If Snowden is such a champion of the people, why release only WESTERN secrets?

reply to post by iLemming


Perhaps that's all the data that he had access to? Not likely, but if he has data about other countries he probably can release it through sources other than himself. Maybe he was trained as a secret agent out of Russia who learned to speak perfect English, and was given all the right connections?

I think with what I have read about it, is that he had personal feelings of anger over the system that allowed all of these activites to occur. He thought he could end it somehow. There are many possibilities and we will probably never know all of the truth.

SouthernForkway26
Or maybe the U.S. is the only country with anything as pervasive the NSA. If the world was on equal footing then this would be a non-story.

Or maybe the U.S. is the only country with anything as invasive, criminal and self-destructing as fedgov.

Only *one* nation on this entire planet is turning the world upside down with false flags, constant agressive war and corruption so deep that the nation is guaranteed to fail.

reply to post by juspassinthru


You forgot its 'silent partners' the UK, Israel and Saudi.

I do feel that this guy had terrific guts and a conscience for the people, as did Bradley Manning and mahy others. In the UK we had a nurse loose her job, vilified to the point of destroying her name concerning the neglect of elderly patients in a Brighton Hospital. Yet today, we hear of so much neglect in our hospitals one is concerned to go in unless with good friends and relatives watching ones progress. The elderly with no-one could well be at risk. The only way this scandal of care came out as a proper and right concern was because relatives, who could not be silenced through their job complained.

DI do think there is a general mood right across the world to stop this corruption and demand more fairness and decent behaviour. Also to put a stop to the stranglehold the wealthy and these leviathan corporations have and seem to think they can keep squeezing ordinary people in any country with.

Partial quote:

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by colddeadhands

 

Snowden was and is a traitor.

Dick Cheney also calls Edward Snowden a traitor for his actions as a "whistle-blower." Cheney also very much desires that the U.S. is eventually able to catch Snowden and hopes he receives “the justice he deserves.”

People are often judged by the company they keep. You must be proud of your association with none other than the most egregious traitor this country has ever known. Since you're so forthright in your judgement of Snowden would you care to share with us the kind of punishment you think Mr Snowden deserves?

For my own part I'll be standing on the "right" side of history that eventually judges Mr Snowden with all the fairness he deserves as per his selfless and eminently heroic deeds.

As a student of American history; of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights I am in a position to assess the kind of 'historical' company Mr. Snowden keeps, i.e., Paul Revere, Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, and not least, the greatest of American heroes, Thomas Paine - to name only a few.

As I said - your baseless, and fundamentally flawed charge of treachery against Mr Snowden reveals one thing, and one thing only: and that is the kind of company you choose to associate yourself with - namely Dick Cheney et al.

Those who call Snowden a traitor would really need to do a deep soul searching. If only they have half the courage and conscience, the world would be a much better place to live in. Ask yourselves not what Snowden has done to you or your power-hungry politicians, but what he has done for humanity. He has awaken many to the ills of government(s) and their abuse of power.

I rarely call people names, but it is apparent that those who vilify him are a bunch of selfish, self-centered, coward prima donnas. And I reserve that name-calling privilege! Hey, if they can call someone who is not here in ATS to defend himself traitor, I have every right to stoop to their miserable level in his defense (not that Snowden's integrity ever needs defending from these true weasels cloaked in profile names of other innocent-sounding animals, really)...

reply to post by iLemming


Wow you have some high standards here. The man is doing what he can without getting himself killed. He is a hero and people like you who call him a traitor are what is wrong with the government. You listen to the BS smear tactics that the talking heads use and doubt his veracity. If you'd stop and think about your comments in the OP for even a second, you'd realize that none of what you said makes any sense what so ever. I don't know where you got the idea that because Snowden had access to American dirty laundry, that he'd automatically have access to foreign dirty laundry. Also not sure why you'd think that even if he did have that information, why he'd want to throw all of his potential safe harborers under the bus by exposing their secrets. "Yeah thanks for letting me stay in your country and not shipping me back to America, in thanks I'm going to tell the world all your dirty secrets." He NEEDS the support of these countries to enact change. Obviously just releasing secrets about us isn't working, it wasn't until he released secrets that we were tapping Merkel's phone call that international pressure on the NSA started to heat up.

By the way, your comparison to Mother Teresa is pretty dumb. Releasing national secrets is a COMPLETELY different process and experience than helping dying children in some third world country. For one, helping sick children doesn't get you the ire of the most powerful country in the world with the most powerful military in the world by the order of several magnitudes. Seriously, stop and think about the crap coming out of your mouth. Questioning the status quo is ok, but you also have to realize when your questions are absurd and not worth pursuing.

reply to post by XionZap


Okay.. I'm not going to debate this aspect of Snowden any more than I'd debate a burglar whom the physical evidence simply states did the deed in every element required by law to charge for the crime. What the purpose was in mitigation is interesting and needs to be considered, but the simple and cold elements of the crime are still unchanged and as black and white as life ever gets.

#1. Edward Snowden DID, as it happens, work for the U.S. Intelligence Community in THREE different periods of his life. First, as a direct employee of the NSA, then a direct employee of the CIA. After a few years at CIA, he became the contract worker on NSA projects and for multiple contractors.

#2. Snowden DID leave the NSA with advance planning and full intent to violate every aspect of the oath he'd taken a FEW times by that point in his life, to maintain the security by trust placed in him. He violated it rather spectacularly, I must say.

#3. Snowden certainly did involve at least 2 different individuals in giving aid and material assistance to a foreign power. Again, you simply CANNOT get more public and proven in what is done, than what he did. Even Manning required a trial to even establish just what, who, when where and how. Snowden laid it all out from the start.

Now, THOSE are simply facts. As I understand it, and I could be wrong...that meets IN COLD LEGAL DEFINITION...the elements required to sustain the charge of Treason. We can debate ALL DAY if the motivation provides mitigation and it really does, in my view ...DEPENDENT on what happens from here on out. I've continually said, his is a story with no ending yet.

I also have said, many times since he first appeared with fist fulls of intelligence to hand out like the Good Humor Man, HE PROBABLY DESERVES 100% FULL IMMUNITY.

However, he needs to stand for what he has done...AND THEN...get immunized or pardoned for it. He can't be a baby about this and say he'll never stand for anything he's done....unless he's forgiven ahead of time. That's just childish and TOTALLY OPPOSITE how he first appeared to be ready and willing to take his lumps as long as he could make things right for what he seemed to feel he'd done.

We ALL have a right to our own opinions on the set of facts. We don't have a right to our own set of facts. The fact is..He DID commit crimes here, however much we each may feel they were justified.

iLemming

Are we to believe the guy has no access to information about the underhanded activities of other nations, despite all the surveillance the N.S.A. have been doing? Or that the big, bad U.S. of A and her allies are the only groups on this entire planet engaging in spying?? Paranoid proletariat, please...

What he had access to is highly dependent on his security clearance. Do you really think that the NSA would give every worker access to a broad spectrum of data? He likely only had access to a few databases that were required for his position.

Think of it this way, in a corporation access to data is controlled by department and job responsibilities. For example someone who handles purchase orders in accounting would have access to purchases and the account for paying those purchases, but would not have access to investments and other financial accounts. Nor would they have access to HR records, and other databases not related to their job responsibility.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Your response is appreciated, and while I understand your analysis of the situation - your seemingly intractable position on it even - I am not in agreement with you.

You raised the question - actually for you its not a question at all - of whether or not Edward Snowden was/is a whistle-blower as opposed to having been a traitor to his country. It's actually not a very hard question to answer. The Whistle-blower Protection Act protects "any disclosure" that a covered employee reasonably believes evidences "any violation of any law, rule, or regulation," or "gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, and abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety."

With that in mind please know that in the short time since Snowden's revelations, no fewer than ten lawsuits have been filed that openly challenge the legality of the surveillance programs he exposed. The author of the Patriot Act, James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), called the scope of data collection revealed in one of the leaked Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders "incredibly troubling," and "an over-broad interpretation of the Act" that "raise[s] questions about whether our constitutional rights are secure."

And it hardly ends there. Over two dozen bills have so far been introduced in Congress that would serve to constrict these (now public) surveillance authorities and increase transparency regarding continuing and future programs. While we can't truly fathom the mind of Mr. Edward Snowden surely know that he could have had a reasonable belief the documents he leaked to the news media revealed government illegality and abuse of authority, he had as his objective to expose that for all to see - rightfully so.

Some other points to consider here as well:
Just about everything the OP referred to - East West North and South - surely was/is within the power of Mr. Snowden and his fellow compatriot, Mr Glenn Greenwald, to disclose, but they chose to behave in a very judicious manner so as to not expose certain individuals to harm, and so as not to unnecessarily expose certain foreign powers to undue embarrassment and/or political duress. Their actions were and are commendable in that regard.

Snowden is living under an agreement with V Putin to not cause "political harm" between his nation and ours by making too many revelations regarding classified material in his possession. Glen Greenwald - by extension is party to that agreement as well inasmuch as his actions are obviously in accordance with Mr. Snowden who operates out of his own conscience in the matter as well as out of his agreement with president Putin.

Edward Snowden didn't seek out V Putin as friend and mentor, nor did he deliberately elect to go to Russia seeking political asylum. Those actions were forced upon him by the fact(s) of the USA revoking his passport thereby making of him a stateless person - in effect revoking his standing as a citizen of the United States.

Given the chance, I'm sure personages such as D Cheney, and many of our government officials would intentionally violate Russian sovereignty in a heartbeat - even a transplanted Cheney heartbeat, in order to capture - preferably to drone kill - Mr Snowden. That in itself would constitute an act of treachery against a foreign power. Of course, the US wouldn't see it that way now would they?

Snowden knew that he couldn't remain in the US as the whistle-blower he knew himself to be, because he knew full well that the present administration would not honor their agreement under law to give safe haven to persons such as he. This administration has an abominable track record when it comes to protecting whistle-blowers, and most especially of NOT honoring the Whistle-blower Protection Act, which they have have intentionally gutted of all meaning and significance as far as so-called 'whistle-blowing' is concerned - Obama openly despises the very 'Act' that he created.

reply to post by XionZap


Well, if I might take one last stab at giving some context to my views ..since we may disagree on some points, but I don't think we really do on the main things...

Yes, I think Snowden is a Traitor because the law defines that word..not our passions. He seems to meet the criteria, or plenty close enough for an indictment in any court, is passion were removed.

George Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the others were also, at one point, Traitors. No question and no arguement. They were guilty of the very same laws, ironically, they came to define in the founding documents for the new nation......until they won the war.

Is Snowden a Found Father type? Oh hell no...and I don't suggest that. I simply suggest the near explosive emotion surrounding the word Traitor be checked and the term be seen for what it is...a very serious but still legal term with legal definitions.


Then, I would ask no one in particular, why these pathetic losers in Congress don't be decent for a change and offer Snowden 100% full immunity to return to the United States by whatever means would be safe to make that trip into the Capital Building alive....because when he left it, killing him would no longer serve ANY purpose but pure spiteful revenge. Right now, it would serve many purposes for what he hasn't said yet.

Congress....could end this. Congress WOULD end this if they were OUR representatives, because what this man had to say would matter far more, contingent upon confirmation (KNOWING then what to ask and who to ask it of) than any need to see 'justice done'.

In a nation where murderers ARE giving a full free ride and pass if they killed in just the right ways and then have just the right information to share (Organized Crime/Mafia cases are an outstanding example), Snowden hasn't done anything worse and really, unless he DID turn out to have been directly working at the behest of a foreign power, done far less. Why not give him full immunity for FULL disclosure?

The answer is precisely why this WHOLE case is anything but as clear as we all like it to be.

FreshAirGirl
Think about it, Do you think he would tell on the people that are giving him security. Asylum.

Did that not come to mind in your quest for answers.

Its hard to believe he didn't know anything about other nations that could have been of equal importance to the american people than our own governments activities. Intelligence doesn't operate in a one sided vacuum. A bit of intelligence implies another if not quite literally stated.

Please forgive the use of Partial quotes but it does serve a purpose:

Wrabbit2000

Is Snowden a Found Father type? Oh hell no...and I don't suggest that.

I agree. Please note though that I did, in an earlier comment, while not putting him in the same company as Jefferson and Washington, et al., refer to the fact that I thought Mr Snowden found himself in relatively good 'historical' company as an American patriot, comparing him as I did to the likes of "Paul Revere, Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, and not least, the greatest of American heroes, Thomas Paine - to name only a few." In other words (at least to me) his actions are as commendable as the best of our revolutionary patriots, and its my fervent hope that his actions will be an inspiration to the many others that must surely be out there, but that are somewhat reticent - afraid even - to come out of the 'intel closet' to join Mr Snowden in what could amount to a pre-revolutionary movement against what - to me - is a rogue "foreign" government run amok:

amok - a murderous frenzy that has traditionally been regarded as occurring in areas of the world for which civilization is at a premium. Am I too sarcastic? Good - I meant to be.

BTW - I have on more than a few occasions given due credit to Snowden's comrade in arms. Given my sometime predisposition way away from left(ism) and more towards the right-thinking winger(ism) of a Tea-Party conservative at worst, and at best a Libertarian, I actually dislike (detest really) the hell out of Glenn Greenwald for he possesses so many things I don't hold dear - communism, Zionism, and queerism. Just goes to show though that if we shake the carcass long enough there's bound to be a decent breath 'left' in it somewhere.

iLemming
...Why does Edward Snowden not release ALL the espionage information he has, including stuff that implicates and may (or may not) reflect poorly on the likes of Russia, China and co.? Why is it he only targets Western interests?

Of course, this question has been brought forward by various members of this site, numerous times and with a variety of slants.
The question, however, presumes information that we can only speculate on.
First - the presumption that he had "espionage information" that would implicate &/or reflect poorly upon the other nations.
Second - the presumption that he "targeted" anyone.
Your presumptions may be accurate - they may not. It almost doesn't matter, though, if they are, or are not.
He's done his thing. Took his shot. Maybe with the utmost integrity... Maybe as a tool... Maybe as the same breed of slime he was purporting to blow the whistle on...
The information, imo, has resulted in little to no injury to the National Security of the USofA.
Most - if not ALL - of the information "leaked" was not news to the counterparts in other nations.
The only real injuries suffered by anyone...was to Edward Snowden, himself...and, perhaps, to the Public Relations halo of the Obama Administration (everyone pretty much expected all of this, and more, of the Bush Administration).

But - that's just my take on the question.

WanDash
The question, however, presumes information that we can only speculate on.
First - the presumption that he had "espionage information" that would implicate &/or reflect poorly upon the other nations.
Second - the presumption that he "targeted" anyone.
Your presumptions may be accurate - they may not.

The heads of the 'big three' in the U.K. - MI5, MI6 and GCHQ - all just had to face the public in a Murdoch-esque inquiry into their eves dropping dealings. They stated that all these Snowden leaks have done is aid and embolden the West's enemies; for they now have an insight into how the civilised world keep tabs on them.

If the information Snowden is privy to was really limited only to American civilian communications, the likes of these non U.S. intelligence bodies would not have to efface themselves before the very people they're in place to protect.

We may not 'know' every nibble of data Snowden has on his HDD's, but inference dictates that he knows more than what stick flicks we've been jacking off to online. Operating on this educated guess, the question still stands:

If Snowden is really doing all this for the good of the people, why only spill information that's harmful to the nations that he supposedly shares the ideology of? Do you see Al Qaeda members defecting and spilling the beans on terrorist secrets? Are even terrorist of a higher moral calibre than the peoples' champion, Edward Snowden?

iLemming
...The heads of the 'big three' in the U.K. - MI5, MI6 and GCHQ - all just had to face the public in a Murdoch-esque inquiry into their eves dropping dealings.
...They stated that all these Snowden leaks have done is aid and embolden the West's enemies; for they now have an insight into how the civilised world keep tabs on them.
...If the information Snowden is privy to was really limited only to American civilian communications, the likes of these non U.S. intelligence bodies would not have to efface themselves before the very people they're in place to protect.
...

Again - I am not saying that your suspicions are "wrong" - as - I don't know.
But, you did take a significant leap, from green to red to blue...
You see "effacing" - I see "posturing".
Neither of us can prove that we're right, or the other is wrong.

WanDash
You see "effacing" - I see "posturing".

Given these people were never before seen in public, nor were their names even known, I'd tend to lean more towards 'effacing'.

iLemming
Given these people were never before seen in public, nor were their names even known, I'd tend to lean more towards 'effacing'.

Understood.
Love your "avatar"/alias.