WikiLeaks Threatens To Reveal Unnamed Country From Snowden Documents - Time

[WillyT]

WikiLeaks Threatens To Reveal Unnamed Country From Snowden Documents
According to a new report from The Intercept, the NSA records every single cell phone call in the Bahamas and one unnamed country. WikiLeaks says it will name that country in just a few days.
Denver Nicks 5/20/14 11:33 AM ET

<snip>

According to a new report from The Intercept, the NSA records every single cell phone call in the Bahamas and one unnamed country. WikiLeaks says it will name that country in just a few days. WikiLeaks has threatened to unilaterally release the name of an as-yet unnamed country in which every cell phone call is recorded by the National Security Agency, despite the decision by other news outlets to withhold that information for fear of stoking violence.

That announcement comes after a war of words over Twitter between WikiLeaks and journalists at The Intercept, which reported Monday that the NSA collects cell phone metadata in Mexico, the Philippines and Kenya, and records and keeps for up to a month all cell phone calls in the Bahamas and one unnamed country. The Intercept declined to release the name of that country, the outlet says, due to “credible concerns that doing so could lead to increased violence.” The Intercept report is based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The Intercept is a media group launched earlier this year by a group of journalists including two of those originally granted access to the Snowden documents, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. The existence of this specific NSA recording program, code named MYSTIC, was previously reported by The Washington Post, which declined to name any of the countries involved.

WikiLeaks’ threat to publish the identity of the redacted country, if credible, suggests the organization has obtained access to documents leaked by Snowden or has been informed of the country’s identity by someone with access to the documents. Snowden has said he did not leak documents directly to WikiLeaks, but the key players in both organizations—Greenwald, Poitras, WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange—are well acquainted with one another.

According to the report, the NSA obtained access to the Bahamas’ cell phone networks by piggy backing on access legally obtained by the Drug Enforcement Agency, with the DEA’s cooperation. The Intercept declined to report the code name for a private firm that allows access to cell phone data in the Bahamas due to “a specific, credible concern that doing so could lead to violence.”

<snip>

More: http://time.com/#105977/wikileaks-threatens-to-reveal-unnamed-country-from-snowden-documents/

[arcane1]

1. Why wait?

Let's hear it!

[joshcryer]

2. +1

What's the problem? Why doesn't GG want it named?

[msanthrope]

5. Buzzfeed published the Assange/Greenwald feud last night.....

http://www.buzzfeed.com/miriamberger/julian-assange-is-angry-at-glenn-greenwald-and-hes-not-going

Remember when Assange wanted to out Afghanis who may have helped the US?

Assange re: Afghan Civilians: "They're informants. There's no reason for protecting them."

A very interesting interview about why the NYT's and the The Guardian's relationship with Assange soured---

"On Tuesday's Fresh Air, Keller explains why the paper decided to publish the documents, the impact of those cables and why he came to regard Julian Assange as "elusive, manipulative and volatile." Keller tells Terry Gross that during an early conversation with representatives of The Guardian, Assange was told that both The Guardian and The New York Times wanted to edit out the names of ordinary Afghan citizens in classified military documents.

"Assange's reaction was, 'Well, they're informants. There's no reason for protecting them,' " Keller says. "But I think over time, he came around to the view that at least, from a public relations point of view, it was better to allow for a certain amount of editing out of things that could cost lives."

But after the Times published the cables, their relationship with Assange went from "wary to hostile." Assange was upset, Keller says, because the Times would not link to the WikiLeaks website, which did not redact the names of low-level informants.

"Obviously, there was no way we were going to prevent people from going to the WikiLeaks website to see the documents, but as a matter of principle, we said that when we published our stories about the Afghanistan documents, we were not going to link to their website," Keller says. "We feared that it could become hit-list material for the Taliban. was deeply offended, not just that we had not linked to his website, but that we had made a point of not linking to his website. He thought we had shown disrespect."

More at link.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133277509/times-editor-th...

**********************************
Now, just imagine if you were an 'informant.' Imagine if you were a secular person who 'informed' on the Taliban bastards who burnt a school, blew up a Buddha, or killed a US soldier. Imagine if you were an 'informant' who told about a tribal leader who had wrongly sold a person to Guantanamo, ran drugs, or helped kill US soldiers.

Imagine if you told what you knew about the murder of Daniel Pearl.

Imagine thinking that what you told, in good faith to do right, was 'leaked.'

Imagine an anarchist--a world away--deciding your fate.

Imagine that because you were not HIS 'whistleblower'--you were called an 'informant.'




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x326988

[joshcryer]

9. Assange admitted to revealing data that caused thousands of deaths.

But they backpedeled on that one because of the implications.

[msanthrope]

13. I find this whole debacle fascinating. Assange seems to be trying to stay relevant, Greenwald

seems to be trying to head off a possible glitch in his book tour, and they both seem to be trying to keep Snowden as their best bud.

[joshcryer]

16. Oh, agreed completely.

One also has to wonder if Assange is pissed GG was able to create his own empire following Assange's own playbook.

Bet you Laura got Assange the files.

[msanthrope]

17. Sarah Harrison wasn't in Berlin for nothing, josh. Sarah was no doubt the conduit. Let's remember

what Sarah had to say about Greenwald's billionaire...

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/06/wikileaks-sarah-harrison-omidyar-greenwald-ebay-paypal

Glenn is the one walking off with the cash.....

[joshcryer]

19. Yep, nice find btw.

I've been saying those hackers were thrown under the bus, just more confirmation.

BTW, here's Assange admitting to the leaks resulting in 1,300 dead Kenyans: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghanistan

Passes it off as nothing since malaria kills far more.

[JI7]

23. is Poitras making anything off the book, film, and other deals greenwald is making ?

[joshcryer]

24. No clue.

[JaneyVee]

6. Because revealing it will be very deadly and

Cause bloodshed.

[randome]

3. Yay! Burn the world down and reboot it for our Libertarian overlords!

Yee-haw!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

4. Apparently, it's a fight between Greenwald and Assange--buzzfeed published their feud last night--

http://www.buzzfeed.com/miriamberger/julian-assange-is-angry-at-glenn-greenwald-and-hes-not-going

[randome]

7. I wonder...

...if Wikileaks follows through on the threat (they don't often do that) and someone comes to harm because of it, will that be enough for Ecuador to give Assange the boot knowing that he was actively involved in this?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

8. Ecuador was so happy to have Julian on his first anniversary....

Maybe the honeymoon is over. Maybe he really is the stone in the shoe.

Honestly...I don't think Ecuador would care if someone got hurt.

[joshcryer]

10. Ecuador has no problem with extradition.

If the price is right.

[msanthrope]

14. True--I think a bit of haggling with the UK would produce the man. But, Cameron loses no

points for letting him languish.

[joshcryer]

12. Was surprised there wasn't a 200 post thread about it.

I think the client state being protected will make the cohorts look bad. Possibly a South American country like El Salvador, or unthinkablely, Venezuela.

[msanthrope]

15. I'm not surprised. It's a bit of a comedown. nt

[geek tragedy]

11. Greenwald is getting Greenwalded by Assange nt

[msanthrope]

18. Exactly. nt

[arely staircase]

20. Assange basiclly compared him to Bush, so, yeah. nt

[Jefferson23]

21. Very interesting, more to come. K&R

[kelliekat44]

22. Why does this all seem like a mini series I watched on TV? nt

[randome]

25. They think they're part of this group.

But instead they're members of this group:

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Blue_Tires]

26. The unnamed country was revealed as Afghanistan...

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/469728627894939648

Which explains perfectly why Greenwald intentionally left it out -- It contradicts his narrative that the NSA only spies on innocent civilians in friendly allied nations...

Assange has turned into a little weasel over the years, but he was 100% right to call out Greenwald's duplicity here...