What if Snowden is lying, distorting, exaggerating?

[ZRT2209]

How do we know for sure what he says is accurate?

[randome]

1. That's it! You're out!

Don't come to this site again with those, what do you call 'em, critical thinking skills?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

16. Doncha know we adore Snowdon without question

and welcome our Chinese overloads as they gain favor and power by undermining the USA.

[baldguy]

2. Like when he said he was making $200k/yr? Or that he could tap the President's phone?

[villager]

3. Far better to trust the NSA. Completely and uncritically.

Absolutely.

[Octafish]

46. Ask Drake. Ask Binney. Ask Wiebe...

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023030479

[peacebird]

76. Exactly. Spot on.

[Luminous Animal]

91. Yep.

[MotherPetrie]

4. He's being charged with espionage.

[dkf]

5. Look at the Government's reaction.

You don't need to believe anything that comes out of his mouth. Just read his documents and see if the government refutes anything.

[pscot]

6. The evident panic inside the beltway

and the persistent efforts to smear the guy suggest that he hit a nerve; one that goes deep.

[Catherina]

9. Deep indeed... " chase him to the ends of the earth"

Meanwhile, back on the U.S. politics front, senators have been continuing to take their shots:

“I hope we'll chase him to the ends of the earth, bring him to justice and let the Russians know there will be consequences if they harbor this guy,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C. said on Fox News Sunday.

Some pent-up rage against the Russian government is coming out, it appears.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-leaves-hong-kong-moscow-live#block-51c73968e4b02f4bb5036732

[pscot]

13. Little Lindsey is beside himself

No, wait. That would make 2 of him. Not even South carolina would stomach that.

[Live and Learn]

11. +1 nt

[marions ghost]

22. Bingo

We know already that he is not lying, unfortunately.

Many many indicators.

[KittyWampus]

29. nevermind.

[treestar]

44. How do you know the alleged panic is not about

figuring there may be a threat to the US security somewhere due to this?

[Th1onein]

56. You mean someone might get pissed off because we're spying on our ALLIES?

Geez, who woulda thunk it?

[treestar]

68. No I mean say some real agent getting outed and killed

or some terrorist be able to do something with the information to benefit the goals of the terrorist.

[Th1onein]

73. WHAT can they possibly do with the information that we're all being spied on?

I really don't think that the NSA is worried about that, nor Obama. It begs belief. I think that what they are worried about is that THEY have been outed as spying on the American people, and the rest of the world.

[pscot]

64. Something is being threatened

but I don't think it's security in the sense you mean. Profits at Booz Allen and the Carlyle group are definitely being threatened. The one-and -a-quarter million people with top secret security clearances may feel their job security is at risk. The entire $85 bilion national security apparatus may feel it's budget is threatened. The beaurocrats who think every American who disagrees with public policy belongs on a watch list are probably nervous as hell. I feel threatened by corporate control of the levers and uses of my government. A terrorist attack is way down near the bottom of the list of things I worry about. Goldman Sachs and the giant vampire squid are more of a threat to America than Alquaida could ever dream lof being..

[treestar]

69. You really feel so completely at ease about Al Qaeda

or the actions of other governments?

There is no threat there at all? In fact I thought there was due to all of our misdeeds.

[Th1onein]

74. You mean like radicalized Muslims? Like the Boston Bombers?

Yeah, right; this program did a lot of good for us on that, didn't it?

[treestar]

77. So then there is a threat from Muslims?

Does it have to work perfectly or be worth scrapping? Tamerlan hadn't made many connections but others may have and they could be watched without "destroying our liberties."

[Th1onein]

89. Bullshit.

And you know it.

[pscot]

75. AlQuaida is a reactionary force

Their beef with us is that of a subject people to a colonial empire. We've been grabbing shit that doesn't belong to us since Polk ordered Taylor to occupy Monterrey in the name o Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism. The wars we're fighting now are to sustain corporate hegemony over what we've taken. We shouldn't be surprised when it pisses people off.

[treestar]

78. We aren't making them part of the country - I don't see why there's no difference

Should we have remained 13 states? All the rest is imperialism? By the definition of imperialism, I think it is not that until we colonize them. And then goes away when they become full members of the United States. It's like saying Texas or Colorado are signs we are imperialist.

[Luminous Animal]

90. Why not remain 13 states? What would have been so awful about that.

[treestar]

92. I wasn't around at the time

I doubt the residents of the remaining states feel imposed upon as a colony or victims of imperialism.

[Luminous Animal]

93. That wasn't the question.

[sibelian]

86. Perhaps stopping the misdeeds and publically taking responsibility for them would help.

Most ordinary human brings don't particularly want to go around blowing things up. I can;t see ordinary Muslims being tremendously horrified at their own governments helping America out in getting bad guys if America would stop making the bad guys by blowing up entire villages to prove silly points, primarily to *itself*.

Really, it's a mess. Hiding behind curtains of "but but but they aren't allowed to shoot BACK, that's just BADNESS" might convince Americans but why would anyone else buy it?

[treestar]

87. It is my understanding Yemen actually wants us there "blowing up"

terrorists, at least, they don't like them either and can't handle them.

We shouldn't be entirely blamed for "making" bad guys. We did overreact during the Bush administration, or, Bushites used 911 to get what they already wanted, but we kicked Bush out. But those who carried out 911 were bad guys and they cannot be excused by the concept we "made them" or made them do it. They could have protested. They got into the US where they could have protested and our laws would allow them to do that.

[pscot]

88. They could have been stopped

if Bush had read his mail. And it didn't take a system of univeral surveillance to spot them. If we're too feckless to heed the warnings, no security system will keep us safe.

[winter is coming]

82. ^^ This. n/t

[zazen]

7. I think it's his raw evidence that's more of the threat

He may very well be lying and have these other problems people are bringing up. I think the files that he has must constitute a real threat, and I doubt he could invent their provenance.

[NoOneMan]

8. If Snowden is "leaking" lies then I think his legal problems have just evaporated

But do you think the government is revoking his passport and charging him with espionage over lies and exaggerations?


Its an interesting dilemma for his critics....the more you accuse him of being a traitor and damaging the US, the more you imply his claims are valid. You can't have it both ways.

[Whisp]

14. The only valid claim so far is he stole classified documents

He has not proven any of his other statements – the ability to eavesdrop on the President's email, and how the 'direct access' initial statement has been blurred and fuzzied now by Greenwald and Snowden.

He has not given a shred of evidence (as far as I know) of any of his initial claims.

[Life Long Dem]

10. Maybe because we already knew

Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

[Harmony Blue]

12. I just watched a wall to wall parade of old, white rich dudes on Sunday talk shows

condemn Snowden. That is all the evidence I need that the establishment is angry that the truth is out there.

[marions ghost]

25. Yep

I didn't even watch. I knew what they were saying.

[Progressive dog]

33. Kind of like visual evidence,

you saw who condemned him, surmised that they were rich, and your critical thinking told you about the truth.

[Harmony Blue]

39. It is eerie how it all came together

the 1% oligarchs aren't happy that is for sure.

[Progressive dog]

42. It is that nt

[wtmusic]

15. Easy...he would have been dismissed. They want him, and they want him bad. nt

[DevonRex]

34. that was just to get you guys all riled up. it worked.

The information he's bartering with is what the U.S. is concerned about. China and Russia both have it now.

[wtmusic]

37. Good, apparently he's got you riled up too. nt

[Downwinder]

17. I think the response is proof enough.

[jsr]

23. Precisely.

[Recursion]

32. You mean the lack of any attempt to capture him?

Yeah, I don't exactly see hair on fire here.

[PSPS]

18. Yes, that's it! All those documents aren't real. They were created by satan to test our faith!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Shouldn't that be up to us to decide without government interference?

[Progressive dog]

40. A jury of his peers would be nice

If he actually respected the Constitution, I would think he would have welcomed the opportunity to present evidence in his defense.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. I was referring to what he revealed and will reveal.

Shouldn't we be able to decide if he's telling the truth about that without him being silenced and prosecuted?

[Progressive dog]

53. He's not being silenced or persecuted

The fact that he is afraid to face a jury of his peers, where all 12 have to vote guilty, where he will have the best legal representation available, tells me all I need to know about his being persecuted.
His ability to continue his campaign against the United States tells me all I need to know about him being silenced.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Did you miss the indictments and attempts to extradite him?

[Progressive dog]

60. He has been charged with crimes, that is the way it works.

No one made up special rules for Snowden.
He fled to other countries to escape prosecution for those crimes. That is not persecution. We have extradition treaties with other countries and asked for his extradition.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. I'm sure they would give him an open forum if he were caught.

Just like they're giving Bradley Manning. Just like they didn't try to silence Daniel Ellsberg and the New York Times.

Right?

[Progressive dog]

65. The NY Times published, Ellsburg is not in jail, Nixon resigned

Bradley Manning was not a civilian, and Snowden is fleeing prosecution. Right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. The Times was allowed to print by a ruling of the supreme court.

Which made the jailing of Ellsberg unnecessary. And, he he now supporting Snowden and his revelations of NSA spying.

Get back to me when the supreme court allows the revelations of Snowden to be published and the warrants for his arrest have been nullified.

[jsr]

20. Nobody has refuted the authenticity of the documents Snowden revealed

The Clapper didn't unleash the wrath of Washington on him for no reason.

[Coyotl]

27. Nobody has confirmed the authenticity of the documents Snowden revealed

Not?

[jsr]

38. Snowden was not charged with theft of fake documents

[Autumn]

21. What if he isn't lying, distorting, exaggerating?

We don't know.

[ZombieHorde]

24. If he was lying, then he would be a conspiracy theorist.

As far as I know, the US government doesn't press charges against conspiracy theorists.

Some of the things he saying may be way off, but some in the US Government thinks some of what he is saying is accurate enough to press charges.

[Politicalboi]

31. Most CT's don't have papers

To hand over to foreign governments. Snowden's a loaded gun that needs to be stopped.

[ZombieHorde]

54. If his "papers" weren't legitamate, then he probably wouldn't have been charged,

so he probably isn't lying about that.

Whether or not he needs to be harmed is simply a matter of subjective priorities.

[AZ Progressive]

26. This has been known since a long time ago

I mean, 2006, and even before.

Room 641A:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

Room 641A is located in the SBC Communications building at 611 Folsom Street, San Francisco, three floors of which were occupied by AT&T before SBC purchased AT&T.[1] The room was referred to in internal AT&T documents as the SG3 [Study Group 3] Secure Room. It is fed by fiber optic lines from beam splitters installed in fiber optic trunks carrying Internet backbone traffic[3] and, as analyzed by J. Scott Marcus, a former CTO for GTE and a former adviser to the FCC, who has access to all Internet traffic that passes through the building, and therefore "the capability to enable surveillance and analysis of internet content on a massive scale, including both overseas and purely domestic traffic."[4] Former director of the NSA’s World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group, William Binney, has estimated that 10 to 20 such facilities have been installed throughout the United States.[2]
The room measures about 24 by 48 feet (7.3 by 15 m) and contains several racks of equipment, including a Narus STA 6400, a device designed to intercept and analyze Internet communications at very high speeds.[1]
The very existence of the room was revealed by a former AT&T technician, Mark Klein, and was the subject of a 2006 class action lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against AT&T.[5] Klein claims he was told that similar black rooms are operated at other facilities around the country.
Room 641A and the controversies surrounding it were subjects of an episode of Frontline, the current affairs documentary program on PBS. It was originally broadcast on May 15, 2007. It was also featured on PBS's NOW on March 14, 2008. The room was also covered in the PBS Nova episode "The Spy Factory".


And

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished-qwest-refusing-participate-illegal-surveillance-pre-9-11

When Qwest refused the NSA’s illegal request that it hand over its customers’ data without a warrant, the NSA wasn’t happy. According to former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio, the government hit back for the telecom’s refusal by denying them lucrative contracts (log-in required) worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

...

First, the most fascinating detail to emerge is that it appears the NSA was talking to the giant telecoms about handing over customer data a full seven months before 9/11. Documents show that Nacchio met with the NSA on February 27, 2001, at which time Nacchio refused a request that he deemed illegal. If true, this would seem to contradict the Bush administration claim that any laws broken by the telecoms were hasty mistakes made in the confusion following the terrorist attacks.

[Politicalboi]

28. Didn't we elect Snowden last November?

Oh that's right, it was Obama. The same guy who started the NSA in Kenya. Obama can't even appoint enough people in his cabinet but yet he is SOLELY responsible for the NSA and their methods.

[DevonRex]

30. We already know he lied, distorted, exaggerated. What we don't know is

what he may have in his possession. But CIA and NSA do know. China already has everything. Russia will be getting it as we speak. And so will every other country he lands in, if Russia doesn't take everything he's got. Greenwald had better hope Russia doesn't think he's got anything that Snowden doesn't have on his person.

[PufPuf23]

35. What if our elected leadership, military, and intelligence agencies are

lying, distorting, and exaggerating to those of us un the USA and the rest of the world too?

This is self-evident and likely worse than revealed.

Our institutions and selected individuals are above the Constitution, law, and humane decency and get a pass.

Most of us get spied upon by our own government without cause, a destroyed economy, blowback for mundane evil, and lose the USAs respect and ideals with allies and enemies alike.

Snowden is a mere messenger.

Prosecute war and financial criminals including those that apologize and protect them.

[Recursion]

36. We know some of what he said was false. But even falsely-spun documents can have damaging facts

My impression is that under all the hype, there's enough of a story here to bother some people. (It's just, of course, not the part that people on DU are freaking out about, which is a significant mixture of bullshit and stuff everybody knew already.)

[treestar]

41. You will be called an Authoritarian Apologist in 3.2.1

[AZ Progressive]

49. Sticking one's head in the sand is not a good idea

[liberal N proud]

43. I don't think anyone is sure, that is what has so many worried

But fleeing to Russia with the aid of China make him a criminal of espionage.

[morningfog]

47. The docs speak for them self and buttress his further claims.

[Progressive dog]

48. He is making claims based on "documents" that he won't let you see

and you are supposed to believe him.

[AZ Progressive]

50. This is not about Snowden's claims as much as it is about the people knowing and having a discussion

finally about unethical surveillance and the consequences to the American people.

[Progressive dog]

57. Those are his claims and you can't separate them

I have no problem with a discussion, but discussions must be based on facts, not on unsubstantiated claims.

[DirkGently]

58. We have unrefuted docs showing massive surveillance.

No one in the mainstream is running wild with Snowden's wilder claims about being to wiretap the President or whatever he said.

But no one has refuted the hideously designed NSA docs describing the scope.

The ACLU has not brought suit on the basis of anything unsubstantiated that Snowden said, but rather on the undisputed fact that Verizon customers' information was sought en masse.

There. Separated.

[Progressive dog]

66. No we don't, we have evdence that the NSA kept metadata that SCOTUS had

removed from right to privacy years ago. We should debate it again, I have no problem with that and even the President says we should.

This is certainly true, but DU is not the mainstream media.
"No one in the mainstream is running wild with Snowden's wilder claims about being to wiretap the President or whatever he said. "

[DirkGently]

71. Please cite Supreme Court support

for collecting all phone data from everyone, all the time. Think the ACLU is confused about basic 4th Amendment law?

"This dragnet program is surely one of the largest surveillance efforts ever launched by a democratic government against its own citizens," said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. "It is the equivalent of requiring every American to file a daily report with the government of every location they visited, every person they talked to on the phone, the time of each call, and the length of every conversation. The program goes far beyond even the permissive limits set by the Patriot Act and represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association and the right to privacy."

The ACLU is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services, which was the recipient of a secret FISA Court order published by The Guardian last week. The order required the company to "turn over on 'an ongoing daily basis' phone call details" such as who calls are placed to and from, and when those calls are made. The lawsuit argues that the government's blanket seizure of and ability to search the ACLU's phone records compromises sensitive information about its work, undermining the organization's ability to engage in legitimate communications with clients, journalists, advocacy partners, and others.

"The crux of the government's justification for the program is the chilling logic that it can collect everyone's data now and ask questions later," said Alex Abdo, a staff attorney for the ACLU's National Security Project. "The Constitution does not permit the suspicionless surveillance of every person in the country."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program

All the "Snowden is a coward / traitor / pole dancer dater / iguana from Mars bloviating is third-rate spinning from the self-appointed Defenders of All Things Obama, period. It's shoot-the-messenger bullshit and everyone knows it.

[Progressive dog]

80. Here you go

[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register|

[DirkGently]

84. No one thinks that law means what the NSA is doing

is per se legal. This is new ground. Even the article you cited discusses the controversy. No one has "removed telephone metadata from privacy."

[Progressive dog]

85. Don't include me in your no one.

I think that the Constitution should be followed and I don't believe that I get to decide what it means. No one has added telephone metadata to privacy either.

[DirkGently]

51. The docs are real. The debate is real. That is enough.

It's not a personality contest. Certainly not one between Snowden and Obama. That is fascist thinking.

We are talking about policy and principle. Snowden is not the reason people care about domestic spying on Americans.

Whether Obama is "yay" or Snowden is "boo" is not the question.

Snowden could be a communist Yeti who abuses parakeets (and I think there is a thread suggesting he is, at this point) and it would still be relevant for Americans to examine how a gigantic, multi-billion-dollar private / government surveillance network is gathering information in a country whose Constitution requires "probable cause" to investigate citizens.

[backscatter712]

52. Neil Cavuto, is that you?

Are those Cavuto marks you're ending your sentences with?

[sgtbenobo]

59. At a certain point in virtually any dialog there is such a thing as a truly stupid question.

I.E.

Li'l Dudley: "Gee Mr. Wizard. What if worms had machine guns?

Mr. Wizard: "Well Dudley, I guess that means the birds wouldn't fuck with them. Now go wait in the Hall."


Carry on.

[markpkessinger]

61. Fine - then the government should have no problem . . .

. . . with an open and honest discussion about what is going on with these programs (at least with respect to American citizens who are not under direct suspicion of terror plotting against the U.S.).

I mean . . . right?

[still_one]

63. If that was so, why bring charges against him?

[TheKentuckian]

67. See, my line had already been crossed at what the Administration and Congress admit

and in most cases pretty much crow about.

Call me what you will but warrants for bullshit like everyone on Verizon and sifting through our data without any articulable individual suspicion are fucking unconstitutional no matter what lipstick is smeared on the disgusting pig and I don't give a shit if Hannity's lunch date or some propaganda collective or the Johnny Depp fan club finds a way to twist themselves in perverse knots to defend, spitting in the face of no small advancement of humanity and sacred trust to future generations for what of substance, I do not know.

If the rest of it is true then our problems tower well above monumental of course but I think it should be obvious that if we are not there we could get there way to fast to fix, have been there already in the very recent past, and could easily get way worse with almost no chances to pump the brakes. We have seen too much institutional inertia and mission creep out in broad daylight. Do we not too well know the corporate capture and entanglement and where it tends to lead, even in what passes for sunshine?

What happens in the cloak of state security, willfully asleep at the wheel, at best oversight from Congress, and the twisting of an otherwise freely admitted and bitterly complained about radically regressive judiciary?

Come on now! There is no benefit to granting any such powers to the state absent an existential threat worth the downside potential and then quite dangerous to the point of clear bounds of objective and duration have to be baked in to be considered even in the most desperate hours much less ill defined shadows, increasingly of our creation a reaction to our own around the world and ever increasingly hostile and invasive for "our protection" at home and so seemingly quite prepared to squash any blowback with the same tools.

[nessa]

72. Snowden isn't really relevant. As others said...

it's the evidence and the government's response so far.

[madamesilverspurs]

79. If he is shown to be lying, distorting and/or exaggerating -

then DU will be inundated with posters who claim that they knew it all along and that their earlier posts suggesting otherwise were merely attempts to get others to use their critical thinking skills. . .

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. Panic in the avenues of power says otherwise

[former9thward]

83. The NSA boss, Alexander says Snowden is accurate.

He said Snowden caused irreversible and significant damage to our country and to our allies. He could only have done that if he was telling the truth. And we know Alexander would never tell a lie......