Nsa Contractor Identifies Himself As Source

[jamhar]

I agree.

If the roles were reversed, I would welcome him, make a copy of the hard drives,

try to get him to cooperate, and if he resisted, boot him out gently.

Then i'd have years to try and decrypt. Thats why you have supercomputers.

If i can decrypt, then great!, if not, i've only marginally damaged economic and diplomatictic ties.

Potential huge gain, marginal downside.

[mania]

Where things start to break down is why did HK (and China) treat him so well and then boot him out? Why was Russia so welcoming and now suddenly has said he should be on his way?

He may not have given them any information, but that does preclude the fact that they may have taken a lot of information.

I think as I said earlier what he has is or should be of main interest to US citizens

To powers such as China & Russia I am sure it is old news.

[mania]

But from my perspective, He is an RBT (Rat Bastard Traitor). All the data he took, has to be considered compromised. And steps needs to be taken to address the compromised data. Depending on the data, it could cost millions, and years to address. And in the interim, the systems could be vulnerable. His only saving grace is that apparently up to now, he didnt do it for money..... Yet.

I'm still baffled by his motive......

I just dont get it.

It is because of your perspective that you "Don't Get It "

even the phrase RBT you use originates from someone ratting out a gangster. So while your not far off in that sense in the next you associate that with

being a traitor when in fact it is the government snoops that are the traitors of the US Constitution & the US citizens

People have sunken so low in expectations that so many today now say why,why ,why did he do it.

They cannot conceive a person giving up his life for what he believes are his Constitutional rights & liberties

Not once has there been an instance of proof that what he took was anything more than proof for US citizens

of what their elected govt was doing behind closed doors was unconstitutional.

Never a threat to National Security. The only folks claiming that are the tarnished peeping toms themselves who have Zero Credibility

Edited July 11, 2013 by mania

[jamhar]

Nice words.

So tell me how you go went from "shoot them in the balls" to "where do i sign up?"

[mania]

Nice words.

So tell me how you go went from "shoot them in the balls" to "where do i sign up?"

If you mean how did he go....

I would suggest reading his words in context to the event.

That event in no way is the same as this event.

[SinglePot]

I am sorry to say, but this guy is really not very bright. He's probably singing like a canary with electricity running through his gonads or sodium pentathol coursing through his veins. He has shown no restraint. The people he is dealing with know how to get information -- they may not torture in the strictest sense of the word, but he will talk.

His restraint is because he is most likely not being allowed to talk to anyone. Has anyone seen him? Has he called his parents? Wikileaks hasn't said much.

Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments

As a new poll shows widespread American approval for him, the NSA whistleblower vehemently denies media claims

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/snowden-denies-information-russia-china

Pardon? No info to China?

Snowden told the South China Morning Post that "the NSA does all kinds of things like hack Chinese cellphone companies to steal all of your SMS data." It added that Snowden said he had documents to support the hacking allegations, but the report did not identify the documents. It said he spoke to the paper in a June 12 interview.

With a population of more than 1.3 billion, China has massive cell-phone companies. China Mobile is the world's largest mobile network carrier, with 735 million subscribers, followed by China Unicom with 258 million users and China Telecom with 172 million users.

Snowden said Tsinghua University in Beijing and Chinese University in Hong Kong, home of some of the country's major Internet traffic hubs, were targets of extensive hacking by U.S. spies this year. He said the NSA was focusing on so-called "network backbones" in China, through which enormous amounts of Internet data passes.

[SinglePot]

“People who think I made a mistake in picking Hong Kong as a location misunderstand my intentions. I am not here to hide from justice; I am here to reveal criminality. I have had many opportunities to flee HK, but I would rather stay and fight the United States government in the courts, because I have faith in Hong Kong’s rule of law. My intention is to ask the courts and people of Hong Kong to decide my fate.”

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/12/hong-kong-will-decide-my-fate-edward-snowden-tells-south-china-morning-post/#ixzz2Yi5wiILu

Well that didn't work did it?

He might have been ok in HK. Revelations about us activity in mainland china probably ruffled the feathers of Beijing.

[SinglePot]

Snowden. An insignificant geek who walked out of a US high security building with a weapon.

Hero? debatable.

[jamhar]

Nice words.

So tell me how you go went from "shoot them in the balls" to "where do i sign up?"

If you mean how did he go....

I would suggest reading his words in context to the event.

That event in no way is the same as this event.

I did read his words

You referenced my "i dont get it" to criticize.

I dont really give a rats ass about your criticism of me.

This is the web, for all I know, you're a 13 year old with a pimple problem

Or you could be a nobel laureate, who knows.

But i am interested in how a person could go from what appears to be a strong vocal proponent of the NSA and complete Wikileaks opponent

To joining the ranks of Wikileaks, and so anti NSA to run to China, then Russia, then to anyone and everyone asking for asylum.

Thats the part I dont understand.

If you have some clue how that happened, i'd love to hear it.

Else please refer to line 3

Edited July 11, 2013 by jamhar

[mania]

I did read his words

But i am interested in how a person could go from what appears to be a strong vocal proponent of the NSA and complete Wikileaks opponent

To joining the ranks of Wikileaks, and so anti NSA to run to China, then Russia, then to anyone and everyone asking for asylum.

Thats the part I dont understand.

If you have some clue how that happened, i'd love to hear it.

I have a comprehension based on what I have read & believe.

I cannot comprehend for you

You are embellishing all kinds of things in this post & then ask me to prove it?

It is not even reality why would I ? The comment he made that you want justified had nothing to do with Wiki or NSA etc.

It was his feeling about the US being dragged into a Israel / Iran conflict & how this loose talk which was not true would by

default drag the US into it.

Your initial claim or question is how did Snowden go from saying they should be shot in the balls about leakers who were

trying to start a nuclear preemptive strike against Iran & drag the US into it.

If you cannot see a good reason for his sticking up at that point for the US then you obviously comprehend things differently than I.

That is not a problem & not to say one is right or wrong....Just different

Again I cannot comprehend for you or the same as you. That is not a problem just a fact

Edited July 11, 2013 by mania

[SinglePot]

Jamhar rightly raises questions about Snowden's credibility and motives.

[jamhar]

I did read his words

But i am interested in how a person could go from what appears to be a strong vocal proponent of the NSA and complete Wikileaks opponent

To joining the ranks of Wikileaks, and so anti NSA to run to China, then Russia, then to anyone and everyone asking for asylum.

Thats the part I dont understand.

If you have some clue how that happened, i'd love to hear it.

I have a comprehension based on what I have read & believe.

I cannot comprehend for you

You are embellishing all kinds of things in this post & then ask me to prove it?

It is not even reality why would I ? The comment he made that you want justified had nothing to do with Wiki or NSA etc.

It was his feeling about the US being dragged into a Israel / Iran conflict & how this loose talk which was not true would by

default drag the US into it.

Your initial claim or question is how did Snowden go from saying they should be shot in the balls about leakers who were

trying to start a nuclear preemptive strike against Iran & drag the US into it.

If you cannot see a good reason for his sticking up at that point for the US then you obviously comprehend things differently than I.

That is not a problem & not to say one is right or wrong....Just different

Again I cannot comprehend for you or the same as you. That is not a problem just a fact

PLEASE dont comprehend for me.

Also ,please clarify if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that he was vehemently opposed to one form of a leaker on one subject

but changed his mind regarding a different subject.

I would respond that he worked for the NSA. Gathering electronic communications Intel is what they do. So i find it difficult to believe he didnt know what he was getting into.

Maybe its the subject of domestic electronic intel gathering thats was the issue.

It still does not pass the smell test IMO. Vast holes in the story, the way i understand it.

First, he spills the beans on domestic electronic intel, supposedly as a patriot

then to save is ass, he spills the beans on the US Chinese intel gathering operation.

Then goes to Russia to repeat the process

and now is singing away regarding the US Latin American operations, to gather the Latin American Support.

Very odd behavior as a “patriot”.

As a general disclaimer, I'm only here to gather information for myself. If you can help, great! If not, i'll just move along.

There are people here that have opposing view that I get insight from.

And to those while i disagree, I do appreciate the information they provide.

[Credo]

There are layers of review that probably mean that what is being done is NOT unconstitutional. The fact that many people don't like it and think it should be changed is completely different from being illegal.

Snowden meets every criteria for being a spy. If you want to change things in the US, then stay in the US and fight in the courts. He didn't do that.

[NomadJoe]

Dear NSA,

My hard drive crashed today. Please send a copy ASAP. You know the address. I will pay postage. Thank you.

NJ

Edited July 11, 2013 by NomadJoe

[lannarebirth]

There are layers of review that probably mean that what is being done is NOT unconstitutional. The fact that many people don't like it and think it should be changed is completely different from being illegal.

Snowden meets every criteria for being a spy. If you want to change things in the US, then stay in the US and fight in the courts. He didn't do that.

You've got that backwards. There are laws that say it is legal. There has been been very little in the way of challenge or review to make anyone believe it is constitutional. The law, and and internal agency policies, said to be extensions of that law are likely unconstitutional and the abuses that have occurred based on the secrecy surrounding court decision has clearly lead to unconstitutional behavior within the spy agencies.

America's Secret Spy Court Has Been Radically Expanding The Powers Of The NSA.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-fisa-court-helps-nsa-avoid-warrants-2013-7

[F430murci]

There are layers of review that probably mean that what is being done is NOT unconstitutional. The fact that many people don't like it and think it should be changed is completely different from being illegal.

Snowden meets every criteria for being a spy. If you want to change things in the US, then stay in the US and fight in the courts. He didn't do that.

You've got that backwards. There are laws that say it is legal. There has been been very little in the way of challenge or review to make anyone believe it is constitutional. The law, and and internal agency policies, said to be extensions of that law are likely unconstitutional and the abuses that have occurred based on the secrecy surrounding court decision has clearly lead to unconstitutional behavior within the spy agencies.

There you again. Making absolutely false statements about the status of the law or the status of review even though you know that to be incorrect. I cited a bunch of cases before, but the format messed up the screen and Scott deleted them.

Here is an entirely different search and an entirely different line of cases.

My simple search was

"warrantless searches FISA"

in the ALLFEDS Westlaw database

These are the first cases that come up. The citation to the cases from which the blurbs come are at the end of the blurbs. Some of these cases are 2009 and 2010, but that are citing stare decisions from unanimous decisions challenging FISA on various 4th Amendment grounds.

There are at least 100 cases.

And the first one is . . . exactly what I directed you to last time. Warrant proceedings that are not adversarial and that are ex parte DO NOT violate the 4th Amendment.

To date, no court has held that disclosure of the FISA application papers was necessary in order to determine the lawfulness of a search authorized under FISA. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 347 F.3d 197, 203 (7th Cir.2003) (noting that no court has ever ordered disclosure of FISA materials); United States v. Mubayyid, 521 F.Supp.2d 125, 130 (D.Mass.2007) (collecting cases); United States v. Rosen, 447 F.Supp.2d 538, 546 (E.D.Va.2006). The courts have also uniformly held that the in camera review procedures prescribed by FISA do not deprive a defendant of Due Process under the United States Constitution. United States v. Ott, 827 F.2d 473, 476–77 (9th Cir.1987) (FISA's review procedures do not deprive a defendant of Due Process); United States v. Damrah, 412 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.2005) ( “FISA's requirement that the district court conduct an ex parte, in camera review of FISA Materials does not deprive a defendant of due process.”); United States v. Abu–Jihaad, 531 F.Supp.2d 299, 310 (D.Conn.2008) (citing cases).

United States v. Gowadia, CR. 05-00486 HG-KSC, 2009 WL 1649714 (D. Haw. June 8, 2009)

The Patriot Act amended this language by requiring that “a significant purpose” for the surveillance be foreign intelligence information gathering. As a result of this change, “FISA now allows surveillance and searches even where the primary purpose of the surveillance is criminal prosecution, so long as ‘a significant purpose’ of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence.” Id. at 995 (citing In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 732–33). All courtsto have interpreted this amendment have held that it complies with requirements of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 736–46; United States v. Damrah, 412 F.3d at 625; United States v. Benkahla, 437 F.Supp.2d 541 (E.D.Va.2006); United States v. Abu–Jihaad, 531 F.Supp.2d 299, 304 (D.Conn.2008).

United States v. Islamic Am. Relief Agency, 07-00087-CR-W-NKL, 2009 WL 5169536 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 21, 2009)

Accordingly, courts within the Second Circuit repeatedly have upheld the legality of FISA's provisions in light of the requirements imposed on the government in conducting surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information in particular cases. See, e.g., United States v. AbuJihaad, 531 F.Supp.2d 299 (D.Conn.2008), aff'd, 630 F.3d 102; United States v. Sattar, No. 02 CR. 395 JGK, 2003 WL 22137012 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.15, 2003), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.2009);

United States v. Medunjanin, 10 CR 19 1 RJD, 2012 WL 526428 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2012)

Mr. Abu-jihaad first argues that FISA is unconstitutional on its face because it violates the Fourth Amendment. In support, he relies heavily upon a recent decision in Mayfield v. United States, 504 F.Supp.2d 1023 (D.Or.2007). According to Mayfield, a Patriot Act amendment to FISA-which permits FISA surveillance if a “significant purpose” of the surveillance is foreign intelligence-now allows the “Executive Branch to bypass the Fourth Amendment in gathering evidence for a criminal prosecution.” Id. at 1037. Indeed, in that case, the court found that the “primary purpose of the electronic surveillance and physical searching of Mayfield's home was to gather evidence to prosecute him for crimes,” id. at 1038, and thus that by utilizing FISA, the Government had improperly avoided the probable cause, judicial oversight, notice, and particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1039-40. Two other courts have expressly rejected the facial arguments embraced by Mayfield. See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717; United States v. Mubayyid, 521 F.Supp.2d 125 (D.Mass.2007). The Court is unpersuaded by Mayfield⁵ and holds-in accordance with In re Sealed Case and Mubayyid, as well as the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59-that FISA is not unconstitutional on its face.

The Second Circuit has already traveled down this path in Duggan, where the court upheld the constitutionality of FISA. There, Judge Amalya L. Kearse, writing for a unanimous court, noted that prior to enactment of FISA, virtually every court had concluded that the President had the inherent power, as an exception to the Fourth Amendment, to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information. Duggan, 743 F.2d at 72. The court further noted that in United States v. United States District Court (Keith, J.), 407 U.S. 297, 308, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972), the Supreme Court expressly declined to address the issue. Duggan, 743 F.2d at 72; see Keith, 407 U.S. at 321-22, 92 S.Ct. 2125 (“We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.”).

United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 531 F. Supp. 2d 299, 304 (D. Conn. 2008)

In his Motion to Suppress the FISA materials, Defendant argues that FISA, as it exists after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, violates the Fourth Amendment. This argument has been made before several other courts, which have unanimously rejected it. See United States v. Ning Wen, 477 F.3d 896, 897 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Damrah, 412 F.3d 618, 625 (6th Cir.2005); United States v. Abu–Jihaad, 531 F.Supp.2d 299, 309 (D.Conn.2008); Warsame, 547 F.Supp.2d at 993; United States v. Mubayyid, 521 F.Supp.2d 125, 139–40 (D.Mass.2007); United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief and Dev., No. 04–CR–240–G, 2007 WL 2011319, at *6 (N.D.Tex. July 11, 2007).

United States v. Kashmiri, 09 CR 830-4, 2010 WL 4705159 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2010)

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (“FISCR”) addressed the issue of FISA's post-Patriot Act constitutionality in In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (FISA Ct. Rev.2002).

United States v. Kashmiri, 09 CR 830-4, 2010 WL 4705159 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2010)

[Sing_Sling]

Ah yes, the Patriot Act. That wonderful Act signed and passed without anyone reading it, which entails diminishing the rights of the population like no other document before it.

The knee-jerk reaction, flag-waving and chest-thumping in the aftermath of 11/9 has done more damage to civil liberties than the terrorists' acts.

“FISA now allows surveillance and searches even where the primary purpose of the surveillance is criminal prosecution, so long as ‘a significant purpose’ of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence.”

Land of the Free?

[F430murci]

Ah yes, the Patriot Act. That wonderful Act signed and passed without anyone reading it, which entails diminishing the rights of the population like no other document before it.

The knee-jerk reaction, flag-waving and chest-thumping in the aftermath of 11/9 has done more damage to civil liberties than the terrorists' acts.

FISA now allows surveillance and searches even where the primary purpose of the surveillance is criminal prosecution, so long as a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence.

Land of the Free?

Bingo, and precisely the reason why I was desperate to see Bush gone in 2004, because he got his 2 appoints and a 5-4 conservative court to rubber stamp the Act and erode the 4th. The 4th was decimated in 2007 and 2008.

I get disgusted when I read those cases and I get even more disgusted when ever I hear Chief Justice John Roberts' name. We get Justices like him when we have a President with a double digit IQ. He will be a Bush gift that keeps giving even after Bush is gone to ask what Jesus would have done.

Edited July 12, 2013 by F430murci

[mania]

??? What is the difference?

Yes Bush brought it but Obama did not think twice about extending it

[Scott]

The difference is that this is not a political thread, so comparing and contrasting Bush and Obama is off-topic.

Stay on the topic.

[F430murci]

??? What is the difference?

Yes Bush brought it but Obama did not think twice about extending it

If you have to ask the question you wouldn't understand the answer.

[mania]

??? What is the difference?

Yes Bush brought it but Obama did not think twice about extending it

If you have to ask the question you wouldn't understand the answer.

[SinglePot]

Why is Venezuela offering Snowden asylum?

Because they are concerned about civil liberties for US citizens?

Just asking.

[Asiantravel]

The German President, Joachim Gauck, concluded in a recent interview, that the NSA was not to be compared with the Stasi, because, [paraphrasing] "it is not like it was with the Stasi, where there exist big filing cabinets in which all our conversations are written down."

http://apps.opendatacity.de/stasi-vs-nsa/english.html

[SinglePot]

The German President, Joachim Gauck, concluded in a recent interview, that the NSA was not to be compared with the Stasi, because, [paraphrasing] "it is not like it was with the Stasi, where there exist big filing cabinets in which all our conversations are written down."

http://apps.opendatacity.de/stasi-vs-nsa/english.html

And my iPad can do more than the old Cambridge University mainframe which was the size of a building.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Scott

[Sing_Sling]

Why is Venezuela offering Snowden asylum?

Because they are concerned about civil liberties for US citizens?

Just asking.

Human rights.

Just answering

The German President, Joachim Gauck, concluded in a recent interview, that the NSA was not to be compared with the Stasi, because, [paraphrasing] "it is not like it was with the Stasi, where there exist big filing cabinets in which all our conversations are written down."

http://apps.opendatacity.de/stasi-vs-nsa/english.html

And my iPad can do more than the old Cambridge University mainframe which was the size of a building.

You didn't understand what he was saying, did you . . .

[SinglePot]

human rights?

Do you believe that? seems a little bit politically naive to me.

Snowden would have been up a gum tree walking out with box files.

[Sing_Sling]

human rights?

Do you believe that? seems a little bit politically naive to me.

Snowden would have been up a gum tree walking out with box files.

You asked. I answered. Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant in this context. This is their reason

as to your gumtree quip - I have no idea what that means.

[SinglePot]

Espionage is the second oldest profession behind prostitution.

Modern espionage relies on highly developed IT.

Snowden would not have been able to walk away with information in the old days.

It's a tough world out there. IMHO Obama is doing his best for the US.

You and many others obviously disagree.

We all have to find our own personal truth.

we agree to differ I think.

Regards

SP

[wealth]

Edward Snowden to meet human rights groups at Moscow airport

NSA whistleblower plans to talk to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch at Sheremetyevo airport, say reports

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/edward-snowden-amnesty-international