Patriot or Traitor?
Jimmy Dore discusses about the difference between a patriot and traitor. He compares these differences to Edward Snowden and tries to define Snowdens actions. He also talks about John Kerrys...

By: TYT Comedy

See the original post here:
Patriot or Traitor? - Video

Was Edward Snowden Trained As A Spy? NSA Chief Responds
"Susan Rice sat down with Charlie Rose, who asked her about Snowden #39;s claims. "Was he trained as a spy?" Rose asked. "Has his information damaged any person that we can identify?" "He was not...

By: The Young Turks

View original post here:
Was Edward Snowden Trained As A Spy? NSA Chief Responds - Video

EDWARD SNOWDEN IS A COWARD - - SAYS JOHN KERRY
EDWARD SNOWDEN IS A COWARD -- JOHN KERRY.

By: videorizing

Read more:
EDWARD SNOWDEN IS A COWARD - - SAYS JOHN KERRY - Video

Edward Snowden is a spy ! But what kind double or triple spy ?
Edward Snowden is a spy ! But what kind double or triple spy ?

By: notregme

Continued here:
Edward Snowden is a spy ! But what kind double or triple spy ? - Video

A sticker featuring fugitive intelligence leaker Edward Snowden and partially reading 'asylum' is seen on the pavement in a Berlin street, on May 26, 2014. A German panel set up to assess the extent of spying by the US National Security Agency and its partners on German citizens and politicians, and whether German intelligence aided its activities, decided on May 21, 2014 it wants to question Snowden, perhaps via video link or by sending an envoy to Russia where he has been given temporary asylu | ODD ANDERSEN via Getty Images

U.S. officials have not been shy in claiming fallout from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden's leaks.

"I think its the greatest damage to our combined nations intelligence systems that we have ever suffered," former NSA Director Keith Alexander told an Australian newspaper. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said the revelations caused "profound damage." And House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) claimed the disclosures "are likely to have lethal consequences for our troops in the field.

But the U.S. government has revealed little to back up these catastrophic-sounding generalizations, saying it wants to keep further details about its intelligence sources and methods from the public. So, one year to the day after Snowden's first leaks were revealed, Americans are forced into a strange balancing act -- weighing whatever good the leaks generated in revealing the vast reach of government spying against unsupported official claims of harm to measures meant to protect the nation.

"If after a year, they can't show a single individual who's been harmed in any way by this reporting, is it really so grave? Is it really so serious?" Snowden asked in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams that aired last week. "The possibility exists, and if this has caused some serious harm, I personally would like to know about it."

Getting the facts has been hindered by government agencies whose chiefs made those dire-sounding statements about the Snowden leaks. Contacted by HuffPost, the Defense Intelligence Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and State Department all declined to provide additional detail on their claims of damage.

The DIA did release portions of its assessment of how Snowden's leaks affected military operations after a Freedom of Information Act request from the Guardian newspaper. But the document was heavily redacted and the DIA withheld 27 of its 39 pages.

The explanation for those redactions and for the agencies' reluctance to reveal more is relatively straightforward: Laying out what Snowden wrought would risk revealing more sensitive secrets, the agencies say.

"It would not be in the best interest of our National Security and efforts to fight terrorism for us to educate -- thru the media -- terrorist on the changes we might be seeing in their communications," Gene Barlow, spokesman for the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, said in an emailed statement.

"We constantly look for opportunities to share with Americans what collection weve lost, but are wary of doing further damage to collection that we need to regain," Barlow added. "We do however, continue to work with our Congressional oversight to make sure they have visibility into the damage done by the leaker."

Read more:
One Year After Edward Snowden's Leaks, Government Claims ...

Nearly a year after the first stories about National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance broke, Germany is at the forefront of international reforms. Along with Brazil, Germany sponsored a UN resolution that was the first major UN statement on the right to privacy in 25 years. Angela Merkel is one of the strongest voices pressing the US on the need for reform. Germany expanded the Department of Cyber Politics at the Foreign office, established a Commissioner for the Federal Intelligence Services at the chancellery, and a commission of inquiry at the parliament.

These stories, and the reforms they spurred, were based on documents the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden put himself at great risk to expose. Yet Berlin still refuses to offer Snowden witness protection and a safe harbor in Germany.

The documents Snowden provided to journalists exposed pervasive US and UK government wrongdoing and violations of the right to privacy, and freedom of expression and association. Even President Obama acknowledged that the disclosures spurred much-needed public discussion of government surveillance.

But under US law, the publication of classified information is severely punished and national security whistleblowers are excluded from protection, regardless of how socially valuable their revelations may be. Snowden, who faces charges under the Espionage Act, would not be able to present a defense that the public interest served by his disclosure of classified information outweighs the harm resulting from the breach of secrecy. He would face the prospect of conviction on various federal charges that could consign him to decades in prison. The German government should have publicly condemned Washingtons statements about prosecuting him and tried to change its stubborn stance on this issue.

Germany is a member of the Freedom Online Coalition, a group of countries that have made a commitment to promote human rights on the internet. The credibility of at least two members of this coalition as champions of Internet freedomthe US and UKhas been deeply damaged by the NSA revelations and the aftermath. That is why Germany has taken over a leadership role for human rights online. In cooperation with Brazil, Germany is pressing other countries to carry out existing human rights obligations and prevent the arbitrary collection of data. This is important, but very difficult in light of the US and UK resistance.

In light of Germanys willingness to take up the mantle for internet freedom, it is incomprehensible and paradoxical that our political leaders do not support having Snowden come to Berlin to testify as well as protecting him from extradition to the US. German-American relations play a major role in this decision of course, and the awareness that relations would be tested. However, the US should keep in mind that it has given political asylum to many people who had to face severe penalties for criticizing their country. Coming after a government that supported Snowden would be a clear sign that the US is applying double standards. Governments should protect national security whistle blowers who expose information of important public interest and violations of the law/ Unfortunately, instead of protecting Snowden, the US has chosen to prosecute him. Its a shame that someone who brought so much important information to light that benefits Germans as well as many other people worldwide is not getting the German governments support.

Snowdens current legal residence status in Russia expires in August. He did the world a great favor. The German government should acknowledge that by inviting him to Germany and accepting his asylum claim if he wishes to stay, not treating him like a criminal or a Typhoid Mary.

Wenzel Michalski is Germany director at Human Rights Watch

Read the original:
Why Germany Should Welcome Edward Snowden | Human Rights Watch

Edward Snowden remains a polarizing figure in the U.S. on the one-year anniversary of the first published story based on his leaks about the National Security Agency's (NSA) surveillance practices.

Many people, especially younger Americans, see the former NSA contractor as a patriot for having the guts to expose what they perceive as illegal surveillance practices by the world's most powerful spy agency. Others, especially those within government and older Americans, see him as a traitor in exile whose revelations have done more to damage U.S. interests than anyone in recent memory.

Here are four reasons that may help explain the remarkable dichotomy.

A big focus on the NSA's domestic spying

The Snowden leaks that have garnered the most attention and stirred the most concern are those describing domestic NSA surveillance programs like Prism and the spy agency's bulk phone metadata collection effort. News of these programs have stoked considerable concern in the U.S. about the NSA engaging in dragnet domestic surveillance under the aegis of counterterrorism efforts that began after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

The fact that these programs were being conducted in almost total secrecy and under questionable legal justification prior to the leaks only served to accentuate those concerns -- and made Snowden a hero for exposing them. Many of those who support him argue that the leaks have forced the government to acknowledge the existence of the programs and take steps to make them more transparent and accountable.

In a recent poll of 1,007 employed adults conducted by cloud security firm Tresorit, 55% felt that Snowden was right in revealing details about Prism, a program under which the NSA purportedly collects customer data from major U.S. Internet companies.

"On the one hand, [Snowden] told us something we always knew: Spies spy," said Steve Hunt principal analyst at Security Current. "Spying on specific national interests is assumed, expected, and probably universal. However, spying on a populous is extreme. Regular citizens don't qualify for surveillance unless they are associated in some other way with a security threat."

The impact on U.S. intelligence gathering has been downplayed

The vast majority of the documents released by Snowden have little to do with domestic spying. Instead they pertain to activities that many believe all spy agencies engage in as part of their missions. Among the documents released are those that describe how the NSA collects information on intelligence targets in other countries, who it targets, the agencies it partners with and other details.

Read the rest here:
One year later: Four reasons Edward Snowden remains a polarizing figure