Snowden Docs: British Spies Used Sex and 'Dirty Tricks'
Source: NBC News
Snowden Docs: British Spies Used Sex and 'Dirty Tricks'
BY MATTHEW COLE, RICHARD ESPOSITO, MARK SCHONE AND GLENN GREENWALD, SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR
British spies have developed “dirty tricks” for use against nations, hackers, terror groups, suspected criminals and arms dealers that include releasing computer viruses, spying on journalists and diplomats, jamming phones and computers, and using sex to lure targets into “honey traps.”
Documents taken from the National Security Agency by Edward Snowden and exclusively obtained by NBC News describe techniques developed by a secret British spy unit called the Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group (JTRIG) as part of a growing mission to go on offense and attack adversaries ranging from Iran to the hacktivists of Anonymous. According to the documents, which come from presentations prepped in 2010 and 2012 for NSA cyber spy conferences, the agency’s goal was to “destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt” enemies by “discrediting” them, planting misinformation and shutting down their communications.
Both PowerPoint presentations describe “Effects” campaigns that are broadly divided into two categories: cyber attacks and propaganda operations. The propaganda campaigns use deception, mass messaging and “pushing stories” via Twitter, Flickr, Facebook and YouTube. JTRIG also uses “false flag” operations, in which British agents carry out online actions that are designed to look like they were performed by one of Britain’s adversaries.
- snip -
A “honey trap,” says the presentation, is “very successful when it works.” But the documents do not give a specific example of when the British government might have employed a honey trap.
Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/snowden-docs-british-spies-used-sex-dirty-tricks-n23091
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
iandhr
(6,852 posts)
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)do they watch any of the movies?
iandhr
(6,852 posts)From Russia With Love
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I think he had his head too far up the motherboard for too long....he is a bit out of touch. I am still predicting he is Aspergers!
Rumold
(69 posts)NBC used to be a reputable news organization. when did they start resorting to committing felonies?
<sarcasm>
Response to Rumold (Reply #2)
marmar This message was self-deleted by its author.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I guess you can trace it back to then.
Papers created by the government does not belong to them, they belong to us...we pay for it and it is ours.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
jsr
(7,712 posts)or lies, or cheats. 
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)There is no honor among thieves.
brooklynite
(94,594 posts)Last time I checked, taxes and spending were all determined by elected officials.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brooklynite
(94,594 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brush
(53,787 posts)all those kind of things and more. Yet you say the governments steals tax money from you.
Would you rather do without those things, or maybe pay for the road to your house out of your own pocket?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brush
(53,787 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brush
(53,787 posts)That was my response to your post that said the government steals money in the form of taxes.
If the services I mentioned aren't done by taxes collected, individuals would have to take care of getting their own garbage to the pound or to clear roads of snow.
It's pretty apparent that it's a much more socialist concept than Libertarian — the whole "for the good of the many" thing?
Think about it.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brush
(53,787 posts)I simply said that I didn't agree that taxes for essential government service were, as you put it, money stolen from the people.
In fact, a more socialist/democracy is where my leanings are, single payer — the works.
Get it straight — no libertarianism here.
booley
(3,855 posts)Limited government is only what is essential.
And what's essential is only what you would have with a limited government.
BTW, if taxes are theft, doesn't' that make you an accessory since you benefit from the use of those stolen goods?
Ahh I love a tangent.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)brush
(53,787 posts)Stop using the roads then, dispose of your own trash, and stop paying your taxes also.
Let me know how that works for you.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brush
(53,787 posts)or pay taxes?
I'll bite that you may not pay taxes (until you're caught that is), but don't tell you don't use roads — along with the rest of us "minions".
And btw, the more you stick to this "taxes as theft by the gov." line, the more you rise, imo, on the "not to be taken seriously" scale.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Psephos
(8,032 posts)Homework assignment: watch this film.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/
And a question for you...after watching what happened in 2008 with the banksters, whose interests do you think "elected officials" are responsive to?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Psephos
(8,032 posts)It's a moving and humanistic portrait of what happens to both spy and spied-upon when no one dares question authority. You can find it in good rental stores or buy a used disc for a few bucks off Amazon, etc. I don't have Netflix, so I can't say if it's streamable. 
Once a government is revealed as in thrall to TPTB instead of its citizens, the real traitors are those who support corrupt authority, not those who question it or work to stop it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Taxes are law duly passed and not "theft." Only right winger libertarians use that phraseology.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
treestar
(82,383 posts)Pure Nonsense
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Seriously? "Honey Traps" (which for the record is a CIA-coined term) are news? They have existed in one form or another for millennia...Everything else mentioned is just standard, everyday stuff conducted in pretty much any developed nation's intelligence service...
No meat to this story at all, despite the luring headline...
Johnboy79Scotland
(2 posts)I think that evidence that our spy agencies are using underhand methods of spreading lies and mis-information is interesting to people, and it should not be standard, everyday stuff. I certainly don't want it done in my name.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Demenace
(213 posts)...if they cannot develop the means and constantly update their tactics to meet the ever evolving challenges of their job or by in your name, you mean they should not spy at all!
When will people around here begin to say, okay that is not part of what needs to be talked about because it has nothing to do with privacy or rights?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)which definitely makes it about civil rights (if one believes in a free press).
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)These are diplomatic cables. Take the duct tape off your windows. Its safe to come back upstairs.
Relax, your military industrial complex's ultra top secret cables are still humming along planning how to stir up the next coup, the next false flag, the next corporate dictated invasion....to keep you "protected".
Besides all of you chicken littles already know what he's going to reveal anyways. Nothing new right?
brush
(53,787 posts)It is not news, and believe me, your name was never a thought. This is what 'spooks' do to gain information.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)about our allies. As you say, spies do spy stuff. But if they wanted their methods revealed, they would do so.
Snowden continues to distract from his own story -- US surveillance on our own people -- by focusing on international spying. The question is why.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Useful of you to ignore it.
Eric King, a lawyer who teaches IT law at the London School of Economics and is head of research at Privacy International, a British civil liberties advocacy group, said it was “remarkable” that the British government thought it had the right to hack computers, since none of the U.K.’s intelligence agencies has a “clear lawful authority” to launch their own attacks.
“GCHQ has no clear authority to send a virus or conduct cyber attacks,” said King. “Hacking is one of the most invasive methods of surveillance.” King said British cyber spies had gone on offense with “no legal safeguards” and without any public debate, even though the British government has criticized other nations, like Russia, for allegedly engaging in cyber warfare.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)The paragraph before your quote above notes this was "previously published by NBC News". Are you saying this is only an update to your earlier thread, and therefore shouldn't be a new thread?
Demenace
(213 posts)...why should Snowden reveal the ways and means by which the security folks of another country conduct their business? That my friend is the question. If you are fine with this individual crippling the activities of the American government, why would you think the British public would want that for their country?
Again, the question is, why is this information relevant to the privacy or rights of Americans? Remember, this was sold as protecting the American public from their government so I ask you, how is this relevant to that? Or is Snowden now speaking for the entire Earth?
If Snowden is speaking for the entire world, I will like to see some intelligence revelations from your pal Snowden on Russian, Chinese and Brazilian spying activities after all, if it is okay to reveal the information from those he is attacking, he should not be protecting some other nations. Remember, Snowden in your collective minds, is a wizard and genius!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)i.e. the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, to skirt laws prohibiting spying on one's own citizens by having one of the other participants do it, then swapping data.
In that context the UK's activities are relevant to American citizen's expectations of privacy.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)That's a bit of a stretch....I get what you're saying, but I don't know how anyone could ever make a legal case out of it...
And I hate to make these overly simplistic worst-case scenarios; BUT -- If they targeted a message board heavily used by a child porn ring, is it still an infringement of free speech? Do the regular everyday users of that site who *aren't* involved in child porn have a right to complain? I'm just asking...When Anonymous shut down the PlayStation Network for a month over the pettiest of bullshit grievances, could I sue them for interfering with interstate commerce??
As to the "they don't have clear lawful authority to launch attacks”, let's be frank -- If intelligence services (in any country) always waited for "clear lawful authority" before proceeding, they'd never get anything done...Look at the CIA (especially the earlier years) and tell me that oh, say 100% of their activities were not completely illegal...People who still pretend to be shocked ask "Why do intelligence services do these sorts of things?" and the answer is always the same: Because they can...
I'm disillusioned because I used to think Greenwald/Snowden were systematically building a case for the massive downscaling if not outright elimination of the intelligence community in the U.S. in the hopes that other major countries would follow suit...But Greenwald/Snowden have repeatedly said they're happy with the status quo after a few tweaks and reforms are applied... So again I ask; aside from the occasional "gotcha" and the release of true-but-embarrassing-and-not-really-surprising info, what has been the point of this whole charade??
booley
(3,855 posts)1.
I.e. If I disrupt your ability to communicate, how is that infringing on your ability to communicate?
2.
People engaged in lawful activity as part of what they see as their obligation to be politically active are the same as those breaking the law to molest children.
3.
The law is only the law as long as it doesn't' stop people who think they have a really good reason
4.
Since we already kind of suspected they did this, why get actual PROOF so that our perception matches reality?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)1. If a specific law was broken in temporarily shutting down a message board, which one is it, and why is no one making a case for legal prosecution?
2. Yeah, the pederast comparison was extreme; and I admitted as much...Doesn't change the fact that Anonymous has been heavily involved in illegal shit before (and not all of their illegal acts have a political justification, i.e., the PSN hack)
3. I'd have thought the lawlessness of intelligence agencies would have been the impetus for outright elimination, but as I've noted Snowden/Greenwald have repeatedly said that is not their goal..
4. I don't know, maybe they can dig through the other 98% of the documents to tell us some shit we *don't* know?? Stories like this only further confirm my notion that Greenwald is intentionally controlling which names/agencies get mentioned regularly, and which ones don't....
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Care to answer? Or are you just gonna scurry away?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 7, 2014, 10:59 PM - Edit history (1)
I was taking a nap. I only got three hours of sleep last night. I work for a living.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)You still haven't replied to them.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)That doesn't mean they are.
I did respond to demenance's point elsewhere and someone else responded to it, too.
Muriel seems to be saying this belongs in GD, not LBN. Whatever.
BlueTire's is just the same old subjective stuff.
Clearly though, I did not "scurry away."
All you have is attempts at personal attack and it's shitty. Most people see through it, no matter how much you "laugh."
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Try not to let shit get to you. It's just the interwebz, dude.
Demenace
(213 posts)And it is the snarky line, you are throwing out to this poster again! I have come to realize that some of you around here are not the experts you claim yourselves to be. How do I know this? Your arguments fall apart as soon as we challenge some of you!
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)but the story says the journalist operation was never put into action...
JI7
(89,252 posts)TheMathieu
(456 posts)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Good heavens, folks ... what do you think government spies have been doing for the past several hundred years? If you haven't read history books, at least you've maybe seen some movies.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)
Progressive dog
(6,904 posts)and maybe Snowden actually did give all the documents to "reporters."
whathehell
(29,067 posts) brush
(53,787 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)I'm speaking of all the negativity towards the NSA/US spying, and wondering why other countries seem to get a "pass".
reddread
(6,896 posts)for all the blase responses, I expect there are posts from the same sources livid over the lack of justice against
the cowardly rapist cornered by Britain.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)I'm shocked, utterly shocked, to find out that spy agencies use "dirty tricks" to garner information.
Is Snowden really that naive or just a self-serving disingenuous weasel?
Beacool
(30,250 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)This has nothing to do with whether he is naive or not, but thanks for getting in the requisite gratuitous 'attack the messenger.'
Eric King, a lawyer who teaches IT law at the London School of Economics and is head of research at Privacy International, a British civil liberties advocacy group, said it was “remarkable” that the British government thought it had the right to hack computers, since none of the U.K.’s intelligence agencies has a “clear lawful authority” to launch their own attacks.
“GCHQ has no clear authority to send a virus or conduct cyber attacks,” said King. “Hacking is one of the most invasive methods of surveillance.” King said British cyber spies had gone on offense with “no legal safeguards” and without any public debate, even though the British government has criticized other nations, like Russia, for allegedly engaging in cyber warfare.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)In a statement, a GCHQ spokesperson emphasized that the agency operated within the law.
“All of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework,” said the statement, “which ensure[s] that our activities are authorized, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All of our operational processes rigorously support this position.”
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Forgetting the NSA for a moment, what is the CIA up to on a daily basis? I bet it would make the average person cringe to know.
Demenace
(213 posts)This is story is saying, behold government spy agents use these methods to do their job which if you are not naïve, you would agree in some instances do benefit you as a citizen. The only way you can make any reasonable argument against the methods employed by spy agents, is for you to declare you do not want any spying by which ever country you are a citizen of.
Now making sure a declaration would be the ultimate proof of how naïve you may be.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Once you find out and you're not naive any more, you have shut up about it because you were naive once?
Demenace
(213 posts)The posters are asking, since these things you and your pal Snowden are screaming about are the tools spies everywhere use, why is this relevant to the privacy or rights of Americans but as always your response is a meaningless cut and paste from a lawyer. One lawyer in the whole of London, I might add.
Dude, just because you can go find one supporting argument does not mean it ends the discussion. Paste your supporting material and tell us in your words why it is the ultimate reason why your argument is reasonable, that my friend is what is missing from your cut and paste shows!
Who said anything about ending the discussion?
You are using the logic that because it is being done no one should know about it?
If only DU could have basked in your pure infallible logic!
If only the untapped brilliance of your beautiful mind could have been placed on display!
If only your irrefutable arguments could have graced this thread!
But, No!
After an absolute maximum of 147 heartfelt and respectful comments, you sallied forth this time only to be cut (and pasted) down in your patriotic prime.
Oh, the humanity!
Demenace
(213 posts)The Times said its story was based on 15 months’ worth of interviews with current and former US officials, European and Israeli officials, other experts and international nuclear inspectors.
TheTrueHOOHA’s response, published by Ars Technica, is worth quoting in full:
<TheTrueHOOHA> HOLYSHIT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/ washington/11iran.html?_r=1&hp
<TheTrueHOOHA> WTF NYTIMES
<TheTrueHOOHA> Are they TRYING to start a war?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Jesus christ
<TheTrueHOOHA> they’re like wikileaks
<User19> they’re just reporting, dude.
<TheTrueHOOHA> They’re reporting classified shit
<User19> Shrugs
<TheTrueHOOHA> about an unpopular country surrounded by enemies already engaged in a war
<TheTrueHOOHA> and about our interactions with said country regarding planning sovereignty violations of another country
<TheTrueHOOHA> you don’t put that shit in the NEWSPAPER
<User19> Meh
<TheTrueHOOHA> moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?
<TheTrueHOOHA> those people should be shot in the balls.
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> HELLO? HOW COVERT IS IT NOW? THANK YOU
<User19> Meh
<TheTrueHOOHA> I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars they just completely blew.
<User19> You’re over-reacting. It’s fine.
<TheTrueHOOHA> It’s not an overreaction. They have a HISTORY of this shit
<User19> with flowers and cake.
<TheTrueHOOHA> these are the same people who blew the whole ‘we could listen to osama’s cell phone’ thing the same people who screwed us on wiretapping over and over and over again. Thank God they’re going out of business.
<User19> the NYT?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Hopefully they’ll finally go bankrupt this year. yeah.
A few minutes later the chat continues:
<User19> It’s nice they report on stuff.
<TheTrueHOOHA> I enjoy it when it’s ethical reporting.
<TheTrueHOOHA> political corruption, sure
<TheTrueHOOHA> scandal, yes
<User19> is it unethical to report on the government’s intrigue?
<TheTrueHOOHA> VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? no
<User19> meh.
<User19> national security.
<TheTrueHOOHA> Um,YEEEEEEEEEEEES.
<TheTrueHOOHA> that shit is classified for a reason
<TheTrueHOOHA> it’s not because ‘oh we hope our citizens don’t find out’
<TheTrueHOOHA> it’s because ‘this shit won’t work if iran knows what we’re doing.’
<User19> Shrugs
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> direct. quote.
<TheTrueHOOHA> THEN WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO REPORTERS?!
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘Those covert operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> THEY’RE NOT COVERT ANYMORE
<TheTrueHOOHA> Oh you’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Now the NYTimes is going to determine our foreign policy?
<TheTrueHOOHA> And Obama?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Obama just appointed a fucking POLITICIAN to run the CIA!
<User11> yes unlike every other director of CIA ever
<User11> oh wait, no
<TheTrueHOOHA> I am so angry right now. This is completely unbelievable.
The ‘fucking politician’ was Leon Panetta, appointed by Obama in 2009 despite his evident lack of intelligence background. The appointment was supposed to draw a line under the intelligence scandals of the Bush years – the renditions, the secret CIA prisons and the illegal wiretapping.
This should be required reading for you Snowden supporter.
Certainly Snowden’s anti-leaking invective seems stunningly at odds with his own later behaviour. But there is a difference between what the Times arguably did – reveal details of sensitive covert operations – and what Snowden would do in 2013. Snowden nowadays explains: ‘Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn’t feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone.’
xocet
(3,871 posts)If only DU could have basked in your pure infallible logic!
If only the untapped brilliance of your beautiful mind could have been placed on display!
If only your irrefutable arguments could have graced this thread!
But, No!
After an absolute maximum of 151 heartfelt and respectful comments, you sallied forth this time only to be cut (and pasted) down in your patriotic prime.
Oh, the humanity!
Oh, the irony!
Demenace
(213 posts)...irrelevant? Your bro was for it before he was against it, get it?
xocet
(3,871 posts)Hey...you know...we left this England place 'cause it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves...pronto...we'll just be bogus too.
Demenace
(213 posts)..What the heck has this got to do with Jefferson? When locked in a corner, why do you guys always go back to some dead presidents?
xocet
(3,871 posts)brush
(53,787 posts)Demenace
(213 posts)Lots of otherwise smart folks around here have been conned into supporting this fool because of his affiliation with Glenn Greenwald who some admire. All I need to know is the fool was all for these types of activities until the 'black President' showed up, then he is all against it!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)because you tack on unnecessary insults at the end of them.
It puts you in that category of propagandists that flocks to NSA related posts to attack the messenger, and those posters shouldn't be taken seriously.
Historic NY
(37,450 posts)Marquess of Queensberry rules don't apply.
George II
(67,782 posts)....NSA spying on Americans.
Branching out now, Eddie?
reddread
(6,896 posts)why else would you be posting?
Demenace
(213 posts)I would be careful saying it is a small world after all because then you will have to accept the fact this discussion does not represent that true sentiments of real Americans as most here may not be Americans or British hence their willingness to attack their country's national interest!
Secondly, this fool Snowden sold this as 'I am protecting the American public from the American government' so when did this become about the British? Why have you not asked your Pal Snowden to reveal information about the activities of the Russians where he is hiding at? Let him attempt doing that and both of you would get a quick lesson on how nations respond to folks like Snowden.
reddread
(6,896 posts)we can circle the planet faster than Santa Claus, and whatever information comes out regarding the oppressive techniques of government(s) that would illegally invade sovereign nations under the falsest of pretenses, obliterating our resources, maiming and killing ours and theirs, and fomenting destabilizing actions with the phoniest of cover IS GOOD FOR U.S. citizens, and really nobody elses business to snipe about. unless theyre drawing a check or some other way invested in it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The Five Eyes program has been used by its participants, i.e. the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, to skirt laws prohibiting spying on one's own citizens by having one of the other participants do it, then swapping data.
In that context the UK's activities are relevant to American citizen's expectations of privacy.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Do you even really mean to appear to be trying?
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....on the US or other countries. He'll be packed up and sent off to Siberia in seconds!
rocktivity
(44,576 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 4, 2015, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)
"Honey traps" are almost as old as honey itself.
Also, I doubt these tactics are exclusive to the British.
rocktivity
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)this man is completely naive! I am beginning to wonder if he has Aspergers...
which leads me to believe that Greenwald REALLY took advantage of this guy....and then he hung him out to dry. Leaving him with a bunch of nonsense to release now and again so that Snowwie thinks he is still important!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)Its so laughable reading all the frightened-of-information father-knows-best crowd cancel themselves out.
One one hand he's a dangerous traitor to the country putting at risk not only American spies but sensitive national security info that places all Americans in terrorist's crosshairs.
And at the same time...
He's a clown who only wants to be a celebrity. (I guess being an international fugitive, on the run from the world's biggest superpower is a small price to pay) And everything he reveals is also a joke because EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS whatever he releases.
At least pick one and stick with it. 
Demenace
(213 posts)The Times said its story was based on 15 months’ worth of interviews with current and former US officials, European and Israeli officials, other experts and international nuclear inspectors.
TheTrueHOOHA’s response, published by Ars Technica, is worth quoting in full:
<TheTrueHOOHA> HOLYSHIT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/ washington/11iran.html?_r=1&hp
<TheTrueHOOHA> WTF NYTIMES
<TheTrueHOOHA> Are they TRYING to start a war?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Jesus christ
<TheTrueHOOHA> they’re like wikileaks
<User19> they’re just reporting, dude.
<TheTrueHOOHA> They’re reporting classified shit
<User19> Shrugs
<TheTrueHOOHA> about an unpopular country surrounded by enemies already engaged in a war
<TheTrueHOOHA> and about our interactions with said country regarding planning sovereignty violations of another country
<TheTrueHOOHA> you don’t put that shit in the NEWSPAPER
<User19> Meh
<TheTrueHOOHA> moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?
<TheTrueHOOHA> those people should be shot in the balls.
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> HELLO? HOW COVERT IS IT NOW? THANK YOU
<User19> Meh
<TheTrueHOOHA> I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars they just completely blew.
<User19> You’re over-reacting. It’s fine.
<TheTrueHOOHA> It’s not an overreaction. They have a HISTORY of this shit
<User19> with flowers and cake.
<TheTrueHOOHA> these are the same people who blew the whole ‘we could listen to osama’s cell phone’ thing the same people who screwed us on wiretapping over and over and over again. Thank God they’re going out of business.
<User19> the NYT?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Hopefully they’ll finally go bankrupt this year. yeah.
A few minutes later the chat continues:
<User19> It’s nice they report on stuff.
<TheTrueHOOHA> I enjoy it when it’s ethical reporting.
<TheTrueHOOHA> political corruption, sure
<TheTrueHOOHA> scandal, yes
<User19> is it unethical to report on the government’s intrigue?
<TheTrueHOOHA> VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? no
<User19> meh.
<User19> national security.
<TheTrueHOOHA> Um,YEEEEEEEEEEEES.
<TheTrueHOOHA> that shit is classified for a reason
<TheTrueHOOHA> it’s not because ‘oh we hope our citizens don’t find out’
<TheTrueHOOHA> it’s because ‘this shit won’t work if iran knows what we’re doing.’
<User19> Shrugs
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> direct. quote.
<TheTrueHOOHA> THEN WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO REPORTERS?!
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘Those covert operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> THEY’RE NOT COVERT ANYMORE
<TheTrueHOOHA> Oh you’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Now the NYTimes is going to determine our foreign policy?
<TheTrueHOOHA> And Obama?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Obama just appointed a fucking POLITICIAN to run the CIA!
<User11> yes unlike every other director of CIA ever
<User11> oh wait, no
<TheTrueHOOHA> I am so angry right now. This is completely unbelievable.
The ‘fucking politician’ was Leon Panetta, appointed by Obama in 2009 despite his evident lack of intelligence background. The appointment was supposed to draw a line under the intelligence scandals of the Bush years – the renditions, the secret CIA prisons and the illegal wiretapping.
Snowden evidently knew of WikiLeaks, a niche transparency website whose story would later intersect with his own. But he didn’t like it. At this point, Snowden’s antipathy towards the New York Times was based on his opinion that ‘they are worse than Wikileaks’. Later, however, he would go on to accuse the paper of not publishing quickly enough and of sitting on unambiguous evidence of White House illegality. These are somewhat contradictory views.
Certainly Snowden’s anti-leaking invective seems stunningly at odds with his own later behaviour. But there is a difference between what the Times arguably did – reveal details of sensitive covert operations – and what Snowden would do in 2013. Snowden nowadays explains: ‘Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn’t feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone.’
That is a window into the world of the individual whose back you have got!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)we have heard that a million times....and we laugh every time.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)melm00se
(4,993 posts)can be a dirty business...it's been that way since time immemorial.
But it is an integral part of statecraft. It is necessary to know not only what other countries (and people) are saying to your face but also what they are saying behind closed doors/in private.
Every country has intelligence collecting and analysis organizations who all behave the same way. if anyone believe otherwise, they need to stop petting their pet unicorn and join the real world.
Demenace
(213 posts)Snowden's very smart friends around here do not like it!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)then one should be concerned with reports that spy agencies are targeting journalists.
Demenace
(213 posts)The agenda driven free press like Fox News, right? What are you talking about? This is about exposing the ways and means of the spy business but you latch on to your comfort zone 'free press'. Did Snowden stick to talking about instances where your area of concern 'the free press' was actually targeted? No, he did not and again talked about what is not his business to talk about!
If some of you his supporters around here would only acknowledge that may be, just may be, Snowden may have gone little bit too far himself in talking about the government going to far, some of us can begin to take you guys seriously!
Good friends tell their friends not to drive drunk, may be you Snowden friends should begin acting like his good friends on these issues!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I, personally, don't really care to expend effort clutching my pearls over too many of the NSA's secrets being divulged.
What is most important to me is the effect of blanket surveillance of American citizens who are not suspected of any crime.
Demenace
(213 posts)We need to remember, this is not about our own personal actions but the actions of Snowden so when you acknowledge that even Snowden should realize there is a line not to cross, I truly believe there is room for most of us to agree or disagree.
It is the non recognition of this line that gets to some of us and I thank you for acknowledging this.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)classified information. Focusing on his wrongdoing doesn't help anybody except the powers that be who would rather we bicker about Snowden than pay attention to the NSA.
Demenace
(213 posts)Push back on the perceived excesses of our government and remind Snowden and his pal Glenn Greenwald that there is this thing called the National interest of the United states which requires that they do not cripple that national interest just because they think they can.
Nobody said you cannot talk about the government activities when it is relevant to the domestic issues, it is the attempt to shut down everyone asking if Snowden's activities at this present level may also have crossed a line that gets at some of us. We can have both conversations at the same time.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Tapping Merkel's phone is definitely in someone's interest, but I don't believe it to be the American people's.
Demenace
(213 posts)Please, tell me how your personal feel is the same as that of the American people?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)A GOD-DAMNED CITIZEN. I get to make my own decisions about what my government does and advocate my positions how I want. I even get to vote for the candidate that I think best represents my positions.
Neither the American people nor their representatives in Congress authorized the NSA to establish these programs - they did it in secret. Now that I know what the NSA is doing, I want them to stop. Secret agencies using secret methods authorized by secret laws overseen by secret courts IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
Demenace
(213 posts)...And I cannot argue with your use of the 'I' as opposed to the generalize use of the words 'American people' because again you only speak for yourself.
A little education on your line 'neither the American people nor their representatives in Congress authorized the NSA to establish these programs', you may need to wake up to the realization that your assumption is not true. Again, these programs are created and operated with the blessing of the Congress of the United states of America maybe not the fantasy America you live in. And they are supposed to happen in secret.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I would agree that the function of our government is to act as a proxy father figure, acting on our behalf to protect us but with the underlying assumption that Father Knows Best. And I would never question Father's wisdom.
But I'm not cut from the same cloth as you. I question everything our government does in our name, ostensibly to keep us safe.
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering
So Snowden is exposing the country to danger, eh? That's okay - we're a courageous nation, we can face danger - especially if the trade-off is to allow our personal freedoms to be whittled away because we are afraid.
Demenace
(213 posts)..got to do with your personal freedoms? You folks conflate domestic and international in your use of the words personal freedom. Please, explain how that has anything to do with your personal freedom?
You might not like the government of the United states spying around the world but that in not way makes it anything about your 'personal freedom'. Every nation on earth engage in spying, dude!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)LOL
Its humourous to read the backtracking and shifting of you frightened chicken-littles.
When every other argument against moving the US to a Statsi State overwhelms you you then move to the ...."but but but what about those poor other nations that are being exposed as well?"
So on one hand you have no sympathy nor regard for the civil rights or abuse on those foreign nations by OUR government, but oh my, how rude to tell the world that these nations also spy on each other? Pu........lease.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Why the juvenile patronizing?
Demenace
(213 posts)When you have nothing...
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)That's why I was pointing out the contradiction in your post by mirroring yours. And then you just added on to it.
In what universe is this not snark?:
Snowden's very smart friends around here do not like it.
Look, I get it. Espionage of any kind is o.k. Unless you are a journalist or whistleblower. And then you should be prosecuted under that garbage called the Espionage Act.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)to keep people interested in their product.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)Way past time to air it all out.
Titonwan
(785 posts)Hmmm...
"JTRIG also uses “false flag” operations, in which British agents carry out online actions that are designed to look like they were performed by one of Britain’s adversaries."
Now where have I hear that before... eh, must of been a bad peyote button. 
vdogg
(1,384 posts)The Sun rose today....
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)This is unheard of!
Demenace
(213 posts)For those who are champions of Edward Snowden, maybe a little research on his background before today, should be a time well invested. Read more at: [link:http://www.salon.com/2014/02/07/birth_of_a_whistle_blower_how_edward_snowden_became_edward_snowden/#comments|
Certainly Snowden’s anti-leaking invective seems stunningly at odds with his own later behaviour. But there is a difference between what the Times arguably did – reveal details of sensitive covert operations – and what Snowden would do in 2013. Snowden nowadays explains: ‘Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn’t feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone.’
but I read unbiased material. How long you been here?
Demenace
(213 posts)Not sure where you are coming from so I am shooting at the wind here. Are you saying my excerpt is biased or you do not trust my reference source because I am too new around here, which is it?
Why not go to Salon.com and read up on the article titled 'the birth of Edward Snowden' which gave a detail account of this individual and his views on a wide range of issues. More so, learn the fact that he thought this is just fine until his preferred Presidential candidate did not make to the office of the President of the United states. You see when you do not really know someone, the best way to truly understand them is to see for yourself how such individuals see the world. The article on Snowden should give you a window into the person that is Edward Snowden and it is fresh on that site as at today.
For you information, some of us have been long time members of this site, do not be fooled by my post count!
Response to Demenace (Reply #96)
Hissyspit This message was self-deleted by its author.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I read through it, but there is nothing in the article that suggests that it is a good thing to have the NSA collect and store massive amounts of data on citizens who are not suspected of any crime. The article also did not provide any information that supports the notion that a secret agency governed by secret laws interpreted by secret courts is healthy for a democracy. There was also nothing that disputed the veracity of the information that Snowden released.
But yeah, it looks like he may have been sort of a jerk, not that that matters in the big picture.
Demenace
(213 posts)My reference material is titled: The Birth of Edward Snowden and it is published at Salon.com just a few days ago. Same Edward Snowden, different take on his evolution. And again, the article was not geared answering your desired question of whether the NSA was right or wrong but focused on your pal Edward and his motivations. Again, a must read for even his best supporters so you can truly know who you stand behind and why!
If you are afraid to read it, it is not my problem. Again, the material I cited was not about any conclusions on the NSA but a picture into the minds and motivation of Edward Snowden alone!
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)so to read it, people would have googled a phrase from it, and found the original at The Guardian. They might also find the Salon page, which clearly says it's from a book The Guardian has published.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and read almost word-for-word exactly the same.
I read the entire thing. Again, my conclusion stands: it looks like he may have been sort of a jerk, but so what?
Endless dissections of Snowden's character does one thing and one thing only: provide cover for the Powers That Be as they work to expand the surveillance state into the lives of every man, woman and child in the United States. From the amount of effort you spend demonizing Snowden and his supporters, I can only assume that you approve of this. I do not, it's as simple as that.
So rather than dance around the issue, step on up and tell us WHY you approve of the national security state.
Demenace
(213 posts)Excerpted from "The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World's Most Wanted Man" means for your education that some aspects of the article were sourced from that material. The Salon article itself is the author's take on your pal which is the point I am asking you his supporters to go digest.
The point, you chose not to address is, your pal was for spying on people hence his interest in careers of this nature until his preferred Presidential candidate did not make it to the White House. Ignore that information all you want.
Bottom line: Snowden is just like I am today, he defended this same system when it suited him. You can ignore this point I am making about your pal but it will never change the facts that that was what he did!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)But that's beside the point.
Rather than focus on Snowden's dubious past or questionable motives, let's try and focus on what he reported. It just makes so much more sense.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,350 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)
Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #98)
Hissyspit This message was self-deleted by its author.
Historic NY
(37,450 posts)they perfected the art.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts) 
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)I find it hard to believe people were so willfully ignorant on the ways of the world before Snowden.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Demenace
(213 posts)What then is the point? Provide some wisdom, men!
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"Revealed! Espionage Agencies Conduct Espionage!"
Subtitle
"Everyone Act Shocked And Outraged Immediately!"
