- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/24/14 at 11:08 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Yes, the national director of intelligence lied under oath
Stopped reading when I hit the first inaccurate statement. It was in the subheading. Clapper was not under oath for the record.
quote:
Here is a piece from the bastion of ultra conservativism -- SALON.com
Did that guy take Greenwald's spot at Salon?
Posted on 3/24/14 at 11:13 am to NC_Tigah
I'd like you to tell me how you justify this
Take your time
quote:
U.S. officials are alerting some foreign intelligence services that documents detailing their secret cooperation with the United States have been obtained by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, according to government officials.
Snowden, U.S. officials said, took tens of thousands of military intelligence documents, some of which contain sensitive material about collection programs against adversaries such as Iran, Russia and China. Some refer to operations that in some cases involve countries not publicly allied with the United States.
The process of informing officials in capital after capital about the risk of disclosure is delicate. In some cases, one part of the cooperating government may know about the collaboration while others — such as the foreign ministry — may not, the officials said. The documents, if disclosed, could compromise operations, officials said.
The notifications come as the Obama administration is scrambling to placate allies after allegations that the NSA has spied on foreign leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The reports have forced the administration to play down operations targeting friends while also attempting to preserve other programs that depend on provisional partners. In either case, trust in the United States may be compromised.
“It is certainly a concern, just as much as the U.S. collection [of information on European allies] being put in the news, if not more, because not only does it mean we have the potential of losing collection, but also of harming relationships,” a congressional aide said.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is handling the job of informing the other intelligence services, the officials said. ODNI declined to comment.
In one case, for instance, the files contain information about a program run from a NATO country against Russia that provides valuable intelligence for the U.S. Air Force and Navy, said one U.S. official, who requested anonymity to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation. Snowden faces theft and espionage charges.
“If the Russians knew about it, it wouldn’t be hard for them to take appropriate measures to put a stop to it,” the official said.
Snowden lifted the documents from a top-secret network run by the Defense Intelligence Agency and used by intelligence arms of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines, according to sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
Snowden took 30,000 documents that involve the intelligence work of one of the services, the official said. He gained access to the documents through the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, or JWICS, for top-secret/sensitive compartmented information, the sources said.
The material in question does not deal with NSA surveillance but primarily with standard intelligence about other countries’ military capabilities, including weapons systems — missiles, ships and jets, the officials say.
Take your time
Posted on 3/24/14 at 11:16 am to Decatur
quote:Already covered.
I'd like you to tell me how you justify this
Posted on 3/24/14 at 11:17 am to SettleDown
I'm not asking you a question but thanks
Posted on 3/24/14 at 11:18 am to Decatur
quote:YW. It was already covered though. You just don't like the answer. But, it IS the answer.
I'm not asking you a question but thanks
Posted on 3/24/14 at 11:19 am to SettleDown
quote:Which is why you've judiciously avoided the thread detailing how the intel agencies reacted to attempts at Senate oversight.
YW. It was already covered though. You just don't like the answer. But, it IS the answer.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 11:45 am to Decatur
quote:if disclosed, could compromise operations, officials said.
I'd like you to tell me how you justify this
Take your time
if not more
if the Russians knew about it, it wouldn’t be hard for them to take appropriate measures
if . . . if . . . if . . . then it . . . might . . . might . . might . . . could possibly . . .
All stated by the same group who lied in testimony.
quote:Did the source say who had been fired as a result?
Snowden took 30,000 documents that involve the intelligence work of one of the services, the official said. He gained access to the documents through the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, or JWICS, for top-secret/sensitive compartmented information, the sources said.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 11:48 am to NC_Tigah
Oh and while you're at it, please link sources of the assertion Clapper testified before congress in open session, and was not under oath, therefore could not be subject to penalty.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 11:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Oh and while you're at it, please link sources of the assertion Clapper testified before congress in open session, and was not under oath, therefore could not be subject to penalty.
I already did on the last page...in the post you are responding to
quote:
Unlike Helms, Clapper was not under oath and therefore not liable to a charge of perjury,
Do you even read my posts?
Posted on 3/24/14 at 11:54 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
if
There's no IF about the question I asked you
Please explain how you support the theft of all of highly classified and highly sensitive intelligence documents, most of which don't involve NSA surveillance.
Again, take your time if you have to.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 11:58 am to Decatur
quote:
Please explain how you support the theft of all of highly classified and highly sensitive intelligence documents, most of which don't involve NSA surveillance.
if it was theft via spying, then he's a spy
if it was theft to protect himself with the release of the NSA documents, then that's a failure of our whistleblower system
regardless, this is an absolute failure of government. the system/process, from start to finish, is abhorrent
i'll just accept the fact that snowden is a villain. the government is still the bigger villain of this story
Posted on 3/24/14 at 12:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if it was theft to protect himself with the release of the NSA documents, then that's a failure of our whistleblower system
Not hardly
quote:
The National Security Agency’s top watchdog slammed Edward Snowden on Tuesday for failing to follow official protocol in relaying his concerns about wayward intelligence gathering and also faulted Congress for not vetting the details of post-9/11 surveillance programs.
“Snowden could have come to me,” George Ellard, the NSA’s inspector general, said during a panel discussion hosted by the Georgetown University Law Center.
Ellard, making his first public comments in seven years working for NSA, insisted that Snowden would have been given the same protections available to other employees who file approximately 1,000 complaints per year on the agency’s hotline system.
“We have surprising success in resolving the complaints that are brought to us,” he said.
In Snowden’s case, Ellard said a complaint would have prompted an independent assessment into the constitutionality of the law that allows for the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone metadata. But that review, he added, would have also shown the NSA was within the scope of the law.
“Perhaps it’s the case that we could have shown, we could have explained to Mr. Snowden his misperceptions, his lack of understanding of what we do,” Ellard said.
And if Snowden wasn’t satisfied, Ellard said the NSA would have then allowed him to speak to the House and Senate intelligence committees.
”Given the reaction, I think somewhat feigned, of some members of that committee, he’d have found a welcoming audience,” Ellard said in a reference to outspoken NSA critics on the panel, including Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.).
“Whether in the end he’d have been satisfied, I don’t know,” Ellard added. “But allowing people who have taken an oath to protect the constitution, to protect these national security interest, simply to violate or break that oath, is unacceptable.”
LINK
Snowden's claims about "bringing this up" to people doesn't pass muster. He decided before he got the job with Booz Hamilton was that was going to take everything he could get. Hell, he was already in touch with Poitras and Greenwald before he took the job.
Snowden's claims on this are BS
Posted on 3/24/14 at 12:20 pm to Decatur
quote:
I don't make light of any lives lost but in terms of the damage to American intelligence capabilities, international relations, nonpublic cooperation from nontraditional allies, knowledge about military weapons systems, etc., the Snowden heist may be the worst national security breach in the modern era.
What would prevent the govt from overinflating the damage done by Snowden?
quote:What justified the release of Iraq torture photos? And how hypocritical for them not to release the bin laden photos. But I do agree that they shouldn't be released.
How can anyone justify this?
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:26 pm to Decatur
quote:He took the job because he had already identified some of the problem so how do you know that he didn't try and bring things up then? Or, how do you know that once with Booz Allen, he still didn't bring it up once he had actual evidence of what he suspected prior to the job?
Snowden's claims about "bringing this up" to people doesn't pass muster. He decided before he got the job with Booz Hamilton was that was going to take everything he could get. Hell, he was already in touch with Poitras and Greenwald before he took the job.
ANSWER: You have no f'n idea.
Regardless. Anything and everything Snowden took can be laid right at the government's feet. Had the govt not going f'n nuts, then he wouldn't have need to protect himself.
Moreover. People before Snowden already had tried the official route. Worked out awful for them. And, of course, given that the intel agencies went after people in the freaking Senate, I'm guess some little guy like Snowden stood zero chance.
You're just a cock slobberer.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:29 pm to C
quote:
What justified the release of Iraq torture photos? And how hypocritical for them not to release the bin laden photos. But I do agree that they shouldn't be released.
You're not trying to change to subject, eh?
Can you give a justification for why Snowden took all that he took and why he should not be prosecuted for it. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Snowden was justified in leaking the doc regarding to telephone metadata program (which was his first leak - and you know I don't agree with it), that's only about 1/58,000th of what he took at the most, maybe even more like one-millionth of what he took.
This post was edited on 3/24/14 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:41 pm to Decatur
quote:The post you linked was the opinion of a partisan or an idiot.
Do you even read my posts?
It is also the only instance (of several hundred) where I've seen it claimed that Clapper was not testifying under oath during a Senate Hearing. Do you have information as to how often witnesses testify at formal Hearings, while not being placed under oath?
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:01 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The post you linked was the opinion of a partisan or an idiot.
NSA Inspector General under Pres GWB, head of US Counterintelligence under GWB & Obama, former General Counsel of the NSA
But just in case that isn't enough for you
quote:
It is common for committee members to make opening remarks at the beginning of a hearing. Next, the committee chair generally introduces each witness in accordance with an arranged order and format (such as a panel format). By statute, any Senator is authorized to administer the oath to a witness (2 U.S.C. 191). Committee rules commonly allow testimony under oath at the discretion of a committee’s leaders. In practice, most committees rarely require witnesses to testify under oath at legislative hearings; sworn testimony is more common at investigative hearings and confirmation hearings.
LINK
Now are you going to answer my question or continue to talk about Clapper? Do you still need more time?
This post was edited on 3/24/14 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:20 pm to Decatur
quote:You are under the impression the Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing was a legislative hearing?
Now are you going to answer my question or continue to talk about Clapper?
Really?
quote:Let's repeat for clarity, the post you linked was the opinion of a partisan or an idiot. Understood?
The post you linked was the opinion of a partisan or an idiot.
NSA Inspector General under Pres GWB, head of US Counterintelligence under Obama, former General Counsel of the NSA
If Clapper lied, it was a criminal act. Wyden submitted his question in advance. Clapper knew it was coming. Clapper's legal people knew it was coming. Clapper thought he could get away with a flat out boldfaced lie for the EXACT reason you'd claim Wyden, a US Senator had no right to even ask the question. He thought no one could pursue the NSA metadata LIE publically. Turns out he was wrong. Snowden changed that, thank goodness. Clapper should have been asked to resign immediately for (1) lying to Congress, and (2) running a program so insecure that a nitwit like Snowden could hack it undetected. He should be brought up on charges.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:28 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You are under the impression the Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing was a legislative hearing? Really?
He wasn't under oath. I don't know how many times I have to tell you this.
quote:
Let's repeat for clarity, the post you linked was the opinion of a partisan or an idiot. Understood?
No. Not at all. Pray tell how you know better than him.
quote:
Wyden submitted his question in advance. Clapper knew it was coming. Clapper's legal people knew it was coming.
We've had this discussion before ( LINK) and I don't really care to rehash now
Are you going to ever answer my question or are you going to keep deflecting with this Clapper stuff?
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News