Skip to main content

View Diary: To my fellow Obamab*ts - Snowden/Greenwald bashing is Missing the Point (318 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Does revealing recruiting operations in... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban, Onomastic

    Russia, China, etc. actually constitute "whistleblowing"?

    I suppose you might if you think that the US is the nexus of pure evil and its intelligence capabilities should be destroyed for the good of mankind, but otherwise, revealing details like that goes way beyond the bounds of whistleblowing, I think.

    Now, the news outlets that have published his material have tried to be careful to redact information that might lead to intelligence personal getting exposed and put in danger.   The elephant in the room question though is who else has access or could gain access to this material, and can we trust them? The fact that the Independent published a story based on Snowden documents, but which did not come from Snowden himself is evidence that Snowden and the news outlets he provided access to  are not in complete control of the documents that he stole.  Now Greenwald, accused the Independent of being in cahoots with the UK government and that they leaked the material to them, but I think that's bullshit (the Independent is a center-left paper and the story did the UK government no favors).  Far more likely I think is that the documents are also in the hands of Wikileaks, particularly given that organization's participation in getting him over to Russia. My guess is that their "insurance" file dump of a few weeks ago contained Snowden material.  A previous such "insurance" file was compromised in 2011 by a wikileaks employee. I suspected something similar happened here, and that's how the Independent got access to the material.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    by richardak on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:36:18 PM PDT

    •  Where did the Guardian reveal those details? (13+ / 0-)

      Like the Assange Cables wikileaks dump, the newspapers have talked to the intelligence agencies, and been very careful not to compromise any agents in the field.

      The Fall of the House of Murdoch -with Eric Lewis and all the latest Leveson evidence out now!

      by Brit on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:39:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did you even read past the first sentence? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christin, duhban

        Quoting myself...

        Now, the news outlets that have published his material have tried to be careful to redact information that might lead to intelligence personal getting exposed and put in danger.

        The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

        by richardak on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:09:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is a big concern that I have with this (8+ / 0-)

        whole thing, though, tbh.

        It seems increasingly clear that Snowden has information that could expose very valid intelligence operations against hostile governments, organized crime syndicates, terrorist organizations, etc.

        I do fear this getting into the wrong hands and I fear that Snowden may have given this info out to too many people already.

        Like Julian Assange, for example, who has not exactly proven himself to be super careful with releasing information.

        That Article in the Independent is a good example of information leaking that shouldn't be leaking, imo.  Intelligence gathering in the Middle East actually probably is one of the things that our intelligence agencies absolutely should be doing and this kind of info being leaked has the potential to cause serious harm.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:20:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't disagree (10+ / 0-)

          But I wouldn't be surprised if some of that intel was deliberately leaked by MI6 to discredit the whole Guardian operation. A bit tin foil hat. But the dangers of disclosure are always cooked up. Yet to see the evils of the Manning wikileaks dump live up to the doom sayers.

          The Fall of the House of Murdoch -with Eric Lewis and all the latest Leveson evidence out now!

          by Brit on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:23:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hehe. Not sure if MI6 is that smart. I was (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Brit, mmacdDE, duhban, stevemb

            interrogated by MI5 once for completely ridiculous reasons and the guy in charge of the unit wasn't exactly the brightest bulb in the house.  If the MI6 is anything like them....

            Manning's leaks were mostly old stuff and related to an ending war, though, while these Snowden files are very up to date and seem to involve a lot stuff that is actually very sensitive and relevant to current intelligence operations.

            All I can say is that I hope Snowden isn't going crazy with the women in Russia, because I can pretty much guarantee that the FSB will be using the KGB's old methods of employing beautiful agents to spend time with the visitor.  

            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

            by Lawrence on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:15:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  An alternate theory (7+ / 0-)

            A commenter to The Independent speculates

            I have just worked out who the source might really be.

            The Independent confirms in an interview w/ Al Arabiya that Snowden himself had nothing to do with it. But affirm the source is Snowden's archive and denying they are a stooge or dupe. Leaving the question of where they got it.

            Let me build up: On august 2, Süddeutsche Zeitung published a piece naming and shaming some telecom providers.

            They published another today. Apparently UK has access to oodles of fiber.

            http://international.sueddeutsche.De/...

            And the Independent's piece is about fiber.

            Seems like the chain is Snowden-> Süddeutsche Zeitung -> Independent (direct or through a third party)

            So the independent likely has a few documents on GCHQ fiber access that the Germans weren't going to publish, not the whole shebang.

            So no second Snowden it seems.

            http://www.independent.co.uk/...

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:43:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes I read Süddeutsche Zeitung (6+ / 0-)

              Good piece about how six cable companies have been paid to allow access

              The Fall of the House of Murdoch -with Eric Lewis and all the latest Leveson evidence out now!

              by Brit on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:47:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for that... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Onomastic, Catte Nappe, stevemb

              That seems like a logical progression, and makes a lot more sense than Greenwald's CT smear of the Independent.

              That said, whether it came from that route or the way I posited (Wikileaks) the potential problem is still the same - control over the documents by people with sensitivity is discretion towards security issues is lost and the damaging beans get spilled. The more the documents are shared (with or without Snowden's consent) the more likely that's going to happen. Hell, it probably becomes inevitable.

              The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

              by richardak on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:53:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I think Snowden should be the least of your (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stevemb

          concerns once you found out how easily your government could be hacked, don't you think?

    •  You need to learn the definition of "fact." (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lunachickie, 3goldens, Dianna
      The fact that the Independent published a story based on Snowden documents, but which did not come from Snowden himself is evidence that Snowden and the news outlets he provided access to  are not in complete control of the documents that he stole.  
      That's not a fact. That's a story. You have absolutely no idea if it's true or not. The fact - and this is a fact - that you call it a fact - that reveals desperation.
      •  That they didn't get it from Snowden is the FACT.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2

        in question. Snowden said so himself in an article published by Greenwald.  

        The rest of what I wrote is indeed a supposition, but that I would have thought that would have been obvious from the way I wrote the sentence.

        Jesus Christ.

        The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

        by richardak on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:22:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You do not know if it's "based on Snowden (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          itsbenj, 3goldens, ozsea1, tardis10, Dianna, triv33

          documents." That's not something you can call a "fact."

          Jesus Christ.

          •  Sorry for taking the Independent at their word (0+ / 0-)

            However, continue to feel free to believe the Greenwald CT that the Independent (which has a very good reputation) is acting as a UK government puppet trying to discredit Snowden. Don't let me stand in your way.

            The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

            by richardak on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:41:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You should be sorry. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lunachickie, costello7, Nada Lemming

              Why would you take them on their word? And your "Greenwald CT" remark is revealing. Greenwald didn't say anything as fact either. He reported what Snowden said about the incident. Rusbridger actually covered that in his Q & A.

              In a grownup world, you'd acknowledge your errors.

              •  "Greenwald didn't say anything as fact either"... (0+ / 0-)

                Yes, thus my usage of the  term CT, as in conspiracy theory.

                Why would you take them on their word?
                Can you point to me an instance where the Independent has proven untrustworthy, something that would be indicative of a willingness to sully their own reputation by engaging in a conspiracy with the UK government in a manner equivalent to this (quoting Greenwald):
                The US government itself has constantly used this tactic: aggressively targeting those who disclose embarrassing or incriminating information about the government in the name of protecting the sanctity of classified information, while simultaneously leaking classified information prolifically when doing so advances their political interests.  

                The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

                by richardak on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:07:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Reporting what Snowden said he believed (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tardis10

                  what happened is "CT"? That is just so dumb. Snowden thinks the UK government leaked the docs to the Independent. That you are trying to sell this as some outlandish moon hoax - fuck. So fucking off the cliff.

                  Why would anyone treat the Independent like that? Or the WaPo? Or the NYT? Just so silly.

                  •  You left out the bit about the alleged intent... (0+ / 0-)

                    that being the discredit Snowden. We're supposed to believe that the Independent is actively engaged in that.

                    My god, it's so outlandish for me to not to actually buy that idea.

                    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

                    by richardak on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:23:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Adding... (0+ / 0-)

                      if the Independent article had been published by the Guardian, it would have been seen as another triumph for that paper.

                      There is nothing in there at all that con be construed as being harmful to Snowden or Greenwald, other than the fact that Greenwald got scooped.

                      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

                      by richardak on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:26:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  BAAAAAAH! (0+ / 0-)

                        You are a ridiculous person:

                        The Independent is not revealing the precise location of the station but information on its activities was contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden.

                        [...]

                        Scotland Yard said material examined so far from the computer of Mr Miranda was “highly sensitive”, the disclosure of which “could put lives at risk”.

                        It was exactly about harming Snowden. What a ridiculous ass.
                        •  Jesus. How thick can you be? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Onomastic

                          The Independent did not reveal precise information for exactly the same reasons that the Guardian, the Times and the Post have not, so as to not put lives at risk. How are they acting any differently? Is the fact that the Snowden documents are "highly sensitive" supposed to now come as a surprise? Haven't we known that for months?

                          Part of the allegation is that the UK government is putting out information that is advancing their political interests. Considering that the Independent article reveals something that they didn't want the public at large to know, you have to jump through some major hoops to justify that in this case.

                          The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

                          by richardak on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 05:03:18 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you actually unaware that our own government (0+ / 0-)

                            regularly leaks information it purportedly does not want the public to know in order to further its own agendas?

                            Do you honestly not know this, or are you pretending not to? It is actually a big part of this story. Chris hayes did a story on this recently.

                            http://www.mediaite.com/...

                          •  How exactly does a story.... (0+ / 0-)

                            which doesn't discredit Snowden any more than a typical Guardian story (as I've noted, they've redacted sensitive details on a regular basis), which does not paint the UK government in any more positive or negative light than a typical Guardian story, further the UK government's agenda?

                            Yes, governments leak to advance their agendas, however this incident doesn't exactly me give me flashbacks of Scooter Libby outing Valerie Plame.

                            When Greenwald wrote this in discussing the Independent story...

                            The US government itself has constantly used this tactic: aggressively targeting those who disclose embarrassing or incriminating information about the government in the name of protecting the sanctity of classified information, while simultaneously leaking classified information prolifically when doing so advances their political interests.  
                            The link he supplied clarified what he meant about "this tactic":
                            at the very same time that they wage an unprecedented war on whistleblowers, they themselves continuously leak national security secrets exclusively designed to glorify Obama purely for political gain;
                            Did the Independent story provide a competing narrative to "glorify" the UK government, let alone undermine the previous Snowden stories?  Nope.

                            The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

                            by richardak on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 05:45:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The story was literally used to discredit him (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Little

                            early in the thread. Which is how the topic arose. I'm not arguing either way, but when a story is literally used to try and discredit someone earlier in the thread it seems like saying that it doesn't discredit Snowden is kind of wrong.

                            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                            by AoT on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 05:55:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As AoT says, you have to ignore (0+ / 0-)

                            so much it's laughable. Just one way the story was used:

                            "Edward Snowden Reveals UK's Secret Middle-East Surveillance Base"

                            Britain has a £1 billion secret Middle East-based listening post collecting emails, phone calls and web traffic on behalf of western intelligence agencies, the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has revealed.
                            http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/...

                            And the Independent exactly glorified the UK government on its super ability to spy on bad guys. You should read the story again.

                          •  How is that more damning than say... (0+ / 0-)

                            Snowden openly revealing that the US hacks the Chinese?

                            Was that a positive story for him in comparison?

                            Sure, you can club Snowden over the head with the Independent story, but you can be just as appalled (or cheer, depending on your of point view) any number of Guardian stories that reveal similar secrets.

                            The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

                            by richardak on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 06:36:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And you actually don't see the difference? (0+ / 0-)

                            Did you actually read the Independent story? Starting to believe you didn't. How things are framed actually makes a difference, regarding who you want to hurt. Since you're not going to respond to it, I'll say it again: The Independent story glorified the UK government. Please go read it again. Could the UK government leak a Chinese hacking story that glorified them, too? Maybe. So?

                    •  Left it out. Jesus, you are Derp. (0+ / 0-)

                      What else would be the intent?

                      That you act like government's don't try to discredit critics is just bizarre.

                      Do you know what our govenrment tried to do to Daniel Ellsberg? Do you even know the name G. Gordon Liddy?

    •  I'm not at all sure what the Independent's (7+ / 0-)

      source was ... it was a very carefully and oddly worded article.  They certainly tried to give the impression their source derived from Snowden's documents, but they never directly said that.

      "That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything ... There would be no place to hide." - Senator Frank Church

      by jrooth on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:10:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  quoting their article... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Onomastic
        The Independent is not revealing the precise location of the station but information on its activities was contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden.
        I suppose that does leave the option open that they got the information from a "parallel" source, but still, they are presumably aware of what Snowden has.

        The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

        by richardak on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:31:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There appears to be a (12+ / 0-)

      logical fallacy in this argument.

      If the Independent has material that is within the documents that Snowden took, but they did not get it from Snowden, then why do you suggest they got the info from anyone Snowden shared it with?

      Is there actual evidence of that?

      I ask because Snowden didn't actually deprive the US of it's secrets, he copied them. The US still has the originals which are, presumably, still accessible by thousands of people with the clearance.

      Who has the greater motive to discredit Snowden ... His own contacts, or the people he stole embarrassing info from?

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:31:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You should be asking your (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, 4kedtongue

      government the same question:

      who else has access or could gain access to this material, and can we trust them?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (152)
  • Community (59)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (29)
  • Elections (29)
  • Economy (28)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Environment (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Education (18)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Racism (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Media (17)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site