Greenwald: Why the CIA Is Smearing Edward Snowden After Paris Attacks (latimes.com)

JoeyRox points out that Glenn Greenwald has some harsh words for the CIA in an op-ed piece for the LA Times. From the article: "Decent people see tragedy and barbarism when viewing a terrorism attack. American politicians and intelligence officials see something else: opportunity. Bodies were still lying in the streets of Paris when CIA operatives began exploiting the resulting fear and anger to advance long-standing political agendas. They and their congressional allies instantly attempted to heap blame for the atrocity not on Islamic State but on several preexisting adversaries: Internet encryption, Silicon Valley's privacy policies and Edward Snowden."

Comments

CIA IS Right Wing

[JimSadler]

Sadly the CIA is right wing as is the military, industrial complex. The one thing we know about the right wing is that they lie and lie and lie. For the CIA job security and advancement, all are related to seeing supposed, great threats to the US. If no threat exists they will create one. Further, wars make some people a lot of money when there are active conflicts,

Re:Because the CIA is evil.

[ScentCone]

Do you mean waterboarding? The very same technique to which thousands of US military people have subjected themselves during routine training? That sort of thing?

And "behind the Irag invasions" ... what? Do you meant the invasion conducted by dozens of allies following Saddam's attempt to take over Kuwait? Or do you mean the follow-up invasion that occurred because Saddam never met any of his obligations following the cease-fire has his invasion was pushed back, and as he continued to fire on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over the territories occupied by the ethnic minorities he'd been systematically killing with air strikes and WMD's? Silly me, of course you know all of that, and you're just a cowardly anonymous troll out to re-write history and, as a another lying little lefty, trying to distract everyone from the fact that the party you want in power will be run by Hillary Clinton, who saw all the same intelligence and supported (through her own votes and vocal support) both the original conflict and the second one that completed it. Hint: people actually pay attention, so just lying about it doesn't actually change history.

Re:Smearing?

[Coren22]

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

So, are you saying that he is not adhering to Russia, or giving aid and comfort to any of the US's enemies? I am not sure of the definition of adhering in this context, but it is quite easy to see how exposing the methods used to spy would be giving aid to the US's enemies, it after all led directly to Crimea being invaded and annexed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...