PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jim Logajan on March 20, 2021, 10:00:14 PM
-
Long, but worth watching. (I watched at double speed and found it comprehensible, but I’be had a lot of recent practice at watching sped-up videos that are mostly people talking.)
Stossel says “I once was unsure if Edward Snowden -- who leaked documents showing that the NSA spied on Americans -- was a hero, or a traitor who made us all less safe.
Now I've done my research, and I think he's a hero. What do you think? Our full interview, above, will help you decide.”
Covers his rationale for why he did what he did and makes the point late in the interview that big tech has set things up to manipulate people who use their services. Presumably only to make money, but there is nothing stopping the government from pressuring the firms to use those tools of manipulation to the government’s will.
-
I haven’t watched it yet but your summary of Stossel’s journey is just like mine.
At first I leaned toward feeling he’s a traitor. That is based on my understanding of the NSA mission. The world has changed from the Cold War days. Domestic communications and foreign are no longer easily discernible. Before the internet, the NSA (which is authorized to spy on foreign communications) would simply tap overseas lines but could not tap your domestic landline without a warrant. Likewise paper letters entering or leaving the country can be intercepted but not domestic mail. Technology changed all that, with the internet’s tangled global web, message origin/destination can easily be spoofed. On top of that it became very clear on 9/11 that we have sleeper cells within our borders. These changes required the NSA’s powers be broadened to include spying on domestic communications which of course meant cell phone data since the whole phone system was becoming digital and wireless.
The NSA needed this to do its job of protecting us from terrorists. But it presents the obvious constitutional problem. The solution turned out to be the FISA court which was already in existence at the time of the Patriot Act but was tweaked to cover the broad data collection now in play. At that point in time, I, and I’m sure many others, worried that this would eventually be weaponized against U.S. citizens for reasons unrelated to foreign terrorist threat, and of course in 2016 that scenario came true.
However, Snowden’s disclosures occurred prior to 2016. And, just like Sean Hannity keeps repeating ad nauseum about the rank and file FBI, I know that the rank and file NSA are good people who just want to protect the U.S from terrorists. So I took Snowden’s disclosure as a betrayal.
But during Trump’s administration we all found out how the FISA court was lied to and the NSA database abused by the left for internal political purposes (to try to damage Trump during and after his campaign). Thus my fear back in 2001 about the Patriot Act came true and much sooner than I expected. I have since listened to Snowden’s interviews and gained understanding of the depth and breadth of the violation of our privacy that the surveillance and data storage represent, and how very weak the FISA barrier is to protect us from it being abused.
Thus my opinion of Snowden transformed and now I view him as a hero. He could have had a very lucrative lifelong career with the NSA. There’s a good chance he would have been hired as a direct employee with all the perks and benefits of a cushy federal job. His conscience wouldn’t let him. He gave that up because he couldn’t live with himself being part of what he saw as a huge threat to our U.S. constitutional rights. He risked life in prison, possible torture and maybe assassination. He protected his coworkers, made sure everyone knew it was all on him and no one else. I believe his words in the recording of the conversation he had with the reporter were, “Nail me to the cross, leave them out of it.”
And maybe that was because in all of this it’s not the NSA that are the bad actors, it’s their “customers”, the FBI, DOJ and whatever Marxist cabal is running the show right now. So he really did betray the good people at the NSA who just want to catch terrorists, but he had to, to do what is right for the nation and its people: us.
Your last sentence summarizes it perfectly. We are in this situation because of Big Tech. The NSA isn’t creating these programs out of malice, they are only using tools that have come into existence and that’s not necessarily wrong. The same data they’re collecting on you and I they are collecting on foreign countries hostile to us. If they don’t, those countries sure as hell are, and we cannot stay at a disadvantage.
The real protection for our privacy wasn’t the FISA court, it turned out to be fair elections and a functioning constitutional government. FISA court abuses would then eventually be exposed and dealt with in the Supreme Court by justices concerned with upholding the Constitution, not transforming society. Then they need to tackle the problem of Big Tech monopolies. It was Trump leading us in that direction and he was in the process of draining the swamp of the evil creatures that would abuse the surveillance database.
-
You might call him a hero, but he failed to honor the oath he swore.
You can try to justify it any way you want, but that person is without honor.
-
You might call him a hero, but he failed to honor the oath he swore.
You can try to justify it any way you want, but that person is without honor.
No. As a contractor, not a federal employee, Snowden did not take the Oath of Office and swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. All he did was sign a secrecy agreement, promising not to disclose classified information. That’s not the same thing. He did break that promise but in his mind, in doing so he was defending the Constitution, even though he hadn’t sworn to defend it.
There is debate about whether contractors to Federal agencies should swear the oath, as more and more work is being farmed out, but to my knowledge this hasn’t happened yet and in any case wasn’t in place in 2013 to apply to Snowden.
-
No. As a contractor, not a federal employee, Snowden did not take the Oath of Office and swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. All he did was sign a secrecy agreement, promising not to disclose classified information. That’s not the same thing. He did break that promise but in his mind, in doing so he was defending the Constitution, even though he hadn’t sworn to defend it.
There is debate about whether contractors to Federal agencies should swear the oath, as more and more work is being farmed out, but to my knowledge this hasn’t happened yet and in any case wasn’t in place in 2013 to apply to Snowden.
<sigh>
Perhaps he didn't say the words out loud but at the very least he signed a document amounting to the same thing.
He is without honor.
edit: and even without signing any document, it is my understanding that it is illegal for anyone to knowingly reveal classified information.
"anyone" means you, me, and everyone else.
and I didn't say anything about swearing an oath to defend and protect the Constitution.
-
I'm torn on this issue.
At first, I was outraged and would not have batted an eye if he was arrested and executed for treason.
But now, I'm not so sure. I'll admit I am not fully educated on the full extent of what he revealed, but if he exposed a breach of trust that was in violation of the Constitution, then not only was he justified, he may have been honor bound to do what he did. Citizens have rights. The government has enumerated powers. Spying on, and violating the rights of the citizens is not among them.
On the other hand, what he did was damaging to national security. Thus my indecision.
-
you might have had a valid point if (and only if) what he did was the only option available.
Alas, no, he had other options than revealing classified information.
-
you might have had a valid point if (and only if) what he did was the only option available.
Alas, no, he had other options than revealing classified information.
And I'll agree that you have a point, if he had other viable options that he did not pursue.
-
you might have had a valid point if (and only if) what he did was the only option available.
Alas, no, he had other options than revealing classified information.
Actually he didn't. He had observed what happened to others going through the approved protocol as whistleblowers for these same things, and saw that it gets blocked, the person is then removed from the job and made to understand what will happen to him if he persists. Going through proper channels as it turns out, is a formal remedy in law, but not followed in practice by the swamp dwellers.
-
<sigh>
Perhaps he didn't say the words out loud but at the very least he signed a document amounting to the same thing.
No, it does not amount to the same thing. Whether spoken aloud or signed isn’t the issue. The document he signed was swearing an oath, but it wasn’t to defend the Constitution, it was only to not reveal classified information.
edit: and even without signing any document, it is my understanding that it is illegal for anyone to knowingly reveal classified information.
"anyone" means you, me, and everyone else.
No. That is not automatically true. If you or I reveal classified information we obtained somehow, then either we are guilty of espionage, or we have merely exercised our first amendment right. Which it is would be sorted out through the judicial system.
But if a government employee or contractor who has signed the NDA reveals classified information, he has automatically broken the law, a very specific one with specific punishments outlined in the non-disclosure agreement he signed. “Anyone” isn’t covered under that agreement.
-
The game FedGov plays with domestic spying is to farm the work out to contractors. This is why many of the spy agency heads leave federal government positions and head up private companies to be contracted to FedGov.
While the various agencies have mandates not to spy on citizens, the contractor doesn’t. It’s this bureaucratic slight of hand that has gotten out of control.
Want to end it? End contracting of intelligence services and hold agencies accountable. But the establishment class like their private spy agencies.
Snowden? I consider him a whistleblower. Had he used federal channels to whistleblow he would have been silenced.
-
No, it does not amount to the same thing. Whether spoken aloud or signed isn’t the issue. The document he signed was swearing an oath, but it wasn’t to defend the Constitution, it was only to not reveal classified information.
I never wrote that his oath was to defend the Constitution. Don't pull out that strawman.
-
No. That is not automatically true. If you or I reveal classified information we obtained somehow, then either we are guilty of espionage, or we have merely exercised our first amendment right. Which it is would be sorted out through the judicial system.
Are you trying to claim that is okay dokey for someone to knowingly reveal classified information just as long they didn't sign a document agreeing to protect classified information?
-
The FedGov has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate its contempt of the citizens. The slight of hand agreements with contractors to circumvent individual privacy is appalling.
Whistleblowers should have protection when they discover illegal activities in government, but reality says different.
Had Snowden gone the formal whistleblower route no one outside of the NSA would have ever heard about it.
-
edit: and even without signing any document, it is my understanding that it is illegal for anyone to knowingly reveal classified information.
"anyone" means you, me, and everyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States):
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.[1]
President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of The New York Times to print the materials.[1]
-
Why do people still believe there Government cares about them one iota.
-
Look at the fucked up situation we have in our country right now. Look at all the people who swore to defend the Constitution and didn’t. Look who’s in the Oval Office and how they got there. Right is wrong and up is down. The protections we counted on are collapsing. To clean this up is going to require exposing the corruption. By whatever means that exposure is done.
-
I never wrote that his oath was to defend the Constitution. Don't pull out that strawman.
When you said it amounted to the same thing, you were talking about a verbal oath vs signing a document. I misunderstood and thought you were saying the secrecy agreement was the same as the oath to defend the constitution. My apologies.
-
Are you trying to claim that is okay dokey for someone to knowingly reveal classified information just as long they didn't sign a document agreeing to protect classified information?
No and I didn’t say that. Now it’s you who are mischaracterizing what I said. I said either it is espionage, or it is okay via the first amendment. Which depends on the specifics of the disclosure.
-
I’m in the middle on this.
I have no trust in our government, and feel our intelligence apparatus is obtaining information unlawfully.
While there is no constitutionally protected right to privacy, I admire whistleblowers to bring some domestic snooping to light.
On the other hand, this little fuck disclosed international operations, so much that MI6 had to withdraw their agents from some countries, ISIS and other terror organizations altered their means of operations, and people are alleged to have died because of this.
He also went to Hong Kong (aka CCP) and to Moscow, no doubt sharing US secrets with these communist governments. That is an unforgivable act of treason, and deserves the firing squad.
No one man should act as the sole purveyor of what should and shouldn’t be disclosed to the world.
-
I’m in the middle on this.
I have no trust in our government, and feel our intelligence apparatus is obtaining information unlawfully.
While there is no constitutionally protected right to privacy,
I thought the 4th amendment more or less was a protected right to privacy.
I admire whistleblowers to bring some domestic snooping to light.
On the other hand, this little fuck disclosed international operations, so much that MI6 had to withdraw their agents from some countries, ISIS and other terror organizations altered their means of operations, and people are alleged to have died because of this.
Not sure I believe these reports, if they originate from the same government agencies that are doing the snooping they've been lying to us about. Or from others in the swamp for that matter, any of them, politicians or the media for that matter.
In any case, even if this is true, maybe it should be balanced against the harm that comes to the world from the government being allowed to get away with this. It's the moral dilemma of, if there is a train headed to kill 5 people and you can throw a switch so it will change to another track and only kill one person, would you do it?
He also went to Hong Kong (aka CCP) and to Moscow, no doubt sharing US secrets with these communist governments. That is an unforgivable act of treason, and deserves the firing squad.
According to him, everything he disclosed publicly was everything he had. He made sure he had no access to any other information that could be tortured out of him. And he's no communist sympathizer. But then, why should I believe he's telling the truth? I don't know, I just believe him more than I believe say James Clapper, who we now know lied to us, or Comey or any number of the rest of them who lie to us on a regular basis.
No one man should act as the sole purveyor of what should and shouldn’t be disclosed to the world.
I disagree. One man will often do the right thing, when a committee will not.
Under normal circumstances with an honorable government you are right, no one man should decide what to disclose to the public, but we find ourselves in extreme circumstances, with the rise of data collection technology at light speed and with laws and ethics not at all keeping up. A now hopelessly malignant government has become a runaway train with no accountability and no apparent limits. The supposed limits have been proven to be easily bypassed with absolutely no consequences. Has anybody gone to jail yet for lying to the FISA court?
How long should we have waited for these people to collectively decide we have the right to know the extent we are all being spied on? They never would have told us. This is a case where only one single man can do what's right.
-
https://twitter.com/EmeraldRobinson/status/1374415479545065476
-
When I see the fbi and military actively discriminating against republicans, conservatives and anyone who doesn't suck down their bullshit, I applaud the Snowden's of the world.
Fuck the EU and all it's members if it was inconvenient for him to out the traitors within the government.
-
-
When I see the fbi and military actively discriminating against republicans, conservatives and anyone who doesn't suck down their bullshit, I applaud the Snowden's of the world.
Fuck the EU and all it's members if it was inconvenient for him to out the traitors within the government.
That's one way to look at it and I tend to agree. We are dealing with corrupt agencies, all with leadership doing the Left's bidding. NSA, FBI, CIA, EPA, IRS, even NASA and NOAA. ALL CORRUPTED at least at the top and where it matters.