so as to impede the Russians efforts to smear us. How is that?

Cause i didnt see one.

Fun! Your turn.

Probably cause you cant point to any actual quotes.

Why does that not surprise me.

With the influx of foreign guests for the Olympics, there would be lots of cover for some paid or volunteer assassin.

20 years from now, Snowden will probably be viewed as a defender of our democracy. Surveillance of the broad and excessive kind now practiced by the NSA destroys democracies. Actually it destroys societies as it makes honest discussion and trust too frightening and therefore impossible and not a part of normal social interchange.

There may be someone in your community who fled NAZI Germany or the USSR or one of the other Eastern Bloc countries. Maybe they will explain.

People in Germany and Austria who listened reverently to the radio during Hitler's speeches and never spoke ill of him or the NAZIs were swearing at him and condemning him the day after he was gone. They were silenced during his reign by the intimidation of his surveillance state. And he did not have anywhere near the capacity to silence through intimidation that our NSA would have in the wrong hands.

Don't take it for granted that the wrong hands will never grasp our nation. It has happened in many countries. Never assume it won't happen here.

As far as the nazi comment goes, well one need only look at the bush years to see that in full effect. When he was in office he could do no wrong now that he is out you cant even find a republican that will say they supported him.

When you can point to a single person silenced by the NSA i will take the rest of what you wrote seriously. Baring that it is just so much hyperbole.

Sometimes I don't know why I bother. It's not like I really want to save the NSA from themselves. It's kind of like watching Christie self-destruct. I love it, but I keep getting these urges to explain what he should do, and I really don't want him to do that, I want him to be impeached.

I find it interesting nobody has mentioned the hypocrisy of Christie's Sandy PR extravaganza with Obama in 2012 being followed by this sort of extortionate process with the "relief" money going on behind the scene.

of the NSA) that is rampant in our country right now. And it is that corruption that is to blame for the terrible disparity in wealth in our country. A bit slow about thinking it through, but I really fully realized how the two things -- the corruption and the disparity in wealth in our country -- are cause and effect. It's really a sad, sad shame.

We have always had a lot of corruption. I read an old book called "The Age of the Moguls." It tells the stories of many of our richest men of the 19th century, from Vanderbilt to many of the real estate moguls. Corruption was the path to wealth. Buying government favors. That's what made the difference for many of our wealthiest idols. The railroads of course benefited from huge landgrants. There is nothing new about the welfare for the rich. But it results in a terrible disparity in wealth that we have repeatedly have to clean up in order to get some fairness and opportunity for ordinary people.

It is telling how quickly we went downhill once we lost our big enemy in 1989, no need for the "reality based community" any more, just take the money and run.

The root of everything here is a buzzfeed article.

I have not seen anything like a threat on Snowden in the US media from anyone - though obviously there may well have been something. It actually sounds more like internet chatter - and chatter from his supporters claiming that is what he faces. Why no identify the source - ie NYT or WP --- or some flaky RW source?

As to the US government, they have simply said he should face charges --- which could lead to jail.

And it beggars belief to think it does not come from the state propaganda organs, true or not. So the question whether any actual person said some specific words does not address my complaint. I am complaining that somebody thinks that sort of "threat story" is good propaganda. It is not.

- especially when quoting unnamed sources?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/04/22-attacks-on-obama-and-the-left-from-buzzfeeds/192031

Of cooouuurse!

usually in connection with the WH.

.... and this person does not have good credibility.

As is the case with most news when its out there its out there.

However, credibility does matter when you - personally - have to decide whether or not to believe something.

I assume it should matter on a discussion board. Otherwise should we give similar credence to all the Clinton stories of the 1990s or the swiftboat liars, who were NOT even with Kerry.

As to Snowden, why is he not asking his lawyer to sue Buzzfeed for information on who said these things? Instead he is simply assuming that a KNOWN disreputable story writer (he is not a journalist) has not made this up all by himself?

"As to Snowden, why is he not asking his lawyer to sue Buzzfeed for information on who said these things?"

(a) What lawyer - in the USA, anyway?
(b) You're not going to get a court to demand a journalist names sources with a demand from another lawyer. If there was an investigation by the police over who made the death threats, there might be a chance. But that would need the police to take action against NSA personnel, and that looks unlikely, because the police-intelligence state sticks together. Hell, Clapper still hasn't been fired for lying to Congress.

Not even subtle....and didn't Pootie recently consolidate the News Media so he could better control them? Why, yes, he did do that...

Settle in, Eddie--you ain't going nowhere...!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

it is hosting the Olympics and will be the center of international attention. I would expect them to watch Snowden carefully during that time because he would be quite vulnerable to kooks as well as to high-level international intrigue.

They have offered him asylum because he is in danger. Naturally, they feel they have a national interest in making sure that no one harms him. They also feel that way about guarding their population from terrorist attacks. That is just common sense and a matter of national pride. We would have felt the same way about protecting even the Shah of Iran when he was here in a hospital. That got us into some difficulty, but it was our job as hosts to an international personality.

There are likely many far better people working for the NSA than this man.

I suspect that the vast majority are very skilled mathematicians and computer scientists - from my knowledge of people like that, I suspect that many are libertarian and many are moderates in either party. I still remember that in my town, the vast majority of people who canvassed and phonebanked for McGovern were Bell Labs employees!

That is dangerous, regardless of what their views are. To have that much control over the personal information about us all in the hands of people with political views and judgments, people who most likely hire people who think and believe as they do will lead to trouble. It has happened before. It will happen again, probably here.

Democracy and the openness, change and evolution that make democracy work require a certain neutrality and vulnerability in the seats of social power. This NSA surveillance, I predict, will lead to the seating of a political view and very possibly, worst of all, political fanaticism in the highest levels of social power which will be those who control the information about the personal lives of the citizens of the world.

That is why I am so opposed to this sort of control of social information. And that is what the NSA is creating. A means to achieve social control of information, that is the information about our connections to the world around us.

With GPS capability, the NSA can even determine who goes out in the woods to look at the stars at night. It can determine who goes to what church or social club. It can focus on one person or on groups. The information that this data can provide can be used to intimidate people not just through obvious violence but through the dissemination of the personal data. How much of your personal information do you want your employer or your mortgage company or your friends or family to know? How much of it would you like to have published in the newspaper? Most people at least tell white lies? Did you talk to so-and-so about your political opinions? Maybe you have forgotten, but your phone and other electronic data hasn't.

I know this sounds crazy, but I recall working for a phone company way back when long distance calls were specifically billed. That's what they are calling metadata. When I looked at phone bills and talked to customers who weren't paying their bills, I would often see how many times a week a young woman called her mother or her boy friend. It was very easy to see the patterns in people's lives. Translate that kind of knowledge into the political arena. With today's technology the possibilities are endless.

I don't know if it is true, but the whistleblower named Tice has stated that in 2004, the NSA placed phones connected with Obama including perhaps his wife and others under surveillance. Assuming that is true, there is no explanation for that kind of surveillance other than political interference.

This NSA surveillance scheme is a dangerous abomination for our country.

In addition to all the other problems with it, it places huge amounts of information in the hands of the executive branch that are not available to citizens or to the other two branches of government. That in itself is contrary to the Constitution. The executive branch is supposed to just execute the laws. Our Founding Fathers did not intend for our nation to become involved in foreign wars or have a standing military. Unfortunately, we have not been governed as they intended partly because the world has changed and transportation has made long distances seem shorter. We are more vulnerable to foreign attacks. With the information glut that it has gobbled up, the executive branch has the capacity to claim a very dominant role in our government. We all like Obama, but what happens when we get a different president, a Christie or a Ryan for example?

I think a lot of liberals do not understand just what a threat the use of technology to place the entire nation or even world under surveillance really is. I accredit to lack of experience in life and a fear of looking at the potential results of what is going on. Lots of people have trouble thinking logically about causes and effects.

“In a world where I would not be restricted from killing an American, I personally would go and kill him myself,” a current NSA analyst told BuzzFeed. “A lot of people share this sentiment.”

“I would love to put a bullet in his head,” one Pentagon official, a former special forces officer, said bluntly. “I do not take pleasure in taking another human beings life, having to do it in uniform, but he is single handedly the greatest traitor in American history.” That violent hostility lies just beneath the surface of the domestic debate over NSA spying is still ongoing. Some members of Congress have hailed Snowden as a whistleblower, the New York Times has called for clemency, and pundits regularly defend his actions on Sunday talk shows. In intelligence community circles, Snowden is considered a nothing short of a traitor in wartime. “His name is cursed every day over here,” a defense contractor told BuzzFeed, speaking from an overseas Intelligence collections base. “Most everyone I talk to says he needs to be tried and hung, forget the trial and just hang him.”

One Army intelligence officer even offered BuzzFeed a chillingly detailed fantasy.

“I think if we had the chance, we would end it very quickly,” he said. “Just casually walking on the streets of Moscow, coming back from buying his groceries. Going back to his flat and he is casually poked by a passerby. He thinks nothing of it at the time starts to feel a little woozy and thinks it’s a parasite from the local water. He goes home very innocently and next thing you know he dies in the shower.”

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2014/1/17/10432/8613

Failed obviously. Thanks for this...just landed and re-checked.

Just like Julian. Every once in a while, it's time to get the media back to them.

bomber in Pooty Poot's Russia. This is pitiful. But the following clip is spectacular.

Russia denies visa to U.S. journalist critical of Putin
By Timothy Heritage and Gabriela Baczynska / Tue Jan 14, 2014 5:12pm EST

(Reuters) - Russia has barred a U.S. journalist critical of President Vladimir Putin from the country for five years, in a move that could upset relations with the United States and has echoes of the Cold War.

Moscow's treatment of David Satter could fuel concern about freedom of speech before the Winter Olympics in Sochi next month, although Putin has tried to appease critics by freeing former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky and members of the Pussy Riot protest group in the run-up to the Games.

"I was expelled from the country," Satter wrote on his personal website. "This is an ominous precedent for all journalists and for freedom of speech in Russia."

US may well have reacted in a similar fashion for an infringement.

....he said he was "expelled" but he left the country on his own and was not permitted re-entry.

"Satter said that he had flown to Kiev to receive a new letter of invitation but instead received only a statement read to him by a Russian diplomat there declaring him persona non grata."

Kiev in in the Ukraine, which is not Russia.

More than 300 journalists killed in Russia since 1993, says joint report

The murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya in October 2006 shocked the world. "Yet for every Anna, there have been many less widely known journalists killed for their work across Russia," says the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) in a groundbreaking report on the 313 Russian journalists killed since 1993.



"Partial Justice" and an accompanying database present a comprehensive record of the murders, "whether taking place in cross-fire in conflict zones, or homicides and contract killings; whether journalists were killed for their work or in unexplained accidents, or even for personal dealings."

I wonder who that asset was....and if he was working for Pootie's Spy Network even back then?

Gotta wonder if this guy is flipped--this is quite a switch from the fellah who used to talk like this:

James of the Rainbow Suspenders, I salute you! He told them JUST what they were--and good for him!

That guy has some major intestinal fortitude!

Given the Russians' bigoted attitude, one has to wonder if they're still loving Bradley now that she's Chelsea...?

Roman Abramovich owns it.

in the midst of mutually approved calumny against common enemies
from tu quoque comparison of state actions, to personality critiques,
to irrelevant punning

If they wanted Snowden, they wouldn't announce it in such a painfully awkward manner.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]