...even if it's against the will of the satellite states...

I don't trust Snowden's motives here. He seems more like a raging narcissist than someone who wants to deliver truth to the people.

the plutocrats.

If this had happened during the Bush era, I think most Democrats would have had a very different reaction.

I wonder how long his invitation to move there would stay in place.

That bravado only goes so far....

The revelations of domestic, 4th amendment violations towards American citizens was welcome and needed, but to divulge details of our covert international operations (which has been shown to have helped terrorists avoid detection) and now to insert this into the Middle East tinderbox — the last thing needed there — Snowden or Greenwald or whoever is doing this is coming off as the biggest attention-seeking narcissist going.

Do we really need more gasoline poured into the Middle East?

allegedly reveal.

Moreover, neither my posts nor yours control what he reveals or keeps secrets. If he discloses info, with regard to you or me, I am happy to have the info.

(which has been shown to have helped terrorists avoid detection)

on how the Snowden/Greenwald/Poitras "international" leaks have helped terrorists — and it goes way beyond just knowing to stay off phones and the internet, etc..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024887934

My view is that journalists and IT workers are just that — journalists and IT workers, not diplomats. Maybe they should work with and through John Kerry on this but to just blurt out incendiary info which will add more fuel to the Middle East seems extremely irresponsible.

believe. (Like so much else on this board.)

Intel all over the world have been working with the US on terra! and are dependent on the US because they cannot spend the massive amounts the US has been spending.

I was not aware that "a senior British intelligence official" or anyone in intel makes a habit of making public statements in the presence of media about what is or is not working for them, unless they have an agenda that the disclosure serves. So, I'm skeptical about the motivation and therefore about the statement.

But, as I have posted, for me, the issue is not Snowden. And nothing I think influences whether he makes disclosures or not.

Thanks for the link, though.

of covert operations by Snowden/Greenwald/Poitras didn't have any effect on terrorist operations at all? You have to know that they garnered info that helped them, just as we did domestically about the scope of NSA operations.

Sorry, but it still amazes me of the naivete of Snowden, and now the recklessness/irresponsibility of Greenwald/Poitras to think that it's a good idea to disclose details of covert operations of their own country.

And again, as I said earlier in this thread, the domestic revelations of 4th amendment violations against citizens was a good thing and Snowden is to be commended, but the international stuff — nah, it borders on, or even crosses over to sedition. And now he's a defector to that beacon of human rights, Russia.

Gotta say, I am not a fan of people putting words in my mouth--or my post--while trying to make it seem as though they are simply repeating something that I said

As for you last paragraph, I already responded to them.

guess I didn't understand.

So, I also have no idea how to make it clearer to you.

Privileged diplomatic correspondence is properly confidential for good damn reasons. Don't be clueless.

A lot of the stuff sounded like freshmen in high school gossiping foolishly. "Gaddafi is often seen walking with a blond." It's pathetic we had to pay for it. And, long before Snowden or Obama, the US has been notorious for rampant over-classification. Moreover, the spy v. spy thing works well. Angela knows what Obama is doing and vice versa.


But, what exactly are you denying anyway?

That US info doesn't belong only to plutocrats?

That we don't now know what will happen after the disclosures (if any) are made?

That the reaction of Democrats would have been different if this had happened when bush was in office?

But, what exactly are you denying anyway?

And I don't think that is bullshit. the 100% pays for it. The barest minimum is legitimately kept from us. The rest is way overclassified.

...which is talking about the SPECIFIC US information consisting of private diplomatic correspondence.

If the country is unable to even guarantee that confidential communications with foreign government will be kept confidential then international diplomacy becomes exponentially more difficult. It's not all just about there being some damn national security justification.


We are all in favor of diplomacy actually being possible here... right?

One is that we don't even know if this story is accurate. Another is that, if the story is accurate, we don't know what will be disclosed. A third is that a lot of the information that we pretend is known to no one but USians with a security clearance is actually known to others. A fourth is over classification.

We are all in favor of diplomacy actually being possible here... right?

If my doctor's office were broken into at night, ala Watergate, I probably would not fire my doctor, unless I were looking for an excuse before the break in; e.g; his or treatment was no much of a help to begin with. If my doctor intentionally disclosed it, that would be very different, but that is not what happened here. And, yes, it would matter if only inconsequential info were disclosed, but, again, deliberate disclosure by my doctor is not the US / Snowden scenario, so that issue becomes irrelevant. And again, a lot of the info was no secret to begin with.

But are you implying that North Korea or Iran or Cuba is going to fire us because of Snowden? More than they already have? I doubt it. For one thing, they've probably had info stolen, too. For another, either they need us, or to reconcile with us, or not. Will our allies fire us? I doubt that, too. They need us too much. And, they, too, probably have had info stolen.

I am not sure I see much reason to continue this discussion. Maybe another time.

If you found out your doctor's secretary did it instead of your doctor... or some nurse who had access to your chart... you still, I'm willing to bet, wouldn't go back there. Keeping it confidential was their responsibility and they didn't do it.

Every time it is reinforced that confidential information provided to the US government will be regularly leaked... for whatever reason or by whatever entity... it makes people less likely to provide that information in the first place. And there is no justification for Snowden leaking half the shit he does beyond him obviously desperately seeking to extend his 15 minutes of fame.

Some day, you and I will be best board buddies, Jesus, I just know it.

...likes STRAWBERRIES on his Corn Flakes.

HA-HA-HA!

only 3 months until August.

I'd like to know the truth about the shenanigans our government and the CIA has engaged in over the years including our relationship with dictators in the Arab world. I may not like the messenger and I may not like the message but I'd still like to hear it if it's true.

& Saudi Arabia hiring Pro mercenaries, 'Blackwater' to squash any internal citizen protest.

or starts a war?

The Cheering would be deafening.

that shows Russia or Bolivia in a negative light. We are seeing things in the context that Snowden/Putin want you to see them in. If he wants to claim high ground on this he would need to reveal everything and that won't happen. This will be like a play, selected docs will be released to transmit a story. It has nothing to do with free press or journalism. It's advancing the cause of the Russian government. Don't kid yourself.

The ME is a sensitive area. Trying to prove his relevance again.

Now that he has retained the power-house defense attorney, and Russia is becoming a less "welcoming" place, he figures that he can use (threats) of releases to leverage a return to the U.S.

This extortion scheme could work out well for him; but he risks dumping a whole lot of gas onto the middle east fire, should the U.S. government not relent.

I see it differently.

More information equals better decision-making, and resistance to manipulation.

Governments have to deal with their own opposition which will also be reading Snowden's disclosures. So this is Snowden and Putin interfering in the politics of many nations. Disclosure will force gov't posturing that could be utterly against their vital interests.

It's our own arrogance that fails to notice other nations have complex politics, parties, and agendas.

I do not entrust other people to decide whether or not I will be uninformed or misinformed. That's my decision, and a good decision depends on unfettered access to information.

In the same way, I do not trust other people to tell me what I can put in my own body, what I can think or say, which doctor I may go to, and all the rest of it.

Countries are evil things run by elites who act in their own interests, not the interests of the governed.

As for the puerile garbage about nations being evil... Bleh.

Honestly, you sound like Cliven Bundy.

Most things are not classified in the first place because of danger to the 99%.

relations.

Every time Snowden does something like this, he digs his grave a little deeper.

Again, whether it's terrorists or other governments, everyone who has an immediate interest probably knows the stuff already. There was a reason Ben Ladin never used cell phones or emails, even before 2001.

Every time Snowden does something like this, he digs his grave a little deeper.

like Iran, for example. Exposing them jeopardizes everything we're trying to do to maintain peace in the region.

Yes, everything we do in the oil rich Middle East is about peace in the region. Always has been.

come on, you can't possibly ....

never mind.

for speaking some sense in this thread and helping dispel some of the RW/propaganda memes on Snowden. I am suspicious of this report because i'm pretty sure Snowden already gave up all he had to several media organizations with the explicit understanding that they would do nothing to expose agents in the field. Snowden already did what he set out to do. The trickle that keeps coming is the media orgs poring through the documents. To do that carefully takes time.

am with the excessive secrecy of government.

I don't demonize Snowden or wish him any harm whatever. To the contrary. Nonetheless, he is not my focus. The more a thread becomes about Snowden, for good or ill, the more attention is deflected from issues that are important to me, such as what our government (and other governments) are doing, because they can.

documents released by Greenwald.

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/02/the-name-of-an-nsa-agent-exposed-in-poorly-redacted-snowden-document/

The exposed, poorly-redacted information included the following:
–A very specific and very dangerous group that’s been targeted by NSA using a free application known as Visual Communicator.
–Detailed information about what specifically can be gathered about the location of targets.
–On the cover-page of the document, the full name of the NSA worker who evidently composed the document in May of 2010.
nsa_redacted_slide2So, the identity of an NSA worker is out there in public view within the same document in which a target of this program is named. All of this is due to the incompetence of whoever failed to properly redact the pdf before publishing it for the world to see — as well as for the aforementioned cryptography site to nab and republish it. (It’s worth noting that the crypto-site is in favor of publishing all of Snowden’s documents online without redactions, claiming the files are public property.)

That program wreaks of manipulation and wasted tax dollars. Sounds a lot like the Cuban fiasco, actually.

What was this 'very dangerous group'?

ps - That doesn't sound like a field agent, but an office worker.

Or that everyone should have access to the material Snowden's been leaking.

decides what documents or facts will be released. That is pretty much up to Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald according to what I think Glenn Greenwald said, and they are vetting the information according to journalistic standards or at least are trying to they have said.

I wonder about what you are saying. Secrecy has been the tradition in diplomacy for centuries. But what if some of the "secrets" are made public? My guess is that in some cases that would be a good thing, and in some a bad thing. Similarly keeping some of the diplomatic "secrets" secret is good and some is bad.

Our government assumes that keeping certain things, certain secret agreements for instance, secret is a good thing. But we don't know that for a fact. In reality, it may be best if some of the things, even all of the things, that our government keeps "secret" in the area of foreign policy were more widely known.

I guess we will find out. I suspect that the "secrets" will not surprise us that much at all. We know there are a lot of deals made that would embarrass our governments were they made public. But embarrassment is not that harmful. Might make our leaders more honest in their dealings and that might help ordinary Americans.

We shall see. I would not jump to conclusions. I would not panic.

Australia could have kept that secret had it not shared the information with the US.

It is hard to take the secrecy of a program seriously when the government claiming the secrecy hands the information out to other countries.

The surveillance program when used to place elected leaders of foreign countries under surveillance is about world domination. That is especially true in the case of Australia and Indonesia.

Australia should simply return the people emigrating to its shores back to the countries of origin and punish anyone who hires the refugees or immigrants.

Apologists for the NSA surveillance seem to justify it by saying well, we can so why shouldn't we.

If the NSA, Australia and other countries do surveillance, they have to understand that there is a price for doing it. And that price is that other countries, the countries (and individuals) under surveillance will lose trust in those doing the surveillance. Actions have effects. Actions have repercussions.

If Snowden had not revealed the NSA snooping and invasions of privacy, that snooping and those invasions of privacy would have been revealed or discovered through some other means. You just don't snoop on people without telling them you are doing it.

It is a question of respecting others. How can you claim to believe in freedom or personal responsibility or democracy or even self-determination if you place nearly everyone under surveillance and the social interactions of others under surveillance?

There is something terribly wrong with our government when it professes to support self-determination, freedom and democracy but conducts surveillance on everyone and everything. Goes for Australia too.

This is a peeping tom mentality. It is sick and perverted. Spying should be used carefully and planned with much thought for the best and most efficient and economical use of resources. This blanket collection of data and spying on politically embarrassing victims has to go. It is irresponsible and will alienate potential and actual allies.

Snowden, and his supporters, need to understand that his actions have consequences. Revealing internal US surveillance is one thing. Revealing the actions of the US organizations that spy on other countries crosses the line into betrayal.

our government to oppress poorer nations with a heavy hand. Indonesia cannot afford all the technological paraphernalia that we first world countries can. Australia could have gotten the information it needed without personal surveillance on the president of Indonesia. We and our ally Australia really crossed a line there. Australia may be our ally, but Indonesia is not our enemy.

Exposing those agents may jeopardize our foreign policy goals, but they have little to do with peace in the region. Our goals seem to be more about overthrowing those governments we don't like.

We've got CIA agents running weapons and training to Syrian insurgents.

We've funded secret revolutionary militant groups in Iran.

We continue to prop up the Israeli apartheid state.

We're good buddies with the biggest sponsors of jihadi terrorism in the region, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

We have a secret CIA army running around Pakistan and Afghanistan.

We're dropping drones in Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

Our foreign policy in the region is foul, ugly, and murderous. It needs some light shone on it.

So he might as well simply release everything.

It doesn't really whether you're 6 inches underground or 6 feet, you're still underground.

our allies that funded 9/11? those allies?

Turkey/WMD = fingers crossed

We need the mega-rich and their tactics revealed.
I hope this touches on that.

run by special interests, the billionaires and other money gripping dictatorial outside interests are just the latest. Our government is in crisis because so many have figured out how to game it.

Not owning a huge chunk of Wall Street while funding terrorism.

That said, I hope Snowden had considered fetwahs. I don't think you can seek asylum from those.

But, that's his issue. I just would like as much info as possible.

Incredible concept.

Completely rejected by some on this thread.

in every situation.

simplistic?

If I err, I hope to heaven, it is not on the side of deceiving citizens.

Happy Truth Day.

Happy Truth Day.

decided to welcome a few. I knew nothing about her, did not recognize the name at all. Still don't.

That is very different from knowing someone is an anti-semite and welcoming them.

But you know that.

And you also have read enough of my posts to know that I am not the kind of person who knowingly welcomes anti-Semites. That's really not an implication anyone should throw around lightly and with zero evidence, especially after the person you accuse denies that intent.

But, as a lawyer, you know that, too.

Kinda low.

I'm done on this topic.

Koko is a good poster for liberals to thank.

Truth is (not) what is called for in every situation?

Wow.

the truth is not *always* the best thing to go with

like if a 'robust' close friend or significant other asks you if she looks fat in a specific dress(when she would look 'robust' in any outfit she wears.)

Now the truth would be 'yes, you do look fat in it' or 'its not the dress, you are actually fat', usually a small lie is best in such a situation even if its a truthful lie aka 'you look nice/gorgeous in it dear' aka its true in that you might think she looks nice it it, but its a lie by omission since you avoided the crucial part of her question.

In the same way i think the truth might not always be the best thing if it being known would cause a lot more harm then it would solve(this though i admit to be a very very slippery slope that is very hard to navigate/solve properly). So i guess you could say i value peace and harmony for society over /some/ truths

The poster claims to be a sworn officer of the court. That's why it's so surprising to hear that truth is optional and not always desirable.

the 'fat dress' was just the most used example of why at times a 'white/factual lie' is better then the blunt truth

While i do believe in facts, logic and honesty, i can't disagree with the poster that there are times when the truth is not the best answer(obviously a very situational thing and preferably rare)

Most people are hip to when/if to tell a "white lie" in social situations.

What about that person's medical doctor?

Should the doctor lie to her about her weight and
the attendant health risk, to avoid "disharmony"?

That's not being a very good doctor.

Yup. That must be the ticket.

I'm glad he's pissing off powerful people, but I don't expect him to live much longer if he keeps this up.

I think that is why he left the country.