For example, Daniel Ellsberg, leaking Pentagon Papers - basically everyone now agrees that was legitimate whistleblowing as it proved leading government figures were lying through their teeth to the American public about the reality on the ground in Vietnam. In contrast, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were CIA and FBI employees who sold all kinds of secrets to the Soviet Union for several decades - pretty sure we can safely call that espionage.
So Edward Snowden... proved the likes of James Clapper were lying through their teeth to Congress about mass warrantless collection of the private communications of American citizens. Hmmm... is it whistleblowing or espionage? Gosh what a tough question.
> This claim that Clapper lied before Congress has an interesting mix of supporters—some people on the far left who view Clapper as some part of a nefarious intelligence state out to spy on all of us, and then Trump supporters who look for any way to discredit someone who’s been a critic of Trump.
> Jim Clapper has served the US with honor and distinction. The role of DNI has been much like that of the Spinal Tap drummer—no-one who has been in that role has been around much and seems to just disappear in a poof. Clapper is the exception. People who follow the IC will tell you that Clapper was outstanding.
> As for the claim that he “lied,” this requires a little explanation. In a closed session, he had briefed the Congressional committee about US monitoring of telecommunications. He was then asked in an open hearing if the US did this. This was a classified program. Anyone who says that he should have said “I’m not authorized to talk about that” is being naive—that would automatically say “we do indeed have a classified program in this area.” So Clapper did what anyone when asked a question about the existence of a specific classified program would do—gave an answer that didn’t hint that we did indeed have such a program. After the public testimony, he then contacted the committee and said what the correct answer was—and that it was classified.
> I have been asked questions before (including by co-workers in the IC) about programs they weren’t cleared for and when you’re not supposed to give hints that the program exists, you can’t say “I’m not authorized to comment on that” or “sorry but that’s classified” because those are answers, you’re saying “yes, we do have such a program.” So in those cases you maintain the security of the program and only reveal it in a setting and audience that is cleared for discussion.
> And that’s why he was never censured or reprimanded by Congress for “lying.”
I am surprised that Ellsberg was let off. I think Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were punished because they betrayed their oaths and the material was more important or pertinent.
Now they have things sewed up better. Pliant judges, extortion, secret charges, secret "evidence", secret "testimony".
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-...
This is not to make light or, or poo-poo his concerns or the counter-measures he takes, but rather to note that he should be watching his back after a career like that. Like Ben Franklin once said, "Never charge someone more money than it costs to kill you."
This is so clever, while being completely impractical when dealing with governing entities. Depending on where you live, pricing a service for your local police could become a very difficult exercise.
Context: “ In 1967, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identified Hampton as a radical threat. It tried to subvert his activities in Chicago, sowing disinformation among black progressive groups and placing a counterintelligence operative in the local Panthers organization. In December 1969, Hampton was drugged, shot and killed in his bed during a predawn raid at his Chicago apartment by a tactical unit of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, who received aid from the Chicago Police Department and the FBI leading up to the attack.”
last tweet feb 27th
https://mobile.twitter.com/Snowden/status/149804957713120870...
He really blew his credibility pushing the “Russia isn’t going to attack” propaganda line (ostensibly, as his own independent analysis of the situation), and his last tweet (3 days after the attack, his prior being 3 days before) was:
“I’m not suspended from the ceiling above a barrel of acid by a rope that burns a little faster every time I tweet, you concern-trolling ghouls. I’ve just lost any confidence I had that sharing my thinking on this particular topic continues to be useful, because I called it wrong.”
Years later Richard Ledgett, who oversaw the NSA’s media-leaks task force and went on to become the agency’s deputy director, told me matter-of-factly to assume that my defenses had been breached. “My take is, whatever you guys had was pretty immediately in the hands of any foreign intelligence service that wanted it,” he said, “whether it was Russians, Chinese, French, the Israelis, the Brits. Between you, Poitras, and Greenwald, pretty sure you guys can’t stand up to a full-fledged nation-state attempt to exploit your IT. To include not just remote stuff, but hands-on, sneak-into-your-house-at-night kind of stuff. That’s my guess.” Because I’d been one of Snowden’s principal interlocutors, Ledgett told me he was sure there was “a nice dossier” on me in both Russia and China.
It comes off to me as fear mongering and an attempt to dissuade any future involvement with such sensitive materials. An understandable approach from someone with the specified role. However, it just sounds so defeatist given how much of the article up to that point had detailed the layers of effort that had gone into avoiding exactly that.
It also means that the NSA is capable of that as well: they've got it before you even realise what it is that you've got.
Any of James Clapper's words must be filtered through his laser-focused tunnel vision; black and white, good and bad, scorched earth for middle ground. ie. discard it, but be aware that's how those people view the world, and therefore that's what you'll be up against if you step into the ring. Zealots. Cattle to be protected by the Dogs from the Wolves, and into those three categories fit all.
I don't like it much, and find it difficult to relate to, but they couldn't do the important stuff that they do if they didn't have that attitude. But that's exactly why "congress", or whoever the appropriate leash-holders are, need to yoink on the leash every now and then, rather than letting it out for two straight decades.
As much as I think it was important to get out what they published, he is right on that detail: Greenwald and Poitras, at least, were and remain wholly unqualified to keep anything under wraps. They surely did their best, as well as they understood what they were even trying to do.
My Summer of Snowden - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221517 - May 2020 (18 comments)
That is the title of the article when I click the link. (Caps and all came through in copy-paste). Where is this "Espionage or Journalism" coming from? Are there different titles shown to different viewers?
That happen tough only if the government is from an establish Democracy, if the democracy is just formal, not substantial, if citizens accept that instead of impose their sovereignty, that it does not happen.
For non-Americans who don't know, accusing someone who wants something you don't of being a puppet for the Kremlin has been a popular activity for the past century?
Support the fourth amendment to the US constitution? Puppet for the Kremlin.
Don't want to get into a nuclear arms race? Puppet for the Kremlin.
Support the civil rights movement? Puppet for the Kremlin.
Don't want to pick up France's colonial subjugations in Indochina? Puppet for the Kremlin.
And so on. The social security act of 1935 was called a Russian plot. Those who wanted to wind down involvement in WWI a few months into US involvement were called Bolshevik supporters.
[1] https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1494006204896620548
[2] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1508831524854059008
Are they having zoom chats with Putin, and he's telling them what to tweet/say, and then they are doing exactly as he directs? Or is there a different arrangement?
I'm assuming that being critical of the US military & security complex is your evidence of being a puppet for Putin? Since Putin also is critical of the US military & security complex, therefore criticizing the US = puppeting for Putin?
If I have this wrong, please do correct me.
would that be enough to convince you?