Justin Amash: Snowden "may be doing things overseas that we’d find problematic...dangerous"

[ProSense]

<...>

“Yes,” Amash said, adding, “As I said, he may be doing things overseas that we’d find problematic, that we’d find dangerous ... we’ll find those facts out over time. But as far as Congress is concerned, sure, he’s a whistle-blower. He told us what we need to know.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/04/edward-snowden-whistle-blower_n_3703931.html

Clearly, he doesn't speak for Congress. Also, Snowden isn't a whistleblower just because Amash declares him one.

Still, what could be "problematic" and "dangerous" about what Snowden actions overseas?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. so let me understand your logic here.

We should believe Amash when he states "he may be doing things overseas that we’d find problematic".
We should disbelieve Amash when he states "he’s a whistle-blower. He told us what we need to know.”

You should get a better memo.

[ProSense]

3. No,

so let me understand your logic here.

We should believe Amash when he states "he may be doing things overseas that we’d find problematic".
We should disbelieve Amash when he states "he’s a whistle-blower. He told us what we need to know.”

You should get a better memo.

...I'm asking those who believe Justin Amash to explain what he meant.

If you don't believe him, then you cannot answer.

[Marr]

22. lol, no kidding. And the aside is the headline, while the statement itself is to be ignored.

I guess the tank is running low.

[Enrique]

2. the spinning of every little thing in this case is amazing

i haven't seen anything like it.

[ProSense]

23. Yup, there's a lot of "spinning."

Pro-Snowden spin.

[Quantess]

4. Probably accumulating trinkets in stacks of cardboard boxes, flirting with Russian pole dancers,

fire-juggling, or sword-swallowing russian hotties.

[AgingAmerican]

5. lol

nt

[The Link]

6. dispelling the myth of American moral superiority and greatness.

That would be problematic...and maybe dangerous.

[ProSense]

18. Well, at least you attempted to provide an answer. Thanks. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Are you familiar with the way "may" is used in English?

It is used for supposition.

So when asked "is he a whistle-blower or a traitor?", Amash says he is a whistle-blower, because he has given Congress information it needs, that the government was trying to hide. This is a simple statement. However, the suggestion was also put forward that he is a traitor. Since we don't know that he has done anything traitorous, Amash used the form may. He is speculating that, since Snowden has not been under constant surveillance by the NSA since leaving Hawaii, he may have said something he's not supposed to have.

Asking DUers to speculate on what Snowden may have said is idiotic. Any contractor working for the NSA may have said something traitorous to someone, but we, as DUers, have no idea. James Clapper may have said something traitorous (we know he lies under oath, so I think the speculation is justified), but we really have no idea what.

[ProSense]

8. Yes, and now that you've tried condescension, want to address what he meant by his statement? n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Condescension is all this thread deserves

You can ignore the fact that I already did address it - I explained he was speculating. Your thread has been a waste of space from the moment you posted the OP, so there's not much more you can do to make it worse.

[ProSense]

16. Well,

"You can ignore the fact that I already did address it - I explained he was speculating. Your thread has been a waste of space from the moment you posted the OP, so there's not much more you can do to make it worse."

...thanks for establishing that your opinion is the only one that matters.

Nothing you say changes the fact that Amash made the statement. You may not like it, but there it is.

[treestar]

9. The funny thing is that he is probably more under the radar of spies

both Russian and American (and probably Israeli and all the rest) than he ever was before.

[DesMoinesDem]

12. Good one! Where's the picture?

Remember when Greenwald released his first NSA story and you hadn't received your talking points yet so you just posted pictures of clowns. Good times.

[randome]

15. I truly doubt we will ever hear from Snowden again.

But of course every politician wants to get in on the act in case it helps rile up voters.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[ProSense]

17. That's always a possibility. n/t

[ljm2002]

19. Seriously...

...are you asking a serious question here? Amash was very clearly supporting the notion that Snowden is a whistle-blower. He makes NO allegations about wrongdoing on Snowden's part, merely admits the possibility. So you want us to speculate about what Amash meant when he used the terms "problematic" and "dangerous". Why speculate at all? I thought his statement was quite clear. If you did not find his remarks to be clear and are truly curious about what he really meant, perhaps you should send him a note.

Here are the excerpts from the article. It also includes the video which you can watch to verify these are a fair representation of Amash's remarks:

Rep. Justin Amash, (R-Mich.), a prominent NSA critic, said Sunday that Edward Snowden is a "whistle-blower" who brought to light intelligence-gathering programs that much of Congress would not have otherwise heard of.

“Without his doing what he did, members of Congress would not have really known about (those programs)," Amash told Fox's Chris Wallace. "Members of Congress were not really aware on the whole about what these programs were being used for and the extent to which they were being used. Members of the intelligence committee were told, but rank-and-file members really didn’t have the information.”

“So, you still consider him a whistle-blower?” Wallace asked.

“Yes,” Amash said, adding, “As I said, he may be doing things overseas that we’d find problematic, that we’d find dangerous ... we’ll find those facts out over time. But as far as Congress is concerned, sure, he’s a whistle-blower. He told us what we need to know.”

[randome]

20. Snowden 'told' them things it was their job to know.

At the very least, Snowden highlighted the fact that Congress does not take its oversight responsibilities seriously. I don't consider that whistleblowing, however.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[ljm2002]

21. First of all...

...as Amash alluded to, Congress people were not all informed. Some Congress critters are more equal than others. But fine, okay: this is the NSA we're talking about and they deal with classified stuff so we need to protect the information. Well if that is the case, then how do we ensure adequate Congressional oversight? I mean, saying "it's their job to know" while at the same time making informed oversight impossible seems schizoid to me. Even those who are supposedly allowed to know the "whole" truth, have limitations put on them. Only certain documents are made available to them, and then they are only allowed to be in the same room with those documents for limited periods of time, during which they are allowed no pencils or paper or any other means to record specifics. Furthermore, over-classification is a huge problem, which certainly was made evident by Manning's leaks. It appears that when in doubt, classify is the order of business being followed. It also appears that much material is classified simply to avoid embarrassment or to avoid accountability.

Secondly, whether or not you consider it whistle-blowing is not the issue being discussed by the OP, is it? The OP asks the question, what did Amash mean by possible "problematic" or "dangerous" actions? Yet Amash made no assertions about such things, merely entertained the possibility and said very clearly, we will find out IF such is the case.