Slashdot Mirror
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."
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel
Aren't politics grand? Gotta further an agenda while the corpses are still warm. (You lose impact any other way, you see.) /s
Except for the one in the Constitution, which would be, y'know, the legal one in his case.
How are they smearing him, again? He's a traitor by any definition. He's lucky to not be executed.
Nice try CIA.
When Russia told the US about the Boston Marathon bombers?
When a flight instructor told the US about people who wanted to fly planes, but not land them before 9/11?
We have replaced credible human intelligence with signals intelligence. Making the hay stack bigger only makes the needles harder to find.
How are they smearing him, again? He's a traitor by any definition. He's lucky to not be executed.
Through false accusations, thats how. Did he break the law? Yes. The paris attacks were proven to have no relation to encryption. Smear him if you will, but smear him with what crimes he ACTUALLY committed.
Some people are too lazy to know right from wrong, so they let the state dictate morality for them. These people are going to hell.
By any objective standard, Snowden has been right on all accounts and the Empire has nothing to say except "TRAITOR!"
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
The level of manipulation of Big Media in the United States is shocking and should alarm anyone. The "news" was filled with stories about how there's now suddenly a big debate about encryption and how Silicon Valley is in the hot seat. Really?!? Completely manufactured bullshit brought to you by the oligarchy which very tightly controls Big Media, controls what the agenda is (and is not), and works overtime to manipulate the public to further its agenda of greed.
Thank God Glen Greenwald pointed this out. I guess that's one thing I'm truly thankful for on this day!
Are you being serious?
Let's assume for a moment, that you aren't being a blatant troll here. With that in mind, here's why it is a smear.
1) The paris terrorists did not use encryption at all--
2) The French government, and the US government already had people warning them about the impending attacks.
3) Snowden's leaks centered around *ILLEGAL* intelligence gathering practices, and his leaks were carefully sanitized and redacted by reporters with journalistic integrity.
4) Unless you think Russia is somehow behind the paris attacks, there is nothing that ties Snowden with said attacks-- and even that is just supposition. (There is shit little Snowden has given Russia besides PR.)
The only connection here is that Snowden drew attention to the US's (and its allies') use of illegal data collection for intelligence purposes, which gave the US a black eye, (and a much needed one at that.) and the administrators behind those illegal data collection practices want to try to assert (falsely) that they could have stopped the paris attack, if it hadn't been for that meddling kid-- Erhm-- Edward Snowden.
This is bullshit-- as again, the terrorists were using unencrypted channels of communication, AND were already known about by intelligence agents/agencies-- who already knew the attack was going to happen.
So, why didn't they stop it? Oh-- yeah-- Because Edward Snowden somehow used whistleblower black magic to somehow make it so they couldnt act on the intelligence they had already collected.... Somehow.
All that said-- Seriously, go troll somewhere else.
A new study from the University of Iowa finds that once people reach a conclusion, they aren’t likely to change their minds, even when new information shows their initial belief is likely wrong and clinging to that belief costs real money.
Traitor in the sense that he betrayed the various agencies involved in espionage, sure.
Traitor to the American people, and to a large extent citizens of the free nations of the world, that is an open question.
Unfortunately, it will remain an open question because there is virtually no possibility of him receiving a fair and open trial. Even if we ignore all of the cries for his execution, the laws that he allegedly broke ensure that he is tried by parties associated with the prosecution.
Go fuck yourself, you boot-licking scumbag. Snowden is a hero who told the American people about billions of felonies committed against us every day.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Because the CIA is fucking evil. Next question?
Seriously, the CIA is responsible for the creation of Al Qaeda as a threat to America, you're welcome for 9/11. Then the CIA was responsible for torturing people and provoking new terrorist recruitment, running the drone killing campaign which spawns ten terrorists for every one it kills, and now we have ISIS which is a result of W. Bush's stupid illegal invasion of Iraq, which HIS OWN FATHER warned him would happen. But Bush and the CIA people annoyed his father didn't do it went ahead anyway, and look where we are now.
That he hurry the Intel community isn't the point either. He showed them to be lying to Congress and operating illegally.
4) Unless you think Russia is somehow behind the paris attacks, there is nothing that ties Snowden with said attacks-- and even that is just supposition. (There is shit little Snowden has given Russia besides PR.)
I posted before, Assange advised Snowden to go to Russia, and ignore concerns about the “negative PR consequences” of sheltering in Russia because it was one of the few places in the world where the CIA’s influence did not reach.. Snowden himself, chose Latin America, but the consequences proved that Assange is right:
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/e...
The story, by Greg Miller, recounts daily meetings with senior officials from the FBI, CIA, and State Department, all desperately trying to come up with ways to capture Snowden. One official told Miller: “We were hoping he was going to be stupid enough to get on some kind of airplane, and then have an ally say: ‘You’re in our airspace. Land.’ ” He wasn’t. And since he disappeared into Russia, the US seems to have lost all trace of him.
Bolivian President Aircraft was forced to take off for searching Snowden.
Since when have any of those people really cared about what the Constitution says?
...including "Silicon Valley's privacy policies" in the list of pet peeves for the CIA/NSA. In fact, Silicon Valley IT giants have a steady stream of revenue from providing services to assist the NSA in their private personal data trawling. It's just business. The public rhetoric is simply PR and marketing to keep their share prices up. None of the IT giants are proposing anything that would actually prevent the NSA from bulk data collection and accessing their data warehouses, security certificates, and encryption keys. The greatest facilitators in the most intrusive and pervasive surveillance programme in history are the IT giants themselves. Let's not forget that.
You mean he exposed the real traitors to the US constitution, AKA the US intelligence services?
If you live to be 500, you will never, ever be half the hero and patriot that Edward Snowden is.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And that's probably why Glenn Greenwald hasn't suffered a "fatal accident". Because he, along with Snowden, Poitras and others, have probably created a "dead man's switch" that releases everything if any of them die in suspicious circumstances.
That's what I'd do, anyway.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The comments on the article make for depressing reading. People seem to have swallowed the horror stories about encryption hook, line and sinker.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
They care a great deal about what the constitution says. The problem is that they don't seem to care what the constitution means.
Snowed himself has called that idea a "suicide switch". It would be idiotic. It means that anyone who wants those documents merely has to kill him, and boom, instant access to the whole deal.
He'd be a moron to do that, given how many non-US actors would quite literally kill to have that material.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> No relation to encryption isn't an issue. He attacked his country's intelligence services, at a bad time it turns out.
He exposed criminal behavior, both in the US and worldwide, and the waste of millions if not billions of dollars of intelligence efforts aimed at completely innocent people. Because it's proven so very fruitless, it was and remains a good idea to expose it.
Found it.
<title>Slashdot: news for nerds, stuff that matters</title>.
My second sixpack got in the way of my original whiney witty comment, however.
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
Which also gives the US incentive to make sure that nobody hurts a hair on his head.
Either way, I don't think Snowden's even been in control of those archives for years. There's a reason he turned them over to journalists and kept them somewhere that's even out of his own reach.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, only spelling mistake. ...", but I was distracted when quoting from the news paper, only recognized after I posted.
I intent to write phrase "takeoff from Moscow", then I think it is not necessary. It would be "... aircraft was forced to land
Nice to see someone unafraid to speak the truth, especially someone involved with the media.
Too bad he'll die in a tragic accident very soon and/or be completely discredited and/or found guilty of being in posession of child porn or illegal drugs or other contraband, and everything he had to say denied as false.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
So you think that dangerous and criminal enemies of the constitution should not be hurt at all but protected from the results of their despicable acts? Is that what you are saying?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You have obviously not the least clue how this works.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I read the summary of the book, and pretty much, it says that Snowden hurt the western alliance because it showed how the US was spying on its allies. That's like saying BLM activists are hurting race relations in the US by showing how often police actually murder black people who are doing nothing wrong. You're blaming the wrong actor. IOW, perhaps if we weren't spying on Angela Merkel, she wouldn't be pissed that we were spying on her. Only morons believe that secrets will stay secret forever.
Back in the day, before this sig-int shit got so big that everything else suffocates under it, back in the day, people in intelligence agencies had to read (and understand) newspapers, compile reports about articles, people, developments.
That also required a certain level of "intelligence", of course. Which means "able to think".
These days, it looks like that is actually a disqualification...
Why is this worrysome?
Because ISIS is real. And currently, the strategy to defeat them seems to be to get more brutal, more ruthless, more lethal with them. It's a "race to the bottom" we can't win - or only, if we turn ourselves into something that looks very similar to the enemy we want to win over.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
What he's done is illegal, and he has been charged. (Whether or not it was a good thing is a separate question) It is not, however, treason, which is the only crime defined in the Constitution and is defined quite narrowly.