General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQ. & A.: Edward Snowden Speaks to Peter Maass: First question NYT asks: Why didn't you leak to us?
Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)
People hold masks with the face of Edward J. Snowden at a hearing in Brazil on the N.S.A.'s surveillance programs.
Interview by PETER MAASS
Published: August 13, 2013
In the course of reporting his profile of Laura Poitras, Peter Maass conducted an encrypted question-and-answer session, for which Poitras served as intermediary, with Edward J. Snowden. Below is a full transcript of that conversation.
Peter Maass: Why did you seek out Laura and Glenn, rather than journalists from major American news outlets (N.Y.T., W.P., W.S.J. etc.)? In particular, why Laura, a documentary filmmaker?
Edward Snowden: After 9/11, many of the most important news outlets in America 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. From a business perspective, this was the obvious strategy, but what benefited the institutions ended up costing the public dearly. The major outlets are still only beginning to recover from this cold period.
Laura and Glenn are among the few who reported fearlessly on controversial topics throughout this period, even in the faceof withering personal criticism, and resulted in Laura specifically becoming targeted by the very programs involved in the recent disclosures. She had demonstrated the courage, personal experience and skill needed to handle what is probably the most dangerous assignment any journalist can be given reporting on the secret misdeeds of the most powerful government in the world making her an obvious choice.
....
MORE here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/snowden-maass-transcript.html
EDIT: MUST READ, MUST READ: How Laura Poitras Helped Snowden Spill His Secrets posted by Morningfog. It's the article by Peter Maass that goes with these quotes
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Add Snowden mask for creepiness factor.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The answer they already knew sure didn't make them look all that good though.
Somewhere Judy Miller is laughing her ass off.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)but my belief in the stupidity of (some) people is unshaken, especially the 1%ers and their loyal lackeys.
If the NYT had to ask the question for their own curiosity, I suppose there's hope for them yet. If they listen and understand the answer as the rebuke it is...
deurbano
(2,894 posts)Interesting.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And besides, it's LEGAL, right?
Oh, and one more thing: Snowden is creepy. That oughta put this to rest, once and for all.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)They are very important.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)as long as you're hero-worshipping the correct 'personality'.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Snowden had other plans: fleeing the country and revealing U.S. state secrets to other countries.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... when it might have informed the readers of the duplicity of what was going on behind the scenes and perhaps we might have had president Kerry elected then instead of another term of Bush... It instead came out in 2005... I'm sure that Snowden had knowledge of that BS that New York Times succumbed to to avoid the same trap as well!
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/7135-did-the-nyt-help-bush-win-the-2004-election-by-sitting-on-the-illegal-nsa-wiretapping-story-at-the-request-of-jane-harman
deurbano
(2,894 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)I was reminded of that during the NYT's defense of the Fox Noise hack.
Also, the irony of attacking the NYT for the question is that they got the interview with Snowden.
WaPo was another source for some of the leaked information.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)So even then, there were corporatist Democrats that were willing to throw American's civil liberties under the bus to protect the powerful elites of the "shadow government" that uses the security state to control things. The bottom line is, even if the NYT later sought to make money from this article being released after the election, it was shown to be an entity that could be manipulated by the PTB to prevent the news doing what it is supposed to do (not just make money)! And that is inform the public in a TIMELY fashion, that would have provided the American voting populace to have important information they should have known about before the election when their voice could be a part of the equation to tell our government where they wanted it to go the coming four years in terms of what kid of security state they wanted. The NYT FAILED the American people in that regard, and we paid a price in perhaps not having choices made in that election that might have put a stop to the unconstitutional civil liberty violations that had started before then that I think most Americans are against.
I'm sure that Snowden noticed that the NYT sacrificed the American people's right to know at a critical time even if ultimately they published their story at a time when it could have less impact. It probably served as a warning to him that the NYT might this time around sacrifice Snowden's well being in exchange for them making money off of publishing a story he provided info for at a time that would avoid government accountability that the NYT could coordinate with the PTB like they did before in 2004 at the behest of Bushco and Democrat Jane Harman. I'm sure that Snowden, though he was prepared to make many sacrifices, didn't want to replicate the experiences of Bradley Manning himself if he could avoid it, especially if by avoiding this, he would be empowered to have more opportunity to get his message out in an effective way.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)when Bush was caught doing, on the Dem side at least, was that the Government using Corps to spy on Americans was not a good thing.
So when did SOME Democrats changer their minds about this?
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #52)
cascadiance This message was self-deleted by its author.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023455773
Snowden: Greenwald Was Annoyed That I Was Younger Than He Expected
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023455662
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,697 posts)Everyone knows they never would have published it.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,697 posts)to provide good investigative reporting.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)coverage of the run-up to Operation Shocking and Awful and will never give them another penny as long as I live. They have the blood of a lot of innocent people on their hands and I refuse to pay for it.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)What in the world did you post about before Snowden came into your life and swept you off of your feet?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Been disclosed even prior to Snowden--NSA overreach. A lot of good investigative reporters aren't getting their due because Snowden/Greenwald are sucking all of the oxygen out of the room.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)If you are so tired...use them
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I don't want to wall myself from opposing views. Where is the growth and learning in that? Where is the hope for compromise if we are talking past each other into our own echo chambers? Not a very enlightened path.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)What bothers you. It's not lame...it's what adults do when they simply no longer want to see a subject...you can trash a thread, or you can filter threads with the subjects you no longer care to see.
Otherwise, you are tired, you refuse to avail yourself of the tools, I will assume you doth protest too much.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Snowden both for the positive and the negative.
It seems clear to me most all at DU and in the country at large want curbs on NSA. The points that are forgotten is members of the media were already cracking the secrecy of these programs prior to Snowden and reporting on them. It is unfair to all of their hard work with informants, etc. to merely heap praise on an attention whore like Greenwald and a criminal like Snowden.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It is clear many of us are indeed still interested in the subject at hand. Filter Snowden and the NSA from your DU experience. A few people did that on week one. Or just do not open the threads.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I won't verbally berate people and call them names if they do keep posting, but I think it's a waste. Continue enjoying this topic, then.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Just one more attempt to silence people.
Yes, that is my opinion on this. I almost expect it to become a new meme on DU.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)2005 Obama Slammed Patriot Act; Fishing Expedition Through Phone Calls, Emails Gives People No Rights
June 7, 2013 at 12:18 pm
As just plain wrong.
And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document through library books that you read the phone calls youve made, the emails that youve sent this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong. Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is one thing and its the right thing but doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Doncha know this is old news? They've been spying on us for decades, and therefore, it's all fine and good.
Oh, and it's LEGAL, too.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 07:23 PM - Edit history (1)
dkf
(37,305 posts)Start from here:
Attempting to tell the story of the wars 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 doctors neighborhood of Adhamiya, killing several people inside. The next day, the neighborhood erupted in violence. Poitras was with the doctors 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.
Too much to post.
George II
(67,782 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)I think you have your answer right there.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)I just saw the article. It's really a must read
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Confusing, no?
JANUARY 05, 2011 | PERMALINK
The Psychological Operations Myth
In 2004 the Army published a report that credited a psychological operations team with playing a crucial role at Firdos Square. A Los Angeles Times story about the report, headlined Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue, circulated widely on the web, fueling the notion that the toppling was a psyop trick. But the Army was wrong, and the L.A. Times was wrong. I interviewed the psyop team leader, Staff Sgt. Brian Plesich, and he acknowledged that his team arrived at the square well after the toppling began; video from Firdos shows Plesichs distinctive Humvee, with loudspeakers on its roof, arriving an hour-and-half after the first tanks. The Army report credited Plesich with getting an Iraqi flag on the statue, but this was wrong, too; a Marine, Casey Kuhlman, did it. Click Continue Reading to see the section of my story that clears up the psyop myth.
<>
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/aug/25/guardianobituaries.books
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)The NYT had the balls to ask that!?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Snowden is the means by which we learn. Beyond the leaks, the entire saga has been hugely informative.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)They can't function as a check on the government in this fashion.
Thank goodness McClatchy has rejected that attitude. Even the Guardian sounded hesitant at first. Greenwald and Poitras set up other means to disseminate Snowden's info if necessary.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The obsessed is obvious.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)You've been here since 2002 and the other poster has more posts than you.
I've been here since 2005 and have more posts than the other poster.
Using someone's post count as an argument is hilarious.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The fact that you've been here so much less time and you have three times the posts simply proves my point. Obsessed.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)After all, people can post on a wide variety of topics and build up a big post count at DU. A more accurate way of trying to measure obsession on an issue (not that I think even that proves obsession) is to go to Advanced search, then search for posts by those posters that contain the word Snowden. Just taking a guess, it'd be neck and neck at this stage
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)I am old enough to remember the CIA spying on citizens. I remember the days when we were supposed to be special and a beacon to the world because we did not treat our citizens like the USSR and East Germany,because we had a constitution that protected us and also because it was morally wrong to do so. I am not stupid enough to think any of the alphabet agencies will operate in the manner they are supposed to. Historically they have not. I think defending the spying goes against everything this country stands for and I will speak out against it every chance I get. I have nothing but contempt for those here who were against the spying when Bush was President but are now fine with it and I am not including you in that description.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Autumn
(45,025 posts)And how they turn in clusters? Recommended.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)uponit7771
(90,328 posts)...and it cant be used.
Bullshit on all this
bemildred
(90,061 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)We all know the NYT would have simply sat on the information. Greenwald didn't. We know that, Snowden knew that, so the NYT got scooped.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023456236
WillyT
(72,631 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)just read the long article by Peter Maass you linked to....ditto, a MUST READ>
Edit to say-- we may never be able to determine what is real and what is illusion again in this country if we don't address this surveillance issue in a big way.
Rex
(65,616 posts)And all the CYA the M$M does for the government, I can see why in some ways BUT STILL. He could have gone to a few choice mags outside the traditional M$M loop imo.
He wanted to run off to China and spill the beans from there. Not smart.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)The Village Voice! SO many alt communications in America that he disappointed me in running off to our traditional enemies. He is dealing with the exact same people the GOP tends to like. The GOP. If he ran to Hong Kong for a distinction between it and the mainland, then it was lost when he fled to Russia imo.
Sorry Cat, but this is one area you and I are going to disagree on.
I KNOW a lot of people are happy he exposed a huge festering Police State in the making, but that could have been done from America.
Sorry, if it was me I would have gone the Manning route.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)In Snowden's case, I don't think he was as interested in the publication as he was in the integrity of the reporter. Can you name a more honest, principled and courageous reporter to have covered this than Greenwald? There was Hastings but a site like BuzzFeed doesn't have a big enough audience and Hastings lived in the US where he would have been in our clutches.
The Village Voice? Seriously, who reads the Village Voice anymore unless they live in NY? They changed a lot after New Times Media bought them and it doesn't reach a global audience for this very global matter.
I really don't see how he could have done this differently. Hong Kong is an ally, not an enemy and where could he have gone but Russia? Anywhere else, we would have scooped him up, shackled and muzzled him. None of the European countries were trustworthy.
I'm sure if Snowden had to do it over again, he'd have hopped on a flight to Mexico and then to Venezuela or Ecuador but he's seemed a bit naive about how deep the international complicity of the 1% is.
It's ok if we disagree lol. If you were in his shoes, where would you have gone?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Smart money would have been Mexico or Venezuela just like you said. I was shocked when they said he was in China. Personally, I would have stayed and fought the system. If that included jail and torture then so be it.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)but I agree heading to Venezuela would have been a better choice but then you have to deal with logistics. There are no direct flights from Honolulu to Venezuela that don't stop on the mainland, not even from Honolulu to Mexico.
But lol, Hong Kong, not China. I could see your point if he went to mainland China but he didn't. And not for a million, million years would I have stayed in the US to fight the system- you can't fight very effectively from solitary and we would have gagged him totally. People who get National Security Letters aren't even allowed to talk about them. Sibel Edmonds was gagged and people like Aaron Shwartz kind of mysteriously suicided. Barrett Brown and his lawyers are prohibited from talking to the media. Not for a million years would I have stayed.
Edit: Sorry I took so long. I just got a new 'guest'.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and there is no way to refute it really, unless you stay and take it. I agree, it is a hard decision to make, but since the NSA already is back to working with his former employeer...like nothing happened...I take their word as less credible then his at the moment.
If only Congress would have stayed on script, we would have not noticed how badly the NSA is controlling major institutions like Congress and not the other way around.
I called this Kabuki theater before Clapper got up and lied before Congress. We've seen this act played out before. I think the difference is that Snowden is still a wildcard and the NSA is running around like their hair is on fire. Even if I don't agree with everything he has done, only a fool would pretend Snowden has not made a huge impact.
I dunno, if you find the right person in alt news you can achieve the same results. It just has to be preemptive in nature as to the release of data imo.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)If people were, Snowden wouldn't have the kind of support he has. Congress as a whole already screwed us over and even though so many of them look like they want to rectify things now, I wish them luck.
The Guardian really went out on a limb for this one. They promised Greenwald they wouldn't back off no matter what. When you look at the pressure governments put on the Washington Post, the BBC and outlets like CNN (without even factoring in the complicity of their boards/shareholders), who could he have picked in the alternate media? And it had to be someone with an audience, with an honest journalist, who wouldn't be subject to US laws. I'm just asking you "who"?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Even if true or not, you know how America works. Greg Palast would be a good start.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)no disrespect meant to Greg Palast. I like Greg Palast but journalistically speaking, he's more easily dismissed. And he's too easily (wrongly) tied to alleged conspiracy theories. Plus, where does Palast publish that gets a global audience?
Rex
(65,616 posts)You need a fixer. And I bet he would be your person to go to. Just one example. I think the information would be all over the WWW before the NSA could clamp down on it. They don't have a closed system yet like China does. It would be front page news all over the world.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)just a handful of softballs.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)
The answer to the NYT question cited in the OP reveals a man who give this whole thing extremely serious thought. He was well aware of the risks and consequences. The easy thing would be to simply to ignore the corruption and illegality that is taking over our country. The only plausible explanation for why he didn't just ignore it is conscience.
Once he made the decision to bring this information into the public eye, he had to plan a course of action. He concluded that there was absolutely no way to work this through the NSA internally. After all, they were the ones breaking all the laws.
And sadly, he also concluded that there was no viable means for a whistle-blower to work through some other part of government to get the issues exposed. And saddest of all, he concluded that there is absolutely not a shred of a viable free press remaining, at least at the major media level, in the US.
Knowing everything we now know, seeing everything that has happened since he made his move, is there anybody who can honestly argue there was any other way to get this information into the public eye? He couldn't work through Congress. We see how tightly they have Wyden locked down, for example.
So I ask the anti-Snowden people this. If the goal was to subject these illegal operations to scrutiny that would get them stopped, what other alternative was there? Please be specific.
I submit Snowden picked the only possible scenario, and therefore anybody arguing he did the wrong thing is actually arguing for the continuation of the illegality in our security apparatus. If that is what you believe, you are entitled to that opinion. But at least have the integrity to say that is really where you stand.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)this is how I see it also. He had no choices to be heard within the US. We have no major media free press and his reference to the post-9-11 media complicity certainly is a prime example.
You summed it up.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Could NOT have been better or more truthfully stated!
Those attacking Snowden today said the SAME thing about the MSM
during the run up to the Iraq Invasion when Bush sat in the Oval Office.
I will never understand how can someone turn 180 degrees on MAJOR ISSUES just because someone else sits in the Oval office.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)what this kid is up against is simply unimaginable. "Those" lol.
ChunkyMark "Wow!!!!! Edward Snowden...just stunning"
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Response to Catherina (Original post)
Post removed
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Pretty informative.
I have a better sense about Snowden at this point.
I don't like everything I'm reading, but I feel much more confidant about the vetting that Poitras and Greenwald put him through.
I'm curious about the overall timeline. Did he even have the leaked documents when the Chinese swept him up? Is there a possibility that the reason why he didn't disappear is that he no longer had any of the material?
If I were him I would have jettisoned all of it with Greenwald and Poitras. That may be why he is not actively leaking anything at this point. Rather Greenwald appears to be analyzing and reporting as he goes through things.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)An article that's all about why and how talked to one journalist and not others is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I've got no more time for this stuff when it's posted by the 'OMG! Snowden's sooo awesome and wise!' brigade than I do for the articles ripping him to shreds posted by the opposite camp. I wish people would be more interested in talking about the NSA and what was uncovered, rather than continuing to make it about the messenger of the message...