Ex-CIA chief: Amnesty for Snowden idiotic, he ‘should be hanged by his neck'

maybe this is something that all of us here on ATS should not comment on. the serious nature of what has happened cannot be overstated. I am quite confident that none of us here know the full extent of what is being played out at this time. commenting in a public forum is not productive or informative due to possible misinformation and/or manipulation. just because you have the ability to speak, doesn't necessarily mean you have to.

reply to post by Aazadan


Let me ask one question, have you been a federal employee or contractor that has held a clearance, if so would you do this ? if not and you have never entered into or seen a non disclosure, been briefed or debriefed by a security officer which re-iterates and emphasizes the penalties for divulging any classified information, it is easy to keep going on and on like you have as though what Edward Snowden did was correct and he should not face any punishment.

Snowden made himself judge, jury and executioner by his stupid actions and then seeks sympathy for this irresponsible and treasonous act, the world is not America's court by default for matters affecting it's citizens and they should not have been involved in this by Edward Snowden especially by going to Russia, a country that has probably exceeded the U.S. or any other country with some of the very grievances he brings to bear, that made zero sense and if he were reasonably intelligent, Russia would have been the last place he would have gone if he really believed in what he was trying to expose as wrong in his eyes.

If he was in fact doing this out of being a patriot, he would have not fled, he would have taken his lumps and he possibly would have even looked more like he believed in America and not his own self, he would not have fled to one of it's enemies where there is a greater chance that he could actually put Americans at even more risk.

reply to post by phinubian


Snowden, himself, stated that the decision to do it was not easy for him and he most definitely did not act as judge, jury and executioner. Those are heavy words to use for someone who simply revealed the existence of surveillance so that the public could act as judge and jury. If he had not, then the possibility of surveillance would've been so easily relegated into being construed as simply paranoid delusion. He did not condemn those agents/agencies/directors to death for their actions nor has he folded the programs. Instead, it is up to the public and our democracy to decide what the response should be. I would've most likely done the same thing if I had been in his shoes simply because, being an INTJ, the two things that I detest the most is subterfuge and a lack of justice.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Regardless had he not fled, do you understand that he possibly would have gained even more support and respect by even those who disagreed with what he did ? including myself, fleeing was not the prudent thing for him, it really made his act appear even more cowardly.

Returned from a Google search
cow·ard
ˈkou-ərd/
noun
noun: coward; plural noun: cowards
1.
a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things

If anything he is a semi coward because he should turn himself in and face the music of the record he put on the turntable.

reply to post by phinubian


What always happens in the movies to those who break bonds with the intelligence agencies? Not to say that there is necessarily any truth to what Hollywood churns out but what is displayed in our media is that going against the government, particularly in the case of agencies, equates to getting killed. You see it over and over again. That's just what happens in the movies though, right? But what does it say about a country where they would make such movies and tv shows that freely advertises the murder of its dissenting agents, especially when those agencies actually do have an entertainment liason to chime in on the productions? I find that rather disturbing personally. It's like saying we're so scary that we kill even our own agents so fear us, world.

Having the instinct to survive does not make one a coward. A real coward would've continued hugging his desk and said nothing. Snowden accepted that he was stepping into possible danger by his actions but just because one acceptance the potential danger of the situation, it doesn't mean that one has to walk straight on into it. In fact, to do so would be stupid. Look at Manning's treatment while he was being held. They didn't let the man sleep...

The guise of bravery can sometimes mask stupidity.

opethPA
The problem is for those that have never had a clearance or worked in the defense/intelligence community, Snowden seems like nothing more than a hero.

I had a SECRET security clearance and served Honorably in the USMC, and I STILL think he's a hero. I agree he violated an NDA, and some "laws," but at the end of the day, regardless of motive, this was something that needed to come out.

I've said it before: the US Constitution has no provisions for Nondisclosure Agreements. These "laws" that Snowden broke are themselves un-Constitutional, and do not truly protect The People, but violate nearly every Right afforded the Sovereign People. If the alphabet agencies in question hadn't violated Constitutional Rights guaranteed The People, and were truly to serve the best interests of us, the citizenry, I would be the first to say he should be tried for treason. But he should not. Our government should. Every last one that signed off on this travesty.

The simple fact is, these activities (and God knows what others) have been going on for some time. Over all that time no one (to the best of our knowledge) has attempted to do anything to stop them. The fact that they are unconstitutional has been officially established. So we can believe one of two possibilities: either no one has ever attempted to come forward and stop these activities --- or --- they have tried and the outcome was not effective. Perhaps what Snowden did was the only viable option. And stay in the U.S.?? That is naïve in the extreme.

opethPA


I'm not here to argue if it's justified that he did those things because the Govt does them. That's not the point for me. When you get your clearance you know what you are signing up for.

See, that's the BS part of this argument. Most people DO NOT know what they are signing up for, even in many private sector jobs. They hire you to do XYZ, and then 2 years later you're doing LMNOPQRST for the same pay grade.

Most Americans trust (or used to) their government, especially those going into intelligence, they feel they are doing the right thing and making a difference, Stopping EVIL around the world, etc etc.

Once on the inside for a while, he began to see things that were EVIL from our own gov't. You can say he should have used official channels for complaint, etc etc, but seriousy?? Do you honestly believe that would get him anywhere but possibly an accidental drunken fall out of a high window? Or a Michael Hastings style crash??

Wake up. He knew where it would get him, that's why he fled. You obviously haven't realized your country is 1984 already, stop waiting for it to happen, it HAPPENED. Past tense, you're living it. We all are.

Hats off to Snowden for having principals!

You would have had Soviet defectors executed or returned to USSR also?

reply to post by SloAnPainful


I kinda feel the same way about all former CIA chiefs. Traitors bastards.

reply to post by opethPA


When you get your security clearance, you don't really know what you are signing up for. At least, not before Snowden/Manning showed us.

No one would sign for clearance if they knew they were being asked to be traitors. If you feel that he should "get what he deserves", would you feel the same way about other nations and their officials? How about the Nazi's? If an officer blew the whistle after the first 1000 Jews were gassed, would you think the Nazi's had the right to hold him accountable?

In reality, "following orders" is not an excuse And that whole concept moots the security clearance signature. There absolutely IS the reality of "the law". And we can all admit that our laws are flawed. So why hang onto that argument so fervently?

phinubian
Let me ask one question, have you been a federal employee or contractor that has held a clearance, if so would you do this ? if not and you have never entered into or seen a non disclosure, been briefed or debriefed by a security officer which re-iterates and emphasizes the penalties for divulging any classified information, it is easy to keep going on and on like you have as though what Edward Snowden did was correct and he should not face any punishment.

I hold a secret clearance and have been in corporate positions where I'm bound by an NDA. I've also broken portions those NDA's before. When the activity being hidden by an NDA is illegal, the NDA can't actually keep it secret, infact it's the opposite, under federal law you have an olbigation to speak up about it and can be held liable if you don't. If I were in Snowdens position I would have done the exact same thing, as would any American that actually believes in our rights (I'm aware plenty don't and wouldn't). There was an escalation that lead to Snowden doing what he did. William Binney, Thomas Drake, and J Kirk Wiebe all came before Snowden. They all tried to fix the problems from within and not bring it to the public. For the act of attempting reform through the proper channels they lost their careers, were threatened, were sentenced to life in prison, and had very expensive lawsuits brought against them for the purpose of bankrupting them. Snowden isn't stupid, he saw what happened to them, and he saw the treatment Manning was given in prison. Fleeing was the only option a rational person would have.

Breaking an NDA should be an exception, not the rule but I strongly believe that when there's an important reason to do it, that it should be broken. I also believe that it should be up to society afterwards to decide whether or not it was the right thing to do, and that means the person should stand trial for it.

Snowdens destination of choice wasn't Russia, he was trying to get to South America but the US was able to trap him and Russia ended up being his only option. I wouldn't condemn him as a traitor just because he's in a country that won't extradite him due to being on poor terms with the US. If he went to a country with our interests in mind he would find himself in a US prison probably getting the Manning treatment. Can you blame him for trying to avoid that fate? Perhaps if we treated our prisoners better this wouldn't be an issue... but that's another topic. Remember, we've had congressmen call for his assassination... he would be absolutely insane to trust himself to the prison system.

Snowden made himself judge, jury and executioner by his stupid actions and then seeks sympathy for this irresponsible and treasonous act, the world is not America's court by default for matters affecting it's citizens and they should not have been involved in this by Edward Snowden especially by going to Russia, a country that has probably exceeded the U.S. or any other country with some of the very grievances he brings to bear, that made zero sense and if he were reasonably intelligent, Russia would have been the last place he would have gone if he really believed in what he was trying to expose as wrong in his eyes.

He did no such thing, he took data to tell us what was being done, he didn't take the actual data gathered. There is a massive difference between the two. Then he released it all to the press so that the American people could decide on what was being done as should be our right. These programs he exposed break 8 out of 10 articles in the Bill of Rights as well as numerous other federal laws. We have a right to know when our government commits illegal acts, furthermore we have a duty to bring them back into compliance with the law.

Panic2k11
reply to post by SloAnPainful

 

I'm not a defender of death penalty for any crime ever, it is just too easy to use it to silence people and keep errors mum. But I would go along with some form of physical punishment and extreme social shame for those that work against national (not governmental) interests...

edit on 18-12-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

Normally, for most criminals I agree. It is obvious to me though that this former CIA guy is an incorrigible being and it would be an incredible waste of resources to maintain his biological presence. Even wasting the money on a rope is a bit more than he is worth after a comment of this sort.
Hopefully, once the peaceful revolution is concluded these types, and most other government officials as well, will face the same jury of peers this individual believes Snowden deserves.
I can no longer see any solution but a complete overthrow of government as Jefferson recommended, peaceful and nonviolent if possible. Only this time we do not set up some Other form since all governments are intrinsically evil.
Google "The Anatomy of The State" by Murray N. Rothbard to understand how NO governments work without oppression.

Xcathdra

I have no problem with that stance, provided government officials are in the same line to the gallows. While I don't agree with the manner in which Snowden released the information, im willing to overlook that simply because the info he released about the NSA has exposed serious legal / constitutional issues / violations.

Never happen X.

Do as we say and not as we do.

GrdcgvdhjM

edit on 12/20/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

Well...that escalated quickly.

reply to post by Aazadan


So then the question is....why is nothing done?

The latest is that the telecom companies should possibly hold onto the data for the NSA, rather than the NSA holding it. As if that makes any difference. Well, other than how insecure the data would be with the telecoms vs the separate network of the NSA.

bigfatfurrytexan
So then the question is....why is nothing done?

The latest is that the telecom companies should possibly hold onto the data for the NSA, rather than the NSA holding it. As if that makes any difference. Well, other than how insecure the data would be with the telecoms vs the separate network of the NSA.

Well, I have a couple of theories on that. The first is that I think people are just apathetic. The NSA is doing what they want but people still have cable TV, those that are lucky enough to have jobs are able to goto work, we can put gas in our cars, and we have internet access. As a result, people just don't care. The MSM tells people it's keeping us safe, and these people aren't being personally inconvenienced. Thus the lack of outrage.

The other thing is we have had congressmen come very close to violating their secrecy oaths saying that what's being done is unconstitutional. We've even had accusations from members of congress that the NSA is powerful enough to blackmail congress in order to get their way with these laws and committees.

Having a technical background myself I have a pretty good idea as to what Snowden did and what the NSA does. I think a lot of people aren't techies though, they don't understand what data or metadata is, the implications of collecting and analyzing it, and the eventual consequences of doing so. Furthermore, since it's seen as a nerdy or geeky area of expertise there's a social stigma to actually learning about it (and lets face it, continuing education isn't a priority to most people already). There's a reason virtually every tech publication is against what the NSA is doing, don't trust me instead listen to the people smarter than me.

As for telcoms holding the data and not the NSA, there's a good argument to be made that it is more secure. The problem is, if the telcoms are holding it the NSA loses a lot of effectiveness as they can't access the data without a warrant. Great for us, bad for them. But back to the security idea. Centralizing all this data creates a system where somehow one day these central servers WILL be breached, it might be by hackers wanting to commit mass identity theft or it might be by a foreign government that wants to personally attack individuals (imagine a cyber attack where the government is ignored but every individuals bank account vanishes). When this data is spread across 50 or 100 different systems, a breach in any one system limits the damage.

There's another aspect to this distributed data system too, and that's one of critical mass. Once you have some good algorithms and a critical mass of data, predictive behavior analysis becomes extremely simple. Individual companies are approaching the point of critical mass as it is, particularly card processors and traffic camera companies. Putting all of this information in a giant database for the government to query is a very bad idea. Let this get going and thought crime isn't going to be a thing, they'll be able to get you before the idea has even entered your head to commit a crime.

We need Snowden or someone following in his footsteps to testify to congress about what is going on. And it needs to be made public so it can't be covered up. They're the only ones with the ability to do something about this, and some of them are being blackmailed. Thus everything done needs to be public in order to fight it.

reply to post by opethPA

The problem is for those that have never had a clearance or worked in the defense/intelligence community, Snowden seems like nothing more than a hero.

To those that have done both of those things he has broken multiple rules, laws, regulations and the contract he agreed to when choosing that career in life.

I'm not here to argue if it's justified that he did those things because the Govt does them. That's not the point for me. When you get your clearance you know what you are signing up for.

I am going to be blunt at the risk of being offensive. You do not have a clue about what you signed up for.

The CIA (and NSA) was created to gather foreign intelligence so that we could avoid the next Pearl Harbor. That was supposedly the motivation. Seems like a good idea to an honest person. But honest people are gullible. What does it seem like to a crook? A great way to get away with murder. History implies that it was the crooks that promoted the creation of and staffed the CIA.

If the CIA has a spy in an enemy camp and there is publicity that raises questions, the government says we can not answer for reasons of "national security". They mean the secret spy would be exposed and in danger of his life. And the lengthy project of the spy is coming to fruition and the whole investment would go to waste. That sounds reasonable to an honest gullible citizen.

To a crook, national security is a great way to hide spies smuggling opium from Afghanistan to Mena. Or funneling foreign aid from congress to Bahrain to the crook's pocket. The US president could even have the CIA sabotage his opponent in the next election. When the burglars are discovered, he can say trust me, National Security.

If the president has a whistle blower in his camp, he can safely execute him. Get the CIA to get Mossad to stage a suicide at Fort Marcy park.

The CIA is a perfect concept to obscure a gestapo. If they get organized with the federal reserve and the joint chiefs they could rule the world.

You must be one of the honest ones. You worried about the rules and obeying them. Your boss and your agency chief and your coworkers had a criminal disrespect for the law. To them the Constitution was just a piece of paper. Your bosses broke a lot more rules then any whistle blower. Unlike the whistle blower, they broke the rules with evil intent.

Not just the CIA. ONI, FBI, FAA, NTSB, NSA, DIA. TWA Flight 800 investigators. 9/11 Commission. The Warren Commission. You know of a law J Edger Hoover obeyed? I am suspicious of the meter maid.

From reading this thread, it’s clear there are at least a couple of hardened views here. There’s no point in trying to change anyone’s mind on this; minds are already made up, and it is what it is. I don’t have much to add, but I’ll at least throw in my 2 cents.

In this day and age it’s getting kinda hard to seperate out the foreign from the national influences/interests. You can’t say anymore that the good guys are on this side of the border, and the bad guys are on the other. It just doesn’t work that way. According to Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org... the NSA, CIA and DIA functions are basically the following:

"The NSA is tasked with the global monitoring, collection, decoding, translation and analysis of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes, including surveillance of targeted individuals on U.S. soil. The agency is authorized to accomplish its mission through clandestine means, among which are bugging electronic systems and allegedly engaging in sabotage through subversive software. The NSA is also responsible for the protection of U.S. government communications and information systems. As part of the growing practice of mass surveillance in the United States, the NSA collects and stores all phone records of all American citizens. Unlike the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), both of which specialize primarily in foreign human espionage, the NSA has no authority to conduct human-source intelligence gathering, although it is often portrayed so in popular culture. Instead, the NSA is entrusted with coordination and deconfliction of SIGINT components of otherwise non-SIGINT government organizations, which are prevented by law from engaging in such activities without the approval of the NSA via the Defense Secretary."

So, it’s not just a foreign intelligence gathering operation. It’s a global electronic communications gathering tool under, and reporting to, the DoD. I believe that preventing the next 9/11 requires much more than gathering foreign intelligence. Current day terrorism is a global affair, with many of it’s agents living in, and educated by, the good ol’ US of A. In order to do it’s job, as outlined above, it would be incompetent and insubordinate to overlook surveillance within our own borders. To tie it’s hands behind it’s back, and limit it’s ability to do it’s job, would be kinda dumb.

I’m not condoning everything the agency does. Like all other agencies, and every other activity in the world involving more than 2 people, there will surely be those who abuse the power they’ve been given. That’s just life. Deal with it. But don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. That, I’m quite certain, would be a grave error in judgement, with catastrophic results. I agree the NSA needs strict oversight; that’s a no-brainer. So, let’s tighten things up a bit and weed out the losers.

Personally, I don’t care what anyone else thinks (you see, I’m just as hardened in my view as the rest of you are), but I’m willing to surrender some of my so-called freedoms if it means that we’re less likely to have another 9/11, or much worse, repeated on American soil. Actually, I use the Internet a LOT, but I’m not paranoid about whether or not Big Brother is peering over my shoulder as I make this post. And if he is, so what! Frankly, I doubt anyone at the NSA has the time to sit around playing voyeur with the kind of volume they’re required to review/process each day. And if anyone does do this, they should be dealt with appropriately. Christ, people don’t seem to mind spilling their guts on Facebook and Twitter, letting the entire world have access to their personal lives. But, Heaven forbid should the NSA get ahold of any of their “private” coorespondence. That’s simply unAmerican and unacceptable.

I mean, really, get a grip people. I know this may come as a shock to many, but governments around the world have been involved in spying and espionage ever since Humans learned to distrust each other. We spy on enemies and allies alike. And they do the same right back at us. This isn’t 1776 anymore. It’s the information/electronics age, and it’s just how it’s done these days. I don’t mean to scare anyone, but the fact is the technology genie’s out of the bottle. I’m afraid the best we can do now is require tight and relentless oversight of these operations.

But, I can just hear it now. The very same people screaming about the government’s abuse of their precious freedoms will be screaming about the incompetence of our security agencies in the aftermath of the next devastaing terrorist attack here in America. I wouldn’t want to work for any of the security agencies here. It’s a thankless, lose-lose proposition. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.

As far as Ed Snowden goes, he’s no hero in my book. I simply don’t trust him and think his agenda was purely self-serving. He did a great deal of unnecessary damage to this country, which I love. And if he did have righteous intentions, then he went about it all wrong. With all the crap he stole, I have to wonder if he ever had any time to do his job. I doubt it. I think he was quite clearly treasonous, and should face the consequences. If he does the same thing to his new Daddy, Putin, I’m sure the hammer will come down swiftly and with great force and vengeance. Eddie better watch his step...

One last comment: I have no political affiliations or agenda. I guess I lean mostly to the left, but will gladly accept any ideas proposed by any party, as long as it makes good sense, and in my judgement is fair and just and good for the country. I have no interest in playing the game of politics.

Now, on that note,

Let the Good Times Roll!!

jimmyx
maybe this is something that all of us here on ATS should not comment on. the serious nature of what has happened cannot be overstated. I am quite confident that none of us here know the full extent of what is being played out at this time. commenting in a public forum is not productive or informative due to possible misinformation and/or manipulation. just because you have the ability to speak, doesn't necessarily mean you have to.

I am really curious what your thinking is on this? I know you're well thought out on your positions, even if it's not always as long winded as I can be..lol

Why would this subject, of everything discussed on ATS, be one ATS members should be careful with or not comment on?

I'm not sure what could be playing out which we'd impact and if something were that we could ..isn't that a pretty big problem in itself, or is your thinking entirely different on it?

reply to post by henryzo

I can no longer see any solution but a complete overthrow of government as Jefferson recommended, peaceful and nonviolent if possible. Only this time we do not set up some Other form since all governments are intrinsically evil. Google "The Anatomy of The State" by Murray N. Rothbard to understand how NO governments work without oppression.

I agree that the only option is revolution, its been in the cards for too long but my view is that it will occur when things are mostly unfixable and at a tremendous human cost (among others) and the result will probably be worst that what we started (before it became extremely corrupt). Worst because the situation of demographics, ecology and geopolitics, it is clear that the new tendency is to aim to a more Asian view of human worth (that translates to lower significance and less power to the individual across the board), this is mostly unfixable because of out competitive existence.

The only chance for improvements is if the revolution was initiated by the citizens in Asia nations (I doubt it very much, they have accommodated to this top down society for millennia it could be said that revolution and aspiring to something better is not on their genes/culture, this is backed up by the type of revolutions that normally occur in the region, they are simply due to a split of interests between already existing powers, or in face of the state inability to provide the most basic needs. And this last reason rarely results in improvements only on a better satisfaction of their needs.)

I also don't see how social order can exist without government and agree that government is predicated in oppression and so are evil in nature. Since a government at its best would work to equalize freedoms among the population, that is to exert an egalitarian redistribution (rarely seen but what most of us expects from government). My view is that the more centralized government is (power) the easier it is for it to be corrupted, keeping governance to extremely short terms and fragmented and distributed (possible with todays technology) would address part of the problem and one thing that China can teach us is that a single party system is best for long term plans and promotes less fragmentation of the social fabric (not everyone is interested in politics and strict implementation of ideologies).

In any case a single party system can coexist with very divergent views internal to its structure (even if it reduces radicalism from the core norm). This could also permit the existence of professional politics without corruption from the outside and better sanctions for those that break the public trust. One thing that it would solve is the campaign models and the need for public exposure and mixing personalities with performance.

As for death penalty I just can't see any advantage over a system that correctly attempts to reform individuals. Even if I understand the need of victims of some crimes for retribution I don't see it as justice, since any crime is first the result of a failure of society (except the cases of insanity).