It has become quite clear this thing was sprung as a political stunt by a clique of right libertarians, who have been playing some left elements like a fiddle....

and it is clear that the rest of the world is outraged by this. This transcends the silly cheerleading of our political parties in the U.S as this is an INTERNATIONAL ISSUE.

were able to orchestrate the world-wide financial crisis to their benefit.

How do you know they're not orchestrating this to put people like Rand Paul into power?

And it almost worked.

It might still work to an extent, but their army is made up of morans and worse.

if you call people you disagree with as "morons".

It has to do with people treating a massively egotistical "reporter" and an international criminal like gods.

I called GG's followers "morans" not "morons". There is a difference.

but what is worse is your refusal to own up to it.

that point where reasonable people can no longer consider someone credible.

Edit- I think there are some in the denial stage with grief not far behind.

expanding surveillance state. Let's turn it around and make it a bedrock principle of the progressive and liberal-Democratic cause. It is far more likely that the Democratic Party as a whole can take a position against surveillance overreach than the Republican Party. It is far more likely that an anti-imperialist/anti-surveillance state tendency that rises to dominance in one party or the other would rip the Republican party asunder than cause a lasting rift in the Democratic Party. Besides, is there anyone so naïve as to believe that this gargantuan intelligence industrial complex is not a threat to liberty?

Sorry, Magistrate. A rare instance where you're just plain wrong.

And his disclosures have precipitated a well needed discussion of the surveillance state.

I would give them much more credit than that. Heck even President Carter has defended Snowden.

Wyden in particular has never been very reliable in a fight.

Senator Sanders I have great respect for, and I am not surprised he has taken the line he has. But I do not agree it is the proper course to take.

that's part of the nature of being an individual up against a behemoth, which is in the nature of whistleblowing.

one person *very* rarely is in a position to get access to enough of the facts and to thoroughly understand them enough to not only leak them, but also to vet them and then represent the issues effectively in the media.

it's astounding that anyone cares about the leakers and their personalities and motives.

the information leaked is what's important. it's either useful or useless, important or immaterial, whatever.

the machine will always work to smear the little guy. ignore it. might the little guy be mistaken or delusional or whatever? sure, but who cares. evaluate the material. the leaker could be insane and still leak important information. or completely sane and on the level, but happened to make a mistake and the information is wrong or flawed or whatever.

focus on the facts, not the person.

about back in 2005. This is not new news, even though it's being treated as if it is.

That, to me, is where it all falls apart. Why the delayed outrage over something that we've all known was going on for at least a decade?

And THAT'S why it's important to look at the leakers and their personalities and motives. There's an opportunistic feel to the timing and the participants that makes me feel manipulated. As if this is nothing more than political theater at work.

in fact that's the big difference. the media in 2005 ignored it, today they're all over it.

the difference is not the leakers, the difference is the media response, which probably has a lot to do with the fact that a democrat is in the oval office instead of a republican, and, yes, the rise of the libertarian right who can capitalize on this story.

citizens. Two reporters and a documentary film maker--oh, AND a "reporter" from the South China Morning Post who helped to get the ball in the air (minority owner, Rupert Murdoch).

Cui bono?

They CREATED that frenzy....and they used a lot of spin to get everyone frothing at the mouth.

2) Senators and corporations are operating under secret laws which they are forbidden to reveal

3) the US trades surveillance with the UK and other countries to get around whatever is left of our Constitutional laws

4) the present administration expanded the secret powers while prosecuting more whistleblowers than in 2005, and

5) Databases like PRISM are being shared among various alphabet entities and then those agencies must fabricate the source of their information to protect the secrecy of the spying / sharing.

This is well beyond what was done or know about in 2005.

and those of us paying attention knew about it.

1) Claimed but not substantiated by the documents they have leaked. And this would have been trivial to document if it were true - Snowden could have spied on himself and then released the results.

2) Not new. The FISA court has been around since the 70s.

3) Not new. The US has been "cooperating" with other countries on intelligence since 1776.

4) False. The 2010 law, which the present administration pushed through, reduces powers, increases oversight. As for "whistleblowers", you are running into the problem of small numbers. 6 is a 300% increase over 2. That doesn't make 6 a large number.

5) PRISM isn't a database. It's one intelligence program. It's also not targeting US persons. The phone metadata program is not PRISM, and that's the only program that has been revealed that intentionally contains information on US persons. The DEA tried to hide they got information from the phone metadata program, but they got that information using specific warrants against specific targets.

This is indeed well beyond what was known in 2005, but that's because people are making claims well beyond what is actually documented in the leaked materials.

This was one of the very first bits of nonsense thrown into the mix after Snowden's revelations came to light.

The fact is that Snowden revealed the ACTUAL LEGAL DOCUMENT that enabled the NSA to collect American's information from Verizon. Prior to that revelation, the government and the NSA denied all of the information from other whistleblowers.

Cheers!

There is a lot of new info...dig a little, or not

Actual, documented proof.

But we've known for quite some time now that it was happening, revealed in newspaper stories not long after the Patriot Act took effect. So there's nothing new here but the sudden outrage.

And the zombie thing is cute but a little dated, wouldn't you say?

Woops, there goes your credibility

I don't get this argument. Who cares if this was known before. I was pissed before when it was ignored and my reaction now is, It's about damn time. I don't care when it catches fire (although, the sooner the better) or who lights the fire. I just want this issue on fire. Good stuff doesn't always happen for the right reasons in the public square, same as bad stuff can happen from the best intentions. It's the rock and roll of human discourse.

Hmmmm, in your OP you state you were screaming about the NSA during the Bush maladministration...but now you are all chill with it and shit?

It certainly does seem like someone is trying to manipulate something here but it isn't Greenwald.

The media owner has a product (in this case a candidate like Rand) that needs promotion and the former brand must be put down to sell it.

l could explain more of what I've seen but this is the process. That's why I sometimes put quotation marks around the word 'news.'

Stories are often pulled out to use. And no, they are not honest about it the age of the story.

How can a viewer verify the current nature if it is not live feed, or they were not personally in the situation?

They can't. So the stories go out as propaganda. .

Thanks for your post.

Some may think that Woodward was but certainly not Felt, who remained anonymous until he was on his death bed.

he obviously wasn't fame-seeking, but i have no doubt that he had an agenda and it wasn't purely altruistic or patriotic.

i'm not in a position to know how his career was affected by the watergate revelations, but i suspect he benefited from them.


in any event, even if felt did it completely out of good conscience, i'm not saying *all* whistleblowers fit any one personality type.

an agenda that goes further than simply wanting to inform the public, there is a problem.

When those "leaking" omit information, lie and tell partial truths, there is a problem.

that reasonable people start to lose trust when a "whistleblower" gets caught making things up. Why wouldn't that throw doubt upon any other thing they have said?

Once someone shows they are willing to tell lies of omission or half-truths, their validity as a source of accurate information is pretty thoroughly damaged.

But we are crazy for not jumping off the cliff with him right?

consider the much simpler case of a junior accountant who sees exposes what he thinks is a "slush fund".

just because that person doesn't know what the money is used for or where it comes doesn't mean it's perfectly innocent.

when asked, the leaker might guess wrong about the purpose of the slush fund. that doesn't make the slush fund legitimate.

reasonable people should simply examine the facts that have come out, continue to investigate, and come to the appropriate conclusions. in all likelihood, the leaker's usefulness was exhausted the moment the leak came out and they are usually of little, if any, further use to any investigation. they had access to information, they leaked it, they're done.

the focus should be on the information itself. what the leaker says about it does nothing to enhance the credibility of the information but it also does nothing to reduce it either.

What? They aren't?

Hmmmmmmm!

This is hardly the first time some group or other has tried to manipulate us.
Somebody's always got an agenda. One of the elements of critical thinking is asking "whose purpose is being served here?"

-- Mal

...there were some of us who were very vocal and upset with the passage of the "Patriot" act and then the revisions in the FISA laws that make all this intrusion into our metadata legal. So the Snowden revelations were of no major surprise...that said...it did ignite a dialogue that is very much needed; that is the intrusion into our private lives by not only the government but corporates as well and a redefinition of where our 4th Amendment rights currently stand.

Just like our modern world makes parts of the 2nd Amendment passe, the same can be said of the 4th and there needs to be clarifications as to how much control we have on our electronic data and communications. This is where Snowden's testimony and that of others is needed and an independent Congressional inquiry needed so that the abuses can be documented and actions can be taken to prevent abuses and reign in the ever growing surveillance over our private lives from many different source; not just the government.

Hopefully you're the master of your own information and opinions and can see the grey areas in this story...

Cheers...

The 1979 SCOTUS ruling which declared the metadata belongs to the phone companies made it legal. It turned the information into run-of-the-mill business records without any privacy protections for the people producing that data.

It's also resulted in the phone companies selling that data to 3rd parties.

It's kinda hard to claim this is a 4th amendment violation when the information belongs to the phone companies and has already been shared with 3rd parties.

Now, if you're advocating for a HIPAA-like law which would make that information private, godspeed. But that doesn't mean it is a 4th amendment violation before that law exists.

...we can go back to Truman to trace how the government has grown more sophisticated and pervassive in their ability to find out information about American citizens. Those all in an uproar these days seem to forget that they provide vital economic data to the government every April and that most every financial transaction they make is traced...and how all types of personal data is mined, bought and sold without the person's knowledge.

My point was to point out how the 4th Amendment has been redefined over time. While I would love some kind of HIPAA-like law that would require companies to ask my consent when selling my data, I know that's not on anyone's radar and too much money involved. I do think we need to reign in companies like the credit rating agencies that take that mined data to pass judgement on one's ability to own a house or even get a job. Again...topics that are distracted from those all in a tizzy about the government knowing who you called...

who promptly gave it to LAPD. You have to be careful to whom you present your information because its international release can vindicate you and save your life.

this has INTERNATIONAL implications. So when the canard is peddled that it is to "boost the (American right wing) libertarian brand" that doesn't fly because that brand has no standing outside the U.S. Libertarian Anarchists do exist but they are leftist and popular in Europe for example.

You're thinking just what the NSA wants you to think. They're pretty good at what they do.

Because I'm not giving them a pass, by any means.

Don't assume that because I'm feeling manipulated—by both sides—that the manipulation is actually working. If it were, I wouldn't be talking about it.

Time to step back and consider what opportunities are open to these people.

For Ed Snowden, it's living a life in exile apart from family and friends and his native country. Looking over his shoulder. Do you really think that's worth a "book deal"?

I think that because of their own words and deeds, not because of the NSA.

As for book deals, I'm not sure who, if anyone, is floating that particular scenario, but I haven't heard it. People have many other motives for doing what they do that have nothing to do with book deals. That's one of the reasons it's important to know what their motives are.

For all I know, it's ALL worth it to them.

I'm curious. I can't imagine any motive that would motivate someone to take the risk Snowden has, other than a deep-seated conviction it was the right thing to do.

for the dumbest reasons. Just look at history. There are a multitude of motives other than wanting a book deal OR deep-seated convictions that it's the right thing to do. Far too many to even list.

I won't speculate what his motives may be. Because a good percentage of ALL of this, including your own observations (and mine as well), is speculation.

Possibly that motive appears trivial or nonsensical to you, but nobody risks everything they have for a reason which is "dumb" to them.

Really? There are far too many potential motives to list? Help me out...give me a few.

After all, speculation is what DU is all about.

I never would have guessed there is a motive for every crime. Color me flabbergasted.

As for Snowden, I can't really speculate what his motives are any more than you can assume I'm thinking he risked it all for a "book" deal. I don't know why he risked what he risked. Maybe he's just stupid. Maybe he didn't realize the weight of what he was about to do. Maybe he did it on a dare. Maybe he was paid off by political operatives. Or maybe he felt a moral obligation to expose the truth—who really knows?

You certainly don't, and neither do I. But if he was really a hero, as your icon says, he wouldn't be hiding in Russia right now. He'd stand up for his cause instead of running. That's usually what heroes do.

That's ok, most Americans don't. But he's basically given up his way of life for some reason. He's not stupid, or he would not have the job he had. He did it on a dare? No, he's not eleven years old. If you watched the video you would know we can rule out the "stupid" alternatives right away.

So may you should start there.

After you watch the video, you'll realize that he realizes very much the weight of what he was about to do. "Maybe he was paid off by political operatives." Possible, but let me ask you something: How much would you have to be paid to move to Russia for the rest of your life? Would there be any amount of money?

You're correct - we both don't know. But the idea that him risking his life and his career not being heroic is bullshit.

"That's usually what heroes do." What do you know about being a hero? Have you ever done anything heroic? (Hint: it has to do with sacrifice).

Are you serious?

a fact, no matter what the motive or intention?

When you see that we, as a species manipulate ourselves, others and our environment, then we can merely note the kinds of manipulation going on. We might have win-win or I win, you lose, etc.

As we notice how ubiquitous manipulation is, the word reveals nuances and prejudices about our attitude towards it. Just where and when are we not being manipulated, be it in beneficial or detrimental ways? Noticing this is useful. Perhaps with that insight we can, at the very least, own-up to manipulation as a major aspect of our existence and transform it into something beneficial and egalitarian, beneficial and compassionate. It can be more win-win, as I mentioned.

Examples? There are many in everyday life when you are tuned-into it.

As far as I am concerned, I'm dealing with a delusional character that I had to stuff into my head in order to deal with and acquiesce to the demands and requirements of culture/society in order to function and survive in it. In that process, one ends-up with an often neurotic result, hence, as J. Krishnamurti said:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

We see it happen every day, especially with the GOP. So, yes, it's important to know the motives and intentions behind this.

The rest is gossip.

While I agree that the information—which isn't new—should be discussed and evaluated, it's ALWAYS important to look at the participants and their motives.

The way you get to the truth is by evaluating both the evidence AND the motive. When we know more about motive, we can ask ourselves how much of it is real and how much of it is the manipulation and massaging of the facts to push an agenda?

Ignoring the motives of everyone involved is a huge mistake.

I care if the facts are true. Those, I react to. Motives are largely unknowable anyway. What we think are motives are most often attributed to the participants by people who simply have an agenda and motives of their own. It's an empty circle that I don't care about. A diversion.

Have you seen them in black and white? And if you have, who provided them? Have those facts themselves been manipulated? Are ALL the facts there or only the ones the party who released them wanted you to see?

If you're a juror in a criminal trial, you want all the facts, but both sides tend to withhold certain facts or spin them in favor of their agenda. What look like facts, may indeed be nothing more than spin.

Knowing the motives of the parties involved is far from a diversion. It's essential.

If you just accept them at face value, you're missing a large part of the picture.

It doesn't depend on someone's say-so. Anything that does depend on that is not a fact, it's an opinion -- a different matter.

I can see why you're confused, if evaluating every player's head is part of your process.

Do the NSA's practices violate Constitutional due process, or not? The rest only matters to the direct participants. From where we stand (on the sidelines) it is primarily gossip about them.

Each time Greenwald has come out with an article, other news sources have written about it and fact-checked it, and that process continues. So we are not just trusting Greenwald, that everything he tells us is true. On the other hand up to now, we have been in the position of having to simply trust the NSA, and that is entirely unsatisfactory.

you've never been a juror or an investigator. There are SOME facts that are objectively true, but many can be manipulated to reveal a "certain" truth. Which is why we have spin.

Almost everything is filtered in one way or another. Motives are essential. That way we can actually separate "facts" from actual objective facts.

I've said why I disagree with that, which I think was clear enough the first time.

It is not. The only information that is available is that which the "Whistleblowers" want to make available. They could easily have withheld information that did not help make their argument.

So that "gossip" becomes extremely important, because it is only through that gossip that we have any hint about those "whistleblowers" and if they would withhold information.

That isn't the only information. There have also been document releases from the FISA court, from the NSA itself, and from Congress. Also from advocacy groups defending court cases, and from other whistleblowers. Most of it factual, some subjective. The FISA court itself has established that unconstitutional acts were committed, and that there is no effective oversight. Sensenbrenner has stated categorically that the bulk collection program was never authorized by the Patriot Act as written by Congress.

The "gossip" you speak of, on which to base "hints" is the least reliable out of it all. It's a waste of time.

before forming an opinion. I won't hold my breath for it. Facts can be denied, and that's your perogative.

Let's just say I disagree with everything you've written, because all the points you bring up have been conclusively rehashed here on DU (not to mention elsewhere) many times already, and I'm not going to waste my time today doing it again.

We're not going to see a complete picture for decades. So once again, the personalities of the leakers is relevant to the discussion, because that's all we will have.

I find this response particularly annoying. Probably because most of the "commands" here have nothing whatsoever to do with manipulation and everything to do with being human.

the movie They Live you would miss it reference.
To give a fast summary, in the movie the population is controlled with subliminal messages to lead banal lives and avoid free thinking or independent action.

I've seen the movie, I know what it's from. It's still bullshit.

without being aware of the nuances and protocols so I'll leave your thread now.

Have a wonderful day

Interesting that the purveyors of "2 + 2 = 5" are now directly addressing the creepiness of the propaganda onslaught, but trying to source it elsewhere.

It's a tricky job to get people to let go of "2 + 2 = 4. Trickier than in the books.

There's a sure-fire way to tell who is doing the gaslighting, though. Always go back to what is being defended. Is is the right of journalists to operate freely and pass unmolested through an airport? Or is is the mass surveillance state, mass spying, and actions by government toward journalists nd whistleblowers that would have been considered fascistic and unthinkable just 30 years ago in this country?

You bet there is creepy messaging going on around us. It operates 24/7, and it is as horrifying and revolting to any American with a memory as the unconscionable surveillance state itself.

100% correct.



Or, "Thumb Drives Up"!!

Like you, I have been on this issue since at least 2007 http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_071028_republicans_turning_.htm my concern has been a balance between national security and oversight. I wanted FISA reinstated at a minimum and we got that.

I don't think we are served by hyperbole and unconfirmed accusations, some of which have been already debunked.

As I've noted elsewhere, large organizations produce a lot of documents. Some are proposals for projects, some are other kinds of suggestions, some note what can or should be done under certain contingencies, etc. If you are not in that organization, you don't necessarily know the difference by just looking at a document. That's why when you grab a document from the document repository of a large organization, that document may or may not describe what that organization is actually doing. And even if it is accurate to varying degrees, there may be other context you arent getting from looking at a document.

That is why what Snowden and Manning did by grabbing and releasing documents hasn't impressed me much. We need a deliberate investigation by cool heads to get at the truth.

Reality is a combination of both manipulation and inability to acknowledge or report it.

Who benefits from these leaks? Then use Occam's Razor.

that is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. Everything else is just irrelevant spin

Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)

a press not being purchased or intimidated into silence...it would be very interesting to discover the money streams from which this incessant drumbeat of corporate-authoritarian transmission originates.

So far, the only program of "spying" on US persons is the phone metadata program. All the rest of the leaked programs include details of not targeting US persons without specific warrants.

For example, if you look at the documents about PRISM, it has lovely flow charts which include steps to throw out targets that are US persons.

On the phone metadata, the problem with calling this a massive spying program is the information isn't private. It's owned by the phone companies, according to the 1979 SCOUTS ruling. And those phone companies have been selling that metadata to third parties. Rather difficult to claim that such information is private with both of those.

All of the "collect everyone's emails" and "follow our web browsing" claims are not backed up by the documents that have been leaked.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Everyone is hyping and spinning as hard as they can. Everyone has an agenda so they are all lying out of their ass to prove that agenda to others.

I find it interesting too, that if your worries about the NSA don't immediately translate into frothing-at-the-mouth anger at Obama then somehow you are an "authoritarian." The people making this argument could not be more transparent in their aims. I doubt most of them give half a fuck about the spying.

I worry about the NSA. I don't blame Obama for it, I don't see anything wrong with our Government doing what it can to protect security secrets from getting into the wrong hands or going after people who steal classified info and disappear to Russia with it. It our government weren't trying to stop that, they wouldn't being doing their job.

You may want to get checked for intestinal parasites. I'm not coming up with much else for what ails you.

Lets just drop the whole thing; after all, the NSA and it detractors are really totally just the same, right? They both tell us equally bad lies, don't they? Who cares about defending our right to privacy, what does that silliness matter anyway? I'm getting a bad headache doing all of this heavy thinking and stuff.

I've been feeling this for some time now.

On the extreme Right they're claiming the foreign born Kenyan Muslim Socialist NI**ER is looking at all of your porn which is all WHITE WOMEN and he should be impeached and then lynched from a tree on the White House lawn.

By the time that filters down to us it's something like, "Obama should do some oversight on the NSA".

knew it from the get go.

".. cheap, huckster wizard working behind the curtain." getting more exposed every day.

There was sheer outrage here yesterday. We are being manipulated by many here, our words twisted to make us look like gay bashers and haters. This is being done to avoid a discussion.

Some of the words that were being tossed around were Homophobia. Yesterday they said people should be tombstoned for their opinions. Anyone that disagrees that's the new buzz word. People were being trashed for calling Greenwald, GG. Really? I have been called by my initials for my entire life. I was given that nickname when I was born. I answer most posts with the posters name, a sign of respect. If their name is long, many times I will post initials. I have not once been admonished by doing so.

I for one do not have a homophobic bone in my body. That was not the way I was raised. That is not what I believe. That is not who I am. Was I called out directly, no. However by association to the BOG and posting on an OP. I was deemed guilty by certain posters.

So let's look at this without the spin. There are issues that need to be dealt with about NASA. Can that be done rationally without the name calling? I would like to believe that it can.

Thank you WW (not meant as disrespect), excellent OP!

Peace

sheshe2

flying around here. the "authoritarians" and "third way" crap isn't working so start on something else. It weakens anything they have to say about NSA.

There are a number of serious issues and concerns here, most of which have deep historical roots and have been fought over in long ongoing struggles over questions about what country the USA should actually be -- and how we should get there

But we live in an age of mass-production of consciousness by increasingly sophisticated technological media, and the owners of the technology may not be disinterested themselves in the uses to which the media are put

One very common tactic of manipulation is: hand folk a particular view of the world, with an emotional hook, and encourage emotional responses without analysis

In reaction to these emotional games, which often serve the status quo, it is important to try dispassionately to understand the facts accurately and in detail -- with the hope of obtaining a useful analysis of the actual situation, from which one can better decide up a response

then you don't understand one of the prime reasons why Obama was elected.