@GingerCoffee - I wasn't going to bring up your 'NSA audit' spin-factory diatribe, but of course there is more to the audit than the black and white headline you're throwing around. (Starting to see a pattern with you.) Did you mention that these 'events' were just data-mining issues that caused the wrong information to be gleaned?Did you also report that the vast majority of those errors were unintentional? Left that out? Oh alright. And 2,766 events over a four year period. Wow, that's a lot. Tell me, what's the error percentage for the program? 2,766 errors out of how many? And there is extreme oversight both externally and internally at the NSA. In fact, Diane Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said "The Committee has never identified an instance in which the NSA has intentionally abused its authority to conduct surveillance for inappropriate purposes not identified willful violations of the law; rather, the majority of the compliance incidents are unintentional." Of course a national security system monitoring billions of pieces of data will occasionally glean something out of its legal boundary. The error is flagged, reported both internally and externally and the issue is resolved. Also, the NSA's internal privacy compliance program has increased it's manpower four-fold since 2009, with all unintentional privacy breaches reported and catalogued. The NSA is a human organization that has the same errors as any other police force or law-enforcement organization. If your going to sensationalize something, don't expect the full truth to stay hidden for very long. If you want to read an un-biased report regarding the NSA audit, check here.
I'm not surprised you've found a way to keep your fantasy intact, starting with completely bypassing the misinformation you spouted that Snowden sold secrets and disclosed secrets to foreign entities. There are lots of right wing bloggers out there scrambling to downplay the audit, as if describing the problems as system and human errors excuses the excesses and abuses of the program. The WA Post has a rebuttal to your rationalized beliefs about what the audit revealed: NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds Any large agency is going to make an equally large number of mistakes, these went well beyond 'mistakes' and into, 'ask forgiveness not permission' territory. For example: That hardly sounds like an unintended error. That sounds like "unconstitutional" not simple mistake, don't you think? They weren't able to abide by the Constitution so they simply didn't. Something I'm typing is causing an internal error message so this is half my post, the rest will follow, hopefully.
Part 2: Can you guarantee this error wasn't a cover up of an unlawful attempt to track down politically inconvenient leakers? They swept up the WA DC area code data base (202) instead of Egypt's (20). I'm not going so far as to claim this was a cover up of an intentional abuse, but if it comes out later it was, I will not be surprised. And while the totals include a lot of trivial errors rather than abuses, the audit only covered a limited number of operating units. That sounds like a wash, subtract the trivial errors, but multiply by the total operation since only a sample was audited. Then there's this inconvenient truth: Whoops.
JJ - firstly I asked you to provide evidence for your claims that Greenwald and Miranda, his partner were 'errand boys' 'selling stolen information to the highest-bidding country.' You ignored this (because you know it is untrue and cannot be proven), and instead focused on Snowden. This detention is something else. Yes you are entitled to your opinion, you can state it and you can put it in print. And I would not expect you to be arrested (unless you broke a specific law - inciting murder for example - in which case I would expect you to be arrested under that law, and no other) or held without charge for doing so. If Greenwald and Miranda are 'aiding and abetting a fugitive' why have they not been arrested and charged? Instead a power was used (incidentally this law predates 9/11 by a year) to hold a man inappropriately for 9 hours and then his belongings were stolen by the state. Now, whether you think Snowden is a traitor, or not, or that these guys have helped him (legally or illegally) you have to agree that to use powers wrongly to detain writers or their partners is not right. If they have done something wrong arrest them for it - using the appropriate law. What has happened is a short step away from putting a stop to free journalism or to imprisoning playwrights for daring to produce a play that criticizes the government. The Guardian is a respected newspaper and you had better believe that they had their lawyers check that what their journalists are doing is legal. I respect any newspaper; and it's journalists, that ensures we continue to question the powers that our governments hold over us.
The UK Government are distancing themselves from this detention: "it was a police operational matter". Yet, the White House says they knew of the likely detention, but did not request it: Josh Earnest, the principal deputy White House press secretary. It is clear that the UK Government were behind it so why not admit it? Blame the police: that is low. By the way any one of you / us can be detained at a UK airport or port. Not because they suspect you of being a terrorist but just to establish that you are not: David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Not sure that checking some is a terrorist allows for stealing their electronic equipment and passing the data to foreign powers, though: The Guardian
Here's another, we really should ask questions, piece: Guardian chief: UK had newspaper disks destroyed
What I find interesting about agents persecuting and threatening 'Guardian' staff, is that it's all done under the blanket term of 'democracy'. I remember where I read about such a democracy - in communist Russia circa 1954.
It's interesting how some people that complain about security contradicting freedom and suggest that people who want to surrender civil liberties to maintain their safety deserve neither, seem to forget that, as has been happening since the dawn of time, there is always someone out there willing to take everything away from you, including your life. We forget this, as most of us Westerners live in a safe environment and the western world is still reeling from WW2. But this will not always be the case, and endangering your own society simply to wave a flag of universal freedoms is incredibly dangerous, historically. Snowden and his ilk do nothing more than weaken the society they advocate they are protecting. There is no such thing as total freedom. It does not exist. You are always at the mercy of humanity or nature. No matter where you are you're going to need some form of protection, whether you notice it or not, and selling your secrets to the potential enemy is just idiotic. That's what lead to the British defeat in South East Asia in WW2, by some British staffers selling secrets and training the Japanese for their own gain.
Legality does not equal morality. It's true that Snowden has broken the law in exposing government secrets, so technically, yes, he's a traitor. He betrayed someone, case closed. But what's a greater threat to national security: 15-year-old Stacey Chavston writing 'Omg LIDL took ages to serve me!!!11' on her Facebook page, or a government systematically mining the collective communications of an entire nation in total secrecy?
