General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNaomi Wolf calls bullshit on the Snowden story
My creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be ...by Naomi Wolf (Notes) on Friday, June 14, 2013
I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they appear to be. . . .
(snip)
b) In the Greenwald video interview, I was concerned about the way Snowden conveys his message. He is not struggling for words, or thinking hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do. Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling. To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points again the way that political campaigns train surrogates to transmit talking points.
c) He keeps saying things like, If you are a journalist and they think you are the transmission point of this info, they will certainly kill you. Or: I fully expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. He also keeps stressing what he will lose: his $200,000 salary, his girlfriend, his house in Hawaii. These are the kinds of messages that the police state would LIKE journalists to take away; a real whistleblower also does not put out potential legal penalties as options, and almost always by this point has a lawyer by his/her side who would PROHIBIT him/her from saying, come get me under the Espionage Act. Finally in my experience, real whistleblowers are completely focused on their act of public service and trying to manage the jeopardy to themselves and their loved ones; they dont tend ever to call attention to their own self-sacrifice. That is why they are heroes, among other reasons. . . .
(snip)
e) In stories that intelligence services are advancing (I would call the prostitutes-with-the-secret-service such a story), there are great sexy or sex-related mediagenic visuals that keep being dropped in, to keep media focus on the issue. That very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking girlfriend who appeared for, well, no reason in the media coverage and who keeps leaking commentary, so her picture can be recycled in the press really, she happens to pole-dance? . . .
f) Snowden is in Hong Kong, which has close ties to the UK. . . .
(snip)
Again I hate to cast any skepticism on what seems to be a great story of a brave spy coming in from the cold in the service of American freedom. . . .
https://www.facebook.com/notes/naomi-wolf/my-creeping-concern-that-the-nsa-leaker-is-not-who-he-purports-to-be-/10151559239607949
.....................
I don't necessarily agree with Wolf's conclusions, but do I agree with her observation that Snowden is being stage managed and recites talking points that someone has written for him.
cali
(114,904 posts)ridiculous and stupid.
if this is reasoning, lord help us.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)and which immediately struck me as ad copy delivered by a well-trained hack. She's also right about the sexy visuals. Have you seen this post by freshwest?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3014219
There's a whole fairytale backstory cooked up including this rather dubious photo:
cali
(114,904 posts)none of what loonytune earthtoned wolf cites as evidence is even remotely fucking evidence.
Seriously, you think the "theory" that Snowden is a U.S. plant is reasonable?
yikers.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)She doesn't seem to be aware that there are more intelligence outfits on the planet than the CIA or that the UK and US intel services may have different goals in mind.
cali
(114,904 posts)too articulate? that's an observation? the girlfriend is too photogenic?
Man, I hate stupid and crazy conspiracy crap.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)evidence to draw that conclusion yet.
If the Administration were trying to reform the IC and was working secretly to start a public debate about NSA overreach, they wouldn't be simultaneously escalating the US role in the Syrian conflict. It doesn't make sense in this context.
If this were some sort of organized political rat-fucking by the Paulian Rightwing, we'd see some outward evidence of extreme pushback by the Administration. Other than wild speculation here and at some other partisan Democratic sites, crickets.
On the contrary, if Snowden had actually been turned by the Chinese, they probably would have wanted him to stay in place to gather more secrets before a very quiet departure. This doesn't fit the usual pattern for espionage.
So, in the absence of some sort of proof to the contrary, the running supposition is that he's a leaker not an operative or a spy.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Or a private one, controlled lets say by the Carlyle Group or the Kochs or Exxon-Mobile or some combination of all three. A private CIA in other words. Possibly that was part of the intent of "privatizing" so much CIA activity under Bush-Cheney? So these same outfits would be available to do their bidding when they were out of office?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)You have to explain that part of it. If it's Third Party, what are they trying to accomplish, and what's in it for them?
The Bay of Pigs was a real intelligence catastrophe, as was 9/11. Neither seemed to hurt the Party in power. You have to factor for the Rally Round the Flag effect these things have.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)1) The US-China summit last weekend. The top topic was cybersecurity and basically Obama had his hat handed to him by Xi.
2) The G8 summit starting tomorrow in Northern Ireland. All our buds are expecting us to put out re. Syria and the NSA affair weakens Obama's popular support and thus his bargaining position. And sure enough he announced on Friday the US will be sending weapons to the "rebels."
The latter is exactly what I was afraid all this was leading to and I'm sorry to see my worst suspicions confirmed.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)doing, and neither will change on account of the others accusations and protestations of innocence. Seems unlikely that China would expose an inside agent for such short-term gain.
2) The US is going along with France and the UK and all are acting opportunistically and hope to benefit from the Sunni resurgence. It's good business to appear to be cooperating with the Saudis, particularly when all the the western countries are effectively bankrupt and the Arabs have all the cash in the world outside of China.
I don't see the connection of the leaks with Syria. Please clarify that thought.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)and makes him look the fool internationally, particularly in Britain, where the BBC at least is making hay with it and where, coincidentally, the G8 is being held. So the explicit or implicit argument that "the American people elected me to not engage in dumb wars" loses credibility, as does Obama generally. It weakens his bargaining position in other words.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)That's what I see in the British and European press right now.
That may be hypocritical of them, as much of such criticism from the Euros tends to be, but I don't see how the NSA flap moves Obama forward into the next stage of the Syria intervention toward military conflict with Iran, which is clearly the end-point for the neocon agenda. Maybe, if Snowden had ended up in Tehran.
This as it is there just doesn't seem to be an obvious connection, and the connections being surmised don't make much sense to me. Maybe, I'm being obtuse, but it just doesn't ring true with me. Sorry.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Also obvious is that the Greenwald-Snowden media blitz takes the public's eye off the ball when we most need to be concentrating our efforts on not getting pulled into in yet another dumb war. Not just dumb, catastrophic, both to populations and to the planet. As many have noted this isn't just a civil war any more.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)While I reserve judgement about Snowden, I also know that Barton Gellman at the WaPo has an impressive career body of good, solid intelligence and national security reporting under his belt during the past several decades. I don't think he's easily snowed, and I can't detect a nefarious agenda in Gellman.
So, that's where I am, right now, subject to change and open to contrary evidence. PM me if you see something that you think has gravity.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)The woman behind the camera was well known and respected professional documentarian.
Not only is Wolf a crackpot, she's a pretty ignorant and uninformed crackpot.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Thanks for the link to that article. Stage-managed has several meanings. In a literal sense, I guess Snowden was, by Laura Poitras, one of the very best of the new breed of documentary filmmakers. What I mean was that I'm not convinced that he's either an operative or an agent for a foreign or domestic intel agency or another politically interested third-party. While I don't necessarily agree with all he's done, until I see real evidence to the contrary, I accept that Snowden's a whistle-blower.
"I think she's really driven by curiosity about the issues in which she gets involved rather than having a particular perspective or narrative at the end," he said. "She's open to where the story takes her and having her own perspective challenged or changed, as she hopes the audience is, too."
Johnson, who is working with Poitras on her final Sept. 11 film about surveillance and whistleblowers, can't predict when it will be finished.
"There's no timeline. That's what's remarkable about her. She really does let the story lead her," Johnson said.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)I have been reading some discussions here about whether or not he is being "handled." I think Lee Harvey Snowden has come up somewhere.
He certainly appears brave enough to be doing what he's doing all on his own.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)It is all about creating the perception that Obama is spying on everyone. How long until this is tied to "taking yur guns" in redneck minds?
They really hit paydirt with this one, at least on DU.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Good work on the second one: "prosecutions"
I have never seen DU so pathetic as it was during this NSA-story.
okaawhatever
(9,478 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)okaawhatever
(9,478 posts)happens. With some I look at their past postings and they all seem to have the same theme. I agree with Naomi, I thought there wasn't something right with Snowden the first time I saw an interview.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I thought you were talking about moi. Heck I've been called everything else, why not muckraker?
Anyway I edited it. And yes I agree, some seem to take real satisfaction in spreading the latest Drudge scandal if it puts Obama in a bad light. Go figure.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Do you have anything useful to offer on the real issues?
ArcticFox
(1,249 posts)How can he be blurry standing next to that sharply-focused woman?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Like, who is supposed to have taken this tropical paradise publicity shot, anyway?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)What does who took a "suspicious" photo have to do with the NSA scandal?
Absolutely nothing.
pscot
(21,024 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I'm having some trouble figuring out that brown stripe though:
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)is a bit over dramatic--a bit overdone.
cali
(114,904 posts)Is Snowden a Chinese mole? I doubt it, but at least you can make a semi-rational case for it.
There is nothing remotely rational or intelligent about wolf's "case".
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)At the very least, some people are beginning to question his credibility because of some exaggeration a he made. I'm not suggesting that he's lying or telling the truth about what he knows. I'm strictly observing how he's coming across--melodramatic, a bit over the top.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Yeah, you really nailed him with that logic.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)questionable. He might be telling the truth, but in his interviews, he's exaggerated and dramatic. It's just weird.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)But I don't see how that changes the substance of what he is saying.
aquart
(69,014 posts)But I still have no idea where the fire is.
cali
(114,904 posts)about other things. We've all lied and exaggerated about something or somethings. as you say, that doesn't mean he's lying about what he did, what he knows, what he's revealed or his motives for doing so. Or he could be.
As for how he's coming across, what on earth do we have to compare him to?
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)"NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants"
National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/
randome
(34,845 posts)Even the title of the article is wrong. The NSA made no statement on that so why would a news organization title the article that way?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Do tell how you know what was or wasn't said at a secret briefing by the NSA. Rep Nadler WAS there, he's an attorney....and attorneys are rather proficient at recalling what was said, its their job.
randome
(34,845 posts)In fact, the text says just the opposite. But then I don't always believe what I read.
If this was the sensationalist story CNet is promoting, you would think other media organizations would be lining up for their share of eyeballs. But they aren't. There's a reason for that.
The conversation between Nadler & Mueller was about metadata and a misunderstanding of how it was handled.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...but I'm not sure that the retraction is more credible than the allegation.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler allegation:
"We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn't need a new warrant. In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict."
His retraction:
"I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans phone calls without a specific warrant."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does-not-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/
Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)NSA contractors. Remember, he said "I could listen" to Americans, judges, and even the President. There is a distinction. So here's a question.
If this was about civil liberties, then why out NSA hacking of Chinese servers, and nothing about the use of this system against the Occupy movement? The only tech firm I heard honestly rebutting the Gov on account info was Twitter.
I call bullshit on his story for this reason. If he was truly acting on "Patriotic Duty" he would have outed his company's collusion with Corporate America to destroy Occupy and Anonomus (sic on purpose) and not a 6 year old program to spy on China, a country that has been sending shiploads of infested USB drives for 10 years now.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Here on DU, there was no hesitation to call BS on Snowden and to advance the probable ulterior motives scenarios because the "revelations" were already well known by those paying attention to the issue for a long time.
trumad
(41,692 posts)I'll go with Naomi.
cali
(114,904 posts)and yeah, I've always thought she was full of shit.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)or facts....I'll go with the facts because Wolf is not qualified to do that even if she did know Snowden.
Or Cali or apologist.....I will go with Cali thank you.
cali
(114,904 posts)loudsue
(14,087 posts)I thought those things before Naomi ever articulated them, which she does so well.
The whole story has been drama-queen sensationalist ready since it hit.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)She's not even a good writer...
cali
(114,904 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)It doesn't matter who his girlfriend is.
It doesn't matter what country he went to.
It doesn't matter how articulate he is.
It doesn't even matter what is his motivation for releasing the information.
What matters is whether or not he is revealing any information that is true and that educates us about what our government is doing.
Please stop the personal attacks. It only reflects badly on the people attacking the man. Please address the issues.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Snowden claimed that the NSA is collecting call information on millions of Americans. An NSA official lied to Congress about this, and ultimately we learned that it was Snowden, and not he NSA that was telling the truth.
To great ridicule, Snowden claimed that as an analyst he was in a position to wiretap anybody. An NSA official lied to Congress about that, and now we are learning that it has, in fact, been NSA policy that they don't need no damn warrants for any wiretap. This evidently came as quite a surprise to FBI director Mueller.
Please tell me what major claims by Snowden have not yet been shown to be true.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)For all we know, he read it here first!
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)
There was certainly some speculation all along. But Snowden's actions have triggered a fall of dominoes that have brought some of the NSA schemes into the daylight for the first time.
Do I have to explain the difference between idle speculation and actual public admissions by responsible officials? Do you understand the difference between those two things?
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)It seems more like a cover-up for the real atrocity, cloud storing every single communication.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)this meant that there would be no wholesale spying on Americans. After all, if you have to go to the FISA court, you must show probably cause and specificity, right?
Wrong. Under Obama, the NSA just carried right on doing what they had been doing, with the minor tweak of getting a lawyer to run over to a thoroughly corrupted, rubber stamp, FISA court every month or two.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Obama did not shut down the Bush warrantless wiretapping, James Comey did back when Bush was president. Then, the law changed and retroactive immunity was passed by Congress. After the law changed, Obama was elected.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)The only difference in this instance is that they are now going thorough the formality of getting the rubber stamp FISA court to issue vague, blanket warrants.
Has the FISA court rejected a single request -- even one?
okaawhatever
(9,478 posts)third part of her trilogy was coming out this year. Look under Stellar Wind, same project different name. Then she worked with a retired NSA employee. She did a huge story in New York Times last August saying much of what was said now. Also, I think Laura Poitras (the documentarian) was going to release the story after more info was verified. She apparently got into a race to publish with Glenn Greenwald and I suspect the story would have been handled differently had Glenn not gotten in the picture. He clearly sensationalized this for maximum effect.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Just did!
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)as well as most of the rest of the world.
Where have you been?
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Deja DU: L. Coyote Nov-09-07 1
Are ALL COMMUNICATIONS routed overseas to circumvent US law and the Constitution?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2245762
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)"This is all old news that everyone knew about, and about which there was no controversy, but it is highly classified and revealing it is terribly damaging to national security and has put Americans at risk" camp?
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)you're in the "put words into my mouth and make assumptions based on jack" camp.
randome
(34,845 posts)Please tell me what major claims by Snowden have been shown to be true.
That the NSA has 'direct access' to the world's Internet providers? Thoroughly debunked.
That he could spy on the President if he wanted? If he wanted to show us evidence of that, why not get one of the President's emails and show it to us?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Not debunked in the slightest.
Snowden's claims were 100% consistent with the text in the NSA's own Powerpoint.
And remember that companies like Google and Microsoft, if participating in the activities shown in NSA's own PowerPoint, would be under strict non-disclosure rules.
A gag order is not the same thing as "debunking." Do you understand the difference between those two things?
randome
(34,845 posts)The item on the slide represents a secure server where the companies place data that has been gathered according to a warrant.
These companies have millions of customers. They may get a handful of warrants a day, I don't know how many, I'm guessing.
What would you expect them to do? Mail the data to the NSA?
There is no 'direct access' to everyone's Internet connections, it's merely an efficient way for the NSA to get the data they have requested.
And all the companies you mention have recently been given the go-ahead to release some of the statistics involved in this. And they are pressing for additional transparency.
I'm not saying the NSA is perfect but they do appear to be following the law. Until Snowden & Greenwald give us evidence that disproves this...
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)The issues here are:
1) The laws are very poorly written.
2) The laws allow for secret courts to issue secret orders with virtually no scrutiny (the FISA court has never turned down any request that I am aware of.)
3) Ports of the law are unconstitutional on their face, or unconstitutional in the way that NSA is interpreting them
4) What does any of the have to do with foreign intelligence?
To my knowledge, Snownden has never said the NSA is not following the law. He has simply revealed a set of operations that are staggering in their intrusiveness in the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans.
randome
(34,845 posts)Of course there are issues that need to be addressed. I have no problem with that.
But most of what you listed is subject to interpretation. "Poorly written" and "Unconstitutional on the face of it"? Um, no. Rational people can disagree on stuff like that.
A productive conversation on those items would involve objectivity and the possibility that others might disagree.
'Foreign intelligence' is what the NSA claims is their over-riding criteria. Now if Snowden wanted to show us that the NSA is spying on citizens, why not show us evidence of that?
All we have to go on is his claims that he 'saw things' over the course of his career. What things? He hasn't been very specific except for the things like the PowerPoint slides and those, as I stated, look very much to be a false assumption on his part.
The FISA court has been secret since it's inception. Do you mean Snowden made all this international noise because he doesn't approve of it? Fine, let's have that conversation again.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Unconstitutional laws get passed, and implemented, and can then be challenged in court...IF someone knows about them. IF they are not so secret that no one can show harm, and therefore have standing to challenge them. That is the issue here, not any of the various personalities involved, or the way the laws themselves are being used, or the rubber stamp that is the FISA court....
It's the secrecy. I want to have that conversation, which would not be possible without Snowden or someone like him.
randome
(34,845 posts)Sure, we can have this conversation -yet again- but it seems like most people are willing to allow national security organizations do some of their work away from public scrutiny.
It would be a better world, I'm sure, if no country ever had any secrets from their citizens. But that's not the kind of world we live in right now.
Was it worth all this trouble when we have pretty much admitted as a society that we're okay with a secretive FISA court?
I mean, there is Congressional, Legislative and Executive branch review of the FISA court. If that's not enough for some, that's fine, let's have that conversation. Myself, I'm okay with it.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)It was the lousy idea and a lousy law then, and it still is.
The increased militarization of our daily life and the increased scrutiny our citizens are subjected to, with dubious claims of safety and security are a flippin' disaster and the road to ruin for our Republic. The fact that we are well down that road doesn't make it better. The fact that many people don't care makes it even worse, and the fact that many of our elected representatives are just fine with it is worst of all.
I agree with Snowden that I don't want to live under a government that has this sort of power...which is why I no longer do. Good luck to you all.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The fact is, the feds are still getting all that data about you directly from the companies, and building your profile. The virtual you - the one with a T-Quotient that determines whether you get a security clearance, a gov't job, a seat on an airliner, droned during your next trip to the Bahamas (well, maybe if you vacation in beautiful, scenic Yemen.)
You seem to be arguing distinctions that don't really matter to the central debate, which is about privacy and what gov't does with all that data it's amassed about you and everyone you've spoken to on the phone.
randome
(34,845 posts)You copy the files onto a server and then the intended recipient copies them to their destination. Do you get that? How is that 'direct access' to the world's Internet providers? It's a secure FTP server, most likely. And the data is requested with legal warrants.
And no, the 'feds' are not getting information and building a profile about me. What do you not understand about the criteria that there needs to be foreign involvement for the NSA to seek a warrant for this data?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Your distinction between the secure server (lockbox) and a live-feed from MS and Google to NSA really isn't the point. It's a red-herring. The point is the gov't is acquiring all your personal calls, data and profiling everyone. Even if the data acquisition is legal -- the profiling part may not be -- it's the dangerous intrusion into everyone's privacy, without cause, that has people outraged.
randome
(34,845 posts)Snowden has shown us no evidence. It really is that simple.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
leveymg
(36,418 posts)except a weak semantical argument intended to confuse and color perceptions. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's a fact.
randome
(34,845 posts)..."secure server (lockbox) and a live-feed from MS and Google to NSA". You apparently don't understand the technology that well.
You're not required to, either, but I would think you'd show some leeway toward those who do.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)For PRISM, the slide says "Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers. You're arguing that this is inaccurate? Based on what? And that the whole slide show showing how great PRISM is and how it can bring you all these files was merely talking about how it was a great lockbox, but just neglected to mention that on any of the slides? You imply that the alternative was shipping CDs in the mail - well, how does Twitter, not part of PRISM, comply, do they have to mail CDs to the NSA? How did Apple comply before they joined the program?
randome
(34,845 posts)A secure FTP server allows only authorized persons access to that one computer and nothing else. For the express purpose of transferring files.
I don't understand why Twitter won't set up a similar system or what they do when served with a legal warrant. I don't understand why they would have a problem with securely handing data over to the NSA when served with a legal warrant.
I don't know what Apple did, either.
But the implication that all these other companies are lying or trying to cover up their involvement in spying on 300 million Americans just strains my sense of credulity.
If Snowden wanted to get 99% of the world on his side, why has he not shown us evidence? He says he 'saw things' in the course of his career. What things? He hasn't said.
He says he had unfettered access to everyone's email, including the President's. Why not show us an email from the President, then?
Add all these questions to the fact that his resume appears to be largely bogus and I'm left scratching my head as to why this guy is hiding out in Hong Kong.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Sure, it's possible that PRISM is merely a way to securely transfer files, even though the slides presented it as a data collection program and did not present it as a program to ensure the security of file transfers (did it talk about this in the slides at all?). And yeah, maybe other companies didn't want to transfer files securely because...some reason...and used other methods, even though you seemed to think using other methods was silly when you wrote "What would you expect them to do? Mail the data to the NSA?" And maybe someone could make the argument that collection directly from the servers is not the same as direct access to the servers. I'm not sure how that argument would be made, but maybe it's possible.
But that is a hell of a lot of speculation that seems to fly in the face of what the slides were actually saying.
randome
(34,845 posts)If he wants to bring me on board, he needs to show me evidence.
Even Greenwald walked back the 'direct access' conclusion by saying, in effect, "Hey, all I did was print the slide, I don't know what it means."
In other words, neither he nor Snowden vetted this to anyone else to get their facts straight. It was sloppy journalism and I think Greenwald will regret this for a long time to come.
But I suppose the picture will become clearer over the next two weeks or so.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)He interviewed the tech companies involved and wrote that they said they weren't aware of this. You seem to think Greenwald reporting "Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers" as "direct access" is sloppy journalism. But I think most people would struggle to find any difference between those two statements (I am), let alone think that the difference was so huge it would sink the rest of the article.
randome
(34,845 posts)The companies saying they didn't know anything about this probably related their answer to the way Greenwald asked the question.
"Do you give direct access to the NSA?"
"No, we don't know anything about that."
But if he had spoken to someone else from IT, he might have asked a different question.
"Do you allow the NSA to directly download material that you provide?"
"Oh, that! Sure, we do that!"
Because Greenwald didn't realize that 'direct access' could also refer to a secure FTP server, a very significant difference, he may have couched his question in a way that elicited the answer he expected.
Also, I believe the companies were not allowed to discuss this, although they have now been given the go-ahead to be more open about it.
All speculation on my part, of course. But like I said, we'll see.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)"You copy the files onto a server and then the intended recipient copies them to their destination. Do you get that? How is that 'direct access' to the world's Internet providers?"
"Direct access to FTP servers. Not at all what Greenwald & Snowden wanted us to believe."
So Greenwald's wrong because it's not direct access to the servers...oh, the slides say they collect files directly from the servers...well, yeah, they have direct access to the servers, but they're the ftp servers...the slides might not say that but I assume this to be the case...but Greenwald's still wrong because Greenwald said they couldn't be ftp servers...well, he didn't, but I felt like he wanted me to think that. And PRISM is merely a program for secure transfers, even though the slides treat it as a data collection program and not like a secure file transfer program at all. The companies that didn't comply probably just didn't want to transfer files securely.
Eh. Again, you could be right, these things aren't impossible and the world is a strange place. But to say that Greenwald is guilty of sloppy journalism because if we assume a lot of things without evidence we can show that something he didn't say isn't true seems to be a bit of a reach.
randome
(34,845 posts)I have yet to see a PowerPoint presentation that was all that meaningful. Usually the presenter cares only about showing pretty shapes and colors rather than getting a real message across.
If Snowden had the access he claimed, why did Greenwald not lead off with something more damning?
PowerPoint is a toy for bureaucrats, not a company directive.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Once that is said out loud, nothing else sinks in to the select few that want to believe it. 'Direct Access' is now the Muslim word.
The Fox way of doing things, and purposefully too because that is how journalism works today, the fox way, and Snowden and Glenn and whoever else is involved (because there is a someone/s else) know this has worked all these others times, and used it.
FTP is what we should be talking about, File Transfer Protocol, not 'direct access'. Snowden is deliberately throwing everyone off track with that, and it's working.
randome
(34,845 posts)No one knows, of course, but I'm starting to suspect he is not the 'IT genius' his friend on Lawrence O'Donnell claimed, although she also admitted she doesn't understand IT.
I think Snowden has somehow bamboozled everyone up and down the line in his life and has even managed to convince himself that he is somehow superior to everyone around him.
His resume is forged. He hasn't shown us evidence of his claims.
Something isn't right about this guy. In the head.
I've known IT consultants who could smooth talk their way around just about anything, come across as 'geniuses' -and who rarely, if ever, produce anything of substance.
I think Snowden falls into this category.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and Snowden may have been 'chosen' for the project ahead of time based on his personality traits and 'idealism'.
I still find it very suspicious that Greenwald met Snowden Before the NSA steal.
But I don't think Greenwald is brave or smart enough to be the head cheese in this caper - someone is pulling this off and it's ain't Eddie or Glennie.
btw. Do you know how that meeting came about between Glenn and Ed? Where did they meet and how and why?
randome
(34,845 posts)...before Snowden started his latest stint at NSA as a contractor. Snowden had been at the NSA in various capacities for a few years before this so it's unknown why Greenwald was talking to him then.
For Greenwald to have admitted this raises suspicion on its own because it sounds like a conspiracy between the two of them, not just a passing of sensitive documents.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I'm sure it's being asked about now.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)The discrepancy being the CLEAR indication on the slides that the government had direct access to their servers, and the denials by the companies involved.
You are obviously trying to muddy the water.
randome
(34,845 posts)If you don't understand the technologies or the terms involved, then don't denigrate those of us who do.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)stop muddying the waters!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
BTW: I am a web developer who has worked with the web for 17 years so I know the terms. Again stop muddying the waters.
BeyondGeography
(39,393 posts)http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism
The "major discrepancy", as you point out, is so easily explained that this slide never should have been a story in the first place.
randome
(34,845 posts)...where is the evidence? Snowden says he 'saw things'. What things?
I don't even want proof, just some evidence would be fine. So far, none.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
BeyondGeography
(39,393 posts)They aren't waiting for it to flesh out, and they assign zero credibility to the President, who was very clear about "no one listening to your phone calls." There is absolutely nothing in his history to suggest he would make such a claim if it wasn't true. He is an extremely cautious man when it comes to important pronouncements. But none of it matters when measured against the perverse thrill of darkest fears fulfilled or the opportunity to vent.
Cha
(297,935 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)We have a whistle blower, and we have his documents, that have not been claimed to be unauthentic by the government, now this may not be enough for you personally (I suspect nothing will be enough for you) but it certainly is for the rest of the world AND our own government.
Marr
(20,317 posts)you can always just fool yourself. Some of the denials here are pretty incredible. I particularly like the "ftp" talk, and the assertions that the document doesn't say what any fool could read in three seconds.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)but I doubt that that is true, i think that a few are pros getting paid to be the sophist defenders of their masters as anyone who is truly looking for the truth would not be repeating these falsehoods constantly even after being called out o them repeatedly.
The others, are the weak willed/minded who are simpy rooting for the 'home' team, blinded by their partisanship, though I do believe that in time they will become less and less vocal with their denials as the truth sinks in for them, and that is why we should all take every OPPORTUNITY to responded to the sophists as a teachable moment not only for them but even more importantly for the many, many others who read but do not post here, as they will share what they learn here with their social network, and that is how the truth will prevail in the end.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That is such a stupid dodge.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)That slide is a major component of the story, and IF it is wrong, it is on the government NOT Greenwald, and THEY, the U.S. government owe us an explanation for that discrepancy between their words and the companies involved.
not to mention spying on all americans and the rest of the world.
Cha
(297,935 posts)okaawhatever
(9,478 posts)They seem cramped and pointless. the entire graphic design of the slides doesn't make sense. Also, I have seen two different project numbers on the slides. On has a SIGINT ID number and this just has a FAA number. It doesn't make sense to me.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)in all modern offices thanks to the desktop publishing revolution of decades ago.
But, the relevant fact is that these have not been deemed inauthentic by the source, the NSA, so this argument is truly moot.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)And our governments reaction, not to mention the rest of the world, does not support your talking points.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)With such vitriol, because he hasn't revealed anything.
randome
(34,845 posts)Boehner, of course, is an ass.
But Snowden claims he has thousands of internal NSA documents and he's hiding in Hong Kong. What about that does not rise to the level of concern?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)What kinda hypocrisy are trying to sell here...
1. He does not have anything of value
2. He has thousands of documents of value
7962
(11,841 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)He's going to sustain "personal attacks" as anyone else who puts themselves out there does. He's going to be vetted. You can't expect to stop that.
The people who called him a hero too soon are embarrassed. They should have waited to learn more, first.
randome
(34,845 posts)The narrative he has lived with for so long must seem very real to him, to the point where he doesn't appear to question himself.
The point that stood out to me most was about the lack of any legal representation. Snowden and Greenwald hatched this together without even so much as a reference to legalities.
That, to me, is amazing.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I'm surprised she didn't mention that.
randome
(34,845 posts)Since he's been talking with Snowden for months, however, you would think it might occur to him that he's too close to the situation.
Isn't there an adage about that? An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client? Or something like that.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I imagine GG wrote or largely wrote Snowden's pretty speeches because they're just as meaningless and irrelevant as the stuff he puts in the papers.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)temmer
(358 posts)without any meat on the bones. Her view on whistleblowers and their typical behavior is extremely narrow.
cali
(114,904 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)I don't find her critique astute at all.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Check the fonts, Guardian. Check the fonts.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)Naomi Klein wrote the The Shock Doctine.
Naomi Wolf writes about somewhat lighter subject matter.
Just wanted to remind people, since these two Naomis are easily mixed up.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Wolf less credible because she's not Klein? I don't think so.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Does Wolf do anything but simply use her imagination in that article? What does "credibility" have to do with anything she wrote? It all just seems to be musings on her part. She is welcome to any musings she wishes to make on a Sunday morning, but that doesn't make any of it fact.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)didn't come off that way in my view.
The point is well made, though. Klein is one of my heroes. Shock Doctrine should be required reading.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Shock Doctrine is written by Naomi Klein.
This particular article was written by Naomi Wolf.
Edit to add: Liberalstalwart, I don't appreciate your glaring intellectual dishonesty!
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)On Wolf: Nothing wrong with musing. She's not coming off as a reporter of facts
On Klein: Shock Doctrine IS fact; should be required reading.
I'm well aware of who these two women are.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)how easy it is to mix up the Naomis. I'm not stupid.
But it's a good bet the well known basis for confusion is a cause for exploitation.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)identities of these two women.
Can you drop it now, or is this a baiting game? If it's the latter, don't bother. I don't get easily excited over people I don't know who spend time on political discussion boards.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)because you are so transparent.
Yes, cutie, I'm hitting on you.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)...maybe I'm slow. You'll have to explain. If you're just here to insult me, we'll, you'll be disappointed.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)They even look a little bit alike!
Naomi Wolf is a good writer in her own right, but IMHO she doesn't hold a candle to Naomi Klein.
Marr
(20,317 posts)And yes, I do regard them differently. At first I thought this was written by Naomi Klein and was surprised that she'd base such a contentious argument on nothing but silly things like speech inflection and body language.
When I realized it was Naomi Wolf, I was not surprised. Not that Wolf is a bad writer or anything. I just don't think she's as serious as Naomi Klein.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)That you have to ask makes me wonder if you know what the word means.
It's pretty clear that Wolf doesn't rely on trying to assemble any facts in order to make her case. She seems to be unaware of the fact that the Snowden vid was filmed by a well respected documentarian, Laura Poitras.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/laura-poitras-documentary-filmmaker_n_3441081.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Naomi R. Wolf is an American author and former political consultant.
With the publication of the 1991 bestselling book The Beauty Myth she became a leading spokesperson of what was later described as the third wave of the feminist movement.
Born: November 12, 1962 (age 50), San Francisco, CA
Children: Rosa Shipley, Joseph Shipley
Parents: Leonard Wolf, Deborah Goleman
Education: Yale University (1984), Lowell High School (1980), University of Oxford, New College, Oxford
Also wrote this one in 2007:
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Oh wait, that already happened.
cali
(114,904 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)You seem to be a drama queen as of lately.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)The most recommended comment in her original post:
a - he is organized, so he must be a fake?
b - he is well spoken and has figured out what he would say ahead of time, he must be a fake?
c - he knows what has happened to other whistleblowers, he must be a fake?
d - okay, point taken. fully agree here
e - the media loves to report on sexy dancers, he must be a fake?
f - there might be a better country to have fled to, he must be a fake?
g - the media isn't sure where he is anymore, he must be a fake?
h - okay his not having a lawyer for someone who is so organized is a little odd, granted. Good point.
I agree with points d and h, but the others are pretty much nonsense paranoia. I mean I'm not saying you're wrong, Naomi. It's just I don't there is really any evidence that you are right, either.
For the record:
d) It is actually in the Police States interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that awful things happen to people who challenge this. Which is why I am not surprised that now he is on UK no-fly lists I assume the end of this story is that we will all have a lesson in terrible things that happen to whistleblowers. That could be because he is a real guy who gets in trouble; but it would be as useful to the police state if he is a fake guy who gets in trouble.
...
h) I was at dinner last night to celebrate the brave and heroic Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Several of Assanges also brave and talented legal team were there, and I remembered them from when I had met with Assange. These attorneys are present at every moment when Assange meets the press when I met with him off the record last Fall in the Ecuadoran embassy, his counsel was present the whole time, listening and stepping in when necessary.
....
Again I hate to cast any skepticism on what seems to be a great story of a brave spy coming in from the cold in the service of American freedom. And I would never raise such questions in public if I had not been told by a very senior official in the intelligence world that indeed, there are some news stories that they create and drive even in America (where propagandizing Americans is now legal). But do consider that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that people believed watched them at all times rather than the machine itself that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police state and its interests why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times unless we know about it?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)the airwaves with their whole series of "scandals"?
That makes no sense at all. Have you notices that nobody has talked about Benghazi, the IRS, or reporter-gate for a couple of weeks now?
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)If you want MY take:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022994688
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Did you notice the administration pushed back on that hard?
It is the same meta data and production orders
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)as his CATO bio notes:
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Is this a joke?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)"Representing" a client with such a clear conflict of interest would get him disbarred in nanoseconds.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)You going to save us from Daily Kos, too?
http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/markos-moulitsas
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/10/02/markos-moulitsas/case-libertarian-democrat
I'll give him a pass.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)suffragette
(12,232 posts)Much food for thought with those two specific points, especially D.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)I could easily construct an argument that Wolf is a planted agent.
Cheers!
cali
(114,904 posts)Generic Brad
(14,276 posts)We may have been called out so that we could be identified, tagged, and watched more closely. A threat to the status quo cannot be neutralized until it is identified. The fact that he has not been arrested yet certainly raises my suspicions.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)And I've been assured that no one should ever listen to anyone that's written for the Guardian.
Naomi Wolf is...to put it mildly...crazy and stupid. All the time. She's been persona-non-grata around here for a long time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2389724
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022146890
She's a regular guest on Infowars, anti-progressive, and would take a shit in Times Square if it would make people pay attention to her. Are we going to start listening to her now because she said something we wanted to hear?
Apparently we are, because some of the people defending her in this thread were railing about how batshit crazy she is in one of those threads. Clearly not someone you can trust to get anything right back then, a paragon of investigative journalism now.
Edited to add: Just for shits and giggles:
"I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PITb4fHmbZ4#t=139s
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)As for the Guardian, youthful indiscretion?
Anyway I get that she's out there, and as I mentioned in the OP, I don't agree with her conclusion or rather speculation that Snowden is a US intel operative. But I do agree with her observation that he appears to be an operative of some sort.
cali
(114,904 posts)this is so fucking silly, I'm aghast that anyone with a few functioning brain cells would even contemplate this for a nano second.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)All I've seen is regurgitating talking points from the MIC, which even a parrot can do. I can't say I've seen evidence of a single brain cell.
hunter
(38,340 posts)Don't know which agency cast him into the water or what they are fishing for.
Don't care.
But they certainly are getting a lot of hits.
Maybe they're just testing the machines.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)fishy in this story and all that we know is not everything we should know. As some have said, they want ALL the pieces of this puzzle before they pass judgement. I, too, thought he was rather articulate and precise for a high school drop out.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)there's also the fact that what he says has very little to do with what he was apparently doing, i.e. distributing classified intel and interviews to the Chinese in the days before the Obama-Xi summit last weekend, which was basically a fiasco for Obama on the cybersecurity issue.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)But the message we have learned is real. The way he presents himself really makes him look polished and ready for presentation. It does not, or should not detract from the fact that our rights are being tampered with. Period. Surveillance is a needed evil. It needs monitoring and that is the real story. Also the mercenary scumbag people Snowden worked for should not be doing "our" surveillance for us. They are working for high $$$ and will sell out for even higher $$$$. Surveillance should be done by our government and not out sourced.
Now the other thing I have to say. The rude, crude way that some people on this thread have presented themselves is truly mind boggling. Name calling and demeaning words. Makes me ashamed to be a DUer. I am sure some of the people I am talking about will not see this as I know they have me on ignore. But there are better ways to dispute someone than to call them batshit crazy or crazy as a shithouse rat. Or "none of what loonytune earthtoned wolf cites as evidence is even remotely fucking evidence." I say climb out of the gutter and talk nice and give some rational reason why you disagree. Or this " naomi wolf's "theory" is shithouse crazy conspiracy crap". Now that makes me really doubt the OP.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Sometimes you find out which tooth is abscessed by tapping on all the teeth in the region and watching when the patient yells.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)to as my second paragraph, then it may be a tradition, but unworthy of any one on this forum. And the over the top put down by the person I am referring to, is the only thing this person does. It is disgusting to raise one's self up by "attempting" to put someone down. And over the top is the correct term. It is a sign of un-intelligence.
If you are referring to my first pragraph, I see no analogy.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)and my dental analogy is that those who use the stategy often give far more information than they realize - especially when it's done as a pack.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)There are a few who seem to think that belittling others make them more of an expert. They are like the people you get into a discussion with and are fast talkers and never give an opening for rebuttal. This is the written way of doing that. I will read and try to digest and ascertain their motives. But mostly I come to the conclusion "get a life". I think incivility in most instances is not called for. If there is disagreement with a persons position, then give your reasons, don't just call them stupid. Everyone needs to learn or have the opportunity to learn. It is why I disagree with the Ignore option. I know have 16 people ignoring me. I am not a hard person to get along with unless I perceive I am being treated badly. I can ignore someone by not responding to them, but I still read what they have to say.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)but his actions are something else altogether. What does selling classified intel to the Chinese have to do protecting the 4th amendment for example?
timdog44
(1,388 posts)I am not sure what you are referring to. It is my fault because I was making two points in my response. Please restate, if you don't mind.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I agree with you that the security apparatus grew alarmingly under Bush-Cheney, and the outsourcing is disgraceful pork, also dangerous for the reasons you cite. However, I disagree that GG and Snowden did anything more than demagogue, i.e. stir up popular outrage, and for nefarious RW purposes, one being to "Dem-wash" the permanent evil empire erected by Bushco. Obama has to defend it, and therefore (quoth the haters) he owns it. We've seen this before, e.g. on Guantanamo, drones, etc.
The other thing that strikes me is that Snowden's noble words have zilch to do with what he was actually up to, i.e. slipping classified intel to the Chinese at the moment Obama was preparing to meet new Chinese President Xi Jinping in a US-China summit held last weekend in California:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014502822
WTF kind of hero is that?
timdog44
(1,388 posts)Two stories are going on hear.
1). Snowden/Greenwald. Not really heroes. I still think a different agenda drives their actions, more Snowden (who's actions could about be considered treasonous) than Greenwald. Snowden is persona non grata, if you will. Being a tattle tale, basically makes you always a tattle tale. It is a postion that people end up in, but don't realize that is what is going to happen. I have yet to settle my self on Greenwald. I have promised another poster to read more of his blogs and history, before I make any more characterizations of him, and I am going to hold to that.
2). The spying, the bigger issue. It has gone on for ages. It is data mining at the worst, if all phone calls and internet transmissions are being intercepted. There needs to be something done and our elected officials are being lax, to say the least, in their duties. Part is that they don't go to the meetings where all this is being explained. They are their phones soliciting like a bunch of whores for more money. And then they step out and make pronouncements that they know nothing of. The other issue of the spying is when is it done as an out sourced job. If it is done for money, they will sell out for money. Patriotism is a biggy with me. There is no patriotism involved in the mercenary spying on Americans or anyone else. There is no patriotism in any mercenary things done at all. All the mercenaries in the wars that have been fought recently is disgusting. Bottom feeders. Scum bags. I have nothing good to say about them. But I am off track. We need to rein in the spying, and I am not sure how it can be done.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)You're welcome. As for a photocopy of his receipt which I expect you'll next demand, sorry, I can't help you. Maybe you could send tweet to Glenn:
Twitter: @ggreenwald
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)the word of a Chinese journalist working for a govt controlled press.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Or since nothing in this sorry tale has yet been adjudicated, allegedly procured them. Why would he do that? How does supplying classified US intel to the Chinese possibly accord with his protecting-the-4th-amendment yarn?
ReRe
(10,597 posts)I haven't heard anything out of Naomi Wolf in quite a while. Wonder where she's been? (Or should it be 'Wonder where I've been?"
Me thinks Naomi has been schmoozing it up, becoming a little too close to some agency types. If you click on the facebook link, you will see the full article, BUT there is a more recent update link at the top. Did you see/read that one? She seems to be walking back her comments from the Friday article. Gives Booze Allen a pass, saying he's a respectable consultant (or some such.)
Sorry, Naomi, I don't buy it. Thanks for the OP, ucrdem, as it is good to keep with what's out there in the cloud.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)How dare you be as well prepared in your interviews as Naomi Wolf would be!
Her spidey-sense tells her that real whistleblowers are nervous, ill-prepared, unable to speak for themselves, making the wrong moves in PR and legal terms, and already safely in the hands of the proper authorities. Heroes!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)JSTOR?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Here's a word for you: Reaching.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)the head of NSA???
I have absolutely no idea what/if that little tidbit about Susan Rice means anything, but there it is.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)color me suspicious-- for that, and many other reasons she lists.
I don't trust the NSA at all, neither do I trust people who worked for them, as noble as they may seem. Plus, he worked for the CIA too.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I know it's probably not heartfelt, and you'll resort to any calumny against Snowden no matter how baseless to distract from the story, which is the establishment of a permanent all-encompassing corporate police-surveillance state in the United States - of a technological power the Soviet Union could only dream of.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Just sayin' . . .
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)Snowden seems a bit shady to me. As does Greenwald, for that matter. Greenwald is smart enough to know about 9/11 being an inside job, but has strenuously avoided that topic since he started writing.
I am aware of the disgusting/disturbing/unconstitutional surveillance state. I am also aware that spooks like to play a lot of games.
So I'm happy to denounce the NSA and support any legislation to abolish them. I'm happy to discuss what the NSA does. I also am happy to question the veracity of Snowden, and whether he is some kind of limited hangout artist. But I don't know for sure. Maybe he's totally legit too.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)On the basis of "spidey sense" and no evidence, these statements can be made, I don't find them useful given the authoritarian demonization campaign going not against Snowden per se, but against all whistleblowing forever. You may have noticed that on DU most people slinging every piece of random shit at Snowden and Greenwald do not think "9/11 was an inside job." I've noticed that Greenwald has strenuously avoided that topic, which is very interesting. Because far as I know he also never did one of those Taibbi/Cockburn-style "I hereby (pretend to) hate Conspiracy Theorists" declarations that were sort of required as neo-McCarthyite oath for establishment writers in the progressivesphere.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)and honestly, I would be happy if Snowden was completely a good guy. Maybe he is. It's just that I've seen too much weird shit over the past 12 years.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)In other words, Something is fishy here, This could be a set-up, Maybe. So let's be careful how we respond to it.
I shared her opinion until last night, when a friend talked me out of it, so I can speculate about where she is coming from. Snowden does seem awfully polished, and China as a place of refuge does seem suspect, given its record on human rights as well as the opportunity for someone with security clearance but without loyalty to the U.S. government to commit treason.
Here's how my friend talked me out of it: Just because, as Wolf says, most whistleblowers are not polished does not mean this one can't be. Maybe he rehearsed with Greenwald. That would not make what he is saying any less true. And China? At this point, Snowden has to do whatever he can to protect himself. And China may be the only country that won't extradite him back to the U.S.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It's a former UK colony so I'm more suspicious of possible ties to UK intel than to China's, even though he apparently sang like a canary to the Chinese papers and who knows who else.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Of the NSA? This is sheer comedy.
You should consider writing for the Onion.
Oh and I forgot. Hong Kong is the Special Exclusion Zone and Chinese territory. England left over fifteen years ago.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And who is the "junior partner"?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Google the 1948 UKUSA treaty
I won't give you my article on this...just the wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
Denial is not just a river in Egypt
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Lmao.
Thanks for the laugh
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)You're welcome.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"that shitbag of right-wing trollery" that Naomi Wolf has written for... You're welcome.
http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/11/obama-war-on-weed-american-voters
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)For some reason that one has always thrown me for a loop. And phonics-wise it should be "gaurd," you'll have to admit. Ah, l'anglaise, c'est pour rire!
patrice
(47,992 posts)Think about it; dissonance, in-equilibrium, is a great driver. Even resolution of a given instance of dissonance can lead to other, related, dissonances.
The real questions are about whether a given dissonance is valid or invalid relative to real-world experiences and the whos, whats, whys, hows, and wherefors thereof. Not all consistency is good. Not all dissonance is bad. It is our responsibility as progressed free individuals to figure out which is which. That's called diversity and there can be great beauty and strength in it.
Personally, I think the ways that principle is commonly characterized as absolute consistency is possibly a result of Western cultural "Christian" brainwashing.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Because the guy's more articulate than most and because of her purportedly extensive statistics on Whistleblowers' personalities, obviously done with a well-funded study, she suspects he must be a conspiracy within a conspiracy. Why? To bring down Obama? The risk the intelligence industry is taking in doing this is great, because if Obama reverses himself and works to shut down these programs, the plan backfires. Unlike Nixon, people will support the guy because the real Nixons who won't reverse themselves are in the other party.
Oh, and Dick Cheney thinks Snowden is a traitor. That's right folks, no less than Snidely Subtlety himself, Dick Cheney agrees with you here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/16/dick-cheney-edward-snowden_n_3450006.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Lies are terribly difficult to detect. People are poor at doing it. To try to guess by the standards she's using have as much reliability as reading tea leaves.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)She's speculating that Snowden was authorized to leak this info to make the American people more afraid of the US government.
Suppose Wolf is right.
If Snowden is telling the truth (and most of what he said has been supported, though some of it is denied by tech companies) then what he's telling us is still more important than why.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)As I mentioned I don't agree with her speculation that Snowden is working for the USG. But I do agree with her observation that he's a "surrogate transmitting talking points" and not the pole-dancer romancer whistleblower we're all rootin' for.
p.s. hat tip to whoever came up with "pole-dancer romancer"
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...and why?
patrice
(47,992 posts)as U.S. ambassador at the U.N. have been the United States conditions for our support of this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/world/arms-trade-treaty-approved-at-un.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
And now Rice heads the NSA, which recently acquired a role in drone program management.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)The government is calling it a big leak, which means a lot of the stuff has substance. They are spying, it is on the American people. There does seem to be a vacuum cleaner which sucks up lots of data which they can access later. So this is really what the conversation is about. Maybe the NSA wants to leak some of what its doing to advance some other aim? Well that's fine, but we're still going to have the conversation about what they are doing.
world wide wally
(21,758 posts)The idea of the government "spying" on us is bad enough but that is what governments all too often do. The idea of a private company doing this "for" the government is nothing short of obscene.
I am not hearing nearly enough about this aspect of the whole ordeal.
randome
(34,845 posts)So far all he's shown us are internal NSA documents. You would think if he had the unfettered access he claims, the ability to spy on the President, he might have furnished evidence of that. An email from the President's Inbox, perhaps?
But there is nothing so far. Add to that the fact his resume appears to have been greatly exaggerated if not outright forged and I wonder about whether we're dealing with a mentally unbalanced individual.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Madmiddle
(459 posts)Naomi seems to articulate that only news people and television personalities can make their point eloquently. There are many people in this world that don't stutter and stumble over their words like she implies. Snowden has obviously had time to think about what he has been up to. So, that means to someone like Naomi that this is suspect? Then we should more than question what our commentators say on a daily basis, because they articulate their message without seeming to think about what they're saying.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Try again.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
Jarla
(156 posts)Lindsay Mills received a bachelor's degree in fine arts from the Maryland Institute College of Art (source), which is considered to be one of the top art institutes in the US. Note that MICA only offers programs of study in the visual arts, so Mills is not "just" a dancer. It hasn't been reported what her major was, but I'm guessing photography.
Yes, Mills is a pole dancer, but that does not make her some kind of whore. She's part of a group of performers who are trying to promote pole dancing as a legitimate art form. The LA Times published an article about this movement just a couple of months ago. And Natasha Wang, the 2011 US Pole Dance champion, has even performed on The View (Sorry, I don't know how to link directly to the Youtube video. Google "Natasha Wang-2011 US Pole Dance Champion Live On The View"
So pole dancers don't just perform in seedy strip joints anymore.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)... speaks volumes.
And sorry, but Wolf is spouting tinfoil nonsense here. Posing suspicions and queries, but not even articulating any kind of narrative, never mind a plausible one.
The guy could be made of balsa wood have a squirrel fetish. It doesn't matter. The story is the documents and the hilarious-yet-troubling frantic spin machine that has followed.
If it was nothing, they wouldn't be squirming like this.
Jarla
(156 posts)Though admittedly I don't know much about Naomi Wolf or her stance on such things.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)spooky3
(34,517 posts)PSPS
(13,628 posts)Before, we had to contend with Judith Miller willfully writing lies she was told by the Bush junta which, after they were printed, were referenced as "proof" by the same junta.
Now we have the corporate/state media (including Wolf here) trying to smear Snowden based on the corporate/state media's own smear campaign.
If one has spent a lot of time thinking about an important decision and is repeatedly asked the same questions about it, of course they have answers ready to go. And the "girlfriend" angle is something worthy of "Access Hollywood" -- infotainment at its finest.
This piece reveals more about Wolf than Snowden.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)in pennies!
If he's annoying, domestic surveillance must be OK!... er. Or something.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)spouting the same lame talking points which defy logic. One could easily conclude they get them from a single "handler".
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)and one would certainly have more reason to, if one were so inclined.
But one has better things to do than run around all day with a tarbrush.
PSPS
(13,628 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)That's exactly what she's doing. She's citing the tabloid reporting of her own corporate media brethren as evidence that Snowden is an unreliable media hound in pursuit of tabloid coverage.
This has a Peggy Noonan quality about; start with the thing you want to believe, then lazily, breathlessly back it up with whatever floats into your musings.
Marr
(20,317 posts)People aren't robots. They don't all respond the same ways in similar circumstances. And anyway, if I had to assign a reason for the behavior Wolf cites above, I'd think I'd go to simple narcissism long before thinking of a political set-up.
ellennelle
(614 posts)i've been skeptical about snowden from the beginning. mainly because of the timing; mainly because of the scandal pile-on the rightwing has been pumping for weeks now, but even more because manning will be made a hero and a martyr, and we can't have that now, can we?
those of you concerned about rand paul and teabaggers and that ilk, really??? you believe those shallow benchers, those thin substance and weak argument peapickers, those flybynight idiots could pull off something this sophisticated and complex and INSIDE???
your aim is way off. check out those who are weighing in - like ari fleischer and cheney - and how they are all trumpeting how this rehabilitates and vindicates W!
this kind of operation - if naomi is right - requires tremendous coordination and forethought and intricate chess move kind of planning, and most importantly it requires not just someONE but a whole structure working from the inside. the kind of structure cheney put in place over the past two-plus decades. what is the NSA but just such an operation? and who has his tentacles dug eyeball deep in that whole process more than cheney?
like i said, i was quickly wary; where was snowden's lawyer and why had greenwald and the filmmaker not insisted he have one with him? the hong kong story did not ring true, and the girlfriend - again, really??? her posts were clearly written by a man trying to sound like a forlorn young woman; gag.
of course, someone planning and monitoring this - like a real producer - would have to see that some cheesy and questionable stuff be thrown in there to make it real; squeaky clean would never fly. and, here's the kicker for me, the scandal would have to involve a topic EVERYONE is on board with, not one that divides the citizenry. pretty much across the board, folks don't like the snooping (now, tho everyone got in line in '01 of course), and it's the one aspect of DHS and NSA want most to nail down. as naomi says, it's the snooping that gets ya. anyone here ever see the lives of others?
i think naomi may be on to something;
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Is that what you mean by wag the dog?
ellennelle
(614 posts)did you not see the movie?
quite enlightening.
and, it would answer your question quickly.
carry on.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Therefore Syria seems to better fit the analogy.
ellennelle
(614 posts)the tail is wagging the dog. in the case of the film, the media were conscripted to construct a fake war. true, to distract. but that is not the point of the phrase, just the point of that movie's war.
in this case, the media are being conscripted to deliver the msg that the NSA is protecting us and whistleblowers are evil and doomed. by construction; at least, that's naomi wolf's assertion.
no war involved here, but the analogy of 'wag the dog' applies. no need for a war, as its meaning is simply that the normal recipient of action (i.e., tail/media) is actually the creator of action instead of normalcy (i.e., dog/government).
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Shocking piece of writing.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)though her reasoning isn't sound imho, as she appears to be suspicious of the professional presentation, when he in fact went to professional presenters to tell his story, so why would you be surprised by that?
And she also seems to be surprised by his calm, articulate manner, but considering his line of work (IT) that does not surprise me (not that everyone in IT is calm and articulate, that certainly isn't true) as you work daily in a world of logic and sequence, so that he is able to present a logical and calm presentation of the facts that he is well aware of, since that is what he did for a living, in a private, comfortable setting, a hotel room, probably coached somewhat as well by the professional presenters he is with, does not surprise me at all... in fact I am more surprised by her take on it.
railsback
(1,881 posts)There really is NO difference between the Left and Right. I hope you're all proud of yourselves, baggin' all the way.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It's authoritarian vs. egalitarian, establishment vs. the rabble, or something more in that line. The only middle ground here is simple apathy, and that hardly counts as a political position.
Wolf's "evidence" is nonsensical and suggestive of nothing. They're idle musings and nothing more. If they illuminate anything at all, it is what Naomi Wolf wants to believe.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Which accord with my own, but Wolf expressed them in much more detail. As for a matter of left or right, I think this is. Greenwald is a CATO Libertarian, and Snowden by his own account is a Bush-believing Ron Paul supporter, and his claims, whoever scripted them, appeal directly to the paranoid black-helicopter fearing keep-government-out-of-my-Social-Security 2nd-amendment-protecting survivalist Teabag right.
And a few others.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I've heard the 'shocking truth about Edward Snowden', believe me. I don't care about him. It's the information he released that's relevant.
Wolf's musings here are just sort of silly and threadbare. I don't care if she's offering them in court or in a kindergarten classroom-- grasping speculation is grasping speculation and can really only shed light on the person doing the speculating.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Just before two big international conferences, last week and this week, with Syria at the top of the G8 agenda. Also revealing was the strenuously anti-Obama spin that Attorney Glenn was putting on Snowden's meager claims on what seemed like every channel last week.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Coincidences happen all the time, of course, but it does make me wonder about any broader political motivations that might be at work.
Ultimately, however, that all seems like a little sideshow next to the information released.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Most of her concerns are answered by the fact that a professional filmmaker was the person behind the camera during the interview. Nothing much to see here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/laura-poitras-documentary-filmmaker_n_3441081.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)But keep catapulting the propaganda.
railsback
(1,881 posts)Wolf makes observations and gets browbeat over it. Who's to say she's wrong? The evidence coming in from the companies that were handing over information points to a severe overreaction. EVERYONE isn't being spied on. Not even half, or a quarter, or an eighth, sixteenth, thirty-second...
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)I think there is plenty of that to go around.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)result of Snowden's revelations?
I like to play "Follow The Money" when it comes to exposure of interesting activities related to the intelligence community.
Here's one simple scenario:
The public is outraged over Snowden's revelations that Big Brother is engaging in detail spying on them and their grannies. Indignant public protest is widespread. People are sick of the Patriot Act, sick of cameras on their streets, sick of Big brother constantly secretly sniffing their panties at every opportunity.
Public outrage peaks over the invasions of privacy.
And then
Some deranged Syrian jihadist, now living in Peoria, who was among those being spied on by the NSA, and who was being unknowingly nurtured by the NSA/CIA, blows up the Supreme Court for declaring DOMA unconstitutional.
Some might call it a transformational event - a "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor", which leads RW politicians to scream how we've been attacked, and how we are going to be attacked again and again unless we give up all of our antiquated ideas that we have any right to privacy.
Public is scared shitless, they'll give up any and all rights immediately just to feel safe and secure again. Strict, invasive control measures are called for.
With little forethought, Congress quickly legislates, (they don't want to be recognized as terrorist appeasers), President signs, and Patriot Act II comes to a theater near you, complete with cameras, security scanners, ID checks, and panty sniffing dogs at every ticket booth.
The 1% has eliminated all possibility of democracy forever.
Game Over, thank you for playing.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
― Hermann Goering
I'm not saying that this is what is occurring, or that Snowden is definitely not on the level. I'm just saying that I agree with Naomi, that it might be a good idea to use a little caution in assessing this situation.
Getting fooled again will have permanent tragic consequences.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...then after the next big attack Congress may restore it.
If the Patriot Act isn't repealed, then after the next big attack we'll get Patriot Act II.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)That just ain't never gonna happen.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)What struck me as I read your post is the coincidence that this revelation happened at now when more names are being released by The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists regarding the massive world wide tax evasion revealed by a whistleblower who has not been named.
http://www.icij.org/offshore/icij-releases-offshore-leaks-database-revealing-names-behind-secret-companies-trusts
It certainly is in the interest of the world's obscenely wealthy plutocrats not to have their communications monitored. They certainly stand to benefit materially if surveillence is curbed. Lots of plutocrats in China might be very grateful to Snowden.
agent46
(1,262 posts)Given how manipulated "news events" are these days and how relentless the GOP led scandal & distraction brigade has been since the election, it occurred to me this Snowden/NSA leak could be a manufactured attempt to spin the whole debacle into an attack of the Obama presidency and cement the tired Tea Party meme that Obama is leading us into a dictatorship.
If that's the case, I'm pretty sure the opportunity has already escaped their control. This is a real issue and people are angry. I don't think the propagandists on either side are going to be able to successfully politicize this to their advantage. The fact is, the system itself has become toxic to our democracy and this transcends petty party politics.
On the other hand, I've noticed over the years that every time there's a scandal, changes are made under the radar. We are now supporting a side in the Syrian civil war opposite the Russians. Is this now a proxy war in the middle east? Is the Neocon agenda moving forward? I'd say, probably.
So, is this connected with the Snowden NSA leaks somehow? I can't say.
Whatever the case, I don't think party loyalists on any side are going to like what may come of all this.
I could be wrong though. It could all go away in a few weeks. The memory hole in America is silent, dark and deep.
~46
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
think
(11,641 posts)and because he's polished it, it seems staged. After 5 or 6 years he might have thought about what he might say. Or not.
But then he could be a stooge who risked everything for a foolish publicity stunt.....
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I loves me some Naomi Wolf.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)dissect, analyze and assassinate the whistleblowers.
Shit if this whole issue gets shoved under the rug because they killed the messenger, this country deserves what it gets.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I truly have NO idea why I keep reading about this scantily-clad, totally uninteresting woman. I see a guest spot on Keeping up with the Kardashians in her near future.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Ed Snowden had a house in Hawaii with a pole-dancing girlfriend.
Soon he'll probably be in prison cell for years. Maybe for decades.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)yeah right.
I worked in IT for almost 20 years. Before and all through the dot-com era. We got paid insane amounts of money to work on projects that we knew were a joke or doomed to fail. We didn't care one bit about the actual projects we were working on, as long as they paid us plenty of overtime. No one ever questioned the morality of the projects we worked on, no one cared. Everyone knew that the dot-com era was going to implode, so just ride it as long as you could, they pay was addictive. It was heaven.
No one ever walked away from that kind of gravy train. And to Hong Kong?
Patriotism or a hot girlfriend? He picked the flag? A single guy in his thirties... impossible!
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...and he won't go to prison?
jimlup
(7,968 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Count me as one more person who cares nothing of what you think...
Blech...