NSA Watchdog Slams Snowden

[afa7336]

Link: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/nsa-inspector-general-edward-snowden-103949.html

 

George Ellard, who is the NSA’s inspector general, said during a panel discussion hosted by the Georgetown University Law Center spoke openly and candidly about some issues surrounding Edward Snowden. They have some lovely and amazing quotes such as:

 

“Perhaps it’s the case that we could have shown, we could have explained to Mr. Snowden his misperceptions, his lack of understanding of what we do,”

 

And if Snowden wasn’t satisfied, Ellard said the NSA would have then allowed him to speak to the House and Senate intelligence committees. ”Given the reaction, I think somewhat feigned, of some members of that committee, he’d have found a welcoming audience,”

 

“Whether in the end he’d have been satisfied, I don’t know,” Ellard added. “But allowing people who have taken an oath to protect the constitution, to protect these national security interest, simply to violate or break that oath, is unacceptable.”

 

Ellard said he too welcomed that debate, but argued that Snowden’s moves were “the wrong way to do it” because the stolen documents also gave America’s enemies a blueprint for how the country tries to safeguard against terrorist attacks.

 

Edit: A Law Professor speaking on the same panel, while not totally agreeing with Mr Ellard said the following, Cole said there’s no dispute that Snowden’s moves were illegal, but he added, “There couldn’t have been a debate without a leak.”

[brownninja97]

This is the nature of saving face, the NSA know they fucked up big time, they tried to brush it off, they cant hide the truth.

[afa7336]

 

 

Classy and very mature there hoss, instead of adding to the discussion you'll post a picture instead.

 

This is the nature of saving face, the NSA know they fucked up big time, they tried to brush it off, they cant hide the truth.

 

Or you know, its getting the facts out there. I've been saying for a LONG time that there were options for Edward Snowden, yet he didn't take them, he didn't want to. This actually confirms that he a) had those options b ) shows that he failed to take them c) what those options entailed d) by disclosing information that he has, it really does hurt the Country, and e) That the system and mechanisms that Snowden failed to take actually work.

 

You can say, "its saving face" all you want, but I could say the same thing about everything Edward Snowden has said, including the lies about himself? Anyone remember the lies about the salary for instance that was ripped apart from ear to ear. The interesting thing is, when presented with information some people tend to just deny it out right instead of researching and learning about it, and try hard to discredit anything said, EVEN if its the truth.

[rentaspoon]

You can say, "its saving face" all you want, but I could say the same thing about everything Edward Snowden has said, including the lies about himself? Anyone remember the lies about the salary for instance that was ripped apart from ear to ear. The interesting thing is, when presented with information some people tend to just deny it out right instead of researching and learning about it, and try hard to discredit anything said, EVEN if its the truth.

Its very easy to say afterwards we would've listened. I doubt someone would of been happier to choose a life on the run to issuing a complaint.

[afa7336]

Its very easy to say afterwards we would've listened. I doubt someone would of been happier to choose a life on the run to issuing a complaint.

 

This is a guy that was planning this BEFORE he even got hired, so I already know he never planned to follow the right path, he was after something else other then what he "claims". But you say its very easy to say we would've listened... prove to me that they wouldn't have? See, never trying is a bitch when you have to prove "they wouldn't listen to me, I had no choice".

 

Edit: So all those Senators and Congressman wouldn't have listened either? Remember, what the guy said in the article, we would have let him talk to Congress!

[Fetzie]

This is a guy that was planning this BEFORE he even got hired, so I already know he never planned to follow the right path, he was after something else other then what he "claims". But you say its very easy to say we would've listened... prove to me that they wouldn't have? See, never trying is a bitch when you have to prove "they wouldn't listen to me, I had no choice".

 

Edit: So all those Senators and Congressman wouldn't have listened either? Remember, what the guy said in the article, we would have let him talk to Congress!

 

The NSA left Congress in the dark and lied to them about what they were doing; I find it hard to believe them about this too.

 

The NSA fucked up their recruiting. Just a cursory look at Edward Snowden's activities on Arstechnica should have been enough to red-flag his security clearance application.

[afa7336]

The NSA left Congress in the dark and lied to them about what they were doing; I find it hard to believe them about this too.

 

The NSA fucked up their recruiting. Just a cursory look at Edward Snowden's activities on Arstechnica should have been enough to red-flag his security clearance application.

 

Actually, the NSA didn't fuck up his recruiting, it was an outside company. Just to clarify that, you see most are done by outside companies, as it saves on money and manpower. You wouldn't believe the amount of time involved in dealing/doing clearances. 

 

Second, Congress wasn't in the dark totally either. Yes some members that weren't cleared didn't have knowledge, but some did. Just like anything that is TS-SCI, its restricted to only those few. Imagine that. I can get tons of sources to back this up of course.

 

Secondly, lets go with your theory for a minute about Congress. if the upper levels of the NSA kept Congress in the dark, wouldn't it be a good thing that someone brought information TO Congress, instead of running straight to the media and trying to get his fifteen minutes? Wouldn't that piss off Congress even more that the NSA lied to them and kept them in the dark and it took a true whistleblower (which Snowden is NOT a whistleblower)?

[rentaspoon]

The NSA left Congress in the dark and lied to them about what they were doing; I find it hard to believe them about this too.

The NSA fucked up their recruiting. Just a cursory look at Edward Snowden's activities on Arstechnica should have been enough to red-flag his security clearance application.

+1

Regardless of putting a complaint the UK wouldn't have found out if he hadn't done what he had to do.

Reading back it sounds like he could've not been named but chose other wise. He came across to me as a patriotic citizen who lost faith in the system

[afa7336]

+1

Regardless of putting a complaint the UK wouldn't have found out if he hadn't done what he had to do.

Reading back it sounds like he could've not been named but chose other wise. He came across to me as a patriotic citizen who lost faith in the system

 

The UK wouldn't have found out... what??? They helped with the programs!

[rentaspoon]

The UK wouldn't have found out... what??? They helped with the programs!

Uk public

And he was ex-CIA and he resigned to join the NSA, before he was with the NSA he was anti whistleblower

[afa7336]

Uk public

And he was ex-CIA and he resigned to join the NSA, before he was with the NSA he was anti whistleblower

 

Yeah, I know more about Snowden then most people, considering I did my research.

 

And yes, thank you for proving a wonderful point that Snowden is a Traitor and as such should be treated as one. Giving out classified information to Foreign Nationals among his many other crimes.

[afa7336]

By the way, you want to know the views of someone who was punished for writing a book in the '70's... who Ironically as CIA?

 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-snepp-snowden-nsa-20140131,0,2997528.story#ixzz2sMNoA100

 

Let me quote a few things, its actually a really good article.

 

"Snowden has violated these precepts. He argues lamely that he decided not to raise his privacy concerns through "official channels" because of harsh treatment he'd received from a superior in 2009 for hacking into his own encrypted personnel files. He says he was turned off by the legal system because whistle-blowing cases have not gone well for defendants.

 

I could have told him that. Honest whistle-blowing is a blood sport, the only reward for which is knowing you tried to do the right thing.

Snowden also insists defensively that he doesn't want to hurt vital intelligence programs. Yet even his favored media outlets — Britain's Guardian newspaper, the Washington Post and the New York Times — have withheld, out of concern for national security, some of the stolen documents he considered appropriate for release.

He claims his only concern is for privacy. But many of his leaks, like those exposing National Security Agency operations against Chinese targets, and those involving critics and allies in Europe and Latin America, have nothing to do with 4th Amendment protections for American citizens and everything to do with ingratiating himself with potential benefactors, from Beijing to Moscow."

[rentaspoon]

Yeah, I know more about Snowden then most people, considering I did my research.

And yes, thank you for proving a wonderful point that Snowden is a Traitor and as such should be treated as one. Giving out classified information to Foreign Nationals among his many other crimes.

I'm not saying you haven't done your research.

Im not a saying that he's not classed as a traitor although I wouldn't class him as one.

But one question, if this was another country say N Korea spying on you would you call that person a traitor, his country might call him that but would you?

[afa7336]

I'm not saying you haven't done your research.

Im not a saying that he's not classed as a traitor although I wouldn't class him as one.

But one question, if this was another country say N Korea spying on you would you call that person a traitor, his country might call him that but would you?

 

 

Interesting take, since we already know North Korea and China are already doing this, we don't need anyone to tell us that. What are your feelings on that? I don't see the uproar like we see now with Snowdens revelations. Where is the pitch forks going after North Korea? Wait, there aren't any, because people are ignoring it.

 

About him hacking into his own personnel file... most places, besides the federal government, that's get your ass tossed to the curb. You see how idiotic Snowden is, he uses something that is wrong and illegal that would get him fired in most places to defend himself with. What a shock, isn't it? Or would you let your employees hack into their files willy nilly.

 

Do you feel Snowden releasing other information about operations against enemies of both the UK and the US okay? How many of those did he release versus just the NSA spying? I've actually lost count.

 

Oh and you're buddy you look up to Snowden, how do you feel about him giving IP address of enemies of the US and the UK that the NSA was surveilling? Good guy that Snowden, right, I mean whats a few lives or blowing operations right?

 

This is what makes me sick, people class him as a hero, but don't know half the things he's really ever given out. They are dwarfed because he made a bigger story himself to cover all the other things.

[rentaspoon]

Interesting take, since we already know North Korea and China are already doing this, we don't need anyone to tell us that. What are your feelings on that? I don't see the uproar like we see now with Snowdens revelations. Where is the pitch forks going after North Korea? Wait, there aren't any, because people are ignoring it.

About him hacking into his own personnel file... most places, besides the federal government, that's get your ass tossed to the curb. You see how idiotic Snowden is, he uses something that is wrong and illegal that would get him fired in most places to defend himself with. What a shock, isn't it? Or would you let your employees hack into their files willy nilly.

Do you feel Snowden releasing other information about operations against enemies of both the UK and the US okay? How many of those did he release versus just the NSA spying? I've actually lost count.

The NK example is roles reversed hypothetical question not a real life statement and im asking for YOUR feelings.

And yes he may have "aided" terrorism as such but to me the UK doesn't have any enemies, we are a country that is very neutral and takes a stand when we need to. The good that came out of this out ways the bad.

[afa7336]

The NK example is roles reversed hypothetical question not a real life statement and im asking for YOUR feelings.

And yes he may have "aided" terrorism as such but to me the UK doesn't have any enemies, we are a country that is very neutral and takes a stand when we need to. The good that came out of this out ways the bad.

 

We don't need hypotheticals since we already know its happening, that's the point. I don't have to imagine since they ARE doing it AND putting lives at risk... you know publishing American Soldiers names among the many other things.

 

And the UK doesn't have enemies? Seriously, you really want to go with THAT? What the hell are you on about! Man you really are living in a small little bubble. I guess the whole "using the Scottish Independence to undercut UK power" was never said then? Isn't it sad, as an American I know more about the UK threats then Her own citizens. How about North Korea, Iran, China, Syria, Islamic Extremists... didn't you have problem not long ago with a few extremists and one of your own Soldiers was killed? Of course, nah, no enemies at all! Then you have Abdul Waheed Majeed, who was a British Born Muslim that did some nasty things recently and is thought to be taught by a radical cleric. Huh, ain't that interesting. But nope, we're Switzerland over here in the UK, nothing to see here!

[rentaspoon]

We don't need hypotheticals since we already know its happening, that's the point. I don't have to imagine since they ARE doing it AND putting lives at risk... you know publishing American Soldiers names among the many other things.

And the UK doesn't have enemies? Seriously, you really want to go with THAT? What the hell are you on about! Man you really are living in a small little bubble. I guess the whole "using the Scottish Independence to undercut UK power" was never said then? Isn't it sad, as an American I know more about the UK threats then Her own citizens. How about North Korea, Iran, China, Syria, Islamic Extremists... didn't you have problem not long ago with a few extremists and one of your own Soldiers was killed? Of course, nah, no enemies at all! Then you have Abdul Waheed Majeed, who was a British Born Muslim that did some nasty things recently and is thought to be taught by a radical cleric. Huh, ain't that interesting. But nope, we're Switzerland over here in the UK, nothing to see here!

Insulting my knowledge has only damaged my respect for you mate.

Scots are welcome to there independence and yes we have terrorism in our country, in fact if I hadn't got an early train I would've been in the London bombings, I was in my little bubble then with my phone dead imagine getting home with my family and girlfriend in tears not knowing why they are upset, I lost months trying to figure out why I decided to get up and leave for the train early.

Yet I would still say yes, we have no enemies, I don't lust for blood of another.

And can I have the source for the Scottish bit please mate

[afa7336]

Insulting my knowledge has only damaged my respect for you mate.

Scots are welcome to there independence and yes we have terrorism in our country, in fact if I hadn't got an early train I would've been in the London bombings, I was in my little bubble then with my phone dead imagine getting home with my family and girlfriend in tears not knowing why they are upset, I lost months trying to figure out why I decided to get up and leave for the train early.

Yet I would still say yes, we have no enemies, I don't lust for blood of another.

 

You don't have to lust for anothers blood to have your Country have enemies! You're naive to think that the UK does not have any enemies. You may not, but your Country certainly does, and you're just showing how little you do know by saying your Country doesn't have any. Every Country in the world does, whether you like it or not.

 

We joke about the Swiss, but did you know that during a wargame last year they pretended it was an attack by France? Did you know that your Country threatened to raid an Embassy, something considered taboo and would certainly piss a LOT of people in the World off (include me actually, since Embassies should NEVER be overtly breached)? Would China threatening the UK with "severe punishment" both diplomatic and economic land them in the Enemies list? Wasn't it not long ago, your Country wanted to take action in Syria? I thought you had no issues with people! How about China wanting to back UK separatists, would that make them an enemy? How about threatening Nuclear War against you and your allies, would that maybe land anyone on an enemies list of your Country? Tell me, do you think anyone that might try to remove the UK as one of the five permanent members of the UN be an enemy? How about a Country threatening to blockade oil supplies to the UK? Would you consider that person a friend or an enemy? 

[rentaspoon]

No I'd call them a fool with a hollow threat

[Misanthrope]

We have a saying on things like this: Now the ducks are shooting the shot guns?

[ACatWithThumbs]

Of course it was wrong what he did and he should get in jail for it.
But that doesn't justify what the NSA is doing.

And the most spying that got leaked had nothing to do with security at all.
Like spying on the German chancellor is because of security.
 

[Yoinkerman]

In the interest of more information, I'd personally like to see some cases where whistleblowing protections actually worked when involving the military or nsa or cia pr fbi or whatever other government agency that actually matters. Not low level crappy that doesn't matter, and not private companies. I would like to see those, to confirm that whistleblowing procedures actually work and aren't the farce that they're widely believed to be.

[applebook]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Snowden would have been allowed to disagree and walk out of that hypothetical meeting in one piece.  :lol:

[Coswar]

Classy and very mature there hoss, instead of adding to the discussion you'll post a picture instead.

Or you know, its getting the facts out there. I've been saying for a LONG time that there were options for Edward Snowden, yet he didn't take them, he didn't want to. This actually confirms that he a) had those options b ) shows that he failed to take them c) what those options entailed d) by disclosing information that he has, it really does hurt the Country, and e) That the system and mechanisms that Snowden failed to take actually work.

You can say, "its saving face" all you want, but I could say the same thing about everything Edward Snowden has said, including the lies about himself? Anyone remember the lies about the salary for instance that was ripped apart from ear to ear. The interesting thing is, when presented with information some people tend to just deny it out right instead of researching and learning about it, and try hard to discredit anything said, EVEN if its the truth.

Do you really think that it would have been should a big wide spread story if he had just complained. This way the media were shown the whole truth and were allowed to warn the world, and I doubt the NSA would have changed the way they operate just because of one man's opinion. It brought up issues in many other countries too, it was a wake up call that these agencies needed.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Snowden would have been allowed to disagree and walk out of that hypothetical meeting in one piece. :lol:

"Your opinion is noted pawn, now go hide as we find some federal charged to put on you for being out of line."

[afa7336]

No I'd call them a fool with a hollow threat

 

Really interesting, I hope all of the UKs citizens don't have this attitude.

 

Of course it was wrong what he did and he should get in jail for it.

But that doesn't justify what the NSA is doing.

And the most spying that got leaked had nothing to do with security at all.

Like spying on the German chancellor is because of security.

 

 

Actually, this is technically not correct. You see, leaking information about operations abroad, whether you agree with them or not, is foreign operations and really bad to leak. Then you have you know, disclosure of Chinese IP Addresses that the NSA was watching, who deployed Stuxnet, stuff like that. The list goes on.

 

In the interest of more information, I'd personally like to see some cases where whistleblowing protections actually worked when involving the military or nsa or cia pr fbi or whatever other government agency that actually matters. Not low level crappy that doesn't matter, and not private companies. I would like to see those, to confirm that whistleblowing procedures actually work and aren't the farce that they're widely believed to be.

 

Actually, you want to confirm whistleblower protections work in an organization that keeps secrets? Yeah, that's going to work!

 

Its always a gambit when you whistleblow, I guess though, you failed to read the article I posted on the first page FROM a "whistleblower" during the 1970's/1980's. Personally, the guy stepped out of line, BUT the one thing I respect is unlike Snowden, he DIDN'T run like a coward. Let me get that link again, and start quoting a few things, since you obviously failed to read it.

 

Link: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-snepp-snowden-nsa-20140131,0,2997528.story#ixzz2sMNoA100

 

"Granting Edward Snowden clemency, as many have urged, would send a terrible message to other potential whistle-blowers. Yes, he may have sparked an important national privacy debate, but he did so through reprehensible actions that harmed national security. If that's a harsh verdict, I have earned the right to it. In terms of sheer media hype, I was the Snowden of my day..."

 

"Yet, for all that I suffered personally, I never ran or tried to hide. And when the time came to face the music, I never bargained for mercy. I simply took my lumps, accepting them as the price we pay in a democracy for the right to speak out."

 

"He says he was turned off by the legal system because whistle-blowing cases have not gone well for defendants. I could have told him that. Honest whistle-blowing is a blood sport, the only reward for which is knowing you tried to do the right thing."

 

Now that is from a Whistleblower, about the process... Now, lets take a long hard look at what HE, who has been in Snowdens shoes really thinks about what Snowden did, shall we?

 

"He argues lamely that he decided not to raise his privacy concerns through "official channels" because of harsh treatment he'd received from a superior in 2009 for hacking into his own encrypted personnel files." (Would your boss allow you to hack your personnel files and not say something?)

 

"Snowden also insists defensively that he doesn't want to hurt vital intelligence programs. Yet even his favored media outlets — Britain's Guardian newspaper, the Washington Post and the New York Times — have withheld, out of concern for national security, some of the stolen documents he considered appropriate for release.

He claims his only concern is for privacy. But many of his leaks, like those exposing National Security Agency operations against Chinese targets, and those involving critics and allies in Europe and Latin America, have nothing to do with 4th Amendment protections for American citizens and everything to do with ingratiating himself with potential benefactors, from Beijing to Moscow."

 

"One problem with the reporting by Greenwald and Poitras has been that, in relying so heavily on the documents supplied by Snowden, it fails to provide context. From reading their stories, for example, you'd know little about official steps to minimize NSA privacy threats.

Yet as we have learned from other recent disclosures — largely official counter-leaks — the secret court created in 1968 to police NSA programs has been working diligently, if too secretly, to fulfill its mission."

 

"Last May, Snowden told the Washington Post that he intended to seek asylum and that he "wanted to embolden others to step forward … by showing that they can win." His statement wasn't a paean to accountability but a Pied Piper's manifesto aimed at tempting others into heisting and fencing official secrets in the belief they'd never have to answer for it."

 

Now, you gonna believe someone thats been in Snowdens "position" and I use that term very loosely since the man didn't run like a scared little boy into the arms of China and Russia. Or are you going to believe Snowden? Interesting how people that the Government has come down on harshly, don't very much like what Snowden did... interesting indeed.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Snowden would have been allowed to disagree and walk out of that hypothetical meeting in one piece.  :lol:

 

Well, considering the process, he would have been. But failing to research what the process allows for, including talking to Congress, was your first mistake. GG. (FYI, its on the damn website).

 

Do you really think that it would have been should a big wide spread story if he had just complained. This way the media were shown the whole truth and were allowed to warn the world, and I doubt the NSA would have changed the way they operate just because of one man's opinion. It brought up issues in many other countries too, it was a wake up call that these agencies needed.

 

If he had to go to Congress, yes, of course over 9/10ths of the leaks wouldn't have come out, so a lot of them wouldn't have mattered. Warn the World AND give a road map for our Enemies to follow so they can avoid us. Its a double edge sword, what Snowden did, and he should be shot/hung/stabbed for it all at the same time IMHO.

 

"Your opinion is noted pawn, now go hide as we find some federal charged to put on you for being out of line."

 

Yes, because when you leak Classified information you should be charged... Or do you feel that people are above the law, and should be able to steal/hack/leak information at any time?