Greenwald: The Sunday Times’ Snowden Story Is Journalism At Its Worst- And Filled With Falsehoods

[Veldrick]

June 14, 2015

Excerpt

What kind of person would read evidence-free accusations of this sort from anonymous government officials – designed to smear a whistleblower they hate – and believe them? That’s a particularly compelling question given that Vice’s Jason Leopold just last week obtained and published previously secret documents revealing a coordinated smear campaign in Washington to malign Snowden. Describing those documents, he reported: “A bipartisan group of Washington lawmakers solicited details from Pentagon officials that they could use to ‘damage’ former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s ‘credibility in the press and the court of public opinion.'”

Manifestly then, the “journalism” in this Sunday Times articles is as shoddy and unreliable as it gets. Worse, its key accusations depend on retraction-level lies.

The government accusers behind this story have a big obstacle to overcome: namely, Snowden has said unequivocally that when he left Hong Kong, he took no files with him, having given them to the journalists with whom he worked, and then destroying his copy precisely so that it wouldn’t be vulnerable as he traveled. How, then, could Russia have obtained Snowden’s files as the story claims – “his documents were encrypted but they weren’t completely secure ” – if he did not even have physical possession of them?

The only way this smear works is if they claim Snowden lied, and that he did in fact have files with him after he left Hong Kong. The Sunday Times journalists thus include a paragraph that is designed to prove Snowden lied about this, that he did possess these files while living in Moscow:

Story: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowden-files-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/

[Octafish]

1. Mighty Wurlitzer

The Big Shots at Corporate McPravda seem to have other priorities when it comes to "Official" news coverage:

Journalism and the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer

by Daniel Brandt
From NameBase NewsLine, No. 17, April-June 1997

EXCERPT...

OSS veteran Frank Wisner ran most of the early peacetime covert operations as head of the Office of Policy Coordination. Although funded by the CIA, OPC wasn't integrated into the CIA's Directorate of Plans until 1952, under OSS veteran Allen Dulles. Both Wisner and Dulles were enthusiastic about covert operations. By mid-1953 the department was operating with 7,200 personnel and 74 percent of the CIA's total budget.

Wisner created the first "information superhighway." But this was the age of vacuum tubes, not computers, so he called it his "Mighty Wurlitzer." The CIA's global network funded the Italian elections in 1948, sent paramilitary teams into Albania, trained Nationalist Chinese on Taiwan, and pumped money into the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the National Student Association, and the Center for International Studies at MIT. Key leaders and labor unions in western Europe received subsidies, and Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty were launched. The Wurlitzer, an organ designed for film productions, could imitate sounds such as rain, thunder, or an auto horn. Wisner and Dulles were at the keyboard, directing history.

The ethos of the fight against fascism carried over into the fight against godless communism; for these warriors, the Cold War was still a war. OSS highbrows had already embraced psychological warfare as a new social science: propaganda, for example, was divided into "black" propaganda (stories that are unattributed, or attributed to nonexistent sources, or false stories attributed to a real source), "gray" propaganda (stories from the government where the source is attributed to others), and "white" propaganda (stories from the government where the source is acknowledged as such).[1]

After World War II, these psywar techniques continued. C.D. Jackson, a major figure in U.S. psywar efforts before and after the war, was simultaneously a top executive at Time-Life. Psywar was also used with success during the 1950s by Edward Lansdale, first in the Philippines and then in South Vietnam. In Guatemala, the Dulles brothers worked with their friends at United Fruit, in particular the "father of public relations," Edward Bernays, who for years had been lobbying the press on behalf of United. When CIA puppets finally took over in 1954, only applause was heard from the media, commencing forty years of CIA-approved horrors in that unlucky country.[2] Bernays' achievement apparently impressed Allen Dulles, who immediately began using U.S. public relations experts and front groups to promote the image of Ngo Dinh Diem as South Vietnam's savior.[3]

The combined forces of unaccountable covert operations and corporate public relations, each able to tap massive resources, are sufficient to make the concept of "democracy" obsolete. Fortunately for the rest of us, unchallenged power can lose perspective. With research and analysis -- the capacity to see and understand the world around them -- entrenched power must constantly anticipate and contain potential threats. But even as power seems more secure, this capacity can be blinded by hubris and isolation.

CONTINUED...

http://www.namebase.org/news17.html

"Top Secret" doesn't trump Democracy, and it certainly doesn't trump the Constitution.

[marym625]

23. I love that! McPravda! I have been calling

M$M Pravda for a couple decades. Never thought of McPravda. Absolutely love it!

[FlatBaroque]

2. The State has credibility only in the eyes of fools and those complicit with the State's crimes

The people have already won, the State simply is unaware of that salient fact.

[zeemike]

8. Unaware or just don't care?

When power reaches it's apex they assume they are invincible.

[grasswire]

12. Snowden has won, too.

He achieved his goal so well that state efforts still continue to paint him a villain.

[FlatBaroque]

51. I think the current effort to villainize him

is a direct link to the military personnel files that were hacked. This was a major breach and the information that was lost is going to be devestating. They are going to throw dirt in our eyes and morph Snowden into the reason for damage that is to ensue.

[grasswire]

52. me too...

.....although if you read the comments at the Guardian, you will see that many Brits think this propaganda effort is response to THEIR recent report critical of their surveillance state.

[Enthusiast]

64. +1

[cantbeserious]

16. ^^^ THIS ^^^

eom

[truebluegreen]

3. Hmmm. I expect the usual suspects any minute.....

But but but.....Greenwald!

[Puglover]

4. ...

"What kind of person would read evidence-free accusations of this sort from anonymous government officials – designed to smear a whistleblower they hate – and believe them?

This. Perfect.

The answer would probably get me a hidden post.

[marym625]

21. You don't have to say it

Totally agree

[sabrina 1]

38. No need to say it, we KNOW what kind of person would do that. Greenwald is great, a real

journalist who has survived all attempts, PAID FOR BTW, to smear HIM, because the people are fed up with the lies and the attempts to destroy every decent person who tries to expose them.

Just saw another thread, seems they have deleted some of their lies.

[Scuba]

63. /\_/\_This right here_/\_/\

[Doctor_J]

87. starstruck ones?

I am afraid I don't understand the significant overlap between the BOG and the Snowden haters club.

[marmar]

5. K/R

The whole story reeked of propaganda the minute I read it. ..... And who could imagine a Rupert Murdoch-owned publication being a propaganda outfit?

[randome]

6. Says the guy who didn't understand what PRISM is.

But wanted us all to think it was something nefarious because...BECAUSE!

Greenwald never interviews anyone but his own objects of affection. He never asks the important questions of "Why" or, more importantly, "Is there any evidence this capability is being used against U.S. citizens?"

But we should believe Greenwald's insinuations because he is, after all, Greenwald.

And he quotes Snowden as his 'evidence' that the media is lying! As if Snowden couldn't possibly have an agenda!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Veldrick]

9. Or... Says the guy who told NSA Apologists that they phone dragnet was illegal

And 3 Obama-appointed judges from the 2nd Circuit agreed with him.
And the dragnet died in Congress.
And the NSA Apologists were wrong.

[Aerows]

22. Please review this information and describe how

Snowden could possibly do in the DHS and NSA worse than they did themselves.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/06/why-the-biggest-government-hack-ever-got-past-opm-dhs-and-nsa/

[randome]

33. It's not a competition, Aerows. Hacking and stealing are both wrong.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

44. You know

There is a serious coincidence here, though. All of this comes out that the NSA and DHS had the largest security breach in their history, but people are jumping on the "yell at Snowden" wagon.

Excuse me while I point out that the DHS and NSA had a fuck up of epic proportions and "ooo, squirrel" isn't going to save them.

[Enthusiast]

65. +1 You nailed it.

[marym625]

30. Yeah, believe a rag like the Sunday Murdoch Times

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026834205

[randome]

34. I don't see the need to believe anyone in this escapade.

That includes Snowden & Greenwald. But Greenwald sure implies a lot without providing context so his hyperbolic meanderings are suspect.

And even Snowden misunderstood what PRISM was used for so his technical chops are also in doubt, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[marym625]

35. The Sunday Times is being called out by many now

Just one scathing article

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/14/snowden-files-read-by-russia-and-china-five-questions-for-uk-government


Sorry, I am pretty sure Snowden understood

[randome]

42. If the story turns out to be false, it's certainly no skin off my nose.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[marym625]

43. except that

The US government is being hacked and they are blaming someone that is innocent. That should bother everyone

[JonLP24]

57. They have done it before -- Iraq in 2001

Ehud Tenenbaum

Tenenbaum was born in Hod HaSharon in 1979. He is known under the infamous hacker alias "Pink Pony". Tenenbaum became widely famous in 1998, when aged 19 years and while he was the head of a small group of hackers, he was arrested for hacking computers belonging to NASA, The Pentagon, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, the Knesset, MIT and other American and Israeli universities such as Dharma and ComTEC. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and other federally funded research sites, and the computer of Israeli President Ezer Weizman, as well as attempting to infiltrate the Israel Defense Forces' classified files. He also hacked into the computers of Palestinian terrorist groups, and claimed to have destroyed the website of Hamas.[1] Tenenbaum installed on some of the servers Packet analyzer software and Trojan horse software.[2] At the time then-US Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre insisted was "the most organized and systematic attack to date" on US military systems.[3] The military thought that they were witnessing a sophisticated Iraqi 'information warfare'.[3] In an effort to stop the supposed Iraqi hackers the United States government assembled agents from the FBI, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, NASA, the US Department of Justice, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the NSA, and the CIA.[4] The government was so worried that the warning and briefings went all the way up to the President of the United States.[5] The investigation, code-named "Solar Sunrise," eventually snared two California teenagers (screen names Mac and Stimpy[4]) and Tenenbaum, but no Iraqi infowarriors.[6][7] After their arrest, a subsequent probe led US investigators to Tenenbaum, who was arrested after Israeli police were given evidence of Tenenbaum's activities. Later, the FBI sent agents to Israel to question Tenenbaum.

Before he was sentenced, Tenenbaum served briefly in the Israel Defense Forces, but was released soon thereafter after he was involved in a traffic collision.

In 2001, Tenenbaum pleaded guilty, while stating that he wasn't attempting to infiltrate the computer systems to get a hold of secrets but rather to prove that the systems were flawed. Tenenbaum was sentenced to a year and a half in prison,[8] from which he served only 8 months following the "Deri Law". After the attack the FBI made a short 18 minutes training video called, Solar Sunrise: Dawn of a New Threat that was sold as part of hacker defense course [7] that was discontinued in September 2004.[9]

In 2003, after being freed from prison, Tenenbaum founded his own Information security company called "2XS".[10]

In September 2008, following an investigation by Canadian police and the US Secret Service, Tenenbaum and three accomplices were arrested in Montreal. Tenenbaum was charged with six counts of Credit card fraud, in the sum of approx. US$1.5 million.[11] U.S. investigators suspected Tenenbaum of being part of a scam, in which the hackers penetrated financial institutions around the world to steal credit card numbers. They then sold these numbers to other people, who used them to perpetrate massive credit card fraud.[12] He was later extradited to the United States to stand trial,[13] and was in the custody of the US Marshals for more than a year. In August 2010, he was released on bond after agreeing to plead guilty.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Tenenbaum

I'm starting to believe intelligence is as foolish & naive as they appear to be.

[marym625]

60. Thank you for this

I recalled something but couldn't remember what. This is what the movie with Matthew Brodrick was based on.

And they had no proof of his supposed crimes either.

Look what they did to Daniel Ellisberg (I'm sure that I am getting the last name wrong. I'm tired)

The government wants control and they don't care how they get it.

By the way, the 20th is a big protest day to free Jeremy Hammond

[JonLP24]

59. You know it does say the US government is guilty of having a plan

against Russia & China because it may be paranoia.

[marym625]

61. considering Hillary speech yesterday,

I have no doubt.

[OilemFirchen]

50. My ole J-School traing sez this story is likely bullshit.

That's the same training which I use religiously when summarily rejecting the bulk of Greenwald's "journalism".

Bogus story + Greenwald finger-wagging = comedy gold. Factor in a possible Hersh tome and we've got a classic farce.

[Aerows]

45. When you actually criticize the DHS and NSA

for the incompetence they displaced in the Form 86 hack, I'll take you seriously.

Directly criticize them. Say "The DHS and NSA displayed phenomenal, egregious incompetence".

[randome]

74. Every corporation, every government organization gets hacked at some point.

So are they all incompetent?

Yes, they can be viewed as incompetent but technology is so complex that no one can be 100% secure. The Internet wants to be secure and yet open to the world -two diametrically opposed ideals.

With the current systems in place, hacking is inevitable. We need a new paradigm for information transport but I don't know what that might be.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[bemildred]

75. Some of us think that is a good reason to not put important stuff on the web at all.

The dumbfuckery comes in deciding that putting all that stuff out where anybody can try to steal it is sound policy. It is not. Important stuff must be protected, not placed out by the curb.

[randome]

78. Yet no matter how often these systems fail, we still expect them to be bullet-proof.

Amazing, isn't it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[bemildred]

79. I don't. I expect them to fail in exactly the ways they do.

Only the most miniscule part of all software can be said to have no bugs, and none can be said to be secure in an arbitrary running environment, which all commercial software must make some allowance for. You cannot maximize profit and security both.

[Aerows]

85. That wasn't even a good tap dance, Randome

You are incapable of criticizing the DHS or the NSA.

Now, what do you think that would lead people to think about you?

Randome, once again proving you do have a dog in this show!

[randome]

88. Now you're just getting NASTY. I CAN DANCE!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

37. The initial Guardian/Times/Reuter/Murdoch story makes utterly no sense.

All it takes is a logical mind to decipher the circular reasoning and lies in it.

It is a conclusion pulled out of thin air. It draws together names and thoughts from random news articles and attempts to knit them together into some sort of shapeless afghan. It's a joke of an attempt at propaganda.

The Chinese captured our poorly hidden in plain view personnel files for intelligence and other government employees, and the bureaucrats who are supposed to be securing and protecting the information in those files are trying to deflect attention from their incompetency onto someone, something, somewhere. And who pops into their rear-view mirrors but Edward Snowden who has been sitting timidly, hopefully, harmlessly in Russia for how long now?

Randome, the real spies sell the stuff they steal. Snowden gave it away to the public. And he did it carefully so as to hide its secrets from the Chinese and the Russians and others who would use it to gain power for themselves.

If Snowden had wanted to give the information to the Chinese and Russians for any reason, whether for money or for ideology, he would not have wanted the public and the US government to know that he had taken the information. He just would have disappeared and left his laptops and his flash drives behind and found a nice cozy cabin on a beach somewhere.

Snowden believes in the US Constitution. That's the only possible reason he could have done what he did.

If there was a leak, it wasn't Snowden's leak. There may be some other leaker that provided the keys to this information to the Chinese and the Russians, but there is almost no chance it was Snowden although he is no doubt increasingly frustrated with his exile in Russia.

If the US had been smart, it would have made a deal with Snowden allowing him to go to some South American resort and live quietly without making any public statements following his initial revelations. They could have spent the time and money they spent on trying to humiliate and isolate him on securing the personal information of their government personnel and we would all be better off.

Snowden's revelations were his response to the crimes, the violations of the Constitution that he witnessed. He is a patriot at least in his own mind if not in yours. He was not and is not the profile of a spy.

Our government has had enough spies in it, and they usually give away information either for money or out of a grudge or out of the belief that they are helping humanity by assisting some other country. Snowden's goal was to alert the world to the vulnerability of information on the internet.

The Chinese and Russian hacking prove Snowden's point: information that is neatly organized and categorized and placed in electronic form is not secure. Old fashioned 3 x 5 cards, now, if you make copies and don't organize them alphabetically, they are secure. But of course, you can never find the information you need unless you can remember where you put it.

Anyway, this story is a non-starter. The Chinese and Russian hacks are the just the inevitable reality of computers. Sooner or later somebody gets a bigger computer that eats and sorts and digests and organizes and deciphers the hidden data in the smaller computer. That's all this story is about.

[JonLP24]

58. We don't know who did any hacks

Probably organized crimes or criminals, that's usually who do the attacks and they pick targets like this. More often banks.

Politically, it has a lot of advantages to point the finger at Russia or China but whoever did it I hope gets caught so we know who did it

[sabrina 1]

39. You must have missed where he wiped the floor with Corporate media tools. But hey, no problem the

rest of us are watching. They are now afraid to interview him. Can't say I blame them.

The media does nothing BUT lie. No wonder their ratings are so low a good OP here probably gets more views.

[Marr]

46. Give it up. The smear campaigns failed resoundingly. /nt

[rhett o rick]

55. I think your rejection of whistle-blowers is a problem of authoritarianism.

Choose an authority figure and blindly follow them. Choose Gen Clapper and destroy those that dare to speak out.

[randome]

81. Clapper is hardly someone to look up to. Not one to think on his feet, obviously.

Sorry, I don't have any authority figure in mind when I say that Snowden is a disaffected worker bee who dreamed of being a hero.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

91. So it's just Snowden and not all whistle-blowers? nm

[randome]

92. A list (not comprehensive) of whistleblowers from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers

Plenty of whistleblowers to admire there that didn't give national security information away to corporate media personnel.

In the end, none of us knows who is right or wrong -or a little of both- so we just go on our feelings. Snowden does not at all strike me as heroic, but more of a quietly bitter cube-dweller who wanted to be a hero.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

93. That's a great non-answer. He wasn't the first to point the finger at our secret Black State

Security State. And if he didn't do it someone else would. I bet you'd find something wrong with all of them.

[JonLP24]

56. You know last night I wanted to know exactly what Snowden at the very moment

because what is the evidence. It is pretty remarkable to say someone else got hacked and you know by who.,

[JonLP24]

62. Did you see Citizen 4?

He definitely did take Greenwald's computer, slap something to the side, put the blanket over his head did something and gave it back to him.

Haha knew the 1.7 million claim was a lie (a true believer showed it to me last night). It had to be coming from a DoD source.

[randome]

82. It's not a lie if that's the best estimate they could come up with.

And they already said they couldn't be sure how much he stole so...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[KittyWampus]

7. Greenwald talking about journalism at its worst… the irony meter

explodes.

[Veldrick]

10. Pulitzer vs. Anonymous dude nt

[LiberalLovinLug]

32. Oh snap

[sabrina 1]

40. No better prize winning journalist to rip the Corporate media shills to ribbons, which he has done

since the Bush era. No matter how much money they spent, and they did as we know, to try to smear him, he not only survived their Security Contract smear campaign, it only made THEM look like what they are, the bad guys.

But I'm interested, what have you disagreed with Greenwald about? Was he wrong about Bush, wrong when they were caught spying on the American people, remember that? Or did you believe the Corporate media's version of their crimes?

[Enthusiast]

66. +1 a huge bunch!

[rhett o rick]

54. And who is your media hero, Andrea Mitchell? nm

[Exilednight]

68. I was going to suggest Judith Miller.

[rhett o rick]

69. It's easy to criticize progressive media outlets and journalists, but much harder

to explain who they like or follow.

[Cryptoad]

11. Greenwald hitched his wagon to a Shit Wagon

Now he lost all his credibility like everybody that supports Comrade Snowden!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

13. He hasn't lost any credibility, much as you might like it to be so.

Now the professional liars in government--they and their hangers-on have deservedly lost credibility.

[marym625]

20. +100

[Enthusiast]

67. +1

[grasswire]

14. guffaw

ridiculous

[Comrade Grumpy]

15. Can you point to any actual facts in the London Times story?

Speaking of credibility...

[sabrina 1]

41. Lol, just who did he lose credibility with? Prize winning journalist, backed Snowden, who has now

been completely vindicated, see court ruling and sunsetting of PA eg.

So who are these entities that don't like him? I KNOW who they are but wondering who YOU think they are?

[cui bono]

48. No, people who use the term "Comrade Snowden" are the ones who've lost all credibility.

No substance, all name calling.

GG is right. Snowden was right.

Thanks to patriots like Snowden people are talking about the govt's overreach.

[Marr]

72. +1

[mountain grammy]

17. So I watched face the nation this morning

because Bernie Sanders was on, followed by Lindsay Graham. Bernie was solid, as always, and Lindsay was a war monger. I can't remember the last time I watched this show, but the sponsors are "the people of the oil and gas industry."
Could be why I stopped watching.

[SoapBox]

18. blah, blah, blah

Go back to South America.

[frylock]

26. very insightful

[marym625]

19. K&R!

Not that common sense or Glenn Greenwald will change the minds of people who just want to hang Snowden

[LittleBlue]

24. The media merely reprints anything they're told

No pesky fact checking. Interstingly, the fact-checking in Britain is generally poor, sometimes not at all. Their standard are much lower than most major US papers.

[SidDithers]

25. Shorter Greenwald: Leave Snowden Alone!!...

Oh, and welcome to DU.

Sid

[Veldrick]

27. Shorter Sunday Times: No one has been harmed, but there's blood in Snowden's hands!

By the way, whose blood is it that the article refers to?

[Luminous Animal]

28. And the Times, just quietly deleted one of its key claims.

No retraction. Just simply deleted it…

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/610116225436360706

[xocet]

36. Thanks for posting that. There is nary a Perryesque "Ooops!" to betray their shoddy journalism. n/t

[Marr]

73. That deserves it's own post.

So blatant.

[Dr. Strange]

102. And on top of that...

they sent a DMCA takedown notice to try to censor him.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150615/09463331342/news-corp-sends-dmca-notice-over-glenn-greenwald-trashing-sunday-times-ridiculous-snowden-story.shtml

[pa28]

29. Why would anybody take Rupert Murdoch's word for anything?

As elite consensus and public opinion turn in favor of Ed Snowden he can expect more smear jobs like this one.

[LiberalLovinLug]

31. And of course this thread is littered with the usual gang of frightened nobs.

"By definition, authoritarians reflexively believe official claims – no matter how dubious or obviously self-serving, even when made while hiding behind anonymity – because that’s how their submission functions."

Its how their submission functions. I almost feel sorry for them. If they weren't helping to propagate and pile on the lie and smear campaign on Mr. Snowden.

But I'm sure they read the whole article and have ruminated on it thoroughly, as evidenced in an example of one of their brilliant synopsis: "blah blah blah".



Thanks for posting this. There needs to be more real journalists calling out the increasingly sold out government stenographers of their peer group. The Stephen Colbert quote was priceless.

[Babel_17]

47. So sadly predictable how some outlets lap up their spoon fed pablum (nt)

[99Forever]

49. Of course they lied. It's all they know and do.

[Exilednight]

70. Look at who we are talking about. It's the job of the CIA and MI6 to spread false

Propaganda.

[99Forever]

71. Exactly.

Why anyone would take the things they say at face value, is beyond me.

[JonLP24]

53. People are going to slam Greenwald for pointing out the obvious

I give up.

[Thinkingabout]

76. Snowden destroyed his credibility by not telling the truth, stealing and can't seem to produce a

consistent statement. He violated the Fourth amendment rights of the citizens of the US by accessing files without a warrant. He apparently thought he had the knowledge and ability to take the files outside of NSA, he is not an expert on transporting information in which he tried to do.

[sabrina 1]

77. You have that backwards, and there is court ruling now that says you could not be more wrong.

Not to mention the sunsetting of the Bush Patriot Act that made the violations of OUR 4th Amendment Rights possible by OUR GOVERNMENT.

Snowden has been vindicated and as was predicted from the beginning, will be viewed as a hero by future generations.

Rupert Murdoch's rags are not exactly credible sources and this feeble attack on Snowden will only increase the growing support for him and ALL Whistleblowers who are so essential to retaining any democracy.

[Thinkingabout]

80. the Patriot Act was changed in 2008 and warrants was issued. What Patriot Act was Snowden using

when he accessed the records in the NSA, the Snowden Patriot Act? Where is Snowden's warrants? The Bush administration violated the Fourth amendment, it did not make it right for Snowden to do the same. Did the DOJ have a trial for Snowden?

Also, when Snowden was speaking in interviews it was not Murdoch's rags. You may continue to hold Snowden as a hero, he will remain as a zero by future generations.

[sabrina 1]

83. You don't seem to understand 'Whistle Blowing' so there is no point in trying to explain it to you.

Nor do you appear to understand the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution which in no way even mentions 'group warrants' on millions of people. That is what third world Dictatorships argue. If the 'fix' you speak of is to your liking, all I can say is thank the gods for our Judicial System which while knocked on its heels by the Bush gang, is still functioning enough to smack down that 'fix' and thereby vindicating, not just one Whistle Blower, Snowden, but all the others before him who also tried to warn the people but were silenced and persecuted for their efforts.

Snowden taking a lesson from his heroic predecessors took a different route and was more successful in getting the warning out to the American people.

As I said, history will view him as a hero, actually it is already the case, that a majority of the American people now support his actions.

[Thinkingabout]

90. The warrants was issued to the providers of services, not to millions of people. The records was

property of the providers, not to the millions of users of the service.

[sabrina 1]

95. We know what it was. So don't try to convince anyone who understands our rights under

the US Constitution that the twisted logic of the Bush/Cheney gang was ever or will ever be acceptable and is not, as the court has now established.

The 4th Amendment has not been altered in any from its clear statement of the rights of every individual American.

The made up garbage of those who so severely violated the Constitution and their oaths of office, which require only thing thing, that they defend and protect the Constitution of the US, was, is and always will be a CRIME.

I would stop trying to defend them if I were you. We are in an historical moment right now where finally, those dark days when the propaganda ruled are showing signs of becoming just that, a very dark period in our history.

Airc, they used the same twisted logic to try to defend torture also! That too will have to be addressed LEGALLY one day.

[Thinkingabout]

96. Since you understand the Fourth Amendment then you know Snowden violated our rights by

accessing records without a warrant. It is possible the issues will be addressed one day legally. Why do you bring up Bush/Cheney now, Snowden did his deal in 2013, after they had left office. I am not defending Bush, I have stated several times he was getting information without the proper warrants, it does not excuse Snowden doing the same, when are you going to cease defending Snowden violating our Fourth amendment rights? I don't have to fall on the side of defending a person who has committed crimes.

[LiberalLovinLug]

84. Keep digging

"Also, when Snowden was speaking in interviews it was not Murdoch's rags"

EXACTLY. So from which source to you rely on? (Rhetorical question).

Its appalling that you'd actually demonize the one man's revelations about civil rights privacy abuses....instead of those doing the massive amount of abusing. That one man's one time technical "thievery" is far far worse than the ongoing thievery by YOUR government of your private correspondence. And that in helping to add your voice to this demonization, you give support and credibility to the NSA's overreach into your private life and an excuse to continue on.

[Thinkingabout]

89. When he speaks, changes his story the next time he speaks, changes his story again, I sure can not

rely on the Snowden source. It was not the Murdoch or any other source than Snowden, he lost creditability himself.

It is appalling anyone believes privacy abuses was revealed by Snowden, I heard Bush telling the phone call records in 2006, so he did not reveal the abuses to me, I already knew, the Patriot Act was changed and the new rules was followed in 2008 and then Snowden "reveals" this in 2013. Doesn't add up, he was almost 5 years behind. Do you support Snowden's overreach into private lives? I don't, he did not get a warrant, he violated my Fourth amendment rights. Just because Snowden decided it was okay to violate the rights of citizens of the US does not make this right. Furthermore, Snowden did not have the expertise to transport records.

[LiberalLovinLug]

94. So YOU knew for sure even though an authoritiy figure in charge said the opposite?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/27/1227008/-Clapper-Admits-He-Lied-to-Congress-in-Letter-Posted-by-Senator-Wyden

On March 12th, 2013, during a United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, Senator Ron Wyden asked Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper the following question:

Wyden: "Yes or no - Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or
hundreds of millions of Americans?"

Clapper: "No sir."

Wyden: "It does not?"

Clapper: "Not wittingly."


And after Snowden called him out publically on lying, he admits he lied and in a letter to Senator Wyden starts it with:

"he begins his letter to Wyden by stating, "It is highly unfortunate that the collection of telephony metadata was revealed through an unauthorized disclosure."
before going on to admit mass collections of phone and internet communication of Americans.



Just because YOU in your infinite wisdom and inside sources, knew everything all along, the majority of American people were not informed, and their only source of news was the corporate MSM that never questioned or inquired fully. It was a watershed moment in American history. Too bad you are on the wrong side.

[Thinkingabout]

97. Snowden changed his story more than once, which story do you believe?

You want to bring up Clapper, why not say Snowden lied.

I don't know how many did or did not listen to Bush when he gave this information in 2006. I don't who did or did not listen when the Patriot Act was changed and warrants was obtained. BTW, I did not have inside sources but I happen to listen, perhaps not the same news sources as you do but I do listen to network news sources and read news papers. Why do you think so many people fails to receive information when it is readily available.

[LiberalLovinLug]

98. Why?

Why do people fail to receive information? Good question. It has a lot to do with muddying the waters. The MSM is great at it. But I also highly suspected the Bush administration was illegally wiretapping more people than they admitted to. Because I'm a news junky.

But even for me, "highly suspected" is not the same as "caught red-handed". If you cannot understand the dynamic difference there then I give up.

And you are comparing whatever smears they have tried to dredge up on Snowden about lying...his wages, his access (which if he was lying about you should be relieved). Any and all accusation have nothing to do with the fact that we both agree...Snowden took secret files from his job. Whatever else he lied about or didn't lie about are not the STORY. Just stop with the personal smears, it doesn't work on those of us that value WHAT he did 100x more than WHO did it.

Clapper on the other hand was being paid by you, and was in a high position of authority. By that very fact his lies hold a vast amount more weight.

Its impossible talking to someone that does not understand what a whistleblower is, or their value to society, as Sabrina pointed out.

[Thinkingabout]

99. When I am listening to Snowdens speaking I do not consider these as msm. Now back to my question

which set of lies do you believe. He is the one telling different stories, his interviews have been aired, it is at a person claiming to be Snowden.

[LiberalLovinLug]

103. What lies?

So far you haven't told me anything. I even did some of your work for you last post and googled up articles that purported him lying. Hence his claims about his salary came up, which I don't think is relevant, and also his access not being as deep as he claimed. But it was deep enough to take the damning documents, so I don't understand that criticism either.

But shoot away...what big lies, from this one single American citizen are so much more terrible than your own government lying to you about the extent of their surveillance on you.

I googled a page of his quotes. Maybe you can find one in there:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/27-edward-snowden-quotes-about-u-s-government-spying-that-should-send-a-chill-up-your-spine/5338714

Here's the first four, there are 23 more listed:

#1 “The majority of people in developed countries spend at least some time interacting with the Internet, and Governments are abusing that necessity in secret to extend their powers beyond what is necessary and appropriate.”

#2 “…I believe that at this point in history, the greatest danger to our freedom and way of life comes from the reasonable fear of omniscient State powers kept in check by nothing more than policy documents.”

#3 “The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to.”

#4 “…I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”

[Thinkingabout]

104. He has changed his story about his responsibilities, etc, I doubt even if Snowden told you directly

he had been lying it would be believable by many. I don't have a dog in this fight, I see him as he is, he is not a hero but a zero. He lied when he accepted employment in the NSA, where did he get the formal authority to steal the files, where is his warrant to access files, these are questions especially those so interested in privacy should be asking. I doubt he ever returns to the US, he has chosen his fate, even if he received bad advice, it is still his fate. don't like a thief, I don't like a liar.

Talking government lying I know this happens, also, lying has also happened in this case by Snowden.

[LiberalLovinLug]

105. Ok this is the last reply

No links or any backing to you claims of his lying....BUT, If that is true, cannot you see that that only proves we must stop the government's haphazard and disrespectful attitude towards individual American's privacy rights? That one of the by-products from their massive spying scope results in showing they have few qualms and would hire out a private third party company who are so lackadaisical with their security checks to allow Snowden, or even someone else with more sinister aims, be able to take your files? That having such a contempt for citizens privacy would have continued without this revelation? And that Snowden at the very least put a spotlight on the issue and forced them to address it?

You continually blame the messenger. Or "they both lie". So all lies are the equally damning to you? Someone can lie and tell a friend they haven't seen in a long time, that has aged badly... "you look good". A person can lie about his qualifications to land a job. Or a whole government can lie about not invading your personal correspondence. Its all the same? I'll agree to disagree.

And thievery? He stole evidence from the scene of the crime. He didn't have a warrant, no, but by doing so, he may have helped stop the government from continuing its massive stealing without millions of warrants for years to come. Once again, there are different levels of "stealing", IMO. We'll agree to disagree on this as well.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

86. Snowden has never been caught lying. Never.

Got a different premise to try?

[Aerows]

100. And now there is a story

that the Pentagon destroyed evidence in the Thomas Drake case (whistleblower), too.

Clear evidence that they will fabricate anything to discredit whistleblowers so that they can continue with the corruption and incompetence.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

101. I want names.

A bipartisan group of Washington lawmakers

Who are these propagandists?