Snowden Says No One Listened To 10 Attempts To Raise Concerns At NSA 273
As reported by the Washington Post, Edward Snowden denies in no uncertain terms the idea that he failed to go through proper channels to expose what he thought were troubling privacy violations being committed by the NSA, and that he observed as a contractor employed by the agency. The article begins: "[Snowden] said he repeatedly tried to go through official channels to raise concerns about government snooping programs but that his warnings fell on the deaf ears. In testimony to the European Parliament released Friday morning, Snowden wrote that he reported policy or legal issues related to spying programs to more than 10 officials, but as a contractor he had no legal avenue to pursue further whistleblowing." Further, "Elsewhere in his testimony, Snowden described the reaction he received when relating his concerns to co-workers and superiors. The responses, he said, fell into two camps. 'The first were well-meaning but hushed warnings not to "rock the boat," for fear of the sort of retaliation that befell former NSA whistleblowers like Wiebe, Binney, and Drake.' All three of those men, he notes, were subject to intense scrutiny and the threat of criminal prosecution."
Broken link: Here ya go (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
http://nymag.com/daily/intelli... [nymag.com]
Washington Post Link (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Broken link: Here ya go (Score:5, Informative)
Re:why wait? (Score:5, Informative)
He hasn't waited to tell anybody. He's been saying it all along. Don't confuse the manner in which the news is reported as a reflection of reality.
This was reported now because he put his comments in an easily citable letter to the European Parliament.
Re:why wait? (Score:4, Informative)
Senator Wyden has already demonstrated his incompetence to address, if not his active support of, such illegal programs. And by reporting it in the USA, Snowden would have been easily dropped in a deep, deep pit with no hope of testifying.
Re:why wait? (Score:5, Informative)
Ellsberg is on record saying that Snowden did the right thing. [washingtonpost.com]
Re:The tighter you clench your fist, Lord Vader... (Score:3, Informative)
The NSA *is not military*, because they're not not part of the DoD,
Since when? Last I checked the NSA was 90% Military staffed and definitely under the DoD.
http://www.nsa.gov/about/leadership/index.shtml/ [nsa.gov]
Notice those funny stars on the man on the left's shoulders? Those indicate he is a General, specifically he is a four star general from the army. The NSA is definitely military.
I remember the Drake story (Score:3, Informative)
I remember the Drake story. The US Government basically ignored its own constitution, the District Attorney changed from prosecutor to persecutor, and he was told to either shut up or face 40 years in jail. Similarly, his home phone was bugged, people followed him, the IRS was knocking on his door every day, his family faced challenges (one was at college, had to meet with the dean on trumped up charges). The government went *WAY* over the line, and did not seem to mind (and he was only interested in keeping the 'guaranteed constitutional' parts of 'THIN THREAD' within the program). His boss and several others insisted that they ignore the 'spy on Americans without judicial oversight' part and it went well beyond 'you are fired'.
Re:Broken link: Here ya go (Score:5, Informative)
Well Fox News and the Daily Mail have a track record of lying about Snowden, The Daily Mail still makes claims that he's a Russian agent even though even the NSA themselves accept that he is not.
As such, better to play itself and not waste time with those with a track record of lying about this particular topic no? especially when there's an alternative with a slightly better track record mentioned in the summary itself (and more interesting detail FWIW).
So it may be up for grabs for you, but for myself and I suspect many other's it's far more preferable to have sources that don't have track records of actually outright lying about shit all the time, especially on the subject in question.