Edward Snowden, NSA whistleblower

[Henry M]

Obama didn't put it in place, and has suggested that legislators restrict
the unlimited freedom to do anything as long as it relates to terrorism.
I'm not okay with the spying, but I'm not naïve.  It's the natural
extension of a process that has been going on for thousands of years.  Fix
it, but don't pretend to be shocked to find gambling going on here.

Yours truly,
٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
Henry Musikar, CISSP
http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20


On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> Snowden did go to his superiors and they told him to drop it. Thomas Drake
> went to his "superiors" and stayed entirely within legal processes and his
> superiors accused him as a lawbreaker( he won in court, but was personally
> devastated). Colleen Rowley went to her FBI superiors with information that
> would very likely have prevented 9-11 and she was told to shut up .  Did
> you side with Bush when William Binney exposed the then clearly illegal NSA
> spying or Obama who promised it wouldn't happen if he was president?  The
> 4th amendment cannot be repealed by executive fiat or a law of congress.
>  When criminals are running the show and breaking laws, compliance is
> little more than just following orders. Totalitarian states always give
> themselves the power of law and this system of universal spying is exactly
> what Orwell, Kafka and history shows as the core methodology of
> totalitarian police states.
>
> You hated Bush but when Obama does the exact same things you approve. Why?
>
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Henry M wrote:
>
> Whether or not you like the results of Snowden's revelation, he's
> certainly is closer to being a whistle-blower than Manning.  Many people
> who have never handled sensitive information miss an important element of
> what employees, government or otherwise, are told vis-a-vis
> whistle-blowing, which is the requirement to bring the problem to one's
> superiors or to some office specially designated for receiving such
> information.
>
>
> If Snowden had done so, he probably would have been informed that while
> he, and many other people, may have philosophical (and perhaps moral)
> concerns about the NSA surveilance progam, it wasn't illegal and it wasn't
> against government or program policy, direction, or charter, things that
> Manning is too apparently too young and mixed-up to understand, but which
> someone in Snowden's former positon should.
>
>
> However much you may like them and the results of what they've done,
> Snowden and Manning broke the law and were aware of the consequence of
> doing so. That there are bankers who broke the law (many just did very
> wrong things) and who should be prosecuted in what would be very
> complicated cases does not, in a nation of laws, give other people such as
> Snowden and Manning, a free pass.
>
>
> Yours truly,
>
> ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
>
> Henry Musikar, CISSP
>
> http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:39 AM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> i can accept the release of what the NSA has been up to with wiretapping
> and the like  but if this guy also gave out secrets about US plans
> regarding cyberattack strategies/defense I think that's something he should
> be prosecuted for
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130610/d42baf34/attachment.html>