[Politics_Observer]

@Godstud

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. Time will tell who is right on this particular issue and I feel confident in my position. I do think Trump might very well pardon Snowden if he doesn't get re-elected or if he thinks it will serve his political purposes even though Snowden shouldn't receive that pardon. If it is any other President besides Trump, Snowden won't get a pardon even it was a democrat who is President. That being said even if Trump pardons Snowden, that doesn't mean Snowden was innocent of the charges he is current charged with. Time will tell what the real truth is over this issue whether Snowden eventually gets a pardon or not.

[Politics_Observer]

@ingliz

Yeah, there was one time where weekend warrior Army National Guard tank units fought against Regular Army tank units in a series of field training exercises and the weekend warrior Army National Guard tank units whooped the Regular Army tank units in every engagement during the field training exercise. The Regular Army was puzzled by this. How is it that a bunch of backwoods rednecks who were amateur weekend warriors were able to solidly defeat full time professional soldiers in field training exercises in tank battles?

Well, the answer to that question was that the weekend warrior tank units had better unit cohesion. They have had been training with the same people for 10 or 15 years and knew each other very well, their strengths and weaknesses. At that time the full time professional soldiers only trained with each other for like 3 years.

So, these Billy Bob rednecks would just little humliate and whoop up on the full time professionals because they had been training with each other and knew each other so well. The regular army, they didn't always know the people in their tank crews because they got swapped out more often. So, upon learning this, the Regular Army then responded to this by making their full time professional soldiers be assigned at a duty station for 5 years instead of 3 years from what I understand and probably not swapping out their tank crews so much and made sure their tank crews worked well together. That way, they have the time to develop good unit cohesion much better and get to know each other really well so they fight better.

And so goes the old saying "We're full time professionals but the world is full of amateurs."

[Godstud]

@Politics_Observer I think you don't understand. I don't think Snowden needs to be pardoned. I think he needs to have relevant and reasonable charges laid against him that are not simply a result of a blanket claim that he destroyed US national security, or committed treason. Motive and intent is an important factor in ANY crime.

I do not think it was ever Snowden's intent to commit espionage or treason. I think his motives were simply to expose the wrong-doing done by the NSA, and he felt that it was impossible to do so through the NSA.

Treason? No. Snowden didn't commit treason. He was not trying to betray his country, or overthrow the government, but simply expose the wrong-doing of a government intelligence agency, that was betraying the people it was supposed to serve.

Esionage? He wasn't giving secrets to a foreign government, nor was he spying. Snowden was never connected to the Russian government and suggestions of this have been proven false, in all cases.

That he ended up in Russia isn't evidence, in itself, that he worked for them, or gave them US intelligence information.

The NSA still needs to be held accountable for the actions that led to Snowden's act. I do not believe that such is the case, even 7 years later. The NSA hasn't been made to explain its actions in any reasonable manner.

[Politics_Observer]

@Godstud

Well, the US government doesn't see it your way and that's why he is charged with espionage. So, if Snowden ever hopes to be able to set foot on American soil again, it's going to be because a President pardons him or he is somehow renditioned back to the US by the CIA or got back to the US through a prisoner swap and would then, most likely, face trial for the federal offenses he is charged with. I have no doubt Putin has his agents protecting Snowden and they are hiding Snowden's whereabouts.

I am unsure if we actually protect Russians who defect to the US (perhaps in some cases we do and in other cases we might not but I don't know). We certainly keep their whereabouts a secret in some cases so the Russians can't find and assassinate them. According to a Netflix documentary I watched on Russia's state sponsored doping program, the Russian who exposed it is in the Witness Protection Program here in the U.S. and his location and identity is a secret so that Russia's agents can't find him. A Russian oligarch tried to sue him here state side and many believe that was Russia's attempt to try and locate him because he had to respond to the lawsuit. However, if it was, it failed.

To be honest with you, you never know if Snowden could face assassination from our own agents (CIA agents or those working on behalf of the CIA) in Russia. Which is probably part of the reason why the Russians keep secret where he is located and likely have agents assigned close by to protect him from potential rendition or assassination by any of the CIA's agents or spooks.

[Godstud]

Well, the US government doesn't see it your way and that's why he is charged with espionage.

The US government is always quick to cover up its malfeasance. Distraction is one of many tactics used.

They don't need to hide Snowden, unless US has a world police department, which it doesn't. Thank the fucking gods for that!

This should be an easy question to answer. Who in the NSA has been held accountable for THEIR illegal activities?

[Politics_Observer]

@Godstud

We can send in agents or recruit people to go after Snowden if we wanted. The main reason why we dont might have to do with the fact that Snowden is a US citizen and it wouldn't be worth the hassle even if such an operation were successful. Plus I am sure the Russians have taken the precaution of keeping his whereabouts secret given that they want to use him in the future. And as far as I can tell from my sources, by American law, the NSA wasn't engaging in anything illegal. The NSA only answers to American law. They got lawyers at the NSA to advise them on their operations and what is legal by American law.

[Godstud]

Fact: The moment you rescinded Snowden's passport, you essentially revoked his citizenship. He is, effectively, stateless. As a result of this government action, they have relinquished claim to him.

I can tell from my sources, by American law, the NSA wasn't engaging in anything illegal.

That bullshit, and you know it.
You can't even criticize your government when it breaches it's own laws and principles?

The NSA only answers to American law.

Court finds FBI use of NSA database violated Americans' 4th Amendment rights
Under a controversial national security policy put in place by the Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the NSA has been collecting large amounts of metadata, the digital information that accompanies electronic communications. That information included what phone numbers were on the call, when the call was placed and how long it lasted, which was then saved in a database.

Details of those programs became public in 2013 when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed them to journalists, who published stories in the Guardian and The Washington Post. After those disclosures, the government declassified information about the programs and began publishing annual transparency reports about the use of the surveillance tools.

The FBI didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.cnet.com/news/court-finds-f ... nt-rights/

As for damage caused by Snowden leaking those documents to journalists. There is nothing indicating what exactly that was, and there are no recorded incidents caused by it. The has been a lot of fear-mongering and statements to that effect, but much like how homosexual marriage would lead to people marrying their pets, this hasn't led to anything.

If there has been really incidents, please show me a source to support such a claim. I find claims to this effect to be empty.

[Politics_Observer]

@Godstud

No I actually thought the NSA operations were regarded as legal as some of my sources seem to indicate that and these were solid authoritative sources. However, after having responded to your post I double checked the internet and found that an appeals court ruled that some aspects of the operations were illegal. That being said just because a court rules that the NSA did something illegal doesn't mean that the NSA set out to break the law either. They do have lawyers advising them and I am sure they follow the legal advice given to them. However that doesnt guarantee what a court will rule. Lawyer cant guarantee what a court will rule despite providing legal advice. That also doesnt mean the NSA was conspiring to violate Americans civil liberties either.

[Politics_Observer]

@Godstud

So the NSA went through the law and got a court order to engage in their surveillance. The law however later on ruled it was illegal. But the fact that the NSA went through the law and got a court order to conduct their surveillance demonstrates that they didnt set out to commit a crime given that they got the court order to conduct the surveillance that later ruled illegal. From US News:

"Publicly revealed for the first time last week, the NSA's secret program monitoring Verizon phone records alarmed civil libertarians, who say the government has no such authority. With the possession of a court order, the government has been collecting metadata from phone calls placed in its network for the last three months. This includes details of both parties on a call, how long they spoke, how often and possibly where they were located."

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles ... nstitution

[Politics_Observer]

@Godstud

You and I are both Obama fans (or it seems you are an Obama fan). What do you think of Obama's remarks on Snowden. Boy, just listening him talk and comparing how Trump talks now as President it was like a whole different world back then where America was more respectful and had more respect. Know what I mean Godstud? Anyway, here is the video:

[Sivad]

Snowden is a patriot and any American citizen who supports his prosecution is a goddamn traitor.

[Politics_Observer]

@Sivad

Ohh yeah, well you tell that to the people whose lives he endangered and see how far you get. Snowden is Benedict Arnold and fucking god damn traitor. I can't stand that son of a bitch. They need to give him the death sentence. You wouldn't to say that the folks in the U.S. military or in the intelligence services. I'll tell you that. Traitors like Snowden are the lowest scum of the fucking earth. They are below dog shit. Even your boy Trump called for his execution at one time before he flip flopped and decided it might serve his political purposes to pardon Snowden against pushback from republicans and democrats. This country needs to bring back hanging traitors so that it deters this kind of behavior in the future.

[Politics_Observer]

@Sivad

Here is what the military thinks of Snowden. And they were right:

Flynn was asked by Sens. Susan Collin, R-Maine, and Marco Rubio, R-Florida, if American troops could get killed because of Snowden, a computer whiz who once worked for the CIA and NSA contractors Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton.

The general said troops may die because of Snowden, who once worked in support of the military and even briefly enlisted in the Army before being quickly discharged.

"What we've seen the last six to eight months is an awareness by these [terrorist] groups...of our ability to monitor communications and specific instances where they've changed the ways in which they communicate to avoid being surveilled or being subject to our surveillance tactics," said NCTC Director Matthew Olsen.

In rhetoric reminiscent of historic FBI manhunts for Prohibition-era Tommy Gun gangsters or Cold War subversives, Snowden was said to put at risk the lives of countless U.S. spies, intelligence assets and troops in harm's way by the assembled U.S. officials.

"What I do want to speak to as the nation's senior intelligence officer is the profound damage that his disclosures have caused and continue to cause. As a consequence, the nation is less safe and its people less secure," Clapper, a retired Air Force lieutenant general, somberly explained.

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/intel-he ... d=22285388

[Godstud]

Ohh yeah, well you tell that to the people whose lives he endangered and see how far you get.

Who did he endanger? Please be specific.

There is a lot of vague references to people put in danger, but no one ever says when, who, or where.

Meanwhile, your country was most cerainly breaking your constitutional rights, and that doesn't seem very important.

@Politics_Observer I liked Obama, but I disagree with him, 100%.

Calling for Snowden's death is both overly melodramatic and insane. Many people in the last 50 years have done far worse things than him, and I doubt you were reacting like a maniac.

Snowden has not caused a SINGLE death, and yet you call for him to be executed as though he killed millions??? WTF, @Politics_Observer !!? That's crazy-talk.

Take a step back. Take a deep breath. Think.

[Politics_Observer]

@Godstud

I don't see it as crazy talk. You have to deter people from releasing sensitive classified information that endangers the lives of my country's troops and in addition the lives of our allies like Canada for example. People who unlawfully release classified information not only hurt the United States, the American people and U.S. troops but allies of the U.S. too.

Unlawful disclosure of classified information has grave consequences and given this is the case, this is the reason why I support the death sentence for those who do engage in the leaks of unlawful disclosure of classified information. Their unauthorized disclosures very well endanger the lives of Americans our allies and sometimes literally do get them killed. It is the duty of my government to protect the lives of Americans, it's soldiers and the lives of it's foreign allies as well.

Given that is the case, this justifies the death sentence so that such behavior is deterred in the future and thus keeps people safe. That includes our allies. George Washington hung traitors during the American Revolutionary War and when you study history, Snowden's unlawful and unauthorized disclosures that endanger the lives of his countrymen and our allies is "nothing new under the sun." It's like studying ancient history. Perhaps one of the thing that sticks out to me is that it was then and is now "nothing new under the sun."

Nobody is going to change their mind on their viewpoint of this whole affair. So, be as it may, I have said my piece more than enough times than what needs to be said and will disengage. But everybody is entitled to their opinion. I just have a very strong opinion on the matter.

[Godstud]

You have to deter people from releasing sensitive classified information that endangers the lives of my country's troops and in addition the lives of our allies like Canada for example.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that Snowden's acts endangered ANYONE's life. That's fact, unless you have can provide evidence to the contrary.

I've asked several times for evidence that Snowden's act has actually harmed anyone( I want a specific incident, not some vague claim), and you have yet to provide this information, because it does not exist.

Just because some government agency that was accused of wrong-doing and breaching your Constitutional rights says something, doesn't make it true.

At least base your opinion on facts, and not "belief".

[ingliz]

they've changed the ways in which they communicate to avoid being surveilled or being subject to our surveillance tactics

How can we be sure they didn't obtain the information from you? You haven't shied away from telling everyone here how to secure their communications.

Should we be building a scaffold for you.

[Politics_Observer]

@ingliz

How can we be sure they didn't obtain the information from you? You haven't shied away from telling everyone here how to secure their communications.

Should we be building a scaffold for you.

Trying to disengage here ingliz but you dragged me back in. Everything I mentioned was what I learned as a student of cyber-security. It's public knowledge though you probably would need to get a formal education to learn this stuff. Most of my tips would help protect people from your average hacker who wants to steal your credentials, money or compromise your system so they could use it to attack other systems (unknown to you). But something as massive as the NSA which probably has plenty of zero day exploits (not sure if you know what a zero day exploit is) stockpiled and vast resources at their disposal, great hacking and IT talent; despite all your defenses, the NSA would in most cases be able to hack you if they decided they wanted to target you. Plus, I am not sure if you can ever 100% escape the NSA's prying Big Brother eyes if they decide they really want to find something.

I gave the tips because I thought maybe people would like to protect their legitimate privacy rights and themselves from malicious hackers. I was trying to be a good guy and be helpful man! I thought you would APPRECIATE IT. I guess Potemkin was right when he said "no good deed goes unpunished." You see, this is what happens when you try to be nice and helpful. People throw you under the bus for it .

All joking and bullshitting aside, if the NSA has decided to target somebody who is using computer communications in a way that evades the countries they have intelligence sharing agreements with, they can easily send their hackers off to hack your systems and eavesdrop on you if that's what they wanted to do. Of course, you would probably have to be on their radar too.

In addition, in cyber-security, when you are defending a network, it's not a question of if you will be successfully hacked (called a compromise) but when. Hence, why cyber-security specialists have a plan in place not just to defend their network and make it hard to compromise, but also to respond to a successful compromises as quickly and efficiently as possible (and to conduct a digital forensic investigation at a digital forensics lab after containing, eradicating the hack as well as recovering systems that were compromised).

Of course, really good cyber-security defenses can cost a lot of money too which your average person might not be able to put in place extraordinarily good cyber-security defense. And even then, you could still be compromised. Which again, is why you need a Security Incident Response Team and an Incident Response Plan in place to respond to compromises given it's a question of when and not if a compromise will happen.

[ingliz]

if the NSA has decided to target somebody...

It looks like you are arguing against yourself at this point.

According to you, if I'm reading you right, no matter what Snowden or the Guardian newspaper divulged as to security protocols, the leak made not a jot of difference to the NSA's ability to eavesdrop on terrorist communications.

Elsewhere, you argue it did.

What is it?

[Politics_Observer]

@ingliz

It looks like you are arguing against yourself at this point.

According to you, if I'm reading you right, no matter what Snowden or the Guardian newspaper divulged as to security protocols, the leak made not a jot of difference to the NSA's ability to eavesdrop on terrorist communications.

Elsewhere, you argue it did.

What is it?

Nah, those leaks made a difference. I guess my knowledge they taught to me in a college could make a difference as well and make it harder for even intelligence organizations to eavesdrop on you (that's not to say intelligence organizations couldn't find a way around or a way to defeat cyber-security defenses though because they most certainly can without a doubt, they got smart people working for them too). However, the big difference between Snowden and myself is the fact the information I shared (out of love of learning, love of technology, and helping to ensure people protect themselves from criminal hackers and their legitimate privacy that doesn't involve committing a crime) came out of a college classroom and various books on cybersecurity and not classified information on specific surveillance techniques on how the NSA conducts business. I don't work for the NSA and have never worked for the NSA, I am just a college student.

What I shared was public knowledge and not classified information. Are you suggesting we should start hanging all cyber-security specialists who don't work in defense and/or don't deal with sensitive information in defense but share their public knowledge with the general public on how to better secure their devices, privacy and themselves against hacking and network attack from cyber-criminal hackers? Also, another question I have for you is, do you think there is never an instance when the death penalty should be applied? Are you totally against the death penalty no matter the situation, circumstance and crime?