re: In Crimea, Russia May Have Gotten a Jump on West by Evading U.S. Eavesdropping

Just the other day people we're criticizing Romney saying there was nothing Obama could have done differently to prevent this annexation but now your saying it could have been avoided? Hmm...

quote:

---

You know he tried many times to report the abuses and keep it quiet, right?

---

Well, that's one of the narratives. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that justifies his actions or his personal evaluation of the program and its practices.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, I'm not sure that justifies his actions or his personal evaluation of the program and its practices.

---

That James Clapper is not in jail, and in fact still employed, justifies Snowden. Think about it!

quote:

---

That James Clapper is not in jail, and in fact still employed, justifies Snowden. Think about it!

---

quote:

---

On March 12 of this year, Senator Ron Wyden asked James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, whether the National Security Agency gathers “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”

“No, sir,” replied the director, visibly annoyed. “Not wittingly.”

Wyden is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and had long known about the court-approved metadata program that has since become public knowledge. He knew Clapper’s answer was incorrect. But Wyden, like Clapper, was also under an oath not to divulge the story. In posing this question, he knew Clapper would have to breach his oath of secrecy, lie, prevaricate, or decline to reply except in executive session—a tactic that would implicitly have divulged the secret. The committee chairman, Senator Diane Feinstein, may have known what Wyden had in mind. In opening the hearing she reminded senators it would be followed by a closed session and said, “I’ll ask that members refrain from asking questions here that have classified answers.” Not dissuaded, Wyden sandbagged he director.

This was a vicious tactic, regardless of what you think of the later Snowden disclosures. Wyden learned nothing, the public learned nothing, and an honest and unusually forthright public servant has had his credibility trashed.[1] Unfortunately the tactic has a pedigree, but for that, we’ve got to wind the clock back forty years.

---

quote:

---

But let’s turn the glass around and look at it through Wyden’s end. Wyden concluded that the special court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was interpreting the law in a wholly novel way that permitted the government to collect vast quantities of telephony metadata. Telephony metadata is like the information on the outside of an envelope going through the mail. The Supreme Court has held that it has no constitutional protection. Unlike an intercepted call, metadata means only the number called and calling, the time of the call, and various other technical attributes of the call – but not its contents. The intelligence committees were told of this interpretation, and they did not object to it for two very good reasons. First, they were persuaded, as I am, that by doing so, the government was saving lives. And second, they were persuaded that while the data could be collected, it could not be accessed except under stringent procedures that were rigorously audited for compliance with the court’s orders. Among the hundreds of billions of calls made during 2012, this metadata was accessed only 300 times. This is an infinitesimal fraction, and on each occasion there was a documented justification. I do not believe, however, that most members of Congress, when they passed FISA, contemplated that the law could be interpreted as the FISA Court did, to permit the collection of bulk metadata.

Wyden therefore concluded that the FISA court was making secret law. This was at best an exaggeration. It is not unusual for legislators to accuse judges of making new law when they don’t like a judicial interpretation. Whether it was wise to classify so much information about the rules under which NSA was operating – in my view, it was not – that’s another matter. But let’s accept Wyden’s “secret law” position for the sake of argument. He served on a committee and took an oath to keep its secrets. The Senate intelligence committee has nineteen members. Only one other member shared his view. The house intelligence committee has twenty-three members. None of them appeared to share his view. So what was a conscientious legislator to do?

The senator had two choices. He could have done what legislators are elected to do, which is to legislate. Without breaking his oath, he could have introduced a bill stating, for example, “Neither the National Security Agency nor any other agency or department shall acquire, collect, or otherwise gather bulk metadata (which he could define) of communications, all parties to which are in the United States.” That would be the gist of it. That bill would have generated ferocious debate, though realistically it would have died quickly. But Wyden is in a small minority in the legislature of a representative democracy. He doesn’t get to make the rules.

That would have left him with one honorable alternative: civil disobedience. He could have broken the law and, in the tradition of Socrates, Thoreau, Gandhi, and King—but unlike Edward Snowden—remained in the country to face the laws he deemed unjust and in the process, sought to undermine them. The consequences would probably have included resignation or removal from the intelligence committee and destruction of the committee’s reputation as a group that can keep secrets. But unlike Clapper, Wyden could probably not have been prosecuted for releasing top-secret classified information, because the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause would have immunized from being “questioned in any other Place” about his statements in the Senate.

But Wyden did neither of these things. He lacked the courage of his conviction, and instead of running any risk himself, he transferred it to the director of national intelligence, putting Clapper in the impossible position of answering a question that he could not address truthfully and fully without breaking his oath not to divulge classified information. Unlike Helms, Clapper was not under oath and therefore not liable to a charge of perjury, but Wyden did put Clapper in jeopardy of making or concealing a material fact or giving a false statement,[8] a charge that carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. It was a low dishonorable act, and nothing good will come of it.

---

LINK

Couldn't say it any better myself

So is this another hypothetical damage done; not actual damage?

quote:

---

So is this another hypothetical damage done; not actual damage?

---

Yep but the window peeper keeps at it.

What do you think did more damage: snowden or the release of Iraq torture photos?

How are you qualifying the damage for snowden? For Iraq, you can look at how the violence spiked and both Iraqis and foreign military lives were lost.

quote:

---

That James Clapper is not in jail, and in fact still employed, justifies Snowden. Think about it!

---

Exactly. I mean, the dude flat out lied repeatedly. Hell, he lied straight up lied on the floor of congress to a congressman who KNEW he was lying. The congressman was dumbfouded because Clapper knew the congressman knew better but he did it anyway.

Basically, that fricker has been flipping his middle finger at everyone.

quote:

---

How can anyone justify this?

---

Simple and I'll say it again since you're obtuse. The government has lost its fricking mind when it comes to the surveillance regardless of how much you want to suck its dick. As such, it is flat out INEVITABLE that with many decent human beings tasked with carrying out this process, eventually, some are going to say, "hey, wait a minute". Some did exactly this prior to Snowden. They were ALL completely ruined career wise and came close to going to jail.

Hence, the climate CREATED Snowden and, at that point, normal human behavior takes hold. Snowden was smart enough to understand that only having the surveillance info wasn't going to keep him safe from life in prison at the least. Hence, like any rational person, he got "safety" information.

Then whiners like you who support the bull shite system that created him bitch about him protecting himself. "Come face the music" you say blah blah blah.

No one should have to become a fricking martyr just to out this kind of bull shite. As it is, he completely gave up contact with everyone he's ever known. Idiots like you act like that's no big deal. As if making such a choice is a walk in the park.

Frankly. People like you almost certainly exist in N. Korea, China, and existed in the former USSR. People like you can go frick yourself.