Edward Snowden Is A Hero, Not A Traitor

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Eric Snowden:

That's Edward Snowden

The problem that comes to mind is that this man first fled to Hong Kong, where he stayed there, a guest of the Chinese government.

Incorrect. Edward Snowden never interacted with, nor was he a guest of, the Chinese government, to my knowledge. If you have evidence proving otherwise, please provide it.

If he had stayed in the US and done this, and not ran, then it would be a very different story, but he ran right into the arms of another super power who now has all of the documents he had, and probably had access to, and that government is suspected in collusion with interfering with a US election.

Incorrect. He has not surrendered documents to any foreign powers, to my knowledge. If you have evidence proving otherwise, please provide it.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

No, it is correct. He was in Hong Kong for a month before moving onto Moscow. In that time frame the Chinese government, being alerted as to his presence, would have known exactly where the man was.

Groups like the CIA and their counterparts in other countries, and especially those of the Chinese and Russia, are if anything predictable when it comes to actions, of intelligence persons of other countries, and Snowden would quantify as such. It is highly likely that the Chinese did prevent him from being picked up by the local authorities, and sent back. The question is why, the only reason why a local authority would not do such, is if there was a higher authority, that had been involved.

Now after that, and in that time frame he was seeking a country for asylum, and part of his flight, and escape from Hong Kong, he ended up in Moscow. Now, it stands to reason, that as part of the agreement for him to get asylum and stay in Russia would be, and this was confirmed, as he had disappeared for a month, after being initially granted asylum. And there was a good chance that the FSB would have had him in a secure location, on the orders of Putin. While there, he would have been debriefed and had to hand over his lap top and all computer components, like say a flash drive.

As I stated before, intelligence people if anything are predictable in that aspect. They get a foreign intelligence agent looking for asylum, and the first thing that is done is that they are debriefed and have to hand over any and all information that they have on them. Once it is verified, then they are often hidden and granted such by said government.

If he did not hand over willingly, all documents, then there is a good chance that Russia would have just taken it and then expelled him from the country, thus he would have been picked up by other authorities, and handed over to the USA. But that did not happen, and since he is still in Russia, he is still considered an asset, and probably cooperated with the FSB, he gets to stay.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

You are speculating. You have no proof of this. Also, I don't think that he had any of those files with him after he had met with journalists. In other words, by the time he had revealed his identity, he no longer had those files in his possession. I am speculating as to that, but if I'm wrong he was pretty sloppy indeed. You're in flight from the most powerful intelligence apparatus in the world, and you're just going to keep all your bargaining chips in your pocket and hope for the best? That makes no sense whatsoever. I don't think so...

a reply to: swimmer15

I think you may have improperly copied your link, it leads to a page not found message(the computer world one).

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Meanwhile, Snowden will continue to haunt the US, the unpredictable impact of his actions resonating at home and around the world. The documents themselves, however, are out of his control. Snowden no longer has access to them; he says he didn’t bring them with him to Russia. Copies are now in the hands of several news organizations, including: First Look Media, set up by journalist Glenn Greenwald and American documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras, the two original recipients of the documents; The Guardian newspaper, which also received copies before the British government pressured it into transferring physical custody (but not ownership) to The New York Times; and Barton Gellman, a writer for The Washington Post. It’s highly unlikely that the current custodians will ever return the documents to the NSA.

That has left US officials in something like a state of impotent expectation, waiting for the next round of revelations, the next diplomatic upheaval, a fresh dose of humiliation. Snowden tells me it doesn’t have to be like this. He says that he actually intended the government to have a good idea about what exactly he stole. Before he made off with the documents, he tried to leave a trail of digital bread crumbs so investigators could determine which documents he copied and took and which he just “touched.” That way, he hoped, the agency would see that his motive was whistle-blowing and not spying for a foreign government. It would also give the government time to prepare for leaks in the future, allowing it to change code words, revise operational plans, and take other steps to mitigate damage. But he believes the NSA’s audit missed those clues and simply reported the total number of documents he touched—1.7 million. (Snowden says he actually took far fewer.) “I figured they would have a hard time,” he says. “I didn’t figure they would be completely incapable.”

Asked to comment on Snowden’s claims, NSA spokesperson Vanee Vines would say only, “If Mr. Snowden wants to discuss his activities, that conversation should be held with the US Department of Justice. He needs to return to the United States to face the charges against him.”

Snowden speculates that the government fears that the documents contain material that’s deeply damaging—secrets the custodians have yet to find. “I think they think there’s a smoking gun in there that would be the death of them all politically,” Snowden says. “The fact that the government’s investigation failed—that they don’t know what was taken and that they keep throwing out these ridiculous huge numbers—implies to me that somewhere in their damage assessment they must have seen something that was like, ‘Holy #.’ And they think it’s still out there.”

Yet it is very likely that no one knows precisely what is in the mammoth haul of documents—not the NSA, not the custodians, not even Snowden himself. He would not say exactly how he gathered them, but others in the intelligence community have speculated that he simply used a web crawler, a program that can search for and copy all documents containing particular keywords or combinations of keywords. This could account for many of the documents that simply list highly technical and nearly unintelligible signal parameters and other statistics.

And there’s another prospect that further complicates matters: Some of the revelations attributed to Snowden may not in fact have come from him but from another leaker spilling secrets under Snowden’s name. Snowden himself adamantly refuses to address this possibility on the record. But independent of my visit to Snowden, I was given unrestricted access to his cache of documents in various locations. And going through this archive using a sophisticated digital search tool, I could not find some of the documents that have made their way into public view, leading me to conclude that there must be a second leaker somewhere. I’m not alone in reaching that conclusion. Both Greenwald and security expert Bruce Schneier—who have had extensive access to the cache—have publicly stated that they believe another whistle-blower is releasing secret documents to the media.

In fact, on the first day of my Moscow interview with Snowden, the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel comes out with a long story about the NSA’s operations in Germany and its cooperation with the German intelligence agency, BND. Among the documents the magazine releases is a top-secret “Memorandum of Agreement” between the NSA and the BND from 2002. “It is not from Snowden’s material,” the magazine notes.

Some have even raised doubts about whether the infamous revelation that the NSA was tapping German chancellor Angela Merkel’s cell phone, long attributed to Snowden, came from his trough. At the time of that revelation, Der Spiegel simply attributed the information to Snowden and other unnamed sources. If other leakers exist within the NSA, it would be more than another nightmare for the agency—it would underscore its inability to control its own information and might indicate that Snowden’s rogue protest of government overreach has inspired others within the intelligence community. “They still haven’t fixed their problems,” Snowden says. “They still have negligent auditing, they still have things going for a walk, and they have no idea where they’re coming from and they have no idea where they’re going. And if that’s the case, how can we as the public trust the NSA with all of our information, with all of our private records, the permanent record of our lives?”

The Der Spiegel articles were written by, among others, Poitras, the filmmaker who was one of the first journalists Snowden contacted. Her high visibility and expertise in encryption may have attracted other NSA whistle-blowers, and Snowden’s cache of documents could have provided the ideal cover. Following my meetings with Snowden, I email Poitras and ask her point-blank whether there are other NSA sources out there. She answers through her attorney: “We are sorry but Laura is not going to answer your question.”

www.wired.com...

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Meanwhile, Snowden will continue to haunt the US, the unpredictable impact of his actions resonating at home and around the world. The documents themselves, however, are out of his control. Snowden no longer has access to them; he says he didn’t bring them with him to Russia. Copies are now in the hands of several news organizations, including: First Look Media, set up by journalist Glenn Greenwald and American documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras, the two original recipients of the documents; The Guardian newspaper, which also received copies before the British government pressured it into transferring physical custody (but not ownership) to The New York Times; and Barton Gellman, a writer for The Washington Post. It’s highly unlikely that the current custodians will ever return the documents to the NSA.

www.wired.com...

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
Snowden has my respect! Huge balls the size of a tennis ball!

originally posted by: Neith
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I think his balls are bigger than tennis balls.

Bowling balls would describe Snowdens balls more accurately.

Hehe. I don't know guys, that might make for some difficult ambulation. I'm going to suggest that perhaps his testicles, though of regular size, are composed of a durable and resilient material, like tungsten or titanium. Nards of tungsten, then! Of course I'm not speaking from personal experience here, merely speculating.

LOL.. Bring back the freak shows! jk...

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

glenngreenwald.net...

Those are some of the files that were released and are on the web.

He gave some of the files to the Journalists, that vetted and contacted the various departments for comment, and that is what brought this to light in the first place.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: swimmer15

I think you may have improperly copied your link, it leads to a page not found message(the computer world one).

www.computerworld.com...

Let's try it this way! Not sure why it did that on the other post, maybe a google archive?

a reply to: swimmer15

With respect, the difference between you and me is that I believe Snowden, you do not.

I think he speaks the truth. Not the whole truth in some cases because he's entitled to privacy himself, but the truth.

And I know from personal experience that the government can be pretty damn deceptive, CYA if you know what I mean.

I say any citizen has a very serious obligation to reveal government misbehavior when he comes upon it, and Edward Snowden has performed his obligation, at great personal expense to him. So it is, in a time of universal deception, revealing the truth will be a radical act.

a reply to: Salander

That is very true, I don't! I don't believe either side of the story fully and wouldn't without seeing all the evidence my self.. both sides are cut from the same cloth are they not? And both sides operated in a shadowy way, which is exactly how they operate always, and both sides desperately need to control the narrative, at this point in my life I honestly don't believe anything the government or news tells me, especially nothing from the CIA. The US gov for the information and of course Snowden because his life is at stake, both have many reasons to fabricate the story Whether right or wrong how Snowden did it is what gets me, given he was a CIA asset, I have no reason to trust him. Their entire way of life is secrecy, and deception.

originally posted by: swimmer15

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: swimmer15

I think you may have improperly copied your link, it leads to a page not found message(the computer world one).

www.computerworld.com...

Let's try it this way! Not sure why it did that on the other post, maybe a google archive?

Interesting link, thanks for sharing. That's a fairly vague accusation on their part though. They are fairly noncommittal in their condemnation, also the article states that the report contained conflicting information. The source article has also been taken down, so I can't source the information to evaluate it. I would want to see more evidence then, before I could concede to a claim such as that. You could be right though I suppose. I certainly don't claim to be a complete expert on all this, just a little more informed than most. I am continuing to educate myself on this topic, so if I come across such information and it is solid, I'll share it even if it invalidates some of my earlier arguments. I'm interested in sharing the truth, not blindly parroting beliefs, so that's what I intend to do.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

glenngreenwald.net...

Those are some of the files that were released and are on the web.

He gave some of the files to the Journalists, that vetted and contacted the various departments for comment, and that is what brought this to light in the first place.

I did notice those links. Snowden's documents can also be accessed from these links:
cryptome.org...
edwardsnowden.com...
What's your point?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert neither.. my sole basis of not calling him a hero comes from being a vet. Mainly taken from a point of view as if I were in uniform serving next to him. I absolutely would commend what he did, had he actually stood up and faced them head on, I would have even been behind him.. rushing to the arms of the enemy is different, will take more than just his word to convince me that's not what he did.

I mainly posted the link to highlight the fact that's it's not as cut and dry as it seems. I still don't have a hard opinion of the matter, if ever proven his intentions where genuine I would call him a hero.
His actions are admirable to me, even if I disagree with his tactics, he played/is playing one hell of chess game with the three major superpowers.. maybe, if he gets out alive we will hear exactly what went down, but for now it's hard to believe anything because he's still in his game his moves are calculated and he's doing what's needed to win.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The point being, that he did mishandle classified information. So he had the files when he fled the country, and they were with him, while he was in China and when he got to Moscow. However, I do not believe he has them any more, and that such is now in the hands of the FSB, the Russian intelligence.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Just to be clear however, the link that you posted proves nothing of the sort that you are claiming...

originally posted by: swimmer15
a reply to: Salander

That is very true, I don't! I don't believe either side of the story fully and wouldn't without seeing all the evidence my self.. both sides are cut from the same cloth are they not? And both sides operated in a shadowy way, which is exactly how they operate always, and both sides desperately need to control the narrative, at this point in my life I honestly don't believe anything the government or news tells me, especially nothing from the CIA. The US gov for the information and of course Snowden because his life is at stake, both have many reasons to fabricate the story Whether right or wrong how Snowden did it is what gets me, given he was a CIA asset, I have no reason to trust him. Their entire way of life is secrecy, and deception.

No, Snowden did not lie. He did the very same thing Daniel Ellsberg did with the Pentagon Papers--he exposed to the public the criminal actions of our government. He saw something and he did something. Keep in mind that the government instructs us to do such against our fellow citizens, but when one does it like Snowden or Manning or Kirakou or any other who speaks out when, because of one's work, one observes the government breaking the law.

Snowden acted out of moral spirit. He saw something bad, the lie, and he exposed it because he could. The spirit of the whistleblower is noble, the heavy hand of government is wicked. Sometimes necessary perhaps, but always wicked.

a reply to: swimmer15

Your government is the enemy.

By that token, he is as far away from their grasp as he can get, and damned right to be.

If you do not understand that the forces which created the systems he revealed the existence of, are the natural enemy of any freedom and liberty loving individual in the entire world, then I am afraid that there might be something wrong with your definition of what does and does not constitute an enemy.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

It proves that he had the documents and gave such to the reporters, but only a small part. He also had several flash drives and laptops with more on them. So yes he did have classified information, and yes he did give some of them to the reporters.

Do you not think that he had nothing of value that the Russians could use, that they would have kept him? No, probably not, but they did allow him to stay, he was out of contact with the rest of the world during that time frame, the Russian government did take said lap tops and flash drives, from him and then set him up in an apartment and beyond the occasional blip, he has been keeping a very low profile, at the behest of the Russian government.

They have those documents, they know what all is in them and are readily using such. The fact that he did give such to the reporters. Now if the man did not run, and was still in the USA, the trial would have been very public, and a good chance that he would have had better support than what he does now.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbieThis is the prime reason I can't fault Snowden for his actions

If he had evidence they were abusing American citizens by the misuse of the information collected than yeah he was a hero.