ADVERTISEMENT

Edward Snowden Wants to Come Home

Guess no one would answer who should have blown the whistle on those who violated the constitutional rights of millions of U.S. citizens to "preserve our freedoms."

"Long before Edward Snowden went public, John Crane was a top Pentagon official fighting to protect NSA whistleblowers. Instead their lives were ruined – and so was his.
by Mark Hertsgaard

Drake’s story has since been told – and in fact, it had a profound impact on Snowden, who told an interviewer in 2015 that: “It’s fair to say that if there hadn’t been a Thomas Drake, there wouldn’t have been an Edward Snowden.”


But there is another man whose story has never been told before, who is speaking out publicly for the first time here. His name is John Crane, and he was a senior official in the Department of Defense who fought to provide fair treatment for whistleblowers such as Thomas Drake – until Crane himself was forced out of his job and became a whistleblower as well.

His testimony reveals a crucial new chapter in the Snowden story – and Crane’s failed battle to protect earlier whistleblowers should now make it very clear that Snowden had good reasons to go public with his revelations.

During dozens of hours of interviews, Crane told me how senior Defense Department officials repeatedly broke the law to persecute Drake. First, he alleged, they revealed Drake’s identity to the Justice Department; then they withheld (and perhaps destroyed) evidence after Drake was indicted; finally, they lied about all this to a federal judge.

The supreme irony? In their zeal to punish Drake, these Pentagon officialsunwittingly taught Snowden how to evade their clutches when the 29-year-old NSA contract employee blew the whistle himself. Snowden was unaware of the hidden machinations inside the Pentagon that undid Drake, but the outcome of those machinations – Drake’s arrest, indictment and persecution – sent an unmistakable message: raising concerns within the system promised doom.

“Name one whistleblower from the intelligence community whose disclosures led to real change – overturning laws, ending policies – who didn’t face retaliation as a result. The protections just aren’t there,” Snowden told the Guardian this week. “The sad reality of today’s policies is that going to the inspector general with evidence of truly serious wrongdoing is often a mistake. Going to the press involves serious risks, but at least you’ve got a chance.”

Snowden saw what had happened to Drake and other whistleblowers like him. The key to Snowden’s effectiveness, according to Thomas Devine, the legal director of the Government Accountability Project (GAP), was that he practised “civil disobedience” rather than “lawful” whistleblowing. (GAP, a non-profit group in Washington, DC, that defends whistleblowers, has represented Snowden, Drake and Crane.)

None of the lawful whistleblowers who tried to expose the government’s warrantless surveillance – and Drake was far from the only one who tried – had any success,” Devine told me. “They came forward and made their charges, but the government just said, ‘They’re lying, they’re paranoid, we’re not doing those things.’ And the whistleblowers couldn’t prove their case because the government had classified all the evidence. Whereas Snowden took the evidence with him, so when the government issued its usual denials, he could produce document after document showing that they were lying. That is civil disobedience whistleblowing.

[...]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon-punished-nsa-whistleblowers
 
Maybe over a beer. Not here.:D

I'm quite aware of how metadata is used, and I am also quite aware of how calls are monitored. And I still say it is wrong to snare all Americans in that web. The government has no goddamn business with knowing who I call...and if they think they do, they can get a warrant.
 
What the hell is the matter with you? No one is saying we would promote taking guns away from citizens. I'm saying you don't commit crimes against your own government, you Trump deranged fool.

Make up your mind man....do you support the Constitution, or the government, which has been known to shit on the Constitution?

Which parts of the Constitution are you OK with shitting on? Which parts of the Bill of Rights? Is the 2nd sacred, but fvck the 4th?

You are a smart guy....this should not be going over your head.

And I most certainly support committing certain crimes against the government if it has to come to that. If the government becomes tyrannical and evil, the people who made it so need to go, and if they refuse to respect the ballot I am OK with it moving on to bullets....and if the people become too dumb or sheepish to stand up at the ballot, I am still fine with bullets.

There is a reason you won't ever see me pledge allegiance to the flag. If evil, fascism, whatever comes to America, it will come under the flag.

In the end, Snowden sided with the enemy. That's why he is a traitor, not just because he broke the law.
 
Poor ol' mlblack16 believes the government creates your rights .... and not your natural rights as reflected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is no distinction between the rights of U.S. citizens vs. non-citizens when you act on behalf of the U.S. government, amarite?

So when the actions of certain members of the U.S. government against its own citizens conflict with our Constitution, these members take priority? As another poster said ... Stalin would approve 100%.

So again .... who should have blown the whistle on the U.S. government engaging in mass warrantless surveillance of its own citizens? Herdy won't answer that one.

When did you take your oath?
 
Of course neither Herdy nor mblack16 can come up with who should have blown the whistle on those unconstitutional programs. Silence speaks volumes in that regard.

I guess mblack16 also needs to brush up on Constitutional Law. The government should only be sovereign in a democratic republic when it operates within the confines of the Constitution. Apparently he believes if the two conflict, you still support the government as it grants you your rights.

As for Snowden, he correctly assumed he could not get a fair trial in the United States. He actually tried to flee to a neutral third country. However, the U.S. made sure that would not have been possible (see how NATO warplanes were scrambled to force land the President of Bolivia's plane because they believed Snowden was on board). Per the letter of the law based upon the Patriot Act and other bodies of law, the U.S. could have suspended Snowden's right to habeas corpus and put him in a hole for the rest of his life.
 
Of course neither Herdy nor mblack16 can come up with who should have blown the whistle on those unconstitutional programs. Silence speaks volumes in that regard.

I guess mblack16 also needs to brush up on Constitutional Law. The government should only be sovereign in a democratic republic when it operates within the confines of the Constitution. Apparently he believes if the two conflict, you still support the government as it grants you your rights.

As for Snowden, he correctly assumed he could not get a fair trial in the United States. He actually tried to flee to a neutral third country. However, the U.S. made sure that would not have been possible (see how NATO warplanes were scrambled to force land the President of Bolivia's plane because they believed Snowden was on board). Per the letter of the law based upon the Patriot Act and other bodies of law, the U.S. could have suspended Snowden's right to habeas corpus and put him in a hole for the rest of his life.

Awh, looks like Asses to Glory Hole has NEVER served in the military, yet wants to voice his opinion.

It's typical, for liberal faggits.
 
Of course neither Herdy nor mblack16 can come up with who should have blown the whistle on those unconstitutional programs. Silence speaks volumes in that regard.

I guess mblack16 also needs to brush up on Constitutional Law. The government should only be sovereign in a democratic republic when it operates within the confines of the Constitution. Apparently he believes if the two conflict, you still support the government as it grants you your rights.

As for Snowden, he correctly assumed he could not get a fair trial in the United States. He actually tried to flee to a neutral third country. However, the U.S. made sure that would not have been possible (see how NATO warplanes were scrambled to force land the President of Bolivia's plane because they believed Snowden was on board). Per the letter of the law based upon the Patriot Act and other bodies of law, the U.S. could have suspended Snowden's right to habeas corpus and put him in a hole for the rest of his life.
If he felt so compelled why didn't he just sue the US govt for their actions?
 
Awh, looks like Asses to Glory Hole has NEVER served in the military, yet wants to voice his opinion.

It's typical, for liberal faggits.

I hope you are trolling, because that line of thinking is the dumbest shit in America.

Being a veteran makes one no better or worse than the next American. Which is part of the beauty of this nation. And it sure as shit doesn't make a veteran's opinion more important or more right. Which is good, considering a chunk of the military has always been made up of shit-heads (every army needs cannon fodder).
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT