I agree completely and apologize for not making that clear. I do not condone his actions but this does not make him any less a whistle blower. His actions meet the criteria given by your definition. The result is there and that is the point of this thread. My mistake for trying to make whistle blowing another topic. This topic reflects on the information put out there and though I agree his actions cripple our ability to track bad guys, it might just cripple our ability to kill non-targets, might. I mean, the NSA puts out what everyone wants to hear but evidence shows they are being less than truthful? Folks are still waiting for answers on the wedding party strike in Yemin. Snowden had no hand in that and poppa bear ain't saying. MM brings a good point. Journalist are being held in the same liability as the accuser/ traitor subject. While I agree there is a liability, the piece I posted and the source cannot be grouped as a liable party. All they did was take information already made public and investigate the story. So far, no one has disputed it's content. The information is out there and so I ask, should we not read it?
For that to be true, then the NSA would have to be guilty of breaking the law or other legal misconduct. I do not think this is so. The NSA has been collecting electronic and photographic intelligence since its inception. That is its sole function.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security/edward-snowden-whistleblower Okay, he is an ACLU atty but the point in the article is well put. At least I think so. Sure there are a bunch of lawsuits and inquiries under way and guilt has yet to be assessed... but his (Snowdens) intent is to seek protection under the act. What he put out there (so he says) was not information to construe but rather evidence to support. If members of the military or the CIA groups were found to make misleading statements or colluded to protect, well...kneaux mas. It is entirely possible he may not live to see his intent to fruition however, his actions will definitely not go away.
There is a cherrypicking of language going on here by the ACLU. The Whistleblower Protection Act states . . . "any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences — (i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs." The highlighted phrase is kind of an important thing to leave out, don't you think? It clearly means that the Whistleblower Protection Act does not supersede the Espionage Act under which Snowden has been charged.
Cherry picking indeed and I don't think he is disputing that...from his room in Russia. What I think is going on is he may be trying to set precedent to the WB act in that protection is sought as the information alleges international crimes have been committed. Lets be clear, I am not trying to defend this cat. I think he won't see christmas in 2015. I am simply outlining what I believe it is he is trying to protect himself from. Whether he is a whistleblower or a spy or BOTH remains to be ruled on but honestly, I think he is both. Regardless it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I agree. I should have been more specific. I'm not talking about transform a country to a Judeo-Christian capitalistic representative democracy. I'm referring to transforming them into a people that can live with us as opposite to thinking we are the devil. The key is an economic transformation out of the poverty that is the core problem much of the time. But that does not mean trying to mirror our system on theres. But it does mean transitioning them to a more 'open' society.
I think he stopped being a whistle blower somewhere between Hawaii and Moscow. If he was sitting in Sweden talking about NSA policy that's one thing. But being in Moscow and putting out the stories he has if different. He may be an unintentional spy, in other words he may have just bumbled his way into this position, but he's a spy.
Red, this is where you and I disagree. Our capacity in the region is diminished because our prestige in the region with our friends is diminished. A good example of that is Saudi's rejection of the UN Security Council seat. And that rejection is tied to our handling of Syria and Iran. We need Saudi and the Egyptian military on our side or our capacity is diminished. To some extent we can buy Egyptian Military cooperation. With Saudi its all about firm consistant policy. And I can't believe Obama used the 'step over the line' comment. Its a little different than a 'red line' in wording but reflects back to it anyway. Its almost a signal to Ukraine that you can do what you want for a year.
With the Saudis, they think that they can buy the United States of America to do their bidding like they buy everything else they wish. The Saudis must be shown their place from time to time. 1991 humbled them a good bit and it was long overdue. The Saudis always want to have their cake and eat it too. They wish to be a friend of the West, yet they are a harsh dictatorship with the strictest rules in all of Islam and they support many non-democratic islamist factions across the middle east. They fund the PLO and all efforts against Israel. The Saudi nobility has gotten fabulously rich yet they allow the rest of the middle east to live in squalor. Their best national interests are not the best interests of the USA. They declined a Security Council seat because they would have to take political stands and they prefer to play both sides against the middle. We must never forget Iran, where we put all of our support on an unpopular king instead of on the people and when they deposed him our relations went permanently south. This is why we could not support Mubarak against the will of his own people. This frightened the Saudis because they know that we may defend them from Iran and Iraq, but we will not defend them from their own people. The Arabian people are extremely islamist and produced most of the Al Qaeda leadership and almost all of the 9/11 terrorists. The Saudis are not about to turn on the United States, they are just posturing. Where do you suppose the Saudi Royal family keeps its wealth? Mostly in the United States, where it is safe. An islamist revolution is coming in Saudi Arabia and we must be prepared to deal with any eventuality.
I never said he wasn't but I will reiterate what I did say; "Whether he is a whistleblower or a spy or BOTH remains to be ruled on". He is accused of being a spy and he defends that by stating he is a whistleblower. States he will not return to the US unless he is considered as such. I think he needs to get used to cabbage and potatoes. The NSA and the CIA BOTH admittedly cannot prove where he is a spy for another country. So that leaves us all with assumptions. So far, he stole protected data and gave it to wikileaks and other news organizations, all unauthorized recipients and that is a very wrong thing to do. Now, the content of those documents?
