NSA leaker has come forward: Idiot has fled the U.S

[Zebo]

Awesome patriot - Ed took two oaths - first to maintain the secrecy of what he was entrusted with and a second, superseding oath to The Constitution which NSA conduct is blatant violation of.

Please sign this White House petition, a petition which Obama promises to address any over 100K signatures, to pardon Ed for his necessary breach.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD

 

[palehorse]

The president is the person who classifies or declassifies all information. It is absolutely in his power.

Designated OCA's classify intelligence information, not the President. Every IC element has one or more OCA. As for complete declassification, that's a process that I'm less familiar with; but, it's certainly possible that the President can declassify information at will.

The idea that a low level analyst choosing to disclose something and the president doing so are somehow analogous is absolutely ridiculous.

On that we agree.

 

[shady28]

Well that doesn't make any sense. Everyone in this thread is saying that the patriot act and the NSA's recent actions are in violation of the constitution. How can that be, if what you say is true?

People have attempted to challenge unlimited wiretapping \ surveilance \ seizing of emails etc as illegal, but have failed because the information needed to show that it was happening was "secret" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._NSA

Initial Case :

On August 17, 2006, District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ruling that the TSP specifically involving "international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations" within the United States of America, was unconstitutional and illegal, and ordered that it be halted immediately.

She stayed her order pending appeal. She did not rule on the alleged NSA database of domestic call detail records, citing the State Secrets Privilege.[1]


2007 Appeals Case:
" the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to bring the suit against the NSA, because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP)."

In other words, they couldn't prove it because it was classified.

'Standing' means that they needed to prove they or someone they represent had their rights infringed.

From the ruling :

“ But the plaintiffs do not — and because of the State Secrets Doctrine cannot — produce any evidence that any of their own communications have ever been intercepted by the NSA[\b], under the TSP, or without warrants. Instead, they assert a mere belief, which they contend is reasonable and which they label a “well founded belief,”...


More important than any of that though -

This is what the Constitution says, in clear wording with little room for re-interpretation :

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]


In my book that means that these people running the NSA, PRISM, and other monitoring / data collection systems without a warrant; the presidents who preside over it; the Congressmen / women who support it and do not uphold their oath to defend and protect the Constitution; they are all criminals and traitors.

.

 

[fskimospy]

Designated OCA's classify intelligence information, not the President. Every IC element has one or more OCA. As for complete declassification, that's a process that I'm less familiar with; but, it's certainly possible that the President can declassify information at will.


On that we agree.

This is not how it works. While there are lots of people throughout the government who make determinations on classifying or declassifying information, for every one their classifying authority derives from powers delegated to them by the president.

In the end, things are only classified or not based on his say-so.

EDIT: If you would like, here is the most recent executive order dealing with classified information. Yes, it was issued by Obama but it is merely an update of many prior executive orders on the same thing. Most of the content is unchanged.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

Specifically, here's the part on classifying authority.

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Officials authorized to classify information at a specified level are also authorized to classify information at a lower level.

(c) Delegation of original classification authority.

(1) Delegations of original classification authority shall be limited to the minimum required to administer this order. Agency heads are responsible for ensuring that designated subordinate officials have a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise this authority.

(2) "Top Secret" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President, the Vice President, or an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(3) "Secret" or "Confidential" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President, the Vice President, an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order, provided that official has been delegated "Top Secret" original classification authority by the agency head.

(4) Each delegation of original classification authority shall be in writing and the authority shall not be redelegated except as provided in this order. Each delegation shall identify the official by name or position.

(5) Delegations of original classification authority shall be reported or made available by name or position to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.

 

[palehorse]

This is not how it works. While there are lots of people throughout the government who make determinations on classifying or declassifying information, for every one their classifying authority derives from powers delegated to them by the president.

In the end, things are only classified or not based on his say-so.

EDIT: If you would like, here is the most recent executive order dealing with classified information. Yes, it was issued by Obama but it is merely an update of many prior executive orders on the same thing. Most of the content is unchanged.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

Specifically, here's the part on classifying authority.

Your previous post stated "The President is the person who classifies and declassifies all information" -- which is an absurd way of saying that OCAs' powers are derivative.

Everything you just wrote, and everything you just quoted from the EO, is exactly what I summarized in my last post, though, so I'm really not sure what your point is. Are you simply pointing out that all designated OCAs derive their authority from the President? Well duh.

 

[bradly1101]

Although not the actual definition I think the most accepted meaning of the word 'hero' is someone who risks his or her life to assist another or others.
I'd be afraid for my life.

The actual definition is 'someone of great courage'.
It took a lot of cajones.

 

[mistercrabby]

Snowden is criminally toasted, regardless of anyone's opinion about his actions and motives. It's only a matter of a short time before he's in US custody.

 

[mistercrabby]

Well that doesn't make any sense. Everyone in this thread is saying that the patriot act and the NSA's recent actions are in violation of the constitution. How can that be, if what you say is true?

Until SCOTUS says so, any opinions either way as to constitutionality, other than the President's and the Congress', are equally valid and invalid.

 

[mistercrabby]

Although not the actual definition I think the most accepted meaning of the word 'hero' is someone who risks his or her life to assist another or others.
I'd be afraid for my life.

The actual definition is 'someone of great courage'.
It took a lot of cajones.

Really? I'd say more like stupidity. The dude was bored at work, reading too many comments in posts like this one about Julian Assange and Pvt Manning, and in a flash of self-righteousness, burned his life down.

I don't feel sorry for him and I certainly don't think he's a hero.

 

[mikeymikec]

Please sign this White House petition, a petition which Obama promises to address any over 100K signatures, to pardon Ed for his necessary breach.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD

His address would be something along the lines of "rule of law", "hands are tied", "state secrets", "national security", blah, blah, blah...

If 100k people chose to express themselves to Obama in their own way (letter, protest, etc), the ensuing chaos might cause the administration to think twice (10m people would be a much safer bet). As long as they can keep your communications at arm's length (the official petition site is great for this because it is perfectly manageable), they'll continue to give responses along the lines of why things must remain the same.

Politicians never like it when the public starts trying to contact them personally in large numbers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...te-on-EU-ban-on-all-forms-of-pornography.html

 

[fskimospy]

Your previous post stated "The President is the person who classifies and declassifies all information" -- which is an absurd way of saying that OCAs' powers are derivative.

Everything you just wrote, and everything you just quoted from the EO, is exactly what I summarized in my last post, though, so I'm really not sure what your point is. Are you simply pointing out that all designated OCAs derive their authority from the President? Well duh.

Oh come on. This strains credulity.

First, there's really no way you took my previous post to mean that Obama is up late at night with a bunch of papers on his desk that he is classifying.

Second, if the fact that all classification authority is derived from the president is such a 'duh' moment, you would never have said that the president 'may be able to declassify things at will'.

 

[palehorse]

Oh come on. This strains credulity.

First, there's really no way you took my previous post to mean that Obama is up late at night with a bunch of papers on his desk that he is classifying.

Second, if the fact that all classification authority is derived from the president is such a 'duh' moment, you would never have said that the president 'may be able to declassify things at will'.

Original classification and declassification are two separate powers/processes. Section 1.3, which you posted above, deals only with original classification.

As I said before, the President may be able to declassify information at will, but I'm not entirely sure that an individual OCA can do so alone (including the President).

I'd need to study up on the declassification process, specifically -- which is why I used the word "may."

 

[fskimospy]

Original classification and declassification are two separate powers/processes. Section 1.3, which you posted above, deals only with original classification.

As I said before, the President may be able to declassify information at will, but I'm not entirely sure that an individual OCA can do so alone (including the President).

I'd need to study up on the declassification process, specifically -- which is why I used the word "may."

They are exactly same when referring to the president. ALL authority for determining the classification status of any information resides with him.

I don't think you're getting exactly how this works. The President is the person in charge of whether or not all information in the entire United States is classified or not, and to what level. Every OCA is a deputy of his for this purpose, but they are simply carrying out his instructions. So while an individual OCA may not have the authority to classify or declassify a certain piece of data, the President always has the ability to classify and declassify all data at all times. Full stop.

The process is also irrelevant. All authority comes from the president and he can disregard the process if he wants to. (it's his process after all)

I think you may be confusing the President with other classifying authorities. They aren't the same. He in effect 'hires' them to do his work for him. They only have as much authority as he gives them. His authority is total.

 

[unokitty]

President Obama is operating according to an odd maxim: I am doing a lot of the same things that George W. Bush did, but you can trust me because I am the one doing it...."

"... three lessons that can be drawn from the Snowden case. America, but also some of its allies, are keeping too much under surveillance, keeping too much secret and they haven't found an appropriate means for dealing with those who expose such excesses. There is something deeply wrong when a whistleblower has to rely on the goodwill of China or Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa to find safe haven."

http://www.spiegel.de/international...mpora-data-surveillance-scandal-a-907720.html

Who knew that what "Hope and Change" meant was that a US whistle blower would have to rely on the good will of China, Russia, and Ecuador for safe haven?

Uno

 

[bradly1101]

and in a flash of self-righteousness, burned his life down.

Seemed pretty well planned to me. He greatly helped to shape my view of this government, which is at best severely dysfunctional except when it comes to accepting bribes ('lobbying').

 

[Riparian]

http://www.spiegel.de/international...mpora-data-surveillance-scandal-a-907720.html

Who knew that what "Hope and Change" meant was that a US whistle blower would have to rely on the good will of China, Russia, and Ecuador for safe haven?

Uno

I feel like there are quite a few contradictions in his thinking and motivations. He most likely views himself as a hero who has informed the public of great violation of its constitutional rights. Yet, he doesn't have any faith in the public that he just "saved" in providing him with a fair trial so he decides that he needs to run to China and Russia. He then runs to countries that he thinks he's safest from US extradition, yet he is entirely paranoid that the NSA and CIA are all around him ready to kill him in order to silence him.

There just seems to be a lot of contradictions in the way he's acted.

 

[bradly1101]

yet he is entirely paranoid that the NSA and CIA are all around him ready to kill him in order to silence him.

I haven't heard him say that. He did say he would probably be apprehended. Do you disagree?

 

[Riparian]

I haven't heard him say that. He did say he would probably be apprehended. Do you disagree?

This is what I was referring to:

http://boingboing.net/2013/06/25/snowdens-got-an-encrypted-in.html

No one knows for sure what "if anything happens to him" means, but I assume he's presuming that he could disappear all of a sudden when he needs an insurance policy like these encrypted files.

 

[GrGr]

I feel like there are quite a few contradictions in his thinking and motivations. He most likely views himself as a hero who has informed the public of great violation of its constitutional rights. Yet, he doesn't have any faith in the public that he just "saved" in providing him with a fair trial so he decides that he needs to run to China and Russia. He then runs to countries that he thinks he's safest from US extradition, yet he is entirely paranoid that the NSA and CIA are all around him ready to kill him in order to silence him.

There just seems to be a lot of contradictions in the way he's acted.

The real contradictions are of course those of the USA.

Freedom is to be under constant surveillance.

Democracy is to vote as you are told to vote, for politicians who are bought and paid for by other interests who in turn have enriched themselves on your tax dollar. These politicians are then rewarded for rubber stamping the laws written by and for the corporations and the billionaires buying the elections.

US law trumps international law and other nations laws, but not the other way around. The NSA spies on the elected representatives of the people who voted for them, to ensure they comply with their owners and not with the voters (this is one reason why Congress is so spectacularily detested).

Snowden knows very well that the 'law' in the US by now is just a fig leaf and that the constitution supposed to protect him is in tatters. He knows he would be disappeared into a secret court system, just like Manning, where the idea of 'justice' is what the Stasi Torture State wants.

 

[debian0001]

http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why couldn't he have leaked it anonymously?

Credibility and personal safety. There is no "anonymously*.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I feel like there are quite a few contradictions in his thinking and motivations. He most likely views himself as a hero who has informed the public of great violation of its constitutional rights. Yet, he doesn't have any faith in the public that he just "saved" in providing him with a fair trial so he decides that he needs to run to China and Russia. He then runs to countries that he thinks he's safest from US extradition, yet he is entirely paranoid that the NSA and CIA are all around him ready to kill him in order to silence him.

There just seems to be a lot of contradictions in the way he's acted.

Here's something I can address. If he thinks as you suggest he's perfectly rational. The "public" isn't involved in the actions taken against Snowden and it will inno uncertain terms be able to render any judgements whatsoever on the validity of charges. This is a case of espionage and national security. Our knowledge of the relevant facts will be denied, period. It will be in essence a secret trial assuming there is one. Constitutional rights are by no means guaranteed as Jose Padilla could attest. Government officials have judged him a traitor and extraordinary rendition in violation of international law is a distinct possibility. The NSA is above public scrutiny or accountability and the government is more than comfortable with that. Snowden's situation is in fact dire and the public has no more influence than it does on Obama and the NSA.

 

[Riparian]

Here's something I can address. If he thinks as you suggest he's perfectly rational. The "public" isn't involved in the actions taken against Snowden and it will inno uncertain terms be able to render any judgements whatsoever on the validity of charges. This is a case of espionage and national security. Our knowledge of the relevant facts will be denied, period. It will be in essence a secret trial assuming there is one. Constitutional rights are by no means guaranteed as Jose Padilla could attest. Government officials have judged him a traitor and extraordinary rendition in violation of international law is a distinct possibility. The NSA is above public scrutiny or accountability and the government is more than comfortable with that. Snowden's situation is in fact dire and the public has no more influence than it does on Obama and the NSA.

If he were to be tried by a military tribunal, I would agree. However, as far as I can tell, he would be tried in civilian court, which would allow him to request a trial by his peers. If even that was denied, then you can be assured that the government has essentially thrown the Constitution away. I just don't understand why he chose China and Russia instead of countries that have actual rule of law and strong privacy interests. Why not fly to Germany and apply for asylum.

There's a reason why Chinese dissidents flee to the US and not to Russia or Ecuador. There's just something funny about the way he thinks and it just makes me feel like there were alternative motives to his disclosure. But, in the end, it's only a visceral feeling based on what we know of his actions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If he were to be tried by a military tribunal, I would agree. However, as far as I can tell, he would be tried in civilian court, which would allow him to request a trial by his peers. If even that was denied, then you can be assured that the government has essentially thrown the Constitution away. I just don't understand why he chose China and Russia instead of countries that have actual rule of law and strong privacy interests. Why not fly to Germany and apply for asylum.

There's a reason why Chinese dissidents flee to the US and not to Russia or Ecuador. There's just something funny about the way he thinks and it just makes me feel like there were alternative motives to his disclosure. But, in the end, it's only a visceral feeling based on what we know of his actions.

Germany has an extradition treaty and applying for asylum isn't a sure thing. In fact the public pressure the Administration attempted to put on Hong Kong and Russia surprised me and Germany would probably have rolled over. If we wanted to provoke an intentional lack of cooperation it could not have been done better. We didn't even tell the truth regarding Hong Kong. We mentioned "rule of law" which made no sense. Hong Kong is technically part of China, but it's courts and legal system remain separate at least to a substantial agreement. The US attempted to intimidate China/HK and clearly said they were in violation of law. Well the fact is that the agreement we have provides exemptions for political dissidents. Since Snowden clearly presented his motives, there was no grounds for such a demand. Well that's international politics and all, but the bullying demonstrates such desperation/incompetence that I find astounding.

I wouldn't read anything into the choice of Snowden's nations. It was well planned and clearly effective. It's true that China and Russia have people who (rightly) flee, however they do so because their government has persecuted them for whatever reason. In the case of Snowden it's logical to go through nations who have the least interest in collaborating with the US, and human rights abuses of the two nations gone through so far wouldn't be relevant to his personal situation.

Frankly, he's pulled this off nicely. Now what he does with his information remains to be seen, but I have no reason to believe so far that the intent of his revelations was theft for profit.