I am updating my post from Friday (http://naomiwolf.org/?p=1835) that raised questions — just questions, which citizens in a functioning democracy should always be expecting to raise at all times about everything — in this case, about some aspects of Snowden’s presentation that I find worth further inquiry. Please remember that these are questions not assertions. Sources in the whistleblower community have confirmed that the more serious of my questions — which relate to the odd absence of US counsel at Snowden’s side, given that the laws he will be accused of violating, if he is charged, are US laws — does bear further investigation.

On the bigger picture, I do find a great deal of media/blog discussion about serious questions such as those I raised, question that relate to querying some sources of news stories, and their potential relationship to intelligence agencies or to other agendas that may not coincide with the overt narrative, to be extraordinarily ill-informed and naive.

There is no bright line that separates ‘real events’ from the world of intelligence, surveillance, and potential intervention in outcomes. There is not ‘reality’ and ‘spy novels’ any more, with no interpenetration. On the contrary — the surveillance/security world and ‘the real world’ are bring more closely knit all the time, and both reporters and commentators need to lose their naivete about this interpenetration.

There is no longer a bright line between ‘us’, transparent reality in which everything is as it appears, and ‘them’ — the spooks, the shadow side, what used to be the material of John le Carre novels.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/naomi-wolf/some-aspects-of-snowdens-presentation-that-i-find-worth-further-inquiry-an-updat/10151561401552949