Originally Posted by xenophobe
Snowden leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents.
Surely he must have some proof to back up his wild clickbait claims? No? It doesn't matter to you does it?
So much for the scientific method. Betcha you're a George Norrey fan. lol
You don't know much about all this, do you?
Snowden wasn't a total anarchist about these leaks. He could not comb through hundreds of thousands of classified documents himself to determine which ones were reasonably safe to release to the public as "proof" for your "scientific method." That's where Wikileaks came in. Even if he has supporting evidence for this readily available, it might not be feasible to release it. And if he doesn't have a document detailing this, I'm still inclined to listen to what he has to say. He worked as a contractor for the NSA; if there are things that he became aware of during that time which aren't included in the documents he acquired while there, I'm still inclined to hear it.
There have been an incredible amount of meaningful leaks with supporting proof from Wikileaks, since then. As a direct result of this, Congress has been able to scrutinize things like the NSA phone record agenda that was secret to even them.
Your original statement, that he was not a credible source of information, is absurd. He has credibility. The man, regardless of his intent, has proven to be a reasonably reliable source of information about what these secret agencies are doing. Congress followed his lead, in the face of outright denial from the NSA, and eventually found it to be true. If that doesn't denote credibility, I don't know what does.
No one is saying the man's word is gospel. However, considering what he has
proven already, it would be idiotic to totally disregard him unless he's waving the supporting document in our faces while he's talking.
Why you would so fervently deny a claim of his, especially when it's so feasible, is beyond me. The NSA has been caught concealing their infringement upon our constitutional right to reasonable expectation to privacy, by Snowden. They lied about it when confronted by Congress, and a further audit revealed that lie to the governing body empowered to supervise them.
Under the circumstances, don't you think that it may be the NSA who is deserving of your severe skepticism, considering they are the ones who have a clear history of outright lying to satisfy their own agenda?