240
Tulsi Gabbard Refused to Back Down on Edward Snowden. It Could Tank Her Nomination.
(theintercept.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
240 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19857 readers
3387 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's her only decent opinion and THAT is what's going to tank her nomination???
It's opposite decade in the US.
I find it hilarious that the 3 letter agencies are handing over big brother to the gustapo, without protest, while acting like they're the goodies... as though they aren't literally doing the exact thing Snowden warned everyone about — as a tool that will be turned against the people by domestic enemies.
And the best part? It only took 12 years post-leak for the worst case scenario to occur — for them to hand the keys to the entire kingdom over to fascism.
The keys have always been in the hands of fascists.
The Reagan/Bush Era was plenty reactionary. The Carter/Nixon era wasn't anything to brag about, either. FFS, the Eisenhower government had a healthy assortment of literal ex-Nazis scattered through it. The ugly specters of J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, Henry Ford, and Prescott Bush have haunted our country for longer than any of us have been alive.
Trumpism is the dead fish rot finally reaching the noses of the white working class (and even then, just barely). Americans are looking on in horror at the prospect of the government treating everyone like we've been treated Black People and Native Americans for the last century.
There's a lot of common sense, popular opinions that you can't have in Washington because there's a bipartisan consensus to do the opposite.
It's a bad look when the director of national intelligence supports someone who leaks intelligence secrets to enemy nations. It's a good reason to pass on her aside from all of her personal issues.
He leaked information to the citizens of the country doing the spying.
It's interesting you describe them as enemies
I believe the letter agencies consider the public their enemy #1, there some old ex CIA dude quote about it I'm too lazy to open Firefox to find
Ge leaked them to many nations not just the USA. You know that other nations can access US press and the internet in general, right? That’s the enemies Im talking about eg DPRK, Russia, or Iran.
No, he didn't. This is 100% factually wrong. He gave them to to the Guardian and to the New York Times, and to Glenn Greenwald., and he gave it to them encrypted and deleted them himself. Part of his requirements was that they vet everything they released before they released it to make sure that no one was hurt as an effect.
This was part of why the Guardian ended up having it's higher level employees replaced after MI6 trashed the place (literally).
You might be thinking of Julian Assange, but even there there was double checking and not one single individual has proven to be hurt by those leaks.
Let me guess, you're a liberal of the "Liberals hate every war except the current one" bent, aren't you? To the point that you're literally making shit up to slander an actual fucking hero that revealed quite a lot to the public that wasn't at that point known.
Get the fuck out of here with your stupid ignorant bullshit that lets you feel smugly superior.
EDIT: We never got the full leaks because the news organizations he gave them to ended up deleting them from under governmental pressure, and he no longer had copies of them.
Now, before you smugly utter the next banal lie liberals always do to slander him: He didn't want to go to Russia. He intended to go to Ecuador, but the Obama Administration broke a bunch of international laws, including forcing aircraft with diplomatic immunity to land in other countries airspace to try and capture him. Turned out, of course, that he wasn't on board. He went to Russia out of desperation.
God forbid you have a head of intelligence might follow the bill of rights
Why would you think that’s their job? Do you have any idea how any of this works?
Snowden compromised the security of the intelligence apparatus of the USA and regardless of the reason you can’t have a DNI that approves of this.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:3331%20edition:prelim)
I mean, you can dismiss it as pageantry and fluff. But every appointee has it in their job description as a matter of law per Title 5 Civil Service Functions and Responsibilities statute.
Go look what the DNI’s job is and tell me what she has to do with protecting constitutional rights.
The oath of office is cute but try looking at the job description of the office we are talking about as that’s actually relevant.
Identifying and eliminating criminal misconduct within Intelligence Agencies would go a long way towards protecting the constitutional rights of US residents.
The absolute state of modern liberalism.
That’s not the job of the DNI.
You made a really weak argument utilizing the oath of office. Do you really think you are in a position to speak down to anyone after demonstrating such a flawed understanding of our system?
"The oath of office is trivial, you don't understand the US Government and by supporting Snowden you're saying that the CIA, FBI, NSA, are criminal organizations."
That's how you sound.
The DNI's opinion on Snowden has no bearing on their ability to direct the efforts of National Intelligence. I think Gabbard is a terrible candidate but not for her opinion on Snowden. My problems with Gabbard stem from her inability to justify foreign correspondence or donations. Also her repeated parroting of FSB and RT talking points.
But wanting the departments under them to follow the nature of the FISA proposal in the 70's isn't a barrier to entry for the DNI. Even the CIA admit that unwarranted surveillance has been a problem in the US for a long time.
Someone who would honestly and legitimately push against the expansion of the surveillance state is exactly what we need right now. Is Gabbard that person? Absolutely not. But I will not stand by and watch you chide someone wanting a candidate with the backbone to uphold the Hatch Act.
https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/Article-Evolution-of-Surveillance-Policies-1.pdf`
Honest question what clearance have you held? What oaths have you taken?
You are trying to argue that the individual duty of the director of national intelligence is to protect the constitutional rights of citizens because of the oath of office? Go look at the job description and tell me what they have to do with that.
The DNI's opinion on people who have violated US espionage laws IS relevant to her job. In fact it's a really important part of her job that she NOT support people working against the USA which Snowden did.
To be crystal clear here are you aware that Snowden wasn't talking about many things we didn't already know about in regards to surveillance? The article below was published 4 years before Snowden leaked anything. There are many other examples of stories like this.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3535528&page=1
First of all I am not @[email protected] I am saying that the DNI can levy clemency for Snowden if they so choose as that has no bearing on their daily duties.
Secondly, a job description is not the totality of responsibilities of the DNI. You obviously have no history in the US government. As you've held no clearance and taken no oath. You're basing your views on a job posting and a news article. What Snowden brought out was proof of these programs. Smuggled in a rubics cube. Go roleplay a pundit elsewhere. Because you have no comprehension of what you're taking about.
You have no idea about my background with anything. I would not share that information with strangers on the internet nor would I trust anyone who made claims on it.
Go look back at the first paragraph of your last post and tell me you didnt repeat the same argument.
Again no mention of the fact that he exposed intelligence to foreign sources and that violating US espionage laws is in fact directly relevant to her position.
The Director of National Intelligence isn't going to be doing anything in regard to individual rights. It's a cabinet position. They are an executive.
In general I agree she is a bad choice for many reasons but I also feel that this specific job shouldn't support people who did what Snowden did. Aside from DNI and maybe some military roles I wouldn't take issue with people supporting Snowden.
Your pedantry and callous take tells me everything I need to know. The fact that you rely on a public job board posting and have little nuance to your point tells me even more. I don't need to guess, you have very little skin in the game. Hopefully you realize that just because things are currently easy for you regarding this government it may not be always.
So you think you're psychic and you're wrong? I notice you aren't making any claims to any credentials either.
No I don't think I'm psychic. I understand the language you use and have heard your reasoning and appeal to authority before. It's a waste if time arguing with you as you don't have the capacity for self reflection and change.
Search my comment history and sort by controversial if you have such interest in my credentials.
Your point doesn't matter, neither does your lived experience. You're a loud stranger on the Internet and deal in promoting the status quo that got us in this predicament. Likely as not you believe that your slight left take on things will serve your goals. It won't. Your surface level understanding of the government gives you faith that the US will shrug off the efforts of the incoming administration. That's not going to be done with the candidates that support the status quo. I'm sure you've heard reference to the Vichy Democrats. I'm not drawing a direct parallel. But it didn't work out well for them in France.
No, he didn't.
You know nothing about this topic as I detailed in my other response.
Stop spouting lies.
She's got a lot of well thought out positions. None of them much agree with the American propaganda machine as it currently sits.
If that were true you would have listed some.