So, who are these people that are handling Edward Snowden?

[sheshe2]

Last edited Sat Aug 17, 2013, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

The battle for the world-wide web
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-battle-for-world-wide-web.html

I think its high time we took a look at the people who are "handling" Edward Snowden and what their agenda is in all of this. That's because I think the questions are more broad than the one's we're currently hearing about related to NSA surveillance and actually go to the question of who controls the world-wide web. There is a battle raging beneath all this that has serious implications for all of us.

Snowden is being handled, "by Whom"?

Divisions Widen Among Snowden's Supporters
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324823804579014611497378326.html

More fractious is the relationship among Lon Snowden, WikiLeaks and Mr. Greenwald. Mr. Fein's wife and spokeswoman, Mattie Fein, said Lon Snowden's legal team doesn't trust the intentions of Mr. Greenwald or WikiLeaks and worry they are giving Edward Snowden bad advice.

"The thing we have been most concerned about is that the people who have influence over Ed will try to use him for their own means," Ms. Fein said. "These guys have their own agenda here and we aren't so sure that it has Ed's best interest in mind."

So, who are these people that are handling Edward Snowden? To understand the stakes, one of the best examples to look at is the battle that raged between Wikileaks and Bank of America. The story starts with the troves of donations Wikileaks was banking based on their "handling" of the Bradley Manning leaks (20,000 euros a month). Several banking institutions responded by refusing to process these donations. And Julian Assange (founder of Wikileaks) fought back by hacking into the hard drive of an executive at Bank of America and threatening to "take them down."

Enter China and Russia.

Idiot Wind: A Compendium of Snowden, WikiLeaks, Greenwald, Poitras and Appelbaum Topics

edit link

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/07/idiot-wind.html

Greenwald succeeded in stirring up an uproar and getting the tech and lefty media echo chamber to make that uproar even more fierce against Pincus, who was associated long ago with the CIA and hated by the "progressives" and libertarians. (They made it seem as if it was some outrageous crime against journalistic ethics that he took awhile to research and respond to the attacks with some corrections, but it was within a few days). But this shouldn't distract from the essential truths that Pincus was stumbling on and all of these things bear re-examination.

Why is it important to show that these people in fact knew each other in the past, and collaborated on this story earlier than we knew and aren't telling us everything? Well, not only to show that if they lie about this thing, they could be lying about the entire NSA story (and I believe they are); but we can see more clearly the deeper activist agenda they have and the larger plot involving WikiLeaks assault on America, with Russian help.

As I explained in my long timeline, the purpose is to weaken and discredit America as a champion of Internet freedom; to claim that it is a hypocrite and not true to its ideals; to act as if it is no different than the surveillance states of Russia and China; and to make it seem as if the "sovereign Internet" plans of these authoritarian governments then are justified due to the discreditation of both US commercial and government involvement in the World Wide Web.

When folks like Julian Assange, Jacob Applebaum and Laura Poitras say that they are being surveilled by the US government (and therefore we should all be scared shitless about being surveilled ourselves), this is why. They are not innocent players in this world-wide battle over the internet. And they're fighting back...with the likes of Edward Snowden. Just like they fought back against Bank of America by hacking their secrets.

There are HUGE issues at stake here...privacy, piracy, hacking, who controls the internet, and the international balance of power with cyber security threats. But the idea that the Assange's and Greenwald's and Applebaum's of the world are taking up this cause on behalf of everyday Americans is pure hogwash.

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-battle-for-world-wide-web.html

More, A Lot more at the links.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Chupacabras and Nazi Hell Creatures

But it doesn't change the fact that the White House is spying on all Americans, and lying like crazy about it.

[sheshe2]

2. Kudos for your speed reading Manny!

Took you five minutes to read the story and look at the links.

Yikes, where did you learn how to do that? Please tell me~

Never mind, you don't like the message in the OP. Nor do you like me for posting it. Facts matter and there a lot here.

Sorry, No.

But it doesn't change the fact that the White House is spying on all Americans, and lying like crazy about it.

However!

When folks like Julian Assange, Jacob Applebaum and Laura Poitras say that they are being surveilled by the US government (and therefore we should all be scared shitless about being surveilled ourselves), this is why. They are not innocent players in this world-wide battle over the internet. And they're fighting back...with the likes of Edward Snowden. Just like they fought back against Bank of America by hacking their secrets.

There are HUGE issues at stake here...privacy, piracy, hacking, who controls the internet, and the international balance of power with cyber security threats. But the idea that the Assange's and Greenwald's and Applebaum's of the world are taking up this cause on behalf of everyday Americans is pure hogwash.

[leveymg]

28. Do you read your own material? You're saying that Snowden is being "handled" by his parents and

their lawyer and his wife (the Feins.)

Do you realize how silly that sounds?

[sheshe2]

31. Try reading ALL the links....

They are very long and involved.

Go to the blog and follow. I am only allowed to post so much. That's why one should get the whole story before they comment.

It took me an hour to follow the story.

[leveymg]

33. Your links go all over the place and so do your unfocused accusations. Tie it together in a lead

and don't put the burden on your reader to chase a lot of links when your point isn't clearly stated at the beginning. As it is, this reads like a lot of innuendo.

I don't think your links at all "prove" your intimation that Snowden is being handled by Chinese and Russian Intel, anyway. If that were proven or provable, the Justice Department would announce it.

[sheshe2]

37. Sorry leveymg...

This side of the story is not as simple as the one that keeps getting stated here.

The President is spying on everyone! Worse than Bush!

I don't think your links at all "prove" your intimation that Snowden is being handled by Chinese and Russian Intel, anyway. If that were proven or provable, the Justice Department would announce it.

How about these people. They are the ones that are steering the course.

When folks like Julian Assange, Jacob Applebaum and Laura Poitras say that they are being surveilled by the US government (and therefore we should all be scared shitless about being surveilled ourselves), this is why. They are not innocent players in this world-wide battle over the internet. And they're fighting back...with the likes of Edward Snowden. Just like they fought back against Bank of America by hacking their secrets.

There are HUGE issues at stake here...privacy, piracy, hacking, who controls the internet, and the international balance of power with cyber security threats. But the idea that the Assange's and Greenwald's and Applebaum's of the world are taking up this cause on behalf of everyday Americans is pure hogwash.

Sorry you find this so hard to follow. I agree it is complex. However this is not a simple issue that can be stated in one or two paragraphs. You need to research the subject.

[JDPriestly]

100. Try watching this video. It is way back from the Iran-Contra era.

The NSA was up to the same kinds of unconstitutional tricks it was up to then.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017139372

Those of us who have been around a long time and watched history unfold, those of us who remember the McCarthy era, the rise of the John Birch Society, the assassination of Kennedy, and on and on and on, don't really care what the Russians and Chinese are doing. We have heard the same threats over and over.

There is always a new enemy that justifies endless wars and taxes spent on the military-industrial and intelligence complex.

The surveillance started way back when they watched "Commies." And before that it was labor union organizers. There is always an enemy.

They are always fighting the democratic process that involves a lot of discussion, new ideas, returns to old ideas, more new ideas, solutions, experiments, the rejection of experiments.

And through it all, maybe especially since the Gilded Age in the 19th Century, we have had these attempts to repress the new ideas and spy on people. The NSA is the mechanism that the government is using now to prevent the internet's natural development and to prevent the economic changes that will come with that development. When movies and radio were introduced, and then later, when television was introduced, the changes in communication changed our economy. Pictures, advertising through movement and strong visual images changed our culture. Recording changed us. Newspapers are no longer what they were in the days of typesetting. The internet is changing the world, our culture, our economy and the transmission of news and personal message. We've come a long way from the Pony Express and even from Western Union. The NSA and those who have made big profits from copyrights and patents in our old economy are freaking out. But they will not be able to resist the changes that are coming. And they should not be using surveillance and the oppression of personal liberties to fight those changes. They either have to figure out how to work in the new freedom the new technologies afford individuals or give up entirely. There is no going back.

[nolabels]

113. Yes, Yes, and Yes again (plus a big thank you for all you do)

People who call themselves progressives or liberals or whatever need to get this and what real DAYLIGHT can do. A if they would also notice, that lot of these new forms of communications are being invented because and in spite of the other end's best effort.

[leveymg]

123. On second thought: your post is pure, unfocused innuendo, and the links are just someone's opinion.

See, I got it. You're right, it is actually pretty simple. I don't know why I didn't see that to begin with.

[fasttense]

111. Well Reasoned Levey. N/T

[Mojorabbit]

53. Some of this has already been posted today

and really...yawn. We are still being spied on and everyone from the ACLU to the mainstream papers are looking into it. I for one am thrilled to finally see some movement to curtail it. All this other stuff is extraneous and unimportant. I don't care what agenda Snowden's handlers have. I care what agenda our government has.

[HangOnKids]

55. You are only allowed to post so much?

Really? I guess over 7000 posts in10 months is your allowance?

[sheshe2]

58. Aaaah, checking up on me...

Copyright law and DU standards only allow 4 paragraphs to be posted on a thread. I used links to allow me to say more. The story is huge, many sublinks to understand it if you care to read the whole story.

So I know you meant no snark when you said I posted 7K in 10 months. You just did not understand the
copyright standards that were set by DU...

Good try....yet you failed! You have been her since Dec.13, 2011. I would have thought you were aware of that.

[HangOnKids]

59. Gee you are so cute!

Mahalo!

[sheshe2]

60. I agree, I am cute~

That's all you have? That's it.

[HangOnKids]

63. No darlin' I have a ton more NONE of which you are worthy of

But knock yourself out girl.

[sheshe2]

69. Oh darlin'

Seriously? I am heartbroken that I am not worthy of your contempt

I have every intention of bringing the facts to the board. Read it and weep.

I plan to knock it out of the park!

[HangOnKids]

70. Below the Mendoza Line

Sorry but you might need a bit more BP.

[SidDithers]

83. C'mon Binka, show us what you got...

call her a "fuckwittage". That's been a favourite of yours that you've used over the many years.

Sid

[Hekate]

109. zap

I see your memory is as sharp as ever

[NealK]

115. "Try reading ALL the links"

I followed your great advice and after following all the links, going to the blogs and reading everything and more I came to the obvious conclusion: Snowden is an android that was built by Illuminati and Knights Templar engineers at area 51 and is programmed to make Obama look bad. Of course what the NSA is doing is irrelevant and should be swept under the rug.

[MADem]

82. No, it doesn't say that--it says that Snowden's father and the Feins are concerned about who is

handling Snowden overseas.

Go back and look at it again: http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-battle-for-world-wide-web.html

But first its important to recognize that Snowden is being handled. The question is "by whom?" Yesterday we saw that his father (and his father's lawyers) are starting to speak out about what's happening.

More fractious is the relationship among Lon Snowden, WikiLeaks and Mr. Greenwald. Mr. Fein's wife and spokeswoman, Mattie Fein, said Lon Snowden's legal team doesn't trust the intentions of Mr. Greenwald or WikiLeaks and worry they are giving Edward Snowden bad advice.

"The thing we have been most concerned about is that the people who have influence over Ed will try to use him for their own means," Ms. Fein said. "These guys have their own agenda here and we aren't so sure that it has Ed's best interest in mind."

[JDPriestly]

103. Do you know who Bruce Fein is?

Bruce Fein is a lawyer in the United States who specializes in constitutional and international law. Fein has written numerous articles on constitutional issues for The Washington Times, Slate.com, The New York Times, Legal Times, and is active on the issues of civil liberties. He has also worked for the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, both conservative think tanks, as an analyst and commentator.[1]

Fein is a principal in a government affairs and public relations firm, The Lichfield Group, in Washington, D.C..[2] He is also a resident scholar at the Turkish Coalition of America.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Fein

Do you suppose that maybe Snowden's dad means well in choosing Bruce Fein as his lawyer but that Snowden may view things differently? Bruce Fein may or may not be too conservative for Snowden.

Let's not worry about the differences between Snowden's friends and those of his parents. The Snowden family will work it out. I have no doubt that Snowden's dad will denounce Wikileaks and friends. They may feel that denouncing Wikileaks and embarrassing Assange, etc., will help Snowden safely return to the US.

In fact, maybe Snowden came out with his revelations as a way to embarrass Wikileaks. We will find out. That does not change the fact that what the NSA has been doing in collecting metadata, huge amounts of metadata on American citizens gives a small clique in the executive branch of the government access to secret information not only about American citizens and foreign policy issues but also about members of the press and the other branches of government. In addition, it will inevitably mean that people think twice about who they contact, what news media they read, etc. That chills not only speech and association rights but also creativity and discovery and the sharing of ideas.

The NSA program, no matter what Snowden's situation a) is a huge threat to the separation of powers, the co-equality of our three branches of government, as set forth in the Constitution and thus to our constitutional form of government and b) chills speech because it will and probably is causing some people, scholars hoping for new jobs, lawyers, teachers, scientists, journalists and just you to stop and think before we do an internet search or respond even on DU.

I'm retired. I don't have to worry about my career. Maybe you are still working and have to defend the government just to appear loyal and insure your job. I have no idea. But somewhere, some time, probably this week, at least one person will hesitate to read something, write something, study something, learn something, talk to someone, ask a question, answer a question, and all because of the knowledge of the NSA spying. No one really knows just exactly what the NSA is doing.

Of course, the government would love to see Wikileaks belittled and embarrassed. Even though people want Wikileaks to be treated fairly, the furor is not about Wikileaks or Snowden as a person. It is about the fact that the NSA has gone too far.

Watch the Bill Moyers video i have been posting to. It is available on DU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Fein

Again, I give that link. It puts the threat that the NSA is posing to our democracy in a historical perspective. The excessive secrecy is incompatible with our free economy and our freedom within our country. It is incompatible with our constitutional form of government. It is unAmerican. It has to stop.

[MADem]

107. Yes, I understand who Bruce Fein is, and I've kept up with what he and his wife have said.

I've also read Ed Snowden't HUFFPO disavowal.

I've also read that Ed Snowden talked to his father via the net without the approval of that Russian lawyer (who also represents WIKILEAKS and is a former KGB agent and a Putin acolyte). The lawyer was sufficiently annoyed that he held a press conference and told everyone he was annoyed. Frankly, I found THAT very odd. I guess they don't do that confidentiality thing over there.

I don't discredit the notion that "Snowden might have different ideas" but the bottom line is this--written statements, that could be written by anyone, don't fly in this media age. It's not like Snowden is on the dark side of the moon, after all.

Not too long ago, if you recall, there was another written communication from Snowden that some said was written by Assange, because the tone of it was bellicose and not written in what some said was Snowden's 'voice.' When all one hears from a person is a "written communique" it tends to remind folks of the cheery letters "from" Hugo Chavez, which were plainly written by other actors as he was on life support after a massive heart attack on top of his aggressive cancer and was being kept alive to run down the clock.

Snowden could clear a lot of this speculation up by simply videoing his declarations. Then there would be no question as to who was issuing the statements. But using early 20th Century communication styles--the written word--to make statements about what he does and does not want does raise suspicions that something just might be awry--surely someone over there in modern, up-to-date Moscow has video on their cellphone, after all? Even an audiotape, where Father Lon could say "Yep, that's my boy" is more proof than words on a screen, e-mailed to Huffpo.

IMO, YMMV.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Genetic.

Both of my parents are/were fast readers. I could tell you stories, but you wouldn't believe them anyway.

In any case, I don't think it matters who's "handling" Snowden. What matters is the usurpation of our civil liberties, as the daily news dumps make clearer each day.

[sheshe2]

40. IMHO

You are wrong.

I think it matters a lot who is behind this. I think we need to see who is "handling" this whole damn thing! It reeks!

[JDPriestly]

98. Who Snowden is, who is handling him, doesn't mean anything. It and they aren't

important. It's the revelations that matter.

Snowden came forward. We are grateful to him for that. But he has to decide who he trusts and who he doesn't trust.

The important thing is, as Manny said, that the government is spying on us. And we don't like it. Snowden is very smart. He will handle his own handlers.

If the US government cared about Snowden, it would drop the charges against him on the ground that the NSA really was violating the laws that govern it and that Snowden is a legitimate whistleblower.

[uponit7771]

7. There are also aliens in area 51 :rolleyes: ~ white spying on everyone hyperbole bullshit

[randome]

10. The 'White House' is spying now?

Seems like your rage slipped a gear or something.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[uponit7771]

12. Yeap, Obama has a room like Doc Xavier on X men and you know...he reads peoples minds

...and shit

[randome]

13. Cerebro!

He periodically teleports to Mars after a 'session'.


[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[uponit7771]

14. lol

[Whisp]

36. you mad, celebro?

[Whisp]

17. LOL!

Seems like your rage slipped a gear or something.

Excellent.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Who does the NSA report to?

For extra credit: who would be the person to fire the head of the NSA if the NSA wasn't doing what it was asked to do?

[randome]

24. I don't know the answer to that question. Is it the President?

If so, that's still hard for me to equate that with Obama 'spying on all Americans'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[MADem]

88. They report to Congress. That's where they get their money.

All federal agencies report to Congress--including DOD, CIA, NSA, IRS, HHS, etc. etc.

They have to justify their expenditures every year, and these justifications are used to prepare the budget.

Any time there are appropriations, Congress is involved. Congress has--or is supposed to have--oversight over them. That's why there are intel committees/subcommittees.

The short answer is that they are beholden to the ones who pay them, and as we know, all appropriations start in the House and are approved by both chambers.

[JDPriestly]

105. Feinstein? She admitted she did not have all the information she should have had.

She really should have retired some years ago.

She was not even sharp enough to realize that the woman handling her campaign money was cheating her out of millions. Millions.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/04/10/feinstein-calls-her-treasurers-actions-big-betrayal/

Millions of dollars stolen from Feinstein's campaign and she did not discovery it for quite some time.

Democrats across the state were affected, but most of the sums were not that big. Feinstein's loss was enormous. (I think she got most of it back, but she should have noticed sooner.)

That's the person "watching" the NSA's surveillance activities. It is ridiculous. She is just not competent enough to be so instrumental on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

[MADem]

110. I didn't say a word about Feinstein. She's the Chair of Intel, sure.

But she's not down in the weeds--that's what the junior members as well as the people who are responsible for the oversight function (are supposed to) do.

You do know that Rand Paul is a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, right? That's the ultimate watchdog/oversight committee, that can stick their beak into EVERYTHING, and when they want to, they do. It's a very good committee assignment if you want to know what's going on, who's screwing up, and things of that nature--of course, you have to do the work. http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/about/jurisdiction

By "do the work" I mean they have to go down to the basement to actually DO any oversight, because they aren't allowed to take the material out of the SCIF down there to their comfy, well-appointed offices.

I think, if we did some real hard looking, we'd learn that a lot of those "overseers" haven't spent much time in the basement, doing their jobs, at all.

That's kind of where my head was at, seeing as Snowden was a contributor to that guy's campaign. He should have gone to see him, and not Greenwald, et. al.

[MADem]

86. Congress. They are required to report to them, and the intel committees have oversight over them.

Or, they're supposed to have oversight over them, and they're supposed to read the reports provided (which they have to read in secure facilities, not in the comfort of their well-appointed offices), initiate investigations into wrongdoings, and advise the President of their findings.

If they're not doing that, it's a problem.

[Marr]

23. I don't understand the mocking tone.

You are aware that the NSA is under the Executive, right?

[randome]

25. So? Does that mean Obama is 'spying on all Americans'?

No one has shown that to be the case. Most of the outrage is directed at what the NSA could be doing. By the same token, the FBI could be looking through my garbage each night. The local precinct could be monitoring my every move.

Do I have reason to believe any of that is happening? No.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[sheshe2]

27. Well said randome. nt

[JDPriestly]

106. I am concerned by what

Obama has admitted -- that they are collecting our metadata.

That gives the executive branch secret power over the press, over private citizens and over the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government as well as over the state governments. Anyone can be targeted. A study of the metadata of any individual will reveal an enormous amount of information about that person's life and choices. It is an enormous power to have, and it belongs to a small clique of people, of bureaucrats and private companies that do not lose their jobs or contracts when a new president takes over. It is really a frightening amount of power that is handed to people over whom there is very little or very incompetent oversight.

President Obama just does not have the time or the qualified personnel to watch what Booz, Allen employees do with the databases they can and do access.

It is a program way out of control. That is for certain not just from Snowden's revelations but from the statements of members of Congress like Wyden. Even Feinstein's admission that she was unaware of certain facts indicates how little control there is over the program.

We need surveillance over the surveillance program -- and not from D.C. hacks. I can't think of anyone or any company qualified to watch and report on this kind of program. The potential for blackmail and intimidation by the people who run the surveillance program is just too great to permit safe oversight.

[randome]

114. Booz-Allen does NOT have access to personal data.

As evidenced by Snowden's failure to obtain any.

I see your point about the metadata. I myself have no problem whatsoever with the NSA retaining a copy of what the telecoms already keep. It makes it much simpler to look through the data when they have a warrant.

And if you don't think government can monitor the NSA and you don't think any other company can do so, what can be done? Close down the NSA? Then why not the CIA and FBI too? They all operate under a certain degree of secrecy.

Carl Bernstein said it looked to him as if the NSA has strong safeguards and restrictions in place. At some point, we have to stop worrying about what the NSA could be doing and perhaps review those safeguards to understand how well -or poorly- they operate.

But who is qualified to do that?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[uponit7771]

118. So true on the safe gaurds but as GG as proved it doesn't matter they wont believe them ANYWAY

[JDPriestly]

127. Isn't Bernstein a Hillary supporter?

I haven't read his book on her.

Bernstein's most recent book is a biography of Hillary Rodham Clinton. A Woman In Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton was published by Alfred A. Knopf on June 5, 2007, and became both a New York Times and national bestseller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Bernstein

He is not a lawyer. He does not understand what the possession of the metadata of virtually every American means in terms of power for whatever clique gets into the White House.

[uponit7771]

117. I'm MORE concerned that cameras on the street can see into my car!

[uponit7771]

116. AMEN!!

[MADem]

121. It's "under the Executive" like Veteran's Affairs is....

I don't think Obama approves every servicemember's disability claim, either.

It's under DOD in the flow chart. The head of NSA reports to SECDEF, DNI and Congress. Congress appropriates and has oversight, as do the other two entities. It's not like "NSA" is operating out of the WH basement and POTUS is checking the stew and stirring the pot every day. Certainly, he is briefed on a daily basis, but his briefs have more to do about actionable intelligence, not NSA staff misconduct or other "how the sausage is made" details.

Congress--those folks with the cash and the appropriations approval abilities--are the ones with the wherewithal to investigate these guys; DNI could do it as well, as could the Director of NSA (a General).

[morningfog]

29. The Executive Branch, headed by the WH is, yes.

[randome]

32. I doubt that. Unless you equate metadata with 'spying'.

But we've been over that issue many times.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

35. Is the NSA part of the Executive Branch?

Is the FBI part of the Executive Branch?

[MADem]

94. NSA is bifurcated, even trifurcated. They're under DOD, they report to DNI, they

have to justify their expenditures to Congress.

So, they have a combination of military (the NSA director is a General), elected and appointed "masters."

The problem with that, as I said elsewhere, is that when you have too many cooks, there can be a tendency to think that the "other guy" is doing the oversight.

[morningfog]

124. Is the Dept. of Defense part of the Executive Branch?

Is the DNI part of the Executive Branch?

[MADem]

125. Of course it is, but it has a number of reporting relationships, AND oversight relationships.

As anyone who has worked in federal government knows.

Perhaps this will help you, since you seem unclear on the concept:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3481234

[morningfog]

126. Your condescending tone in every one of your posts is really not constructive.

It also does add any credibility. It just makes people not like you. These are Executive policies. We aren't talking little decisions.

And with that, I am putting you on ignore. I have no interest in further engaging such an obnoxious attitude.

[MADem]

128. Well, you're reading a "tone" that is in your own head. My feelings aren't at all hurt that you're

putting me on ignore, but you'd better not make promises that you don't intend to keep!

I've found that many people use "Harrumph! I'm putting you on IGNORE!" as a substitute for "Oh shit, I don't have a substantive response to the points made in that post, so I will feign outrage and stomp off in a huff, to avoid having to rebut the assertion!"

It's rather unsubtle, that tactic, and I doubt it is genuinely satisfying, but hey, knock yourself out! The fewer arguments you engage in, the less your worldview will be challenged--enjoy the cocoon!

[Safetykitten]

52. Manny, you are my hero.

[MannyGoldstein]

57. Then you should get out more

Expand your horizons.

[yurbud]

67. and gossip shouldn't distract from that

[bemildred]

3. Ah, a conspiracy theory. nt

[sheshe2]

4. Ah, no. nt

[bemildred]

5. Sure, they're conspiring to control the web, thats what it says. nt

[sheshe2]

8. It's not a CT theory. nt

[bemildred]

11. You disagree with what you posted? nt

[burnodo]

15. That's the only way for them to make sense of it

[sheshe2]

16. No.

This is not a CT.

When folks like Julian Assange, Jacob Applebaum and Laura Poitras say that they are being surveilled by the US government (and therefore we should all be scared shitless about being surveilled ourselves), this is why. They are not innocent players in this world-wide battle over the internet. And they're fighting back...with the likes of Edward Snowden. Just like they fought back against Bank of America by hacking their secrets.

There are HUGE issues at stake here...privacy, piracy, hacking, who controls the internet, and the international balance of power with cyber security threats. But the idea that the Assange's and Greenwald's and Applebaum's of the world are taking up this cause on behalf of everyday Americans is pure hogwash.

[bemildred]

18. It's a theory about a conspiracy to control the web.

What do you think "conspiracy theory" means?

[HangOnKids]

61. Five minutes in and I am still laughing at THIS POST...beautiful!

Thank you!

[bemildred]

122. My pleasure. nt

[uponit7771]

6. They are fuck ups too, Greenwald is a joke and FAUX news hearts Snowden now. Along with the GOP...

...withholding docs from the WH in regards to the agencies this smells like some more trumped scandal porn...

[Whisp]

9. K&R, good find, sheshe. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Oy...

[BumRushDaShow]

20. K&R

[grasswire]

22. you expect to be taken seriously...

....when you post something by a blogger called "misssmartypants"?

[sheshe2]

26. You mock her...

Really? Have you ever read her blog. It is spot on and fact based....

GG, your hero.

THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE STORY OF HOW GREENWALD FIRST CONTACTED SNOWDEN

There are at least five different version of this story and they bear a close analysis, even if it's boring, because they contain important clues, working backwards:

May 2013

snip

December 2012

As the blog Nuclear Diner discusses, Glenn Greenwald told Harpers something different on July 17 -- that he first heard from Snowden in December 2012.

He emailed me back in December of last year, anonymously, and said something along the lines of “I and a few other people have some things that you’d be interested in. The problem is we can only communicate with you by encrypted email, so do you have PGP encryption?” I answered him and said “I’ll do it in the next couple of days and then you can email me back.” And he emailed in a few days and said “Did you do it yet?” and I said, “No, I haven’t done it yet,” and then he sent me step-by-step instructions — encryption for idiots, basically.

Snip

November 2012

In his interview with Peter Maass for the New York Times Magazine, Greenwald now places the time of this first contact with Snowden "more than six months before" his contact with him in person in Hong Kong in May 2013, i.e. November 2012 or even earlier.

Of course, Glenn gets furious when people nail him on this discrepancy because he can explain it away by saying the email contact from Snowden in December 2012 (possibly under a pseudonymn) (or earlier, as he is now telling Maass) and the handing of the documents from Hong Kong in May 2013 were really two different things, or stages in the same process of first trying to vet Snowden and see if he was useful and authentic.

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/07/idiot-wind.html

This is a link from the blog you trashed, because of her name???? Really? Did you read the links before you trashed her? Oh please read on! This is a researched article. Take some time to read the links before you trash her.

[grasswire]

39. this actually explains a lot

the "theory" about Snowden is put forward by a person only identified as smartypants who wants to live as a princess and do whatever she likes. That's her only claim to fame on the blog.

Sorry, sheshe. I find this kind of conjecture to be laughable. Beyond laughable.

[sheshe2]

43. Read her BLOG!

Not what she said in her "about me".

Also you missed this part.

About Me
You can follow me on twitter @Smartypants32 or on Facebook here.

I'm a political junkie, pragmatic progressive and Obama supporter who believes in the long game and is always looking for the big picture.

People who've only known me as an adult find it pretty hard to believe that I was actually pretty timid as a young child. But when my mother thought I was "mouthing off" to her (in other words, standing up for myself), she'd refer to me as Miss Smartypants. It was supposed to put me in my place. Imagine that...calling a little girl "smartypants" is supposed to be a put-down.

Stop trying to put her in her place without reading what she has to say. You put her down yet you have no clue what she has to say! Do you follow her? Have you read her?

Not the first time that a DUer has mocked her without following a word she has written.

Judge not!

Sorry grasswire, I find this kind of conjecture laughable. Beyond laughable!

[grasswire]

47. Sorry, but there is no credibility there.

And there is nothing about this person on google that will provide any further information about her except her wish to be a princess and do nothing all day.

Got NO TIME for that kind of amateur.

[sheshe2]

50. Sorry.............wrong!

I did not ask you to google her. READ her Blog Posts! Read them...did you? Did you follow the links to her posts? No you did not! You judge without one iota of information about her. You read a fun "about me" at her BLOG and then you judge.

Hmmm makes you wonder where you found out about your not so in depth study of GG and Snowden...

You have all the time in the world to read GG and Snowdens insightful revelations... from a headline maybe, a news flash from fox? Try reading some facts!

Please proceed with your drivel!

I have NO TIME for that kind of amateur.

[uponit7771]

119. EXACTLY!! I saw how FAUX news hearts SnowGlen now and I'm disgusted they're mentioned here

[Cha]

42. Their blatant MO is to try and tear down the messenger

because it's true and they can't debate you on the merits, she. Either that or they resort to personal insults. After all GAS is their holey trinity.

Newsflash: Not working.

[sheshe2]

44. Good to see you Cha!

I was responding to grasswire when you posted.

Thanks. We come with facts, they respond with insults.

LOL~

"Newsflash: Not working."

[rug]

62. The irony of your post eludes you.

[Cha]

64. My bad.. I didn't realize you thought greenwald, assange, and snowden being

your leaders was an insult.

[rug]

66. Allow me to refocus you.

Their blatant MO is to try and tear down the messenger

What is this OP again?

[Mojorabbit]

54. Almost every link posted from this blog has dissed Snowden or Greenwald.

I think there is an agenda.

[Whisp]

38. Please proceed, Mr. Grasswire. n/t

[sheshe2]

45. Whisp~

she~

[MADem]

96. Actually, as blogs go, it's not bad at all--it's a blog, after all, one person's opinion.

Here's here "About Me" statement, which also explains the blog's name:

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/p/about.html

She has a POV, sure, but she sources her material, which is more than many do--it's your choice to pick, choose, or disregard, but her comments aren't way out in left field. She's speculating--like we all do when typing on the internet.

Her theory about previous meetings between the actors in this drama can be proved or disproved, eventually, and they probably will be. Someone might just ask the question, who knows? In the meantime, it's something to ponder.

[grasswire]

101. why is this obscure and anonymous blogger so important to you Boggers?

I prefer reading facts to conjecture, and I most certainly rarely would read an obscure and anonymous blogger who prefaces her conjecture by wishing to be a princess who does nothing all day .

I'm done with this.

[MADem]

104. ???? I'm not sure how to take your comment--why are you getting

aggressive, snarking about "you boggers," and ascribing "importance" to what is simply an interesting theory that can be proved or disproved by the first journalist, not a member of his advocacy team, mind you, who interviews Snowden? All they have to do is ask "Did you meet those folks in Maui/before you worked for BHA?" and the theory will be either proved or disproved, assuming the truth is told.

As for the blog's name, Smirking Chimp is a silly name, too but it never stopped them from discussing real news--if you look at the blogroll list on the front page of DU, not all of those blogs that discuss serious issues have blowhardy "I'm Profound!" names. That's the nature of the net.

Not really sure why you're so touchy with me-- this is just a discussion based on comments here and commentaries of others elsewhere.

No one demands you sign on to it, and since it makes you unhappy you're probably much better off being 'done with' it, I guess.

[AlinPA]

34. IMO, the question would also be "Who is he working for or who is paying him"

[Cha]

41. Props to smartypants, she!

Deconstructing "GAS".. working to put them in their proper context.

"Does it strike you that they're really interested in anyone's "privacy" when their modus operandi is hacking into other people's computer systems?"

"But the idea that the Assange's and Greenwald's and Applebaum's of the world are taking up this cause on behalf of everyday Americans is pure hogwash."

The collective GAS is interested in one thing.. and that is themselves.. and oh yeah, slobbering over the Pauls. Misters Rand and daddy Ron.. thinking ol Ayn Rand's boy will be president in 2016 and get those cowards in hiding off the hook.

Thank you for the OP, she!

[sheshe2]

46. GAS!

OMG, excellent!

You are correct my dear, they are interested in themselves.

They lust for money, power, dominance and control.

[Cha]

48. I stole it..

saw it refered to last night.. and, I'm like, wha-t? Oh yeah, GAS.

But, but, but, "think of the constitution11!! "

[dionysus]

49. this will upset the apologist\cultist\cheerleader\ worshippers of sweet co-bebe jeebus snow-wald

[sheshe2]

56. Snort~

Ya Think!

[Cha]

75. You mean the anti-authoritarians!

WikiLeaks ‏@wikileaks 5h

Obama's mask continues to slip in this affair. Under all the acting, and reading of teleprompters, a vindictive, petty, authoritarian.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks

h/t Cali http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023234734

this guy..

"Julian Assange Backs Ron and Rand Paul"

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/julian-assange-backs-ron-and-rand-paul/

the daily caller/rw blogs are loving this shit.. and, of course the libertarians.. Swoon Dreamy



h/t HarveyDarkey http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023480397

[last1standing]

51. BE AFRAID!!!!!! BE VERY AFRAID!!!!!!1!1!111!1111

Then maybe you'll forget about those Constitutional right this government is violating.

[rug]

65. I did follow your links but when I got here, I could go no further.

"Princess Smartypants wanted to live in a castle with her pets and do exactly as she pleased."[/d}

[sheshe2]

71. POST 43~ Read it.

Then read her BLOG!

[rug]

72. Oh, I already read her "About Me".

I'll get back to her blog after I find out how the Star-Bellied Sneetches ends.



She has inspired me, as well, to search for political roots.

[sheshe2]

73. You and I both know that you

have no intention of reading her BLOG. Your loss.

However, I plan to remember this pic you posted every single time I see a post on Snowed-In and GG...

Thank you, I could not have found a better picture of the S&G Star-Bellied Sneetches




The first 2 are GG and Assange...the third is Snowed-In...He is in despair that he is being used and abused by G and A. You inspired me rug. Thank You!

[rug]

74. Actually their body language suggests the tag team in this thread.

[sheshe2]

76. Really?

Do you mean that you all are lording it over me, you are tagging me, as a team? Making me stand shivering in the corner and hang my head in submission as only a woman should?

Or do you mean that the tag team is Assange and GG using Snowed-in as a tool?

Explain please.

[rug]

78. I picture you more on the left typing this OP.

Of course, the illustration at the end of the thread would be much different.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Here's a thought. Maybe Snowden is "handling" himself and choosing his own advisers.

Could be?

[snappyturtle]

77. Yawn.

[ronnie624]

79. I like being able to see who recommends this kind of garbage. n/t

[HangOnKids]

80. Classic

My ignore list team.

[ronnie624]

90. I didn't realize you were so smitten by the Smartypants blog.

Oh well, I don't concern myself with "ignore lists", anyway.

[HangOnKids]

92. Smartypants is what I call my kids

They don't post here..yet.

[ronnie624]

95. Smartypants is the blog the OP uses as a source.

That's what I was referring to as 'garbage'.

[Cha]

81. Smartypants is way too intelligent not to see what's going on with Greenwald,

Assange, and Snowden. Same with Bob Cesca. That's why their "fans" tear them down, she.

Massive 'Insurance' File That No One Can Open

"The group, which has been assisting ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden after he leaked top-secret documents to the media, posted links for about 400 gigabytes of files on their Facebook page Saturday, and asked their fans to download and mirror them elsewhere."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-insurance-file-2013-8#ixzz2cIbd9wZd

h/t PS http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023480268

"Idiot Wind: A Compendium of Snowden, WikiLeaks, Greenwald, Poitras and Appelbaum Topics"

UPDATED 8/13/2013 with additional conflicting narratives that have come out from Peter Maass portrait of Laura Poitras in the New York Times Magazine and also to add information gleaned from Snowden's girlfriend's (now deleted) blog showing the convergence of various hackers in Hawaii at the time Snowden was there.

An episode that sticks out for me in the story of how Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jacob Appelbaum came to get in touch with Edward Snowden, write about him, and spill his secrets is the furious response Greenwald has to Walter Pincus' articles containing his findings and questions on the connections between WikiLeaks and Snowden and Greenwald's role.

Pincus' article tracks with the sense a number of us have who have been following these radical activists long before the Snowden story broke that these people all knew each other long before, and collaborated much closer than they admit to bring about the Snowden defection to Russia.

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/07/idiot-wind.html

It's a snarly snake pit.. and, I'm just glad there are those out there who are trying to unravel it. Thanks, she, for posting!

[sheshe2]

87. Thank you Cha!

There is so much information at the links. Thank you for bringing that part here.

Pincus' article tracks with the sense a number of us have who have been following these radical activists long before the Snowden story broke that these people all knew each other long before, and collaborated much closer than they admit to bring about the Snowden defection to Russia.

I spent hours reading it all. To bad that some responders here never gave it a glance before adding there two cents.

They just crap on the blogger and me for posting. They like fiction and do not believe in facts.

Thank you Cha...it's late and I have to go.

[madrchsod]

84. do`t feel bad...

it took me 45 minutes on google to check greenwalds latest brazilian adventure. i searched every name involved in the story,every brazilian paper (google translate is a miracle), and other possibilities . what i came up with is-the story originated in the usa by a blogger who worked for a brazilian paper. the person who wrote the story for the newspaper credited it to the person in the usa. no one has ever reported the name of the brazilian official who was going to give greenwald protection against the us government. according to the report greenwald was telling the brazilians details of the usa spying. according to the report greenwald was saying he`ll come back to the usa and he does`t expect to be arrested.

if i had written that story my 8th grade english teacher would have rapped me on the knukles. of course that was in the late 50`s where writing was still an art.

[Cha]

89. Mahalo for your post, madrchsod nm

[SidDithers]

85. DU rec...nt

Sid

[MrMickeysMom]

93. Looks like you have a future with a Murdock news outlet...

and, oh... eom

Made you look!

[MADem]

97. The newspaper in Hong Kong that did the extensive interview with Snowden is partly owned by Murdoch.

It's kind of hard to avoid him, he's everywhere, even as he is divesting himself of certain properties and his latest spouse...

[Rex]

99. ...

[villager]

102. So who are these people handling Obama?

I think it's high time we took a look at the people who are "handling" Barack Obama and what their agenda is in all this.

And why Candidate Obama is so radically different than President Obama.

There is a battle raging beneath all this that has serious implications for all of us.

[Hekate]

108. Truth: "to act as if (the US) is no different than the surveillance states of Russia and China"

As I explained in my long timeline, the purpose is to weaken and discredit America as a champion of Internet freedom; to claim that it is a hypocrite and not true to its ideals; to act as if it is no different than the surveillance states of Russia and China; and to make it seem as if the "sovereign Internet" plans of these authoritarian governments then are justified due to the discreditation of both US commercial and government involvement in the World Wide Web.

and

There are HUGE issues at stake here...privacy, piracy, hacking, who controls the internet, and the international balance of power with cyber security threats. But the idea that the Assange's and Greenwald's and Applebaum's of the world are taking up this cause on behalf of everyday Americans is pure hogwash.

I think we're getting somewhere. And your acronym GAS is a gas!

[Democracyinkind]

112. Creative Speculation, at best.

Also, the blog quoted is very moronic, it reminds me of "the people's view".

Here's what I find ironic - the campaign by rightwing/ conservative "democrats" on DU that is trying to convince you that the real rightwing danger lies in some kind of left/libertarian overlap whille it is them dragging this party and country to the right. Think about that. If my imagination were as bright as that of the author of the blog, I'd post a conspiracy theory now.

Just look at the blogs these people quote. It's obvious that they aren't written by liberals.

[NealK]

120. How dare you?

How dare you call Princess smartypants moronic?6??