OK...It’s now officially ‘Put up or Shut up’ -time

[Blue_Tires]

Last edited Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:42 PM - Edit history (2)

Taking the sage advice of DUer riderinthestorm, I’ve decided to put some of my favorite unanswered questions about Edward Snowden in one thread, and give everybody a chance to whack them like a pinata (if you can)...Logically there are only three possible outcomes from this thread: Either I’ll be proven right, I’ll be proven wrong, or my thesis will be inconclusive...

Ready for the challenge?? Want to shut me up once and for all? Want me to convert to a true believer? Want me to flee DU in humiliation? Well now is your chance...IF anybody can definitively prove me wrong, or find some magical way to make perfect sense of all the inconsistencies, my very next thread will be to ask Skinner to nuke this account I've been on since '03, and I won't return...My exit from DU is your trophy -- Now, who wants to get it??

Each question will be a separate post in this thread, and it will branch out from there...I’ll check this thread daily and respond as needed...But first, the ground rules:

1. WE WILL ALL DISCUSS THIS LIKE ADULTS -- This one time I swear to the gods I’ll be on my best Sunday behavior and I ask the same from my rivals...I want to remove the emotion from the debate and discuss this dispassionately, so no personal attacks, namecalling, and no “NSA shill”-this, or “emoprog”-that...

2. FULL, REASONED RESPONSES ONLY -- No dismissive responses, no one-line responses, no emoticon responses...If your argument isn’t properly backed with links or other cited sources, I will disregard it...

Your participation in this thread is considered an acceptance of these ground rules...If the level of discourse deteriorates, I’ll ask the mods for the lock...


EDIT 20 APR 2015, 1753 HRS: Seems like I'm getting way too much confusion, snark and negativity for trying to hold an adult conversation on the subject...Perhaps I failed to properly explain myself. I'm doing this because 1. A DUer challenged me on repeated occasions to do so, 2. For research purposes, I want to have all my Snowald discussions in one place instead of jumping from thread to thread and searching the archives all the time for my old posts, and 3. Instead of the usual flames, insults and shit-flinging both sides have endured, I thought DU could benefit from a proper, civil discussion like we used to have in the old days...Even now, I've been calm, controlled, polite the entire time and will remain so as long as this thread is active...This thread has become a place of peace for me, so why can't it be for the rest of you??

[joshcryer]

1. You drunk?

[Blue_Tires]

3. No sir, I do not partake in alcohol.

[joshcryer]

5. Well good luck.

[Blue_Tires]

20. Thank you and good-bye...

(I'll need it)

[FSogol]

21. Oh well, no one's perfect.

[AuntPatsy]

4. ..

[Blue_Tires]

2. Question #1

Just an easy appetizer...

Can anyone explain to me how Snowden got hired for a 122k salary job and passed a TS background check when his resume was exaggerated at best and possibly dishonest at the worst??

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1266209/booz-allen-hired-snowden-despite-discrepancies-his-resume

[AuntPatsy]

6. . ? Can you be a bit more specific,

[grasswire]

7. I can't take your challenge seriously if you are going to use..

...a source that has a connection to Rupert Murdoch. You are assuming facts not in evidence.

[Blue_Tires]

16. The SCMP was one of the first papers Snowden went to

June 12, 2013: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259335/exclusive-whistle-blower-edward-snowden-talks-south-china-morning

If Snowden trusted them, that should be legit enough for you...

So do you have an answer?

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. Hundreds Of US Security Clearance Records Are Falsified, Federal Cases Show

Hundreds Of US Security Clearance Records Are Falsified, Federal Cases Show
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors have documented at least 350 instances of faulty background investigations done by private contractors and special agents for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in recent years, illustrating what some lawmakers call systemic weaknesses in the granting of federal security clearances.

Reuters calculated the total by reviewing court documents and press releases from prosecutors for 21 cases resulting in convictions that involved the making of false statements from December 2004 to March 2012.

These are the cases government officials have cited to assert that action is taken against investigators who falsely claim to have reviewed records or done interviews for background checks submitted to OPM. Not all the cases identified a specific number of fabrications.

The national security state appears to have become so bloated that fraud became part of the system.

Back when I was in the military, clearances were investigated by the FBI and other government employees. The need for workers with a clearance became so great that a crooked free market system was bound to happen.

This also may be why Bradley Manning (Chelsea Manning) was given a security clearance.

[Blue_Tires]

23. Thank you for a proper and serious response

A perfectly credible and sourced answer...At least someone in this thead is capable of more than mere snark after I'd offered the olive branch...

I'll admit Question #1 was a relatively simple test, just to see if anyone would accept this thread in the good faith which it was offered...I'll post another question or two tonight if I can, but they will be getting much harder from here...

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. I prefer to think people want informed comments rather than snark.

I look for the other questions.

[Marrah_G]

28. My son's military clearance was done by the FBI 4-5 years ago

Maybe its different when you are joining the military and not just working for them?

[Agnosticsherbet]

32. Your son was in the military, not working for one of sevearl thousand corporations that work in

National Security.

As the War on Terror progressed, several corporations were formed just to handle these investigations, and the evidence shows that some of them were nothing more than Con Jobs.

[goldent]

9. Contract house just wants warm bodies - they aren't going to be too picky about accuracy of resume.

Background checks typically don't do a lot of verification of resume details.

[cwydro]

12. From what I understand...

He does not have a college degree either.

[Orsino]

15. This one seems easy enough.

Jobs requiring TS clearances may start, as my Army job did, with the hiring and a provisional clearance that doesn't complete for another year or more. A TS clearance is supposed to be an exhaustive.

The story makes much, it seems, of Snowden not sticking with a Master's program, but doesn't claim that he promised to stick with it, or that sticking with it was or should have been a requirement for keeping a clearance (it's not, or not always, as most of my Army colleagues proved).

A $122k salary is very possible for someone without a degree, so that veiled charge fails, too.

The most serious allegation seems to be that he falsified claimed attendance at a Hopkins class overseas. There aren't enough details here for me to answer it, but we should note that attendance is not the same as completion; maybe that could be why a Hopkins contact wouldn't find it? I dunno. It is even possible, I believe, for someone to correct initially-provided info quite late in the TS clearance process. The employer is more interested in not leaving blackmailable discrepancies behind than in taking on only lily-white applicants who never make misstatements or even fib. That seemed the bias in my day, anyway.

My understanding of TS is twenty years old, however, and there are various flavors of clearance under that umbrella for which standards vary. A private contracting agency, of course, is more likely to be in a hurry and/or less picky when hiring. They want that sweet, sweet government luchre.

[Blue_Tires]

24. Agnosticsherbet pretty much answered my question

but you bring up a good point -- I've never worked in TS/SCI, but I have applied to those jobs (unsuccessfully) numerous times, and I do remember all the small print warnings and disclaimers about the legal penalty for knowingly submitting false info on a job application...

But as you and Agnosticsherbet point out, there are both intentional and unintentional holes in the system...

[treestar]

52. Don't know the answer to that

Maybe he didn't use the real resume. People use false resumes sometimes.

[winter is coming]

10. Outcome 4: trash thread. n/t

[Purveyor]

11. Indeed! eom

[Blue_Tires]

19. Thank you for participating, good-bye...

[Blue_Tires]

18. Thank you for participating, good-bye...

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Why do we park in the driveway, but drive on the parkway?

[FSogol]

22. Why do we cook bacon and bake cookies?

[MineralMan]

26. Why does my nose run while my feet smell?

I won't accept a non-serious answer and such answers will result in a resounding Bronx Cheer from me, followed by my ignoring you, usiing the Full Ignore option. So follow my rules or pay the price! Damnit!

Oh, and GET OFF MY LAWN, YOU ROTTEN KIDS!

[Warren DeMontague]

35. And there, I left all those pumpkins out

Prolly not a good idea with these juvenile delinquents running around, breaking the rules of the thread.

[bemildred]

14. You're assuming we care what you think.

That's called projection.

[Blue_Tires]

17. I was simply responding to a challenge from another DUer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6498216

Thank you for participating, good-bye...

[MineralMan]

25. Still trying to force people to follow your will?

Guess what. We don't do that here. I don't accept your rules, and yet here I am replying to your thread. It's funny how DU works, isn't it. You post and others reply in any way they choose. Those are the rules here. As long as we don't personally attack you, advocate for right-wing positions, and otherwise violate the administrators Terms of Service, anyone can post in your thread as they choose, and are not bound by any of your so-called rules.

So, here I am. I'm posting, but I'm not going to answer your questions, because I don't like your rules. They're not in keeping with the typical free discussion that goes on here on DU. You'll find that nobody is going to follow your rules. That's because they make no sense and are authoritarian in nature.

Good luck with all that.

[ScreamingMeemie]

29. As a grown up, I am not here to bend people to my will, keep notes or force people to flee.

These types of threads are just different ways of asking for attention, in my opinion.

Enough is enough.

Your participation in this thread is considered an acceptance of these ground rules... No, just no.

Only Skinner/Elad/EarG get to make "ground rules." I suggest taking a walk.

[Blue_Tires]

38. Just trying to keep the level of dialogue above board

You'd think DUers would be in favor of such a suggestion in light of a topic this polarizing, but most aren't for some reason...

Well, at least they can't say I never tried...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. Maybe indicating "shut the fuck up" in the subject line is an example of things not being

...so above-board.

But now that your easy question is out of the way, please do proceed. You DO have further questions ready, don't you?

[Blue_Tires]

46. Very well, I've since edited the thread title

Because I want everybody in this thread to feel welcome, happy, and able to discuss the issue freely...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

49. Thank you. nt

[Marrah_G]

30. What a bizarre OP.

[demmiblue]

31. I'll go with the STFU option.

I wonder who the next Snowden/Greenwald obsessive poster will be.

They seem to come in waves.

[Blue_Tires]

37. Thank you for participating, good-bye...

[Trajan]

33. hmmm

Um .. weird ....

[Rex]

34. Bad news...nobody cares what you do, if you stay or go...so what?

You must really think a lot of yourself to be saying the stuff you did in your OP! Your obsession over ES, makes me not believe you really care about being shown wrong at all.

Have a great day thinking about yourself as a trophy!

[Blue_Tires]

36. Thank you for participating, good-bye...

[Rex]

43. At least you didn't start this OP in hopes of dividing up DUers!

Seriously, LARGE FAIL...

[neverforget]

60. Did you see this post from last week? I think it explains a lot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6491242

How do you figure? Ain't nobody said shit yet to refute it
I've been taking you and your friends on almost singlehandedly for two damn years, and none of you have come close to proving me wrong, or shutting me up...Yeah, the usual crowd of 50 or so DUers make their requisite one-liners or insults, but that's all you've had so far...

Punish away, tough guy...Gimmie what ya got

[Blue_Tires]

39. QUESTION #2:

Why has there never been an explanation for Snowden's movements for his first 11 days in Hong Kong?

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/snowden-says-he-didnt-cover-his-tracks-in-hong-kong-2014-7

[treestar]

53. He does not want us to know

[Blue_Tires]

40. QUESTION #3:

Anatoly Kucherena, Snowden's then-attorney in Moscow (who happens to have an FSB link, but that's for another question), announced to the world that Snowden was hired by some unnamed company to do "website maintenance" ...Why has this company never been identified? Why have no details of Snowden's work hours, responsibilities, or salary been released??

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/world/europe/russia-snowden-job/index.html

[DisgustipatedinCA]

45. Supposing I don't have an answer, what does this indicate to you?

If I can't identify the name of this company, then it follows that Snowden is a Soviet spy? You'll have to come up with questions that actually matter, and conclusions that flow from the information given.

Quick, name 17 Supreme Court justices from the 19th century without using the Internet. Can't do it? A ha! That means kittens are now licensed to drive fire trucks!!! ....do you see what I'm getting at?

[Blue_Tires]

47. My reason for re-asking is because

all this time I've said there are inconsistencies and unanswered questions about Snowald...Many of my opponents have long maintained that my questions have either been answered on DU already or I've never come out and fully asked them; but since I've spent thousands of posts on this topic alone, searching for specific threads in the archive is getting more and more difficult...So for the sake of convenience I'm trying to collect all my 'greatest hits' on one place...

To answer your question, if you didn't have an answer (and to be fair I wouldn't expect you to, unless you had first-person involvement with Snowden), it would indicate nothing to me...There's no conclusion to be made from an unanswered question -- BUT asking it still serves a two-fold purpose: 1. To prove that there *are* still inconsistencies/unanswered questions, and 2. Hopefully spur at least one person to start thinking "Hmm...Why DON'T we have an answer to this question?"

[DisgustipatedinCA]

50. Again, thanks.

Good luck with the thread.

[treestar]

54. Maybe he is working for FSB.

from that link

Snowden, the U.S. national security contractor turned leaker, will start a job Friday with a major Russian website, his attorney Anatoly Kucherena told CNN Thursday.

Kucherena declined to name the employer for security reasons. He told Russian state-run news agency RIA Novosti that Snowden would perform maintenance for the site.

The company is major but there are security reasons?

[2banon]

42. LOL!! I thought this was going to be a HRC or else thread! LOL!

I thought this was going to be a HRC or else thread! ...

i'm finally noticing that the only thing you "care" about (i'm using that term very loosely here) is Edward Snowden.

Dude, if you're really a person, an actual busy human being, you might consider going for a Ben 'n Jerry's ... you know you want one.

[Rex]

44. LOL!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[edhopper]

48. What is your name?

[Blue_Tires]

51. Scott...Pleased to meet you, Ed...

[edhopper]

55. What is your quest?

[truebluegreen]

56. <snort>

Well done.

[edhopper]

57. Can't wait to ask my third question.

[truebluegreen]

61. What is your favorite color?

[edhopper]

63. No

What is the land/speed velocity of a sparrow?

[nilesobek]

58. I don't have any links to explain why I admire

Edward Snowden, except the John Oliver interview which I won't post and do overkill.

The main reason I support Snowden is because he's sticking it to the man, the man and his intelligence agencies who have run amok in America since 2001.

There is admittedly no rationality to my decision. There is no basis at all, no facts. All I know is what i get in the media and on DU. Its a purely emotional decision for me. If that's what you are trying to point out here it is. I'm not ashamed I feel this way or feel dumb or something because I have no links and facts to support my view.

You win.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

59. But in reality, you've already won, and it's clear you're aware of this.

You feel how you feel about it. Snowden did, in fact, stick it to the man, and you got what you wanted. So did I. We've already won. This reminds me a little of the folks who will browbeat you in an attempt to get you to vote for this candidate or that one, challenging you to justify your contrary opinion. What they don't understand is that you need not respond to any challenge. If you want me to vote for Candidate X, don't try to guilt me into it. Instead, make me want to show up and pull that lever.

Anyhow, I see parallels between that and the Snowden story. I personally like what I've seen of Ed Snowden; he strikes me as a very thoughtful and intelligent person. But if he gets hit by a bus tomorrow, that will make no difference regarding what he has exposed. So people can rant and moan about him all they want. I'll engage a lot of times, mostly for sport. But I already have what I wanted from the whole Snowden saga--the exposure of a bunch of maladjusted spies who consider us the enemy. I do think we as a nation should do something more constructive about this than we have to date, but Mr Snowden has already played his part, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

[Blue_Tires]

65. My intention was never to "win", I just want to separate the wheat from the chaff

and get a better understanding of the whole thing...

90% of DUers have been telling me I'm wrong for two years; I just want someone, anyone to pinpoint exactly what I'm wrong about, and entertain some cogent arguments that might change my way of thinking...

[nilesobek]

67. I don't think you're wrong.

I'm freely admitting that my opinion, my viewpoint, is spawned from an emotional point of view. I'm sure I don't know all the circumstances involved. One man's privacy activist is another man's thought criminal or vice versa. There's a lot of people who don't even know who ES is, probably the majority of citizens and lots of others who know but don't care.

As for myself, it will have no impact on me whatsoever. There is another 12hr day of physical work in the offing for 5am.

[CK_John]

62. IMO, Snowden is Oswald 2.0 just another asshole who will end up shot in a parking garage

when the handlers no longer needs him. Who are the handlers, will probably never be settled.

[Blue_Tires]

64. QUESTION #4

Was going to save this until later, until I saw this conveniently timed story: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/18/new-zealand-china-gcsb-nsa-auckland-hack/

Now -- Can any of you make a rational case to call stories like this "whistleblowing in the public interest?"

[Blue_Tires]

66. No takers for Question #4??

Perhaps I should shift the discussion over to Glenn Greenwald for a change of pace?? Because I promise you I've got enough shit to make him drown (which is why the degenerate coward blocked me on twitter)

[Blue_Tires]

68. Question #5

Remember Plato Cacheris? The mastermind attorney who is supposed to be negotiating with the justice department on a "deal"? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/us/snowden-retained-expert-in-espionage-act-defense.html

Why hasn't there been a single update from Cacheris or Wizner on the progress of those negotiations? And what exactly is being negotiated?

[Blue_Tires]

69. QUESTION #6 (multi-part)

One of the popular long-running myths that Greenwald continues to prop up is that Washington supposedly "trapped" Snowden in Moscow...(I've continued to maintain that it is the Russians keeping him there, and Snowden only leaves when he is no longer any use to them)

1. How was Snowden able to leave Hong Kong two days after his U.S. passport was voided?

2. Why can't he apply for Russian citizenship and fly on a Russian passport?

3. If he's so desperate for asylum somewhere other than Moscow, why can't he just leave his apartment, walk a few blocks to the foreign embassy of his choice and ask for it??

4. In a recent interview, Assange said in so many words that Snowden's destination in Iceland/Venezuela/Cuba were all smokescreens to fool the USG, and his *REAL* destination was always Moscow...Do any of you find that strange?

5. The Russian intelligence services have had a 100% success rate in knowing what intelligence defectors know...Snowden said they visited him at the airport and demanded his cooperation for entry into the country...Snowden said he refused, the men left, but he was still allowed into the country...How can you account for this inconsistency?

[Blue_Tires]

70. Question #7

Remember Snowden's scrawny-assed girlfriend? How has she been able to travel back and forth to Moscow without anybody noticing??

And Poitras said she "persuaded" the local Moscow papers to avoid printing any news or photos about the girlfriend until she had her "big reveal" during the movie premiere...How exactly did she persuade them aside from massive bribes or getting the Russian government to lean on them?? Does anybody else care about the unmitigated brazen hypocrisy from Laura Fuckin' Poitras of all people censoring the press so she could have her big reveal??

[Blue_Tires]

71. Question #8

Interesting quote here from ES during his Princeton tour stop -- Snowden: people in IC don't care about breaking the law; the culture is that they do bad things for good reasons, so it's OK
https://twitter.com/LizaGoitein/status/594532370268758016

So how is that *any* different from what Snowden himself has been doing?

[Blue_Tires]

72. Question #9

Since DU is in a Snowden-talking mood tonight after that Pyrrhic court victory, perhaps some bold poster will want to tackle these:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJAN6hOKZV-wat_3xZU1QXymZzLpRlgOOu2tKrBV87s/edit?hl=en&forcehl=1

(good luck)

[BainsBane]

73. Why is Snowden the issue?

He isn't. The court declared the phone surveillance program illegal. The administration has violated the constitution by illegally acquiring private information about citizens. That is what matters. Snowden was merely the messenger.

[Blue_Tires]

74. Everyone has been telling me I'm wrong all this time

and I'm giving them a more than fair chance to prove it in this thread; since if I'm as wrong as they say it should be laughably easy to prove...FWIW, if folks want to say i'm wrong or call me an idiot, I'm fine with that; and if anyone can prove me wrong, I'll leave DU...But when DUers start calling my character into question (my sig is one of countless examples of posts that juries allowed to stand) and asking mods to get rid of me, then it's all-out war as far as I'm concerned...I'm literally outnumbered 99-1 on the issue, Snowden fans challenged me to make this thread, and they *still* don't want to take me on aside from the random personal insult...

My point has always been if you want to discuss the 'good' leaks from Snowden, you have to discuss the questionable/sensationalist ones as well...Snowden and Greenwald are not protecting our constitutional freedoms and privacy rights by telling the world exactly how we spy on China, Iran and Afghanistan, and sooner or later people will wake the hell up and start wondering who has been the biggest beneficiary of airing out all our dirty laundry while not saying a word in two years about the other bulls in the china shop...And *please* don't insult my intelligence by saying Snowden isn't the issue after the books, movies, statues, hero worship, and his acolytes rushing to post his latest softball interview on DU...

The ball is now in their court...

[BainsBane]

75. Typical, isn't it?

As if the place isn't already alarmingly homogeneous. I've been on juries lately for a couple of other AA posters who are clearly being targeted by alerters. I happen to disagree with you on the NSA issue, but so what? That kind of behavior you describe is shameful.

[TheKentuckian]

76. All your questions are answered by I don't care, I don't know and don't know why I would, and

the question is irrelevant.

All you are trying to do is wind a path away from the actual issues which are our civil liberties, a government out of control and unchecked, and both major parties at least neck deep in it.

I don't give a solitary fuck if Snowden is the devil because it changes NOTHING so why belabor the meaningless?

[Blue_Tires]

77. So you're 100% fine with all the leaks that have nothing to do with civil liberties?

Does the ends justify the means?

[TheKentuckian]

78. Yup and sometimes.

[Blue_Tires]

79. Thank you for being straight and upfront

If only more people on your side of the debate had your level of candor...I can respect that, if nothing else...

[Autumn]

80. Your favorite unanswered questions? Why do you feel that anyone

owes you answers to your favorite questions? For you to say that those are your "favorite unanswered questions" and they must be answered to your satisfaction shows me that you are well aware of the answers, you just don't like the answers or you feel that everyone should be required to agree with your answers to your questions. A silly OP and quite frankly very trollish.

I'm very calm and peaceful, even in the face of shit stirring. DU has never had proper, civil discussions. Pitt bulls, breast feeding Olive Garden the proper way to coat and fry chicken, guns and religion, those are par for the course And we don't have mods so don't bother to ask them to lock your OP for you. Your OP is well within the SOP for GD.

[Blue_Tires]

81. Once again,

Because DU has been telling me I'm wrong or some NSA agent, several DUers have challenged me in the past so I've set up this stage for anyone to prove it...And like I said before, I'm tired of repeating the same arguments every time a new Snowden thread pops up, and I'm tired of digging in the archives for all my past rebuttals and relevant links...Here it can all be in one place...

Nothing trollish in this OP...I've been on my best behavior because I want this to be the ONE place I can discuss the issue like an adult with people from the other side despite a mutual dislike...

So my questions will continue, regardless if anybody steps up to answer them...

[Autumn]

82. Once again. You know the answers to your questions. If you want all of

your rebuttals in one place, then you should put them in one place and not expect others to do the work you are tired of doing. You have already decided your opinion is right so discussing it anymore is a waste of time. Anyway I'm done with this conversation and have no desire to share my opinion about Edward Snowden or the NSA with you so have a nice day.

[Blue_Tires]

84. I've been pulling more than my own weight in this discussion

The onus is now upon my opponents to do the same...Quite tragic to see the vast majority resort to petty personal attacks instead of even trying to answer the relatively easy questions I've laid before them...

If this standard asks too much of you, I will bid you adieu...Thanks for your input.

[Blue_Tires]

83. Question #10

I'm sorry... Just what in fuck's name was Snowden saying in his Stanford university tour stop?
http://rt.com/news/259309-snowden-work-russia-nsa/#.VVe5Z9Yp_ds.twitter

[Blue_Tires]

85. Question #11

Anyone have an explanation for this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026743300

[Blue_Tires]

86. Guess I'll declare myself winner by default, then...

A shame, because I used to hold this message board to a much higher standard...

[Blue_Tires]

87. Even after all this time, nobody wants a piece of this

truth hurts, and all that...