DN’s Lena Sundström and Lotta Härdelin had a unique meeting with the whistleblower who has fans all over the world but risks lifetime imprisonment in the home country he once tried to save.
– The American tradition in regard to whistleblowers is to try to bury them, Edward Snowden says.
http://fokus.dn.se/edward-snowden-english

Ole von Uexküll and Xenya Cherny-Scanlon from the Right Livelihood Foundation, wanted to award Snowden the Alternative Nobel Prize last year!
That's yet another prize in Nobels name that Nobel is not part of.
Revealing criminal acts is one thing but revealing intel is totally different!

It is not Snowden who is behind the leak of drone histories. There is a person who worked with drone attacks in the US Armed Forces. The documents handed over to The Intercepts founder Glenn Greenwald, one of the journalists who revealed the American secret NSA's global mass surveillance.

Greenwald immediately saw explosive stuff in the material and chopped it up into eight parts entitled "The Drone Papers".

The most contentious part of the drone documents focuses on one of America's special operations in Afghanistan, known as Operation Haymaker. The campaign ran from January 2012 to February 2013. During that time, 219 people were killed in targeted attacks by drones.

But the casualties were only 35 people - not even a fifth - actual target for attacks. During a five-month period within the allotted time was almost 90 per cent of deaths, other than "targets".

The documents reveal in detail the process that leads to a drone attack, from the selection of the "victim" decision chain's last link is the president.

The intercepts source also points to the system's reliance on signals intelligence through mobile phones, a method that often gives wrong results.

"It may be months, or years, when you suddenly realize that the 'hot targets' you tracked down, in fact, was his mom's cell phone," the source said in the report. This would explain why weddings are regularly targeted by drone attacks.

What is the definition, and category of Whistleblowers, is Snowden using?

Working for a Private Business, and reveling criminal acts?

Working for an Intelligence Agency. Where you sign and agree to secrecy, and lives are at stake?

What is the Capability of every person employed by that Agency. Regarding which Intelligence will not cause the death of innocents, employees, and friends?

Snowden believes anyone, if they are honest and ethical, should be able to make that determination, and make Public any and all Information, that person believes is necessary.

Snowden should 'Grow Up'.

Revealing crimes being committed by your employer is crime, quite a paradox.

---

What is the definition, and category of Whistleblowers, is Snowden using?

Working for a Private Business, and reveling criminal acts?

Working for an Intelligence Agency. Where you sign and agree to secrecy, and lives are at stake?

What is the Capability of every person employed by that Agency. Regarding which Intelligence will not cause the death of innocents, employees, and friends?

Snowden believes anyone, if they are honest and ethical, should be able to make that determination, and make Public any and all Information, that person believes is necessary.

Snowden should 'Grow Up'.

Its funny when freedom warriors like yourself follow the official Intelligence Agency line about how its vital that said Intelligence Agency's can breach your privacy, wipe their ass with the constitution, lie to oversight committees and basically just do whatever they want to do without the American people, the ones they are supposed to be serving, knowing about it.

Good god, how can you ever claim to be a friend, or even a fan of liberty and freedom when at crucial moments like this you go after the guy who exposed just how little those intelligence agencies care about your liberty or freedom.

No paradox, of course.

What is the criteria Snowden uses, regarding information which may result in innocent (and their families) deaths.

Who, according to Snowden, may release innocent life (and their families life) threating information.

No paradox.

Anyone, and everyone, is allowed?

Why?

No, not 'anyone and everyone'. It would be Julian Assange who thinks that.

Snowden lets Glenn Greenwald make the decision as he is the guy who publicizes everything Snowden has leaked. And he is an experienced journalist and lawyer, and journalists do tend to keep out information that could directly result in people getting hurt or killed.

Not only NSA, GCHQ and FRA does a lot of monitoring.
Efforts to spy on friends and allies by Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND, were more extensive than previously reported. SPIEGEL has learned the agency monitored European and American government ministries and the Vatican.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-bnd-intelligence-spied-on-friends-and-vatican-a-1061588-druck.html

Snowden lets Glenn Greenwald make the decision as he is the guy who publicizes everything Snowden has leaked. And he is an experienced journalist and lawyer, and journalists do tend to keep out information that could directly result in people getting hurt or killed.

If that were the case, then there would not be a case against Mr. Snowden. However journalists very much like to release information that gets people killed. It is one of their methods of obtaining credibility. They also are in no position to judge if the information they release will or will not result in injury. How can they know that innocuous fact F could only have been discovered by operative O? If they release innocuous fact F, operative O gets shot. The game is played at a much higher level that you imagine, false material which can different for each person who sees it is frequently included, as well as details that change with time, so they can find out who is passing on information.

If Mr. Snowden had only told the world that huge intelligence gathering operations on phones was happening he would be a whistle-blower. However he went on to detail the technical means and methods of the collection allowing others to evade them and develop countermeasures. Then he began to release individual material collected and specific targets for collection. He is not a whistle-blower, he is a traitor.

As to Mr. Assange, he is not a traitor. He had no duty to keep his mouth shut and has not broken any US law. He might be a rapist though. On the other hand Chelsea Manning ...

---

If that were the case, then there would not be a case against Mr. Snowden.

Nonsense, Snowden is the one who leaked classified information to a journalist, which is exactly what whistleblowers do. If you are a journalist, you are allowed to publish all that stuff. You know, freedom of the press. Of course, the government may want to know who your source is, but as a journalist you can keep that a secret. Although in this case thats not necessary.

However journalists very much like to release information that gets people killed. It is one of their methods of obtaining credibility. They also are in no position to judge if the information they release will or will not result in injury. How can they know that innocuous fact F could only have been discovered by operative O? If they release innocuous fact F, operative O gets shot. The game is played at a much higher level that you imagine, false material which can different for each person who sees it is frequently included, as well as details that change with time, so they can find out who is passing on information.

Perhaps. But good journalists take their time to go through everything and redact anything they feel might put innocent people in danger. Furthermore, Clyde was talking about 'innocent' lives. Informants aren't 'innocent', they are spying on dangerous people and risk death if they get caught. That comes with their job. Its unrealistic to pretend that informants can be kept safe at all times.

And as I understand it, Greenwald hasn't been interested in just dumping every file online for everyone to see, or talking about any surveillance operations in detail. All they have been doing is exposing the larger picture, the extend of US surveillance operations around the world including against its own people.

If Mr. Snowden had only told the world that huge intelligence gathering operations on phones was happening he would be a whistle-blower. However he went on to detail the technical means and methods of the collection allowing others to evade them and develop countermeasures. Then he began to release individual material collected and specific targets for collection. He is not a whistle-blower, he is a traitor.

He is a hero, a true hero. Someone who put his own well being on the line for the greater good, to show people the true extend of what the US has been doing and how completely messed up it is. The things they are doing are unconstitutional, illegal according to international law, immoral, unethical and they keep everything a secret from the people who are supposed to keep an oversight on the whole thing and to a larger extend, from you and every other American citizen.

Oh sure, they all do it with the best intentions and the most noble of motives. But as Clyde and his fellow freedom warriors are so fond of saying, power corrupts and the US is supposedly build on the mistrust on anyone having power. So why trust these intelligence agencies at all? They wield almost absolute power and there are almost no checks in balances to keep them in line. So why consider the one guy that has the guts to stand up to them a traitor?

As to Mr. Assange, he is not a traitor. He had no duty to keep his mouth shut and has not broken any US law. He might be a rapist though. On the other hand Chelsea Manning ...

He is a narcissistic hypocrite. Perhaps not a traitor, but a much bigger danger to operatives and innocent people than Snowden.

Мишель...

The open question, which you ignored:

When innocent lives, and the lives of their families, including children are involved: Who within these Agencies, have The Right to expose them to murder?

Snowden? Why.

Others? Why them?

Who? Why the voters of course. Citizens. You know, the people who the government is supposed to serve. But in order for that to work, the people need to be informed, or at least their democratically elected representatives who form the oversight committee need to be informed. Which is exactly what didn't happen. The NSA blatantly lied to the oversight committee about what they were doing, and the average voters was told even less. As a result the people needed to be informed, and since the government failed to do this themselves, it falls to people like Snowden and Greenwald to do it for them.

As for actually putting anyone in danger, I do trust Snowden and Greenwald to minimize the risk as much as possible for operatives in the field. But as I said, those aren't innocent people and they are being exposed to mortal danger by their own choice and the intelligence agency they work for. As for the dangers of terrorists now being able to bypass the US's defenses the risk is even less, because an 'intelligence agency' is an oxymoron and they suck at doing their jobs. They haven't foiled a single ACTUAL terrorist plot, didn't know about actual terrorists operating in the US or did know but didn't do anything about it. Instead they spend billions on hoarding data making it all the more difficult to actually find a useful needle of intelligence in their ever growing pile of irrelevant data haystack, and they operate a supposedly highly accurate drone assassination program that is super illegal on so many levels and not all that accurate given the incredibly high numbers of civilian collateral casualties.

Indeed, it is safe to say that letting these intelligence agencies go on unchecked (and they can go virtually unchecked because there are no checks and balances) will expose more innocent people to murder at the hands of these agencies than if the whole thing gets shut down tomorrow.

The NSA blatantly lied to the oversight committee about what they were doing

James Clapper belongs in jail for lying under oath. A retired lieutenant general with no integrity.

---

The NSA blatantly lied to the oversight committee about what they were doing

James Clapper belongs in jail for lying under oath. A retired lieutenant general with no integrity.

Actually, why hasn't he been arrested or anything? He lied under oath, thats illegal right?

The NSA blatantly lied to the oversight committee about what they were doing

James Clapper belongs in jail for lying under oath. A retired lieutenant general with no integrity.

Actually, why hasn't he been arrested or anything? He lied under oath, thats illegal right?

Lying to a Congressional Committee, is treated differently than lying in a Court of Law.
Even lying 'Under Oath' in Court, may not result in any criminal prosecution.
Law follows Culture.

"So help me God"
Is that a phrase still used in US courts?
Whistleblowers to me doesn't seem religous to me.
I think they are more rational than most of us.
So can whistleblowers be judged for perjury not being religous?

"So help me God"
Is that a phrase still used in US courts?

Only in Hollyweird.

---

"So help me God"
Is that a phrase still used in US courts?

Only in Hollyweird.

Thank God:)

Edward Snowden is a HERO to ISIL. He showed them how, when, where, what, who the infidel devil was monitoring their communications. He showed them the steps they need to defeat the infidel devil. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/11/16/joystick-jihad-sonys-playstation-4-could-be-terrorists-communication-tool-experts-warn.html He allowed Paris to burn. allahu akbar Mr. Snowden allahu akbar!

---