Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

ASUG8 wrote:Either way, even if he fudged a few things he forced the NSA to admit and address a number of accusations that otherwise would have been suspected but not validated. For an alleged high school dropout that's pretty huge, and pretty ballsy to take on an organization that likely could kill him.

I agree dawg, it kind of is all about him right now. As long as he stays visible it would make the US government's involvement in his potential "disappearance" much less likely.

ASUG8 wrote:Either way, even if he fudged a few things he forced the NSA to admit and address a number of accusations that otherwise would have been suspected but not validated. For an alleged high school dropout that's pretty huge, and pretty ballsy to take on an organization that likely could kill him.

I agree dawg, it kind of is all about him right now. As long as he stays visible it would make the US government's involvement in his potential "disappearance" much less likely.

houndawg wrote:The idea is to make him the story.

ASUG8 wrote:Either way, even if he fudged a few things he forced the NSA to admit and address a number of accusations that otherwise would have been suspected but not validated. For an alleged high school dropout that's pretty huge, and pretty ballsy to take on an organization that likely could kill him.

I agree dawg, it kind of is all about him right now. As long as he stays visible it would make the US government's involvement in his potential "disappearance" much less likely.

For his first week or two with Booz Allen, Snowden attended training sessions near Fort Meade, the Maryland military installation where NSA headquarters is located and where numerous agency contractors have offices.

After that, Snowden moved to take up his assignment with a company team based at the NSA installation in Hawaii. He was only on the job for around four weeks when he told his employers he was ill and requested leave without pay, the sources said.

When Booz Allen checked in with him, Snowden said he was suffering from epilepsy and needed more time off. When he failed to return after a longer period, and the company could not find him, it notified intelligence officials because of Snowden's high-level security clearance, one of the sources said.

clenz wrote:How does one, and this may be a naive question, get such a high security clearance while being essentially brand new to the company?


Do all employees have that level of clearance?

ASUG8 wrote:I find it interesting that even so early in his brief tenure he already had enough damaging information to cause the NSA to have to address this. Was he not properly vetted as a security risk in the interview process?

Ibanez wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I find it interesting that even so early in his brief tenure he already had enough damaging information to cause the NSA to have to address this. Was he not properly vetted as a security risk in the interview process?

That's an interesting question. How did the government investigators gauge him when he took his Polygraph for the TS clearance? I'm sure nothing he had done or said years ago would give cause to question his loyalty. Was something happening that caused him to suddenly act? Robert Hanssen needed money and that prompted him to sell secrets to the Soviets and then Russians. Something tells me that he had this information and the plans to do this longer than 3 months. It just doesn't make sense to me that someone is loyal for 10 years, working with the CIA and NSA and within 4 weeks of being on a new job he suddenly turns as a "leaker" or "whistle blower."

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
That's an interesting question. How did the government investigators gauge him when he took his Polygraph for the TS clearance? I'm sure nothing he had done or said years ago would give cause to question his loyalty. Was something happening that caused him to suddenly act? Robert Hanssen needed money and that prompted him to sell secrets to the Soviets and then Russians. Something tells me that he had this information and the plans to do this longer than 3 months. It just doesn't make sense to me that someone is loyal for 10 years, working with the CIA and NSA and within 4 weeks of being on a new job he suddenly turns as a "leaker" or "whistle blower."

I agree. But sometimes it takes awhile for these things to build up and for lifetime decisions like this to be made. I'm also guessing the ability to spy on our own citizens has improved over the last 10 years.

As for loyalty, he appears smart enough and patriotic enough to swear his loyalty to the constitution and the ideals of America rather than the NSA or his employer.

Seeking to move the national discussion away from the NSA’s potential crimes, many politicians and pundits are, not surprisingly, continuing to insist that Snowden revealed only legal programs and is therefore not a whistleblower. They are, in other words, trying to ignore the fact that whether or not the NSA programs are illegal (and they very well may be) Snowden at minimum revealed a case of potential criminal perjury – and an extremely serious one at that. As Wyden says, “One of the most important responsibilities a senator has is oversight of the intelligence community (and) this job cannot be done responsibly if senators aren’t getting straight answers to direct questions.”

Now that a United States congressman is starting the drumbeat for Clapper’s resignation, the rejoinder will almost certainly be a version of what Clapper told National Journal and NBC News.

In the former interview, Clapper said he “stand(s) by” his statement to the Senate and insisted “What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens’ e-mails.” Of course, as New York magazine points out, that’s not what he said – not even close.

In the latter interview, Clapper again stood by his statement, and claimed “I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner.”


These talking points will no doubt metastasize into the idea that because he was asked about a classified program, Clapper had no choice but to lie, and that therefore outright lying is somehow the “least untruthful” – and therefore acceptable – thing to do in his situation. That’s right, apparently as if living in 1984, we are all supposed to believe that war is peace, freedom is slavery and, now, yes, lying is not untruthful.

Beyond its Orwellian absurdity, the problem with that line of reasoning is that it is fundamentally false. We know Clapper didn’t have to lie because other people in a similar position managed to not commit perjury. As one example, at a Senate hearing in 2006, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked a similar question about mass surveillance, and answered by saying simply: “The programs and activities you ask about, to the extent that they exist, would be highly classified.”

Clapper didn’t do this – instead, with a day’s notice of the question, he decided to lie to Congress. And, as The New York Times Andrew Rosenthal says, that’s a big deal.

“Government officials employ various tactics to avoid actually saying anything at intelligence hearings, mostly by fogging up the room with references to national security and with vague generalities,” he writes. “Outright lying is another matter…You have to wonder about giving a position of vast responsibility to someone who can beat Mr. Gonzales in dishonesty.”

kalm wrote:Snowden shouldn't be prosecuted, but James Clapper should...

Seeking to move the national discussion away from the NSA’s potential crimes, many politicians and pundits are, not surprisingly, continuing to insist that Snowden revealed only legal programs and is therefore not a whistleblower. They are, in other words, trying to ignore the fact that whether or not the NSA programs are illegal (and they very well may be) Snowden at minimum revealed a case of potential criminal perjury – and an extremely serious one at that. As Wyden says, “One of the most important responsibilities a senator has is oversight of the intelligence community (and) this job cannot be done responsibly if senators aren’t getting straight answers to direct questions.”

Now that a United States congressman is starting the drumbeat for Clapper’s resignation, the rejoinder will almost certainly be a version of what Clapper told National Journal and NBC News.

In the former interview, Clapper said he “stand(s) by” his statement to the Senate and insisted “What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens’ e-mails.” Of course, as New York magazine points out, that’s not what he said – not even close.

In the latter interview, Clapper again stood by his statement, and claimed “I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner.”


These talking points will no doubt metastasize into the idea that because he was asked about a classified program, Clapper had no choice but to lie, and that therefore outright lying is somehow the “least untruthful” – and therefore acceptable – thing to do in his situation. That’s right, apparently as if living in 1984, we are all supposed to believe that war is peace, freedom is slavery and, now, yes, lying is not untruthful.

Beyond its Orwellian absurdity, the problem with that line of reasoning is that it is fundamentally false. We know Clapper didn’t have to lie because other people in a similar position managed to not commit perjury. As one example, at a Senate hearing in 2006, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked a similar question about mass surveillance, and answered by saying simply: “The programs and activities you ask about, to the extent that they exist, would be highly classified.”

Clapper didn’t do this – instead, with a day’s notice of the question, he decided to lie to Congress. And, as The New York Times Andrew Rosenthal says, that’s a big deal.

“Government officials employ various tactics to avoid actually saying anything at intelligence hearings, mostly by fogging up the room with references to national security and with vague generalities,” he writes. “Outright lying is another matter…You have to wonder about giving a position of vast responsibility to someone who can beat Mr. Gonzales in dishonesty.”

http://billmoyers.com/2013/06/12/james-clapper-must-go/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BTW, Clapper is a former Booze Allen executive.

clenz wrote:How does one, and this may be a naive question, get such a high security clearance while being essentially brand new to the company?


Do all employees have that level of clearance?

93henfan wrote:

clenz wrote:How does one, and this may be a naive question, get such a high security clearance while being essentially brand new to the company?


Do all employees have that level of clearance?

At the highest levels of classification, the potential damage that could be done to the US is supposed to be mitigated by compartmentalization. You make be granted access to the keys to the car, but another guy does the steering, and another guy pushes the gas pedal, etc. It takes several people to make the vehicle move, and no one person can do it all. When I heard this guy's claim, especially as a contractor, that he had God powers, it smelled like bullshit to me.

Regarding how soon you can get a clearance, it depends on the status of your last clearance. If you are still within the window of a background check done for a previous clearance, they can get your clearance turned back on almost immediately. All your info is in a Government database.

Ibanez wrote:

93henfan wrote:
At the highest levels of classification, the potential damage that could be done to the US is supposed to be mitigated by compartmentalization. You make be granted access to the keys to the car, but another guy does the steering, and another guy pushes the gas pedal, etc. It takes several people to make the vehicle move, and no one person can do it all. When I heard this guy's claim, especially as a contractor, that he had God powers, it smelled like bullshit to me.

Regarding how soon you can get a clearance, it depends on the status of your last clearance. If you are still within the window of a background check done for a previous clearance, they can get your clearance turned back on almost immediately. All your info is in a Government database.

I'd be willing to bet that this guy was TS/SCI. Maybe even SAP if he was working with the NSA.

93henfan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that this guy was TS/SCI. Maybe even SAP if he was working with the NSA.

And we know what the C stands for in SCI, so you agree he's lying, right?

Ibanez wrote:

93henfan wrote:
And we know what the C stands for in SCI, so you agree he's lying, right?

Lying about his level of access? Yes. Like you said, he is admitting to have "God" powers. I'm not savvy on all the NSA protocols but i'd venture a guess and say that various checks are done to ensure the illegal spying that we are afraid of doesn't occur. Or occurs rarely and is really some angry ex husband checking up on his wife.

He is probably being honest about the programs and the extent at which they are utilized, even with SCI, he could have had access to that and learn enough to be dangerous.

93henfan wrote:Card-carrying member of The Illuminati
Camp Counselor at Bohemian Grove

expandspanos wrote:

93henfan wrote:Card-carrying member of The Illuminati
Camp Counselor at Bohemian Grove

Wow.. very nice Glad you know about Bohemian Grove now.. curious if you've asked you friends if they've ever heard of it? I bet they haven't..

anyway, funny comic related to this NSA garbage: