CNN.com: NSA leaker fears for democracy

[visionary]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/02/19248688-nsa-leaker-edward-snowdens-escape-routes-dwindle-as-countries-rule-out-asylum?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Ecuador, Spain, Ireland, Poland, Austria, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands confirmed that Snowden's paperwork could not be processed because he was not on their soil or at their borders. 

 

"We don’t consider it as an application at this point," a spokesman at Finland's Foreign Ministry said.

 

In a statement, Poland said immigration officials had received "a fax from a person who signed as E. Snowden which does not fulfill the requirements of a formal application for asylum."

 

India and Brazil said they had rejected Snowden's asylum request outright.

The opposition Green Party said Snowden "did a service for Germany by unveiling practices, which breach fundamental basic rights and represent a massive breach of trust between allies" and has suggested the former contractor had a legitimate case.

 

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said his country had not received a formal asylum request but added that he thought countries should support Snowden's work exposing “the imperialist elite of the United States.”

 

"They spy on friend and  foe," Maduro told reporters after a gas exporters' conference in Russia. "They have created a semi-Orwellian system."

 

[TheGoodBits]

Why? He's a high profile fugitive facing espionage charges. What would be the sensible way to go about apprehending him?

By leaning on allies like France, to the point where they're afraid of reprisals against their country, if they allow a diplomatic aircraft to fly through their airspace?

We're threatening the country of France, and the President of Bolivia, over this guy?

These actions have consequences.

Playing hardball isn't exactly "threatening" but I understand your point. Seems like a lot for one guy. I'm just trying to figure out why an ally like France would harbor him though.

[Larry]

I have no idea what to think of this guy right now.

Traitor or hero. I'm just not sure.

~Bang

It's possible to be both.

I have no problems at all with applauding him for revealing (again) that we are (still) spying on our own citizens, while claiming (still) that we aren't, and simultaneously condemning him for stealing data which (I assume) reveals to other countries which parts of our spying on them works, and which parts don't.

[SnyderShrugged]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/02/edward-snowden-whistleblower-not-spy

 

"Mr Snowden is clear that he leaked his information in order to alert the world to the unprecedented and industrial scale of NSA and GCHQ secret data trawling. He did not, he insists, leak in order to damage the US, its interests or its citizens, including those citizens in harm's way. Nothing of this sort has been published."

 

more at link

[Larry]

Yes, we're all aware that Mr Snowden claims to have really noble motives for telling other nations exactly which things we are and aren't spying on, in their countries.

[Popeman38]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/02/edward-snowden-whistleblower-not-spy

 

"Mr Snowden is clear that he leaked his information in order to alert the world to the unprecedented and industrial scale of NSA and GCHQ secret data trawling. He did not, he insists, leak in order to damage the US, its interests or its citizens, including those citizens in harm's way. Nothing of this sort has been published."

 

more at link

He broke the law. And in so doing knowingly violated his agreed to non-disclosure agreements which are punishable by years in jail for each charge. He voluntarily signed these agreements in order to attain his clearance. By doing so he, by definition, committed espionage (he released secret government information to a foreign government -- England and China to be specific).  Trying to paint him as a whistleblower is factually inaccurate and grossly biased. Of course the Guardian sees him as a shining light of freedom. They have been cashing in on hist stories for weeks now. They have no noble intentions here. They are in it solely for the exposure.

[Larry]

So, your assertion (and those of the numerous other posts claiming that it is somehow impossible for the term "whistleblower" to be applied to this person) is that, in order to be a whistleblower, a person has to reveal information which the law, and his employment agreement, allow him to reveal? 

[Popeman38]

So, your assertion (and those of the numerous other posts claiming that it is somehow impossible for the term "whistleblower" to be applied to this person) is that, in order to be a whistleblower, a person has to reveal information which the law, and his employment agreement, allow him to reveal? 

No, my assertion is that to be a whistleblower you follow the procedures set up by DoJ for whistleblowers. It offers federal protection for whistleblowers. By going outside of these avenues, one accepts the penalties for breaking the law.  Which makes you not a whitleblower, but a criminal.

[Larry]

No, my assertion is that to be a whistleblower you follow the procedures set up by DoJ for whistleblowers. It offers federal protection for whistleblowers. By going outside of these avenues, one accepts the penalties for breaking the law.  Which makes you not a whitleblower, but a criminal.

So, uh, . . . .

1) Did whistleblowers not exist, prior to whatever these procedures are, went into effect?

2) And, could you tell us what the DoJ procedures ARE, for revealing information which the government has classified, to keep the American people from finding out that they exist?

[SkinsHokieFan]

In case anyone didn't hear, apparently we thought Snowden was on the Bolivian President's plane.

 

Drama ensued

 

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bolivian-leaders-plane-rerouted-snowden-fear

 

VIENNA (AP) — The plane carrying Bolivian President Evo Morales was rerouted to Austria after various European countries refused to let it cross their airspace because of suspicions that NSA leaker Edward Snowden was on board, Bolivian officials said Tuesday.

Officials in both Austria and Bolivia said that Snowden was not on the plane, which was taking Morales home from a summit in Russia, where he had suggested that his government would be willing to consider granting asylum to the American.

A furious Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca said France and Portugal would have to explain why they canceled authorization for the plane, claiming that the decision had put the president's life at risk.

"We don't know who invented this lie" that Snowden was traveling with Morales, Choquehuanca said in La Paz. "We want to denounce to the international community this injustice with the plane of President Evo Morales."

 

Links for rest

 

So, your assertion (and those of the numerous other posts claiming that it is somehow impossible for the term "whistleblower" to be applied to this person) is that, in order to be a whistleblower, a person has to reveal information which the law, and his employment agreement, allow him to reveal? 

No, my assertion is that to be a whistleblower you follow the procedures set up by DoJ for whistleblowers. It offers federal protection for whistleblowers. By going outside of these avenues, one accepts the penalties for breaking the law.  Which makes you not a whitleblower, but a criminal.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/loopholes-exclude-intelligence-contractors-snowden-whistleblower-protections-1301913

 

 

Loopholes Exclude Intelligence Contractors Like Snowden From Whistleblower Protections

 

Due to carve-outs in federal law, U.S. whistle-blowers who work as contract employees for the intelligence community -- like confessed leaker Edward Snowden -- have virtually no protections.

 

There is a complex anatomy of whistle-blower protections depending on whether an employee works for an intelligence agency and whether he or she is a contractor or an employee of the government. But nowhere is the difference more stark than in the intelligence community, where contractors lack protections afforded to their government employee counterparts. Whistle-blower advocates actually fear that this lack of protections could lead to more leaks.

“I would say that there is a gaping loophole for intelligence community contractors,” said Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight. “The riskiest whistle-blowing that you can possibly do on the government is as an intelligence contractor.”

[Popeman38]

No, my assertion is that to be a whistleblower you follow the procedures set up by DoJ for whistleblowers. It offers federal protection for whistleblowers. By going outside of these avenues, one accepts the penalties for breaking the law.  Which makes you not a whitleblower, but a criminal.

So, uh, . . . .

1) Did whistleblowers not exist, prior to whatever these procedures are, went into effect?

2) And, could you tell us what the DoJ procedures ARE, for revealing information which the government has classified, to keep the American people from finding out that they exist?

Why don't you GOOGLE whistlblower procedure?

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#sclient=psy-ab&q=government+whistleblower+program&oq=government+whistl&gs_l=hp.1.3.0l4.1159.4547.0.7943.17.9.0.8.8.0.136.1020.1j8.9.0...0.0.0..1c.1.17.psy-ab.kVRUV_-S_R0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWc&fp=ef874089b9ec5761&biw=1920&bih=947

 

Imagine that, DoD has a process:  Defense Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Program (DICWP)

[SnyderShrugged]

I didnt realize snowden worked for the DOD.  What is the policy for NSA contractor whistleblowers?   What specific protections are in place for one?   Where can the formal policy be found so we cann all understand his specific options.

 

edit:  I posted before I saw SHF's post.  His outlines the lack of NSA contractor protections for whistleblowers nicely.

[Popeman38]

So contractors have no whistleblower protections. Huh. Still doesn't excuse releasing classified documents to a foreign government. He is a criminal.

[Larry]

So contractors have no whistleblower protections. Huh. Still doesn't excuse releasing classified documents to a foreign government. He is a criminal.

Now, "criminal", I think we can all agree on.

But as to your next point, though. How does your "not allowed to be called a whistleblower" rule fit with releasing classified information TO THE PUBLIC?

[SnyderShrugged]

So contractors have no whistleblower protections. Huh. Still doesn't excuse releasing classified documents to a foreign government. He is a criminal.

Right,  we have established that he broke a law, even he has.   Lots of whistleblowers in intelligence work risk the same is they find an abuse they should surface.

 

How do you protect those doing the right thing, even if a classified designation makes it a no no?

 

Are you of the opinion that the NSA should be able to whatever it wants because its files are closed to the public?

[The Evil Genius]

In order to blow the whistle on something, doesn't something illegal/abusive have to be going on?

 

Snowden leaked classified documents regarding legal government activities, right? That would seem to disqualify him from the whistleblower label.

[SnyderShrugged]

In order to blow the whistle on something, doesn't something illegal/abusive have to be going on?

 

Snowden leaked classified documents regarding legal government activities, right? That would seem to disqualify him from the whistleblower label.

Maybe in a legalese technical sense, sure.  But in a practical sense of the ask of making public information that we wouldnt have known otherwise,  the label seems to fit just fine.

 

 

Its very strange to see people seem to rely on current legal definitions rather than the practical ones.

 

Is it all the Government needs to do is to make telling on them illegal and they can get away with whatever they choose afterwards?

[Larry]

Right,  we have established that he broke a law, even he has.   Lots of whistleblowers in intelligence work risk the same is they find an abuse they should surface.

 

How do you protect those doing the right thing, even if a classified designation makes it a no no?

I'll field that one.

You have a trial. And if the jury unanimously agrees that He Did The Right Thing, then he walks.

[SnyderShrugged]

Right,  we have established that he broke a law, even he has.   Lots of whistleblowers in intelligence work risk the same is they find an abuse they should surface.

 

How do you protect those doing the right thing, even if a classified designation makes it a no no?

I'll field that one.

You have a trial. And if the jury unanimously agrees that He Did The Right Thing, then he walks.

I could agree with that,  if the trial were public and outside of the purview of federal influence on the results.   (I actually think I read that was what he was asking for too)

[Larry]

In order to blow the whistle on something, doesn't something illegal/abusive have to be going on?

 

Ah, and here comes the third attempt at "well, he's not a whistle blower, because eventually I'm gonna invent a definition of whistleblower that doesn't fit him".

Now this one, the attempt to claim that having the government conduct covert surveillance on every single person in the country, justified by the standard of "it might be useful to have, some day", is legal, does have some arguments that can be made in it's favor.

Unfortunately, it also has arguments to be made against it, too.

#1, IMO, is the 4th Amendment.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Now, there's some things included in there. 

 

One of them is the phrase "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". 

 

Not sure about the legal definition, but, to me, "probable" means "there's a better than 50-50 chance that the target of this request has committed a crime". 

 

You really want to try to claim that the government has probable cause against every single Verizon customer in the US?  (And that the judge has looked at this evidence, in every single case?) 

 

Then there's the phrase "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". 

 

Yes, I suppose that a search warrant could, in theory say "the police are hereby authorized to search anything within the US that they want to search", and somebody could try to claim that well, that warrant does explicitly specify a location.  But somehow I suspect that the Framers had something considerable more limited in scope, in mind. 

 

Then there's the fact that, by law, the NSA is forbidden from conducting any surveillance whatsoever, in the US. 

 

No, "well, let's have the FBI fill out the paperwork for us" isn't exactly a work-around, either. 

 

----------

 

Now, yes, it is a fact that a Federal Judge did, in fact, look at this request, supposedly consider all of the relevant laws, and he ruled that yes, this request is legal and meets whatever standard the law requires. 

 

But I think you'll have to admit that it's at least possible to make a reasonable opposing argument, too. 

 

In short, I think that calling what's going on "legal", at the very least, needs an asterisk. 

 

----------

 

And now we get to what I think is the real problem with things like this. 

 

IMO, these kinds of things are grossly illegal.  Downright treasonous. 

 

I think I'd be willing to tolerate them, if they were debated publicly, with the people being given all information necessary to make an informed decision, and then the people, through their elected representatives, pass legislation specifically and clearly authorizing it, with whatever limitations said people also demand.

 

(Technically, it really ought to be a Constitutional Amendment.  Since what you're doing is carving out rules for ignoring a part of the Constitution.  But I'd be willing to STFU and not insist on clearing THAT particular hurdle.  In this case.) 

 

But that hasn't happened. 

 

It hasn't happened because the people's elected representatives have been engaging in a systematic campaign of intentionally lying to the voters.  And the fact has been classified for no purpose other than to prevent the voters from actually discussing the issue. 

 

(I want to stress this again.  This program isn't classified because al Qaeda thinks that the government doesn't try to track their phone calls.  It's classified so that the government can simultaneously tell the people that it isn't happening, and claim that the people authorized it.  It's classified to keep the voters from actually having a say on the issue.) 

 

In short, this issue has never had a hearing in the public forum, nor in the courtroom, between two sides, where both sides of the debate have the knowledge with which to debate, and equal standing to present their case, and to have some court (whether a Judicial Branch employee, or "the court of public opinion") to hear both sides presented. 

 

----------

 

And, frankly, thanks to a whole bunch of deflection of the topic, said debate still hasn't occurred. 

 

Even after having our noses rubbed in it. 

 

In fact, even after having our noses rubbed in it, the government is still continuing the same intentional lies that they've been using, for years, to try to convince people that the fact which this document conclusively proves, isn't happening. 

 

I could agree with that,  if the trial were public and outside of the purview of federal influence on the results.   (I actually think I read that was what he was asking for too)

 

Yes, I agree. All persons who commit crimes should have the right to demand that their trial be conducted somewhere where the US government has no influence.

Have I laid that one on thick enough? Or do I need a [sarcasm] tag?

[SnyderShrugged]

Larry,  I didnt say all persons,  I said this one person because obviously the Feds arent exactly unbiased in adjudicating his case since its against them.

[skinsmarydu]

Have you thought of running for office, Larry?  No ****, post #295 was a thing of beauty.  Brought tears to my eyes. ( And I'm sober.)

[Larry]

Larry,  I didnt say all persons,  I said this one person because obviously the Feds arent exactly unbiased in adjudicating his case since its against them.

 

Whereas all the other people who get prosecuted, the government is neutral. 

 

No, you didn't say all persons. 

 

You waved a magic wand, and granted this accused criminal the right to demand that he will only agree to a trial if he gets special rules.  In fact, complete immunity from all the rules that apply to everybody else. 

[SnyderShrugged]

I am pretty sure I didnt say that, but OK sir.

 

 

In short, I want only him to get a fair trial without backdoor shenanigans that often occur when someone takes on the feds.   

 

 

 Mainly we are on the same page I think.

[mistertim]

Have you thought of running for office, Larry?  No ****, post #295 was a thing of beauty.  Brought tears to my eyes. ( And I'm sober.)

It wouldn't surprise me if one day we found out that Larry is actually a US Senator.