under the direction of numerous senior officials for precisely that purpose. Have any of these individuals or organizations been held accountable, and if so, at what level, in what number, and in what manner? Finally, what further steps are being taken to reduce the chance of similar incidents occurring in the future?”

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-graham-send-bipartisan-letter-to-secretary-hagel-seeking-accountability-over-security-leaks

Senate pushes sanctions on nations aiding Snowden
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023338422

[cali]

20. oh yeah. and pro it's the sum total of your endless defense of everything that

this admin does not to mention adoring posts about how Obama will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents.


sorry, pro, but my record of posting on Snowden just doesn't demonstrate adulation like YOUR posts about the President do. Not even close, pro. wrong again, pro.

[dkf]

23. See this is your blind spot...we are concerned about our rights.

You've got it tied to Snowden who has done us a great service, but this is so much bigger than one person.

That is where you have it all messed up I think. You can't see the bigger picture, because you are ultra focused on one man. Actually three men...Snowden, Greenwald, and Obama.

[ProSense]

27. Maybe your "blind spot" is being self-righteous?

"You've got it tied to Snowden who has done us a great service, but this is so much bigger than one person."

Again, you appear to be hung up on Snowden.

[cascadiance]

68. And YOUR blind spot is that you continue to ignore what he provided us!

He provided us PROOF in documentation that there was blanket spying on all of us (at least with one document on all Verizon customers that probably is replicated for other phone service carriers). That gives us the ability to *HAVE STANDING* so that we can *GO TO COURT* and find out what exactly the NSA and other entities are doing in terms of spying on people without cause against their constitutional rights given to all of us by the 4th amendment!

Again YOU are projecting that we are hung up on Snowden when it is YOU who are hung up on him and trying to make everything point to him instead of the information he provided us! Did you go through a proxy server today so that Skinner couldn't see that you are coming in from the NSA?... He seemed to be saying that there were a number of posts demonizing Snowden, etc. from there.

Russ Tice was basically saying the same thing about warrantless spying many years back when Bush was in office. And yes, he was a Republican. He didn't have the "proof" documents and only what he said then, which is why it didn't go anywhere then, in addition to complicit Democrats wanting to "move forward" and not investigate Bush, Cheney, and those in charge then. Why would Tice do this if only bringing down the president and the president's party is a motivation for what he and Snowden have done? Can't you see that he as well as Snowden might have been giving us this information as a way they perceived to serve this country and its citizens' rights and not to play partisan politics?

[Mojorabbit]

40. I am sorry but you did not make any such thing in your op. nt

[bowens43]

7. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....etc LOL!!

[ProSense]

9. Well, thanks for proving that you have no point. LOL! n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

14. In a democracy the people make the definitons which function under the law, not the AP 'style book'.

Citing the 'Style Book' is almost as funny as your theory that libertarians have a 'brand' to bolster. No electoral votes but a brand nonetheless! Because it is about style, not law!!!!

[ProSense]

19. Yeah,

"In a democracy the people make the definitons which function under the law, not the AP 'style book'."

...so why are people trying to redefine the legal definition of a whistleblower?

The AP definition tracks with the actual legal definition.

"A whistle-blower is a person who exposes wrongdoing. It's not a person who simply asserts that what he has uncovered is illegal or immoral."

[PowerToThePeople]

15. trashcanned. n/t

[tularetom]

17. Have you ever considered the possibility that Snowden is merely a self serving douche

and yet has done the right thing by exposing potentially illegal activities by the Obama administration?

[cali]

21. +1

[ProSense]

26. You agree that Snowden is a "a self serving douche"? n/t

[cascadiance]

70. You continue to miss the point that what you say ISN'T the point!

The point of importance is what he provided us in terms of information of what the NSA has been doing that arguably is violating our civil liberties in violation of the 4th amendment. YOU and we should be looking at those documents. If there are points of contention, or Snowden asks us to trust his words or opinion without evidence to back them up, THEN you can question his credibility in measuring that information. But what he's provided us isn't really arguable in my book. And if there are arguments against this information being factual, THAT is what you should be focusing on and providing us information to question their validity, etc. Then you might have a LOT more respect here than you do now from so many that hear your constant interruptions. But since you and many with these same talking points here AVOID doing that, it tells us that you have NOTHING to contend with what was given us, and are continue to try playing Republican and corporatist tactics trying to distract us away from the real issues and trying to get us emotionally stirred up with those irrelevant issues.

[ProSense]

25. No,

"Have you ever considered the possibility that Snowden is merely a self serving douche and yet has done the right thing by exposing potentially illegal activities by the Obama administration?"

...but it's good to know that you consider him "a self serving douche."

Snowden hasn't revealed any "illegal" activities.

[tularetom]

42. You mean "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal"?

[ProSense]

46. What on earth did you get that from my comment?

Were you just looking for an opportunity to post that?

[Hydra]

64. Because that's the logical answer

And what this Admin is pushing for, which you are helping with.

These programs are not legal. They have been found to be not legal. That's why they were secret.

They only way this could all be legal is if the President is not subject to any legal standard. Is that what you'd like to see?

[tularetom]

69. You imply, I infer

I could fill a page with striking blue links in which you have implied extra-legal powers for the current president.

Political disingenuousness is just as repulsive when it's perpetrated by a nice guy like President Obama as it is when a slimy individual like Nixon does it.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. "A lot of people in 2008 voted for Obama. I did not vote for him."

"...I voted for a third party."

And which 3rd party was that? The one with Bob Barr as nominee?

[1-Old-Man]

30. Hasn't President Obama called him a whistle blower?

in press conferences, in answering passing reporters, in his speeches?

I don't care much if people call him a whistle blower or not myself. Personally I call him a Patriot.

[HERVEPA]

31. Jesus H. Christ, you never give up, do you?

Most of the rest of us don't want to live in your world you know.

[hughee99]

32. Can someone help me with this comment from the first excerpt

"A whistle-blower is a person who exposes wrongdoing. It's not a person who simply asserts that what he has uncovered is illegal or immoral."

If someone uncovers something immoral or certainly illegal, haven't they "exposed wrongdoing"? What is "wrongdoing" if it is not immoral or illegal?

[ProSense]

35. "asserts"

Anyone can say anything.

[hughee99]

37. Ah, so someone needs to be sure that what they are seeing is illegal

before saying anything. That certainly makes it more convenient for those looking to cover things up, especially when the laws regarding such information are unclear or secret.

[ProSense]

38. No,

"Ah, so someone needs to be sure that what they are seeing is illegal

before saying anything. That certainly makes it more convenient for those looking to cover things up, especially when the laws regarding such information are unclear or secret."

...which is why there are channels and protections for whistleblowers, and these protections do not extend to release U.S. state secrets to other countries.

[hughee99]

43. Well, as long as such a person can escalate their concerns to the guy

who gave the "least untruthful answers possible" to congress, or eventually to an independent panel chosen by that guy, I'm sure that system would work just fine.

Thankfully, Snowden is neither a whistleblower or a leaker, since the info he gave to Greenwald was old news... or it wasn't true. I'm not sure which one the defenders are going with at the moment.

[ProSense]

44. Yeah,

"Thankfully, Snowden is neither a whistleblower or a leaker, since the info he gave to Greenwald was old news... or it wasn't true. I'm not sure which one the defenders are going with at the moment. "

...I've heard that argument from Snowden defenders: What could he possibly have revealed to China that they didn't already know.

The point is that your attempt to make this about "the defenders" isn't a rebuttal of the OP or the the fact that Snowden isn't a whistleblower.

[hughee99]

47. Actually, I heard "old news" from the NSA defenders...

remember the "all this information was known years ago during the * administration"? That was before the "he's lying" and "he just hates Obama" defenses and well before "he's revealing state secrets" defense. I'm not sure when the "It's in our national interests" defense and the "It's all legal (now)" came up so I can't really work those into the timeline.

My favorite, though, was "The President was going to talk about this anyway", because that's just flat an out-and-out lie. President Obama may have been aware of the issues that have already been put out there, and maybe he was even planning to review and reform the NSA's practices, but I guarantee he wasn't planning on having an UNPROMPTED national conversation about what the government has been doing in the past and why we should reform it.

[GeorgeGist]

33. Did you notice this major caveat?

(Of course, we can quote other people who call them whistle-blowers.)

[ProSense]

36. That has nothing to do with the point.

It's a news organization. It qoutes people.

[DesMoinesDem]

39. Surely this wall of blue links, your 240th on the subject, will be the one to convince everyone!

[ProSense]

41. It wasn't written to convince anyone.

"Surely this wall of blue links, your 240th on the subject, will be the one to convince everyone!"

It was posted to state my opinion, and evidently, it attracted you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. "that'll help the debate about NSA domestic surveillance" - well, yes, it will

GCHQ is one of the major contractors of the NSA, along with Booz Allen Hamilton, being paid $150 million by the USA for espionage services. So information about the contractor's activities will further enlighten the debate about NSA domestic surveillance, especially since GCHQ is not constitutionally limited from any form of spying on Americans, and has long been suspected as doing this for the NSA, before 'laundering' the results to hide that it comes from spying on Americans, and passing it back to the NSA or other arms of the US government.

[ProSense]

48. No,

"GCHQ is one of the major contractors of the NSA, along with Booz Allen Hamilton, being paid $150 million by the USA for espionage services. So information about the contractor's activities will further enlighten the debate about NSA domestic surveillance, especially since GCHQ is not constitutionally limited from any form of spying on Americans, and has long been suspected as doing this for the NSA, before 'laundering' the results to hide that it comes from spying on Americans, and passing it back to the NSA or other arms of the US government."

...that's about foreign surveillance. That has nothing to do with the FISA debate, and you're making assumptions.

Files released in June 2010

The files contain details of the recently avowed UKUSA Agreement - the top secret, post-war arrangement for sharing intelligence between the United States and the UK. Signed by representatives of the London Signals Intelligence Board and its American counterpart in March 1946, the UKUSA Agreement is without parallel in the Western intelligence world and formed the basis for co-operation between the two countries throughout the Cold War.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukusa/

UKUSA Agreement Release 1940-1956
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ukusa.shtml

This is the larger problem with Greenwald's reporting. It's leading to unrelated issues being conflated, and the facts about domestic surveillance are being obscured.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. What has been made public about the middle of last century is not very relevant

This is about what spying is done in the 21st century. It's not all in public view yet, and maybe Greenwald will reveal some of it. That will help the debate about the NSA.

[ProSense]

53. What's

"It's not all in public view yet, and maybe Greenwald will reveal some of it."

...he waiting for?

What you posted about the UK has nothing to do with the FISA debate.

[hobbit709]

49. More NONsense

[snappyturtle]

56. All I can say is that I envy the copy and paste skills. It must

be tiresome though. Over, and over, and over, and over.........
ad infinitum. Consistency is also a good trait.

[ProSense]

60. LOL! n/t

[hobbit709]

62. Lord Whorfin has a message

[SidDithers]

51. DU rec. but you're not going to convince 'em...

The Snowden apologists think they've got Paul Revere, Che Gueverra and Pope John Paul II all wrapped up in one person, with Greenwald doing his PR.

Minor details, like the law, cant compete with sputtering, impotent outrage.

Sid

[SwampG8r]

52. oh look! a fresh steaming pile of bullshit

I am sure I asked for it to be delivered to the garden in the back yard though
not to worry though I am sure the Steaming Pile of Bullshit Company will deliver another any minute now

[ProSense]

61. You ordered a "steaming pile of bullshit"?

Why would you do that?

"I am sure I asked for it to be delivered to the garden in the back yard though "

Not only that, but why are you looking for your order in a DU post?

Weird.

[SwampG8r]

71. for my winter garden of course

and here is where its delivered daily

[Zorra]

55. Whistleblower: an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Another epic propaganda fail.

[ProSense]

58. Whistleblower: a leaker who reveals U.S. state secrets to other countries

?

"Whistleblower: an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it"

What "wrongdoing" did he reveal? I mean there's a lot of debate about controversial programs, but what "wrongdoing" did he reveal?

That's the "epic propaganda fail."

[Zorra]

63. lol ~ nevermind nt

[NuclearDem]

57. Yeah, turns out I trust the ACLU, EFF, and other civil liberties groups more than I trust you.

Principle vs. personality, you know.

[ProSense]

66. Do you

"Yeah, turns out I trust the ACLU, EFF, and other civil liberties groups more than I trust you."

...agree with the ACLU on these:


ACLU Urges No Vote On DISCLOSE ACT
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-urges-no-vote-disclose-act

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission

How about the EFF points here:

1. Obama will work with Congress to "pursue appropriate reforms to Section 215 of the Patriot Act." This is the subsection of law used to justify the bulk collection of telephone records. Several bills have been introduced this Congress that attempt to tighten up this law, and we’re glad to see Obama will be supportive of such efforts.

2. Obama will work with Congress to improve public confidence in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) by creating a public advocate that can defend privacy in the court. We were pleased that Obama specifically promised "to make sure civil liberties concerns have an independent voice, in appropriate cases, by ensuring that the government's position is challenged by an adversary" in the extremely secretive FISC. This could be a powerful reform, and one we would wholeheartedly support (especially, for example, if organizations like EFF can serve as the adversary on occasion). However, whether this is actually implemented in a meaningful way remains to be seen.

3. Obama has directed the intelligence community "to make public as much information about these programs as possible." First, "these programs" must include "all surveillance programs," not just those that have been leaked so far. The NSA is supposed to put in place a full time civil liberties and privacy officer and create a website that details its surveillance practices. This should have happened long ago, though we think this is a step in the right direction. However, any such website must actually provide real answers about surveillance rather than obfuscations and word games.

4. Obama is creating a "high level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence and communications technologies." This group will be tasked with creating an interim report in 60 days and a final report by the end of the year that should address the impact of surveillance technologies, including potential abuses as well as the impact on foreign policy. We’re not certain whether Obama is planning on having the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board fulfill this role or whether he is planning on creating a new board, but it is very clear that any group of experts will struggle to have independence, adequate subpoena power, resources and staff time, as well as the political clout necessary to have a meaningful impact on our current surveillance regime. We hope that Obama ensures that this expert board has the information it needs to do its job.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439446#post1

[NuclearDem]

67. No, I don't agree with CU, or their stance on the DA

And yes, I think the EFF's statements are fair and accurate.

At the very least, they aren't partisan hacks.

[ProSense]

72. See, it's possible to disagree with the ACLU. n/t

[NuclearDem]

79. Given both yours and the ACLU's track record, I'm more inclined toward the latter.

The ACLU defends civil liberties whether we like the plaintiffs or not.

You defend Democrats at all cost and demonize critics at all cost, whether they're right or wrong.

The ACLU is right about this. You're not.

[Vashta Nerada]

59. Snowden is a whistleblower.

How is he not?

[one_voice]

76. Faster than a speeding bullet...

able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

It's Snowden!




Relax it's just a joke for those who think he's beyond reproach.


Whistleblower, leaker, whatever, for me he's still a thief. He took something that didn't belong to him. That's calling stealing. Whether it was with good intentions or not, it's still stealing. Stealing is a crime.

I'm not defending NSA/spying by calling what Snowden did what it was, a crime.

I have not EVER defended NSA/spying.

[railsback]

78. You'd think with all this effort, time and money spent on trying to vindicate Snowden

it could have been used on REAL important issues, like legalizing marijuana