Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2OEH8eoCRo0 | Hacker News Reader

I urge everyone interested to read the intel report and tell me what about it is false or inaccurate.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/snowden_report_...

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hpsci_snowden_r...

> “The Committee further found no evidence that Snowden attempted to communicate concerns about the legality or morality of intelligence activities to any officials, senior or otherwise, during his time at either CIA or NSA.” (p. 16)

> “As a legal matter, during his time with NSA, Edward Snowden did not use whistleblower procedures under either law or regulation to raise his objections to U.S. intelligence activities, and thus, is not considered a whistleblower under current law.” (p. 18)

> “Since Snowden’s arrival in Moscow, he has had, and continues to have, contact with Russian intelligence services.” (p. 20)

View on HN

Since you have examples at your fingertips, kindly post some examples of massive surveillance wrongdoing that was ended, once it was reported thru official channels.

> The Committee further found no evidence that Snowden attempted to communicate concerns about the legality or morality of intelligence activities to any officials, senior or otherwise, during his time at either CIA or NSA.

By design, this sentiment omits what happened to previous individuals who worked within the given channels. Specifically it omits how official channels failed at every level and omits the consequences for the individual who continued their push to end the wrongdoing.

Whistleblowers were ignored, resisted and eventually revenged. Every administration. Every time.

I will tell you that three letter agencies in the US have a proven and undeniable track record of lying incessantly and basically nothing that comes from them can be trusted.

This report is produced by the U.S. House of Representatives- not a 3-letter agency.

Based on information from…

So you are claiming that the NSA (at all levels) lied to the House Intel committee? That's a big claim, you should back it up with some evidence. Which part of the report is not accurate?

Have you read the report?

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress in March 2013 that the NSA did not collect data on millions of Americans, just three months(!) before Snowden and Greenwald revealed the classified NSA documents proving otherwise. [0] The heads of the intelligence agencies will say whatever they need to say to get what they want. Lying to Congress and the American people is business as usual for them.

[0] https://apnews.com/article/business-33a88feb083ea35515de3c73...

You’re missing the point. The NSA has an undeniable track record of illegal and dishonest activity that is easily googled. Nothing has systemically changed since those actions and until it does there’s no reason to place confidence in anything they say

Isn't it confirmed that they've lied under oath to Congress before?

It is confirmed they have lied under oath to Congress about the very thing Snowden blew the whistle on.

So yes, they are perfectly acceptable sources of information regarding Snowden.

Since lying to Congress is a crime, who was charged?

Being charged with a crime would require the people who could charge him actually wanting to charge him. If congress wanted him to lie in the way that he did, clearly they wouldn't charge him after the fact.

Snowden has the same track record. Where does that leave us?

Did you try at all to discover falsehoods yourself?[1]

Snowden showed the intelligence committee were ineffective or complicit. And the chairman called him a traitor before the investigation. Truth was not the committee's goal. And their sources were established liars.

Did you assume had contact meant initiated contact?

[1] https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-commit...

I mostly believed in Snowden's cause until I looked at the facts objectively and read this report. It's part of why I urge others to read it.

How did you determine which claims in the report were facts?

Why would he have any faith that internal "whistleblowing" would do anything but paint a target on himself? I certainly wouldn't. As for "he didn't whistleblow properly!" I don't really give a damn how the government says we're "supposed" to inform the public of their misdeeds

If a police officer leaked evidence of widespread misconduct to the press (as has happened several times), would he also be implied to be an enemy agent for not going through the totally trustworthy and effective internal complaints process instead?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com