Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
questionmark

Snowden (2009) berated government leaks

26 posts in this topic

Just four years before Edward J. Snowden set off an international firestorm by disclosing highly classified National Security Agency documents, someone using his screen name expressed outrage at government officials who leaked information to the news media, telling a friend in an Internet chat that leakers “should be shot,” according to chat logs made public on Wednesday by the technology news Web site Ars Technica, which hosted the exchanges.

“They’re just like WikiLeaks,” Mr. Snowden — or someone identified as him from his screen name and other details — wrote in January 2009 about an article in The New York Times on secret exchanges between Israel and the United States about Iran’s nuclear program.

Read more

et tu Brutus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's true and accurate, maybe he was trying to score brownie points and bolster his resume for Booz Allen?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe, just maybe it wasn't him. Might have been the gov creating false info... or more then likely someone else with the same name ;)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe, just maybe it wasn't him. Might have been the gov creating false info... or more then likely someone else with the same name ;)

Also another reason to not be allowing a government to database everything on us for their convenience.

Maybe he did think that 4 years ago, are people not allowed to change their minds? I was under the impression you're supposed to be getting smarter and gain wisdom as life goes on. Don't we all celebrate when a racist stops with their prejudice? Don't we applaud those who admit their mistakes and turn over a new leaf?

Or maybe, he still expects this punishment, but felt that his life is worth giving for our Bill of Rights.

On a tangent here, but is this how the government is going to use this information? If I'm suspected of a crime, are they going to go back to when I was 17 years old and pick out snippets in a message board to incriminate me for something 13 years later?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

People change veiws overtime, at the time he could of honestly felt that way. I find it funny how the media is trying to dig up anything to discredit him.

At the end of the day what he did was tells us the goverment is spying on us, and he proved it.

I dont care about all the random information about his social life.

Edited by spartan max2
8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe he did think that 4 years ago, are people not allowed to change their minds? I was under the impression you're supposed to be getting smarter and gain wisdom as life goes on.

*snip*

Or maybe, he still expects this punishment, but felt that his life is worth giving for our Bill of Rights.

Growing up usually means abandoning teenage revolutionary ideas.

A whistleblower willing to risk their life remains in the country. Cowardly traitors flee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Growing up usually means abandoning teenage revolutionary ideas.

A whistleblower willing to risk their life remains in the country. Cowardly traitors flee.

Have you seen what happens to "whistleblowers" who stay in the country? I don't think its cowardly, just smart

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wasn't a buttoned-up organization man he wouldn't have gotten his job at Booz in the first place. We're all entitled to a change of heart. Some people are more stubborn at the proposition than others.

It is the federal government's job to stop violations of our Constitutional rights. When the government is doing the exact opposite, Snowden felt that going to the public with that information was the right thing to do. And people who know what the Constitution says agree with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wasn't a buttoned-up organization man he wouldn't have gotten his job at Booz in the first place. We're all entitled to a change of heart. Some people are more stubborn at the proposition than others.

It is the federal government's job to stop violations of our Constitutional rights. When the government is doing the exact opposite, Snowden felt that going to the public with that information was the right thing to do. And people who know what the Constitution says agree with him.

ha... thats like the hunchback of notre dame telling you to stand straight!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he went after the job with doing something like this in mind. Indeed, I think he had help, 'cause he wasn't qualified and still slipped in. No doubt the authorities will look into all aspects of this in detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the award for poster child for "Thou shalt not judge lest thou be judged for in whatsoever manner ye judge ..." yadi yada, goes to Snowden who has made it clear folk like him "should be shot".

Oh dear ....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Have you seen what happens to "whistleblowers" who stay in the country? I don't think its cowardly, just smart

Leaving means you are no longer a whistleblower. Can you name other whistleblowers who did that? No, Snowdem is a drama llama.

Bradley Manning also is not one, he stayed in the shadows. Whistleblowers stand up and speak out not run away and release information selectively.

Snowden is attempting to calculate his damage toward our security. He is helping our competitors. That is not what whistleblowing is. Look up Serpico.

Edited by The world needs you
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What to do if you genuinely believe the government or your employer is breaking the law (which I seriously doubt was the case here -- here we have an arrogant publicity seeker and an outright traitor)?

There are two obligations in conflict -- the duty of allegiance to one's nation or employer and the duty of obeying the law.

We are often confronted with such conflicts, although usually on much less important matters, and how we come down in such an issue is largely buried in the smaller details of what is going on and how much help or harm the lawbreaking is doing. I do think, though, that when it is national secrets that are involved, if we can't stand it we should still keep our mouth shut -- and only resign if we don't want the personal involvement. It is a less-than-perfect world and we almost certainly do not know the whole story and our judgement is almost certainly not perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between Manning and Snowden, IMHO, is that Manning took specific files... hundreds of thousands of them... which he did not have the time to have examined and gave them away to everyone. He had no idea what damages he might be doing and he did not really care what specific information he gave out.

Snowden did something similar, but all his files he knew what was in them. He knew what he was publishing. He also was specifically trying to expose what he saw as a crime by the government in not telling people that their mail was passing through filters. I don't believe he did anything that directly exposed any people to direct danger. And so in all that, I can respect what he did, even if I think it was technically treasonous. But, Manning I have zero respect for.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't need to be anything close to 'national security' to have one's life threatened ...

Jeffrey S. Wigand (/ˈwɡænd/; born December 17, 1942) is a former vice president of research and development at Brown & Williamson in Louisville, Kentucky, who worked on the development of reduced-harm cigarettes. He lectures around the world as an expert witness and consultant for various tobacco issues, and devotes time to his non-profit organization Smoke-Free Kids Inc, an organization that attempts to help children of all ages make better decisions and healthy choices regarding tobacco use.

Wigand became nationally known as a whistleblower on February 4, 1996 when he appeared on the CBS news program 60 Minutes and stated that Brown & Williamson had intentionally manipulated its tobacco blend to increase the amount of Nicotine in cigarette smoke. Wigand claimed that he was subsequently harassed and received anonymous death threats. Wigand discussed the death threats in an interview.[1]

wiki link

> http://www.mariebrenner.com/PDF/TheManWhoKnewTooMuch.pdf < Brenner, Marie (May 1996), "The Man Who Knew Too Much"

~ all it needs is just someone to feel that their livelihood or ambitions to be threatened to have your life in peril .....

`

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving means you are no longer a whistleblower. Can you name other whistleblowers who did that? No, Snowdem is a drama llama.

Bradley Manning also is not one, he stayed in the shadows. Whistleblowers stand up and speak out not run away and release information selectively.

Snowden is attempting to calculate his damage toward our security. He is helping our competitors. That is not what whistleblowing is. Look up Serpico.

so, you're the one who wrote "whistleblowing, 1. 01"? how would it help anybody if people, who risk enough with releasing information like that, should just sit there and wait until the CIA or whoever invites them for a nice round of waterboarding. I see absolutely NO reason why he shouldn't try to save his life after uncovering the secrets of a corrupt system.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, you're the one who wrote "whistleblowing, 1. 01"? how would it help anybody if people, who risk enough with releasing information like that, should just sit there and wait until the CIA or whoever invites them for a nice round of waterboarding. I see absolutely NO reason why he shouldn't try to save his life after uncovering the secrets of a corrupt system.

Ralph Nader invented the term.

Voted for him once but voting for a third party is throwing your vote away. Not sure I would do so again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

*snip*

Federal law broadly protects whistle-blowers with one exception, employees who are privy to the nation's secrets, said Professor Richard E. Moberly, associate dean of the University of Nebraska College of Law.

"The definition of a whistle-blower depends on the context," he said. "Outside of national security we tend to think very broadly. [Whistle-blowers expose] not only illegal activity, but abuses of power, fraud, financial misconduct, and even unethical choices."

But employees entrusted with state secrets "should be more limited in how and what to disclose," he said.

Under the law, intelligence employees have their own system to report activity they believe violates the law or is unethical. Employees are instructed to report wrongdoing to Congress or their agency's inspector general, Moberly said.

The press, which has made heroes of past whistle-blowers like Jeffrey Wigand who exposed big tobacco's lies and Frank Serpico, an NYPD detective who took on police corruption, have selectively used the word "whistle-blower" to describe Snowden.

The Associated Press, which sets the style for many of its member agencies, issued a memo on Monday telling reporters to call Snowden a "leaker" rather than a "whistleblower."

"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," wrote AP standards editor Tom Kent. "Whether the actions exposed by Snowden and [Pfc. Bradley] Manning constitute wrongdoing is hotly contested, so we should not call them whistle-blowers on our own at this point."

Hero. Traitor. Whistle-Blower. Spy. What to Call NSA Leaker Ed Snowden?

Edward Snowden, who illegally leaked classified information about a National Security Agency intelligence gathering program to a British newspaper last week, had ample legal channels to report what he felt were illegal or improper activities.

The inspector general for the Defense Department runs a hotline for military and intelligence officials to report such conduct in ways that do not disclose classified information to the public.

Experts on national security whistleblower laws say Snowden could also have disclosed the information to members of Congress.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Tuesday that Snowden’s leak did “huge, grave damage” to the country’s intelligence-gathering capabilities.

The Pentagon provides avenues for whistleblowers to disclose alleged wrongdoing in ways that avoid disclosures that could have that affect.

The foremost law providing such an avenue is the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA).

*snip*

Even absent the ICWPA process, Zaid says Snowden could have personally disclosed the information to Congress.

“There are quite a number of members of Congress who he could’ve gone to who would have embraced him. Clearly [sen.] Rand Paul [(R., Ky.)] would have been very interested in this, and Sen. [Ron] Wyden [(D., Ore.)]. On both sides of the aisle, there are members of Congress … who clearly would have embraced what he would have told them,” Zaid said.

If Snowden had come to his office, Zaid said, he would have brought him directly to Congress. “The way I handle it will give that person as much if not greater protection” than the ICWPA, he insisted.

“He could have revealed everything directly to Sen. Rand Paul, directly to Sen. Wyden,” Zaid said. “Any member of Congress has the appropriate security clearances for what he knew.”

*snip*

NSA Leaker Had Legal Means to Reveal Information

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralph Nader invented the term.

Voted for him once but voting for a third party is throwing your vote away. Not sure I would do so again.

i don't even know who Ralph Nader is, but what i actually meant is: how come you're in a position to say what a "proper" whistleblower is and which ethical code she or he should follow (according to your previous post, that would be sitting still and waiting for the authorities to S.W.A.T. you away from your keyboard).....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voted for him once but voting for a third party is throwing your vote away. Not sure I would do so again.

No its not. But I get your a dem. type of person. Look how well THAT vote turned out :whistle:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i don't even know who Ralph Nader is, but what i actually meant is: how come you're in a position to say what a "proper" whistleblower is and which ethical code she or he should follow (according to your previous post, that would be sitting still and waiting for the authorities to S.W.A.T. you away from your keyboard).....

You don't know who Ralph Nader is? I am afraid you have a lot to learn before being able to discuss politics informed.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is a general shout-out to folks posting here, who know more about Snowden and his tactics, intentions and motivation than do I.

In all my absorption of mainstream media, I do not hear or see what it is that Snowden actually 'leaked.'

I understand that he left the country with classified documents, electronic or otherwise; I get that he has the potential for disseminating secret or top secret information; I even understand some of the nuances of the "is he a traitor/he is a patriot" argument.

But I only know that he stated a fact (perhaps a secret, but most of us knew it, at least intuitively, all along since the Patriot Act was rammed through during anthrax attacks, and W. started tapping phones, in 2001): That the federal government continues to be engaged in an unprecedented information-gathering operation that is ongoing to this moment.

But I do not know what specific information he has disclosed (I know, I can hear some folks grumbling, "He might have divulged all to the Soviets Russians already!). Has he said, "A. Homedi al Qani, of 17 Punjabi Street, 2nd floor #1, in Karachi, Pakistan, is really Albert H. Quint, CIA agent, and he can be reached at 011-53-555-666, ask for 'Homey;' he drinks tea at home daily from 3-5 pm and leaves his rear windows open all night?" I'm being rhetorically specific because I have seen no specific references to what information (the information itself, of course, would not be shared--just the nature of the information) he has actually given up.

I only know that he stated the obvious (unprecedented ongoing information-gathering) with the additional nugget that the Big Computer Program at NSA Headquarters is called "Prism." So the Beast has a name--so what?

Can anyone tell me what information he has leaked?

Edited by szentgyorgy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know who Ralph Nader is? I am afraid you have a lot to learn before being able to discuss politics informed.

call me sloppy and uninformed, but i don't really see why i should step kneedeep into foreign politics to be able to speak my mind in this discussion....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Exposing a crime is not a crime no matter how you cut it

Edited by Saru
Removed personal attack
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't even know who Ralph Nader is, but what i actually meant is: how come you're in a position to say what a "proper" whistleblower is and which ethical code she or he should follow (according to your previous post, that would be sitting still and waiting for the authorities to S.W.A.T. you away from your keyboard).....

Snowden's association with WikiLeaks clarifies his own status as a leaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.