Snowden Leaks: a Public Service

[Baldy]

Oh yes, and Glenn Greenwald is the foundation of objective and unbiased media. He is the North Star of objective journalism...our guiding light.

Excellent! I'm so glad you mentioned this (even though I haven't linked to Greenwald at all in this thread )

There is very little wrong with a journalist having bias as long as his writing is based in facts.

I've linked to this before but here's a reminder:

n the original concept, in other words, the method is objective, not the journalist. The key was in the discipline of the craft, not the aim.

This point has some important implications.

One is that the impartial voice employed by many news organizations – that familiar, supposedly neutral style of newswriting – is not a fundamental principle of journalism. Rather, it is an often helpful device news organizations use to highlight that they are trying to produce something obtained by objective methods.

The second implication is that this neutral voice, without a discipline of verification, creates a veneer covering something hollow. Journalists who select sources to express what is really their own point of view, and then use the neutral voice to make it seem objective, are engaged in a form of deception. This damages the credibility of the craft by making it seem unprincipled, dishonest, and biased.

There is tons more information at this link to help you through this.
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/ ... jectivity/

And here's an excellent debate between Greenwald and former NYT editor Bill Keller on what constitutes good journalism and the importance of adversarial journalism.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greens ... newspapers

IOW's "fair and balanced" sounds great, and is a deceptive slogan for feeble minds.

The negative reporting on Snowden is based entirely on what establishment media is spoon fed by the government. Thinking he is a traitor is simply an opinion based on trusting the government.

There is no need for you to mention Greenwald. We all know you keep The Intercept stuffed under your mattress with the pages all stuck together.
Greenwald went all in on Snowden to validate his "journalistic" career, so I'm sure he wouldn't dare lie or withhold information to protect himself or Snowden. Not at all. Not one bit. Greenwald has never ever lied before.

It's ironic that you claim that nobody can provide proof that Snowden did X Y or Z, but then immediately make the emphatic statement that ALL the negative reporting on Snowden is based entirely on what establishment media is spoon fed by the government.
Where is your proof?

[YoUDeeMan]

And, declassified documents verify that Snowden did voice his concerns internally before seeking out The Guardian.



https://news.vice.com/article/edward-sn ... -exclusive

It has been a consistent position of the federal government that Snowden made little or no attempt to address his concerns through official channels. This claim has allowed them to portray the former contractor as a renegade with little concern for the rule of law.

But according to new documents uncovered by Vice News through the Freedom of Information Act, Snowden did try to alert the National Security Agency to his concerns. He did try to use proper government channels and the government failed not only him, but the American people.

Then proceeded to act like it never happened after they left Snowden with no other options but to go public.

As late as April of 2013, just months before his leaks, Snowden had sought clarification regarding the “interpretation of legal authorities” in relation to the surveillance programs. Among these programs were PRISM and XKeyscore. PRISM allows for direct access to the accounts of users from several major websites, including Google and Yahoo. XKeyscore is a tool that allows access to most contents on the Internet, which Snowden has himself described as essentially granting access to anyone on the planet.

On April 5th of that year, Snowden e-mailed the NSA’s Office of General Counsel regarding a training question that implied presidential executive orders carry the same weight as statutes. A special agent assigned to the NSA counterintelligence division also had discovered additional e-mails with Snowden expressing his concerns.

This contradicts numerous claims by various figures in the government who stated Snowden hadn’t tried to resolve his concerns privately. But not only do the documents Vice News acquired show that did occur, but the revelations that they may have lied about this sparked panic up the ranks.

The information contained in the more than 800 pages of documents paints a deceptive picture of those within the government handling the Snowden revelations. From the White House press secretary to various leaders within the National Security Agency, there has been an effort to deceive the people about the handling of the entire situation.

It’s not only disturbing the things Snowden revealed in the last few years, but also the lengths that various levels of power have gone to to protect power and deceive the people.

Anyone hear the distinct sound of government officials scrambling to cover their butts?

[kalm]

Excellent! I'm so glad you mentioned this (even though I haven't linked to Greenwald at all in this thread )

There is very little wrong with a journalist having bias as long as his writing is based in facts.

I've linked to this before but here's a reminder:



There is tons more information at this link to help you through this.
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/ ... jectivity/

And here's an excellent debate between Greenwald and former NYT editor Bill Keller on what constitutes good journalism and the importance of adversarial journalism.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greens ... newspapers

IOW's "fair and balanced" sounds great, and is a deceptive slogan for feeble minds.

The negative reporting on Snowden is based entirely on what establishment media is spoon fed by the government. Thinking he is a traitor is simply an opinion based on trusting the government.

There is no need for you to mention Greenwald. We all know you keep The Intercept stuffed under your mattress with the pages all stuck together.
Greenwald went all in on Snowden to validate his "journalistic" career, so I'm sure he wouldn't dare lie or withhold information to protect himself or Snowden. Not at all. Not one bit. Greenwald has never ever lied before.

It's ironic that you claim that nobody can provide proof that Snowden did X Y or Z, but then immediately make the emphatic statement that ALL the negative reporting on Snowden is based entirely on what establishment media is spoon fed by the government.
Where is your proof?

Ummm what other source is there other than the leaks themselves and the government.

Whether or not it's treason or whether or not he's a hero is opinion.

You side with Feinstein, Clinton, and Obama. I side with Greenwald and Rand Paul.

Congrats!!!

[Baldy]

There is no need for you to mention Greenwald. We all know you keep The Intercept stuffed under your mattress with the pages all stuck together.
Greenwald went all in on Snowden to validate his "journalistic" career, so I'm sure he wouldn't dare lie or withhold information to protect himself or Snowden. Not at all. Not one bit. Greenwald has never ever lied before.

It's ironic that you claim that nobody can provide proof that Snowden did X Y or Z, but then immediately make the emphatic statement that ALL the negative reporting on Snowden is based entirely on what establishment media is spoon fed by the government.
Where is your proof?

Ummm what other source is there other than the leaks themselves and the government.

Ummm what source do you have that information wasn't leaked? Snowden? Greenwald?

Russia gave Snowden asylum because he's such a nice guy.

Fact of the matter is it doesn't matter if the classified information Snowden has was leaked or not. The US and our allies have to assume and act as if it was, which comes at a great cost to everyone involved.

[kalm]

Ummm what other source is there other than the leaks themselves and the government.

Ummm what source do you have that information wasn't leaked? Snowden? Greenwald?

Russia gave Snowden asylum because he's such a nice guy.

Fact of the matter is it doesn't matter if the classified information Snowden has was leaked or not. The US and our allies have to assume and act as if it was, which comes at a great cost to everyone involved.

'No, no. Trust them! They can't show any real evidence, just hypothetical, but trust them! The government!'

- Baldy

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... government

[YoUDeeMan]

kalm slams the boogie men onto the mat.

Nice article.

So far, the screams that Snowden hurt people, and cost lives, is proving to be a silly game of scare tactics.

It appears Snowden tried to report the abuses by our government through proper channels, but he was ignored.

It also appears that there is a concentrated smear campaign to discredit Snowden...and that campaign is making our government, and governments around the world, look silly.

Too bad.

Sunshine. It is the best disinfectant.

[Baldy]

Ummm what source do you have that information wasn't leaked? Snowden? Greenwald?

Russia gave Snowden asylum because he's such a nice guy.

Fact of the matter is it doesn't matter if the classified information Snowden has was leaked or not. The US and our allies have to assume and act as if it was, which comes at a great cost to everyone involved.

'No, no. Trust them! They can't show any real evidence, just hypothetical, but trust them! The government!'

- Baldy

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... government

No, no trust him. He can't show any real evidence, just hypothetical, but trust him. I handed everything over to the Chinks in Hong Kong...really I did. Trust me, I'm Eddie, The Hero.

Gullible.

[kalm]

'No, no. Trust them! They can't show any real evidence, just hypothetical, but trust them! The government!'

- Baldy

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... government

No, no trust him. He can't show any real evidence, just hypothetical, but trust him. I handed everything over to the Chinks in Hong Kong...really I did. Trust me, I'm Eddie, The Hero.

Gullible.

Umm ok. So he is presumed guilty and should have to prove a negative because you trust Diane Fuckimg Feinstein!

Yeah!

[Baldy]

No, no trust him. He can't show any real evidence, just hypothetical, but trust him. I handed everything over to the Chinks in Hong Kong...really I did. Trust me, I'm Eddie, The Hero.

Gullible.

Umm ok. So he is presumed guilty and should have to prove a negative because you trust Diane Fuckimg Feinstein!

Yeah!

I don't trust you, your girl from Cali, the gubbermint, or Snowden.

Presumed guilty?
Ummm...he has admitted to taking the documents. There is no presumption. He did it.

It's called common sense. Tell you what. PM me all your personal information. Throw in your social security number too. I'm a good guy...trust me.

[kalm]

Umm ok. So he is presumed guilty and should have to prove a negative because you trust Diane Fuckimg Feinstein!

Yeah!

I don't trust you, your girl from Cali, the gubbermint, or Snowden.

Presumed guilty?
Ummm...he has admitted to taking the documents. There is no presumption. He did it.

It's called common sense. Tell you what. PM me all your personal information. Throw in your social security number too. I'm a good guy...trust me.

I like how you nimbly (and seemingly drunkenly) walk back and forth between the document dump and whether he delivered state secrets to foreign governments. (Hint, I was originally talking about the former when you first quoted me but am currently referring to the latter regarding "presumed guilty")

To get you back on track: You're on the side of trusting the government here. Me, Snowden, and Greenwald are not.

[Baldy]

I don't trust you, your girl from Cali, the gubbermint, or Snowden.

Presumed guilty?
Ummm...he has admitted to taking the documents. There is no presumption. He did it.

It's called common sense. Tell you what. PM me all your personal information. Throw in your social security number too. I'm a good guy...trust me.

I like how you nimbly (and seemingly drunkenly) walk back and forth between the document dump and whether he delivered state secrets to foreign governments. (Hint, I was originally talking about the former when you first quoted me but am currently referring to the latter regarding "presumed guilty")

To get you back on track: You're on the side of trusting the government here. Me, Snowden, and Greenwald are not.

But you trust Greenwald and Snowden unconditionally. A pornographer tax cheat and a man on the run for stealing top secret information.

There isn't a question that he stole documents. Snowden and Greenwald claims its only 10 or 20 thousand, but he had the clearance and ability to steal 1,000,000+ documents. The problem is we don't know exactly how much or what exactly was stolen. It's OK though, kalm says it's fine. He, Greenwald, and Snowden got this. Trust them.

Still waiting on that PM with all your "state secrets". You can trust me and the people I give that information to as well. We're good guys....Heroes even.

[kalm]

Sounds like Snowden is getting a little nervous. Can't blame him...

Snowden did not cite any examples. But he immediately brought up Petraeus. “Perhaps the best-known case in recent history here is Gen. Petraeus — who shared information that was far more highly classified than I ever did with journalists,” he said. “And he shared this information not with the public for their benefit, but with his biographer and lover for personal benefit — conversations that had information, detailed information, about military special-access programs, that’s classified above top secret, conversations with the president and so on.”

“When the government came after him, they charged him with a misdemeanor,” Snowden continued. “He never spent a single day in jail, despite the type of classified information he exposed.”

Snowden’s remarks about Petraeus are likely to infuriate the retired four-star general’s supporters in Congress and elsewhere. Petraeus did plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge in April 2015 for mishandling classified information, receiving two years’ probation and a $100,000 fine. Court documents in the case show that he turned over a black book of highly classified “code word” documents — including the identity of covert officers and notes of National Security Council meetings — to Paula Broadwell, a biographer with whom he was having an affair.

But the “factual basis” for his plea also states that he retrieved the information from Broadwell three days later. Government officials have said that Broadwell, who was never charged, didn’t use the information in her book about Petraeus and that none of the information he disclosed to her was ever made public.

“When we had the most senior intelligence official in the United States, Gen. James Clapper, who lied to the American people and all of Congress on camera, under oath, in the Senate, in a famous exchange with Ron Wyden, he wasn’t even charged,” Snowden said. “But giving false testimony to Congress under oath, as he did, is a felony. It’s typically punished by three to five years in prison.”

https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/exclu ... 12222.html

[Bronco]

\


"two tiered" justice system. He's making a good case for prosecution of the known criminal Hillary Clinton

[Ivytalk]

Sounds like Snowden is getting a little nervous. Can't blame him...

Snowden did not cite any examples. But he immediately brought up Petraeus. “Perhaps the best-known case in recent history here is Gen. Petraeus — who shared information that was far more highly classified than I ever did with journalists,” he said. “And he shared this information not with the public for their benefit, but with his biographer and lover for personal benefit — conversations that had information, detailed information, about military special-access programs, that’s classified above top secret, conversations with the president and so on.”

“When the government came after him, they charged him with a misdemeanor,” Snowden continued. “He never spent a single day in jail, despite the type of classified information he exposed.”

Snowden’s remarks about Petraeus are likely to infuriate the retired four-star general’s supporters in Congress and elsewhere. Petraeus did plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge in April 2015 for mishandling classified information, receiving two years’ probation and a $100,000 fine. Court documents in the case show that he turned over a black book of highly classified “code word” documents — including the identity of covert officers and notes of National Security Council meetings — to Paula Broadwell, a biographer with whom he was having an affair.

But the “factual basis” for his plea also states that he retrieved the information from Broadwell three days later. Government officials have said that Broadwell, who was never charged, didn’t use the information in her book about Petraeus and that none of the information he disclosed to her was ever made public.

“When we had the most senior intelligence official in the United States, Gen. James Clapper, who lied to the American people and all of Congress on camera, under oath, in the Senate, in a famous exchange with Ron Wyden, he wasn’t even charged,” Snowden said. “But giving false testimony to Congress under oath, as he did, is a felony. It’s typically punished by three to five years in prison.”

https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/exclu ... 12222.html

Sounds like Snowden ran out of toilet paper in Putin's Paradise.

[CID1990]

Shithead's angling for a pardon before Trump takes office.

Every bit of info he took is in the hands of the Russians and the Chinese.

Methods, assets, capabilities. Nobody seems to care anymore, so I'm not sure why I bother.

[Ivytalk]

Shithead's angling for a pardon before Trump takes office.

Every bit of info he took is in the hands of the Russians and the Chinese.

Methods, assets, capabilities. Nobody seems to care anymore, so I'm not sure why I bother.

If he comes back here, his life expectancy is about 30 days.

Snowden will probably be Obama's Marc Rich.

[Ibanez]

Shithead's angling for a pardon before Trump takes office.

Every bit of info he took is in the hands of the Russians and the Chinese.

Methods, assets, capabilities. Nobody seems to care anymore, so I'm not sure why I bother.

If he comes back here, his life expectancy is about 30 days.

Snowden will probably be Obama's Marc Rich.

You think he'd be pardoned? Want to place a bet?

[Ivytalk]

If he comes back here, his life expectancy is about 30 days.

Snowden will probably be Obama's Marc Rich.

You think he'd be pardoned? Want to place a bet?

Not really. I think I've lost every public CS.com bet I've ever made.

[Chizzang]

You think he'd be pardoned? Want to place a bet?

Not really. I think I've lost every public CS.com bet I've ever made.

[houndawg]

Shithead's angling for a pardon before Trump takes office.

Every bit of info he took is in the hands of the Russians and the Chinese.

Methods, assets, capabilities. Nobody seems to care anymore, so I'm not sure why I bother.

Hell, the Vice President outs covert CIA agents and nobody cares. Fvck em all.

[Baldy]

Shithead's angling for a pardon before Trump takes office.

Every bit of info he took is in the hands of the Russians and the Chinese.

Methods, assets, capabilities. Nobody seems to care anymore, so I'm not sure why I bother.

Hell, the Vice President outs covert CIA agents and nobody cares. Fvck em all.

Uncle Joe would not be happy with that response.

[CID1990]

Shithead's angling for a pardon before Trump takes office.

Every bit of info he took is in the hands of the Russians and the Chinese.

Methods, assets, capabilities. Nobody seems to care anymore, so I'm not sure why I bother.

Hell, the Vice President outs covert CIA agents and nobody cares. Fvck em all.

Let go of your Bush derangement syndrome, HD.

She was declared, and there WERE consequences anyway.

[houndawg]

Hell, the Vice President outs covert CIA agents and nobody cares. Fvck em all.

Let go of your Bush derangement syndrome, HD.

She was declared, and there WERE consequences anyway.

Cheney derangement syndrome.

CIA said she was covert.

[CID1990]

Let go of your Bush derangement syndrome, HD.

She was declared, and there WERE consequences anyway.

Cheney derangement syndrome.

CIA said she was covert.

Dude

CIA says station chiefs are covert too. They aren't, and neither was she.

[houndawg]

Cheney derangement syndrome.

CIA said she was covert.

Dude

CIA says station chiefs are covert too. They aren't, and neither was she.

Good point. What based on the past three or four decades does the CIA know? Seems like they get caught flat-footed at every turn. Of course when the de facto head of the nation is outing your people, covert or not, its probably hard to keep up.