A new, never-before-seen document from the Snowden archives was just published

Originally published at: A new, never-before-seen document from the Snowden archives was just published | Boing Boing


Very upsetting.


It’s so frustrating how consistently thin and pathetic their justifications for these policies always are. The excuses like “any opposition to drones is a secret op by our enemies because we’re beating them with drones” is so ridiculous that it’s obvious the people writing it don’t believe it. We know they know these policies are evil but they wanna do it so they’ll make us whatever pathetic spin they can.

That they then classify only that part says they know we would know how pathetic that rationalization is, and how bad it would make the US look. Maybe, instead of hiding the reasons for doing evil to save face, they should just stop doing evil.


This intellipedua page looks like a copy paste from somewhere else

The term “extra-judicial” only scrapes the surface. Extra-constitutional is more accurate. This is another case of “Who watches the watchers?” The government is tasked with carrying out our national laws and policies. Blowing up people including US citizens on foreign soil is not that.


A title like that always makes me think I’m going to be rickrolled.

Isn’t this what they used to mean by “deep state”? The “realists” in the government who were perfectly happy to do whatever nefariousness was necessary to “protect America” and all those pesky civilians trying to have some sort of oversite of them were just an extension of the enemy. J. Edgar thought Bobby F. was a communist, not because of any actual communist actions on his part but because he wanted oversight of the the FBI. This is basically the same thing.

When did “deep state” come to mean “scientists objecting to lying”?

Edit: accommodating @nick_warr’s pedantry.


Almost every page on almost every private wiki is mostly copy-pasted, in my experience. People mostly use them as places to keep institutional knowledge.


FOREVER WARS is publishing the document in full, minus some excisions for caution that do not affect the document’s narrative.

AND, minus 69 of the 71 footnotes, because college is for dorks.

1 Like

Sorry to do the pedant, but you meant oversight…

ok, only a little bit sorry.

1 Like

Fed #1: “What should we do about those human rights organizations who want to fight for human rights?”
Fed #2: “Let’s violate their rights, while simultaneously accusing them of waiving their rights.”


Yes, it’s the name of a podcast, and that was the sort of thing they were originally interested in. Then Trump came along and the tone-- and the audience changed.

That’s why the footnotes would be an interesting read.

1 Like

I’m hardly an expert (not American, not a lawyer, and especially not a constitutional scholar), but when I heard about that assassination, I remember saying to someone “if there’s one thing the US Constitution is supposed to prevent, it’s this.”

1 Like

k-rog… or something

Yeah it’s why I don’t think this is a real document in any relevant sense of the word.

edit: The wiki page is obviously real, I’m just not sure it’s an official document or policy guidance or anything relevant.

1 Like

Sure, there’s a danger in looking at this and becoming guilty of the same sort of misparsing that happened with Climategate when all the denialists would read the word “trick” and interpret it as evidence that the IPCC was lying. This document probably isn’t either official policy but it does reflect the attitude that at least a few members of the intelligence community have towards extra-judicial/illegal activities are their part.

Same on all counts. I had that exact argument with a (liberal!) American friend at the time. He was all, “well, it’s war and he’s a bad guy”. Even as a Canadian, I knew the US Constitution is explicitly against exactly this type of thing.


“Extrajudicial” sounds good because Americans like more, but if they really want to upsell it they should refer to it as “Supersizejudicial”.

Tbh, without seeing the edit history, it may not even reflect that much

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.