Your post is interesting, so I'm not downvoting, but at the same time it comes across as a shill post.
> Russia really didn't want him, but they sure didn't exactly push back considering whatever Snowden had on his person (or remotely access to) and surely has been taken and shared with the Chinese as well.
To be frank, if security (at the NSA) was/is as lax as Snowden claims, then none of the information is probably news to Russia or China. That said, I was under the impression that Russia and China aren't exactly bed-fellows, yet you claim that 'surely' the information has been shared. I don't think that's a foregone conclusion (assuming that there is any new information to share).
> I'm simply trying to provide the deep (on occasion conflicting) loyalties that underlie many security professionals in this country that are married to the ultimate goal of protecting interests domestic and abroad of the United States.
The problem is that protecting US interests isn't some cut-and-dry thing. The CIA trained and funded Osama bin Laden to 'protect US interests' (in repelling the USSR from Afghanistan). How did that work out? The US went into Iraq because "WMDs" existed that Saddam Hussein was going to launch against our allies. How did that work out? The US intelligence community has been pushing for revolution in the Middle East... now we have a bunch of countries in turmoil, and ISIS running rampant. How did that work out?
I remember top US officials claiming that the Iraqis would "welcome us as liberators" as if everyone would just abandon Saddam and start cheering "USA! USA!" as soon as troops cross the border.
I question the qualifications of the people making these decisions.
> They are the best and brightest, and the leadership generally above them are FROM the ranks of trusted/vetted/experienced individuals.
I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything. How does this relate to Snowden? How does this related to NSA whistleblowers? How does this relate to treason even?
> Russia really didn't want him, but they sure didn't exactly push back considering whatever Snowden had on his person (or remotely access to) and surely has been taken and shared with the Chinese as well.
To be frank, if security (at the NSA) was/is as lax as Snowden claims, then none of the information is probably news to Russia or China. That said, I was under the impression that Russia and China aren't exactly bed-fellows, yet you claim that 'surely' the information has been shared. I don't think that's a foregone conclusion (assuming that there is any new information to share).
> I'm simply trying to provide the deep (on occasion conflicting) loyalties that underlie many security professionals in this country that are married to the ultimate goal of protecting interests domestic and abroad of the United States.
The problem is that protecting US interests isn't some cut-and-dry thing. The CIA trained and funded Osama bin Laden to 'protect US interests' (in repelling the USSR from Afghanistan). How did that work out? The US went into Iraq because "WMDs" existed that Saddam Hussein was going to launch against our allies. How did that work out? The US intelligence community has been pushing for revolution in the Middle East... now we have a bunch of countries in turmoil, and ISIS running rampant. How did that work out?
I remember top US officials claiming that the Iraqis would "welcome us as liberators" as if everyone would just abandon Saddam and start cheering "USA! USA!" as soon as troops cross the border.
I question the qualifications of the people making these decisions.
> They are the best and brightest, and the leadership generally above them are FROM the ranks of trusted/vetted/experienced individuals.
I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything. How does this relate to Snowden? How does this related to NSA whistleblowers? How does this relate to treason even?