General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSnowden: NSA targeted journalists critical of government after 9/11
By Jonathan Easley
Leaker Edward Snowden accused the National Security Agency of targeting reporters who wrote critically about the government after 9/11 and warned it was “unforgivably reckless” for journalists to use unencrypted email messages when discussing sensitive matters.
<...>
“I was surprised to realize that there were people in news organizations who didn’t recognize any unencrypted message sent over the Internet is being delivered to every intelligence service in the world,” he said. “In the wake of this year’s disclosures, it should be clear that unencrypted journalist-source communication is unforgivably reckless.”
Snowden, who at one point in the interview referred to himself as “famously paranoid,” said he came to trust Poitras because she was one of the few journalists “to challenge the excesses of the government” during a time of “heightened nationalism.”
“After 9/11, many of the most important news outlets in American abdicated their role as a check to power – the journalistic responsibility to challenge the excesses of government – for fear of being seen as unpatriotic and punished in the market during a period of heightened nationalism,” he said.
- more -
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316751-snowden-nsa-targeted-journalists-critical-of-government-after-911
Choice words: “unforgivably reckless”
Q. & A.: Edward Snowden Speaks to Peter Maass
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/snowden-maass-transcript.html
Carl Bernstein: Greenwald 'out of line' (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023261520
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Thanks for sharing, he makes excellent points!
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Share them, because I want to know.
I'm going to give you an open page to share.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)Guess this will have to remain as one of life's unsolved mysteries...
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Because I was feeling like really coming down on this one. I really was. Oh well...
On edit... If he/her shows his/her ass here again, I'm sure to recognize his/her writing and will be glad to point out his/her as a puke.
Not sure if he is a her, or her is a he, but who gives a shit.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)And what are you going to do with your percentage of the 3Trillion when you get it back?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)JI7
(89,246 posts)sound to it.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I expect you find that fully defensible and approve wholeheartedly as "hero" Obama's government can do no wrong?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Got a link to the list?
Thanks in advance.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Note all this treatment started pre-Snowden.
I fully expect to hear your defense in 3.2.1...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Links are provided for a reason.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Clever!!!
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Haven't you gotten the latest memo?
Apparently the latest I've seen from your allies is that Snowden is a CIA plant conducting turf warfare.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)
To be clear, my side is:
I'll take truth over bloviating anytime from anyone provided they have evidence and aren't just spinning.
I'll take justice over just us and secret laws every time as well.
I don't care who is currently in the white house when evaluating the above.
The simple fact that there is such an ad hominem bruhaha over this is an indicator to me that the whole NSA-CIA-TLA (Three Letter Agency) intelligence system is broken and has been for a long time.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It feels like" you're right and everyone else is wrong?
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Those sorts of stretches about what other people say are what make it so frustrating to talk to you.
Where did I say I'm right, or even you are wrong? Where did I say it is about right and wrong? This is not about winning some petty pissing contest on an internet forum.
The thing is that in spite of your tendency to spin any given story, you do post useful stuff even if you do bias it favorably to the administration.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Please. Because I want to read through your Bullshit.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Go on and defend it then.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Is that a blue link?
dkf
(37,305 posts)It wouldn't do the mistreatment justice.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)And the emoprogs feel they have something. I'm here to show what shit they have. The chicken falling is a riot.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Attempting to tell the story of the war’s effect on Iraqi citizens made Poitras the target of serious — and apparently false — accusations. On Nov. 19, 2004, Iraqi troops, supported by American forces, raided a mosque in the doctor’s neighborhood of Adhamiya, killing several people inside. The next day, the neighborhood erupted in violence. Poitras was with the doctor’s family, and occasionally they would go to the roof of the home to get a sense of what was going on. On one of those rooftop visits, she was seen by soldiers from an Oregon National Guard battalion. Shortly after, a group of insurgents launched an attack that killed one of the Americans. Some soldiers speculated that Poitras was on the roof because she had advance notice of the attack and wanted to film it. Their battalion commander, Lt. Col. Daniel Hendrickson, retired, told me last month that he filed a report about her to brigade headquarters.
There is no evidence to support this claim. Fighting occurred throughout the neighborhood that day, so it would have been difficult for any journalist to not be near the site of an attack. The soldiers who made the allegation told me that they have no evidence to prove it. Hendrickson told me his brigade headquarters never got back to him.
For several months after the attack in Adhamiya, Poitras continued to live in the Green Zone and work as an embedded journalist with the U.S. military. She has screened her film to a number of military audiences, including at the U.S. Army War College. An officer who interacted with Poitras in Baghdad, Maj. Tom Mowle, retired, said Poitras was always filming and it “completely makes sense” she would film on a violent day. “I think it’s a pretty ridiculous allegation,” he said.
Although the allegations were without evidence, they may be related to Poitras’s many detentions and searches. Hendrickson and another soldier told me that in 2007 — months after she was first detained — investigators from the Department of Justice’s Joint Terrorism Task Force interviewed them, inquiring about Poitras’s activities in Baghdad that day. Poitras was never contacted by those or any other investigators, however. “Iraq forces and the U.S. military raided a mosque during Friday prayers and killed several people,” Poitras said. “Violence broke out the next day. I am a documentary filmmaker and was filming in the neighborhood. Any suggestion I knew about an attack is false. The U.S. government should investigate who ordered the raid, not journalists covering the war.”
In June 2006, her tickets on domestic flights were marked “SSSS” — Secondary Security Screening Selection — which means the bearer faces extra scrutiny beyond the usual measures. She was detained for the first time at Newark International Airport before boarding a flight to Israel, where she was showing her film. On her return flight, she was held for two hours before being allowed to re-enter the country. The next month, she traveled to Bosnia to show the film at a festival there. When she flew out of Sarajevo and landed in Vienna, she was paged on the airport loudspeaker and told to go to a security desk; from there she was led to a van and driven to another part of the airport, then taken into a room where luggage was examined.
Much more...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?smid=tw-nytmedia&seid=auto&
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Obama is doing his best given Congress.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Whether to use the states secrets privileges or not.
Obama unilaterally decided not to deport people unless there were criminal violations (or so he said). He is unilaterally deciding to delay certain parts of the ACA. So there are things that he alone can do that no other single person can do.
If he decided to never use a drone again, he could do that too since he is in charge of the kill list.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)www.democracticunderground.com/more
www.democracticunderground.com/much_more
www.democracticunderground.com/many_more
www.democracticunderground.com/more_here
www.democracticunderground.com/more_over_there
www.democracticunderground.com/have_more
www.democracticunderground.com/give_me_more-BritineySpears
www.democracticunderground.com/more_bullshit
www.democracticunderground.com/oh_no_there's_more
ProSense
(116,464 posts)provide the other poster with the "relevant section"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451089#post95
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)
dkf
(37,305 posts)So I can't pick out what you are trying to get at with your links. This is something I've noticed when conversing with you. With anyone else I would read the link.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451089#post107
You're responding without reading.
"So I can't pick out what you are trying to get at with your links. This is something I've noticed when conversing with you. With anyone else I would read the link. "
See, you admit it, and that's why your responses make no sense.
dkf
(37,305 posts)tailor your arguments to make specific points of rebuttal. It's frustrating to deal with.
You don't make sense to me and I'm trying to figure out how to get to a conversation so i can understand what your point is. I guess you think you get the last word by leaving a blue link, but for me I'm mystified at how to respond to what i often see as a non-sequitur.
"Frankly you filibuster using blue links. I think it's odd how you rely on cut and paste and don't tailor your arguments to make specific points of rebuttal. It's frustrating to deal with."
...focusing on "blue links" is silly deflection (in this case from the fact that you ignore information providen and then make inaccurate responses based on assumptions as a result). Also, the hypocrisy of those using "blue links" as deflection is not lost: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451089#post38
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)He is nearly as responsible for all this bullshit as Snowden.
He should face charges, too. Luckily, Brazil has an extradition agreement with the US.
Will he flee to Russia, too? Home of Pravda.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Poitras was not Snowden’s first choice as the person to whom he wanted to leak thousands of N.S.A. documents. In fact, a month before contacting her, he reached out to Greenwald, who had written extensively and critically about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the erosion of civil liberties in the wake of 9/11. Snowden anonymously sent him an e-mail saying he had documents he wanted to share, and followed that up with a step-by-step guide on how to encrypt communications, which Greenwald ignored. Snowden then sent a link to an encryption video, also to no avail.
“It’s really annoying and complicated, the encryption software,” Greenwald said as we sat on his porch during a tropical drizzle. “He kept harassing me, but at some point he just got frustrated, so he went to Laura.”
Snowden had read Greenwald’s article about Poitras’s troubles at U.S. airports and knew she was making a film about the government’s surveillance programs; he had also seen a short documentary about the N.S.A. that she made for The New York Times Op-Docs. He figured that she would understand the programs he wanted to leak about and would know how to communicate in a secure way.
By late winter, Poitras decided that the stranger with whom she was communicating was credible. There were none of the provocations that she would expect from a government agent — no requests for information about the people she was in touch with, no questions about what she was working on. Snowden told her early on that she would need to work with someone else, and that she should reach out to Greenwald. She was unaware that Snowden had already tried to contact Greenwald, and Greenwald would not realize until he met Snowden in Hong Kong that this was the person who had contacted him more than six months earlier.
There were surprises for everyone in these exchanges — including Snowden, who answered questions that I submitted to him through Poitras. In response to a question about when he realized he could trust Poitras, he wrote: “We came to a point in the verification and vetting process where I discovered Laura was more suspicious of me than I was of her, and I’m famously paranoid.” When I asked him about Greenwald’s initial silence in response to his requests and instructions for encrypted communications, Snowden replied: “I know journalists are busy and had assumed being taken seriously would be a challenge, especially given the paucity of detail I could initially offer. At the same time, this is 2013, and [he is] a journalist who regularly reported on the concentration and excess of state power. I was surprised to realize that there were people in news organizations who didn’t recognize any unencrypted message sent over the Internet is being delivered to every intelligence service in the world.”
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Do you think they were just chatting about cats?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Greenwald was cautioning Snowden against revealing all this, not egging him on. You are going beyond what has been reported.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)That is no leap.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Anyone asserting this.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)
Blue Owl
(50,348 posts)n/t
cali
(114,904 posts)Or maybe it's tragic. And by that I mean for you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)
Edit... let me catch your ass here again.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
jmowreader
(50,553 posts)I can somewhat believe this happened...remembering that Shrub was so fucking paranoid he built his Western White House in the seventh circle of Hell to dissuade journalists from covering his vacations, I have no doubt he spied upon them.
But seriously, guys: the NSA spying on Americans is illegal in extremis, and Snowden's never been in the building. I find it extremely hard to believe Fort Meade has lost its way to such an extent they'd put evidence of something that would get everyone involved thrown in a federal penitentiary in a place contractors in Hawaii had access to.