doctorow at July 9th, 2014 01:00 — #1
vonbobo at July 9th, 2014 02:00 — #2
It's comforting to know the government actually believes its own paranoia and it isn't generating only to manipulate the civilians.
dobby at July 9th, 2014 05:40 — #3
I am bummed, it used to be us commie Jews who were so damn interesting to the FBI back during the red scare.
Enjoy your time in the microscope slide guys!
dug at July 9th, 2014 07:46 — #4
Doesn't seem entirely crazy that you'd want to check up on someone who failed to declare their links to a terrorist fundraiser. http://www.salon.com/2004/06/22/gill/
llamaspit at July 9th, 2014 08:27 — #5
Yeah, his connection to Grover Norquist is especially troubling.
gleep_wurp at July 9th, 2014 10:21 — #6
Wow, a government official was snooped on? We all no government officials can't be traitors.
cowicide at July 9th, 2014 11:39 — #7
Doesn't seem entirely crazy that you'd want to check up on someone who failed to declare their links to a terrorist fundraiser.
Yes, he's a very scary guy...
More info on this suspicious guy:
cowicide at July 9th, 2014 11:42 — #8
By that logic, maybe we need to spy on you?
What, you're innocent? You're not a traitor? That sounds suspicious.
Sounds like you're trying to deflect from yourself on others and I'd say that make you ripe for deep surveillance. If someone fudges with your bank account in the process, we're sorry, but we have to protect freedoms. Actually, we're not sorry, because... freedom.
C'mon... we all know that random people can't be traitors... random people are squeaky clean and all innocent. Screw that, the reality is random people can be traitors. You can be a traitor.
Are you a traitor? Let's find out. Time to start watching you very closely.
Why do you know so much about federal judges? What's your interest in transsexuals? So many questions we should get to the bottom of with you and your family.
boundegar at July 9th, 2014 13:00 — #9
“I was a very conservative, Reagan-loving Republican,” he says. “If somebody like me could be surveilled, then [there are] other people out there I can only imagine who are under surveillance."
Even a Republican could come under suspicion? Now that's shocking - not like keeping an eye on the Dirty Fucking Hippie Party. Because we all know it's only terrorism on the left. (The left, for NSA purposes, includes ultra-conservative Muslims, but not ultra-conservative Christians. Make sense?)
cowicide at July 9th, 2014 13:50 — #10
Meanwhile, speaking of the corrupt NSA...
To those of you out there who disengeniously said Snowden had other channels he could have taken within a corrupt organization like the NSA, here is yet even more evidence that was never the case:
Former CIA Employee Reveals Firing for Seeking to Declassify Docs
A former CIA employee has revealed he was forced out of his job after trying to release historical documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Jeffrey Scudder discovered the files after taking up a position at the CIA’s Historical Collections Division, which is tasked with combing through agency archives to vet what can be safely made public. Scudder came across material on long-dormant conflicts and operations related to the Cold War. But when he submitted them for disclosure, he was accused of mishandling classified information. His home was raided, his computers seized, and he was forced to retire. Scudder said: "I submitted a FOIA and it basically destroyed my entire career. What was this whole exercise for?" The case has raised comparisons to complaints from National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, who has said there were no adequate channels for him to raise his concerns about NSA surveillance.
This is, of course, already on top of these facts below as well. The story most of the corporate mass media would like us to ignore is that Snowden was already vindicated a long time ago shortly after his disclosures:
3 Former NSA Employees Praise Edward Snowden, Corroborate Key Claims
- His disclosures did not cause grave damage to national security.
- What Snowden discovered is "material evidence of an institutional crime."
- As a system administrator, Snowden "could go on the network or go into any file or any system and change it or add to it or whatever, just to make sure -- because he would be responsible to get it back up and running if, in fact, it failed. So that meant he had access to go in and put anything. That's why he said, I think, 'I can even target the president or a judge.' If he knew their phone numbers or attributes, he could insert them into the target list which would be distributed worldwide. And then it would be collected, yeah, that's right. As a super-user, he could do that."
- The idea that we have robust checks and balances on this is a myth.
- Congressional overseers "have no real way of seeing into what these agencies are doing. They are totally dependent on the agencies briefing them on programs, telling them what they are doing."
- Lawmakers "don't really don't understand what the NSA does and how it operates. Even when they get briefings, they still don't understand."
- Asked what Edward Snowden should expect to happen to him, one of the men, William Binney, answered, "first tortured, then maybe even rendered and tortured and then incarcerated and then tried and incarcerated or even executed." Interesting that this is what a whistleblower thinks the U.S. government will do to a citizen. The abuse of Bradley Manning worked.
- There is no path for intelligence-community whistle-blowers who know wrong is being done. There is none. It's a toss of the coin, and the odds are you are going to be hammered.
What say you now, Snowden detractors? [crickets]
Oh, and as far as that ridiculous, recent Bill Maher episode goes:
Bill Maher is talking out of both sides of his mouth. First he said Richard Clarke isn't with the government (which I think confused Greenwald), but then Maher turns around and admits that Clarke was, indeed, a part of Obama's government panel. Um, which is it, Maher? Anyone else notice that? He fudges and massages the truth to suit some of his negative positions (or allegations) against Snowden.
I like aspects of Richard Clarke as Maher does, but Maher is being incredibly naive if he thinks Clarke is being an impartial critic to represent only the truth as apposed to serving his masters who handed him and 4 others information that we can't independently verify as accurate, complete, fabricated or not. And, once again, as Greenwald said, where are the dead Americans?
At that point we get Maher's and Reickhoff's disingenuous (or perhaps simply ignorant) retorts that we'd have no way of knowing if agents have been killed due to the leaks. That is a complete crock.
Reickhoff and Maher are full of it here -- the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community have always has been willing to tell us the names of its operatives who are killed if such revelations further the intelligence community's domestic political agenda.
More: (thank you, platypusmusic for link @ reddit)
Reickhoff sounded like an idiot arguing from ignorance and screaming over and over how Greenwald must prove a negative. What a dolt. Reickhoff also sounded like an idiot not understanding the relevance of how he referred to Daniel Ellsberg as basically being a hero when Ellsberg has already repeatedly said that he would've done things the same way as Snowden.
If Maher had stopped Reickhoff from repeatedly interrupting, shouting and bullying, we could have had a real debate instead of this fiasco where these two idiots (Maher and Reickhoff) tag team Greenwald in a game of screaming "gotcha!" instead of matters of substance that give a more accurate picture of the entire situation.
Boo, Bill Maher. You failed yet again at having a reasonable debate on Snowden leaks.
doctorow at July 14th, 2014 01:01 — #12
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.