What if Snowden was played by the Russians all along?

[struggle4progress]

By Leo Mirani
3 hours ago

Is Edward Snowden a “noble crusader bravely risking his career and freedom in the pursuit of truth and transparency”? Or is he a “useful idiot”? Edward Lucas of the Economist comes down firmly on the side of idiocy ...

... Even the most ardent defenders of Snowden — whom Lucas disparagingly calls “Snowdenistas” — wouldn’t deny that the disclosures have done tremendous damage to Western intelligence agencies ...

But Lucas goes further. He posits that Snowden would have been noticed by Russian intelligence as soon as he arrived in Geneva as an employee of the CIA. “They are very good at spotting naïve, gullible, dissatisfied, junior officials in important positions,” says Lucas ...

... Lucas isn’t against whistleblowers or leaks in general, having published leaked documents himself. His problem, he says, is with Snowden’s motivations. “Whistleblowers have to meet three tests,” he says. “They have to reveal some kind of abuse or injustice that wouldn’t otherwise be remedied. They have to bear public safety and other considerations in mind. And the information they take should be proportionate and relevant to the abuse they’re trying to remedy. And I think Snowden broke all three of those” ...

http://qz.com/180388/what-if-snowden-was-played-by-the-russians-all-along/

[pscot]

1. I'll take noble crusaders for $1000

Useful idiots is a term that died with Joe Stalin. Now we just have idiots, trying to re-ignite the cold war.

[struggle4progress]

7. Snowden went to China, shared info with the Chinese press about NSA interests there, then

fled to Russia, where he has ever since been represented by a lawyer with close ties to Russian intelligence

Snowden first came into the public eye when in China by announcing he had stolen quite a few NSA documents

These are facts admitting interpretations other than your slick gloss

[pscot]

9. I think Ed Snowden is a national hero

He deserves a medal for what he did, not a dreary exile in Russia.

[lostincalifornia]

31. I am not sure about national hero, though I will agree that he exposed something that needed to be

done, however, what bothers me is why this exposure suddenly become imperative under an African American President, and not so imperative under bush with the rubber stamp of congress?

My point being, yes the exposure is important and good about the NSA abuses, and I do NOT have issues about that, but I do have questions about all the abuses generated before, and why it wasn't an issue with the libertarians until a certain person became president.

Regardless, I cannot see in the near future where Snowden will come back to the U.S. The political climate sure won't allow it, at least not now, and there is no question that the country has even turned more to the right since that was done.

[grasswire]

43. could you please explain yourself?

You wrote: "there is no question that the country has even turned more to the right since that was done."

On what do you base this astonishing statement?

[lostincalifornia]

52. Easy , look at Wisconsin, Texas, Abbott leading by 10 points over Wendy in

Spite of the association with nugent

Christie still has 50% approval in spite of overwhelming evidence that he engaged in criminal activities, the polls indicate we will have trouble hanging onto the Senate, eytc

That is just my feeling, I hope I am full of it

[Mojorabbit]

62. Maybe he thought a Dem President would change things?

We likely will find out in the future. In the end what does it matter who was president when he decided to go public? The egregious overreach by the NSA needed to be exposed.

[lostincalifornia]

73. Yes it needed to be exposed

[pscot]

75. The real reason Ed Snowden is in Russia today

We put him there. These are from the coment thread to the article cited at the link. These guys explain it better than I.

Your statement of Snowden’s “eventual flight to Russia” is suggestive of Russia being his endpoint. Sorry. Snowden was on his way to Latin America (his planned and preferred endpoint). The USA, my country, revoked his passport and stranded him at the Moscow airport for 39 days. My country spent that entire time pressuring (actually threatening) countries who were sympathetic to his plight. Once he was stranded at the Moscow airport, the USA directed their threats to Russia/Putin. Thankfully, Russia/Putin offered him temporary asylum. If his passport had not been revoked and he had left Moscow, I believe that he would have never reached Latin America. He would have been “rendered” or killed/assassinated. I believe Russia is the safest place for him (on earth) as proven by the fact that he is still alive and speaking out against the mass surveillance state that he revealed.


Reply

Petron

24 Feb 2014 at 9:13 pm


Right on, all the above responses to the Snowden is a Russian spy smear and falsehood. People forget so quickly what happened. Additionally we have to look at the man himself. The challenge is to show any ANY indication from him that he is a duplicitous sneak now that he’s arrived in Russia. That despite his presentations he is somehow playing a game on the side. This kind of thinking reflects the paranoid and twisted nature of whoever is making the accusation. Snowden has made very plain his motivation, his objectives, and his patriotism. All this scurrilous demonizing is the stench emanating from those who smear for whatever opportunistic purposes they may have.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101686112

[Cali_Democrat]

2. The Snowden defenders won't like being called "Snowdenistas"

Then again many of those same people such as Greenwald refer to Obama "cultists"

I guess it goes both ways.

[Wilms]

4. Snowden defenders don't mind being called "Snowdenistas".

Usually it's merely the Stasinista who hurl the insults and think this whole affair is about teen-idol Barack.

Go figure, LOL!

[Control-Z]

16. Teen-idol Barack?

WTF?

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Pretty sad when all you've got left...

are petty insults of the first black President and his supporters.

You've pretty much lost the argument at that point.

The tea party folks would be proud of your insult.

Well done.

Well. Fucking. Done.

[sheshe2]

33. +1!

[TheKentuckian]

80. Folks get a bit fiery when other folks ardently defend, support, excuse, minimize, and distract

dragnet surveillance and the dismantling of essentially civil liberties. It isn't really "agree to disagree" territory, so I think the thermostat is more or less holding and there isn't much to complain about.

Now, I understand that your mileage may vary and you might not see it quite the same way but we have a common enough culture that it wouldn't stretch the imagination that much to understand how people are telling you they are perceiving the situation.
Unfortunately, I don't see how the reverse is true but maybe the dots don't connect because they are obscured by the blasting of the messengers to the point that pretty much all that can be seen is "boxes in the garage" and "supporting MY President".

Add to that what seems like a determined effort to avoid the what by relentlessly focusing on the who and yes, the frustration and anger will surface.

It feels to me the tactic is purposeful in an effort to get exactly the reaction that is being complained about in hopes of hides, silencing within individual threads and/or PPRing as many critics as possible, polluting all dialog, and above all else distraction.
Maybe not but I just don't even relate at all to some folk's positions on civil liberties enough to make anything of the pro surveillance state point of view as any better than disgusting and pitiful, enmity at average, and totalitarian evil if I'm not in check.

[Mojorabbit]

84. Well said. nt

[struggle4progress]

29. The OP is about Lucas' book on Snowden and doesn't mention President Obama at all

It is, of course, informative that you disparage the President as "teen-idol Barack"

[leftynyc]

32. Teen idol Barack?

Are you still in middle school? This place gets more juvenile every single day.

[MADem]

3. "Useful Idiot" is probably better than "Paid Spy" or "Traitor" or any of those highly charged terms.

I do think there is something horribly "off" about what he did.

For someone who is supposed to be so damned smart, to take a job at Booz, steal a bunch of stuff, fairly quickly, and then do a runner is just ... illogical. A stupid thing for a supposed "genius" to do...

And I've SEEN this kind of thing go down. The Russians can be very aggressive, sometimes comically so, when they think they're on to someone who might be useful to them:

But Lucas goes further. He posits that Snowden would have been noticed by Russian intelligence as soon as he arrived in Geneva as an employee of the CIA. “They are very good at spotting naïve, gullible, dissatisfied, junior officials in important positions,” says Lucas. Somebody like Snowden, he writes, “would be a beacon to them.” Lucas’s theory is that the Russians, through intermediaries, would have encouraged Snowden’s growing worries about the American surveillance state “by increasing his sense of dissatisfaction and his alienation from his employer” until it was time to broker a meeting with someone who could release the documents for him. The Russians also needed to ensure Snowden wouldn’t talk too much about his time in Geneva, Lucas says, “and for that reason he would need to be bounced into going to Moscow where he could be looked after.”

[rustydog]

5. Does that matter? does it make what was "Leaked" less noteworthy?

[struggle4progress]

8. Different bits of his leak may be noteworthy to different interests for different reasons

[KittyWampus]

37. Just wanted to say that your comment seems very realistic. I personally think it's possible

he was used by forces at odds with US security from early on.

I am reminded of the old story about a bee collecting honey is also pollinating flowers.

Snowden thinking and doing one thing, Russians dong another and ultimate impact on the USA is varied.

[pscot]

51. I'm at odds with "national security"

as currently defined. The War on Terror is as bogus as the War on Drugs. We've fought two needless wars and bankrupted the middle class in the name of national security and we have more people in jail than the rest of the world combined. Anyone who's not at odds with that isn't thinking straight, or is on the Security State's payroll.

[randome]

10. Sure it matters. Because most people don't truly care that the U.S. spies on other countries.

Or that they store copies of metadata.

Therefore, it becomes interesting to speculate on why Snowden did what he did. Remember, he thought PRISM was a way for the NSA to basically download the Internet on a daily basis. He thought the warrant for Verizon metadata would be a big 'smoking gun'. He said he could spy on the President if he wanted.

Being wrong on so many of these things makes one wonder what he thought he was doing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

44. you always misquote Snowden nt

[okaawhatever]

45. Especially since so much of what he "revealed" had already been revealed. Laura Poitras had filmed

two documentaries that basically covered all of this. Prism wasn't new. Much of the stuff concerning Americans was already made public. There is no doubt in my mind that the Russians are behind a good bit of it. Ditto wikileaks.

[Cha]

46. And, why he praised Russia as being among "the first to stand against human rights violations."

"These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations."

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

Wrong.

[lostincalifornia]

36. you are right, it doesn't make it less noteworthy. However, this did not happen in a vacuum, and it

sure as hell did not start with Obama, though he bears some responsibility for its continuation, I am very skeptical that he could change much of it without congress, the group that rubber stamped it under an administration who I can't quite remember who they were....

[1awake]

6. Why should anyone care?

He could have been purely heroic, being used by the Russians, or in collusion with Santa's secret workshop. Non of it matters when put against what we have learned about our own government. Ill be happy to debate where Snowden truly stands as soon as we fix the bigger issues with the message... not the the messengers crap lol. Laughable (not you, the article)

[struggle4progress]

12. Of course, if one adopted the view that used by the Russians, then one might also suspect

that some purported revelations "about our own government" might also involve various strategic decisions by Russian intelligence, including choices of what exactly to release and how to frame those releases

[1awake]

14. Yes, but then we are talking about our own government,

which has ALL of the information if that were the case... which so far, its strangely all been true. I get what your saying, but it doesnt fly with what has taken place.

[Autumn]

11. This “Snowdenista” wonders why Putin took away Snowdens passport when he was in Russia

on his way somewhere else. The article isn't "a bit far-fetched" it's a whole lot of what if bullshit.

[struggle4progress]

19. Snowden's passport is useless for travel, having been revoked last June while he was in Hong Kong

[idendoit]

58. Typical low info "Snowdenista". His passport was revoked by the US.

[Autumn]

59. Yes it was, that's well known.

[idendoit]

65. So then it doesn't matter what the Russians did with it.

[Autumn]

66. Makes as much sense as the OP.

[SidDithers]

13. Oh shit. Now you've done it...

get ready for the "Leave Paul Revere alone!!" swarm.

Sid

[1awake]

17. I know right.. already had our first round of government sheeple! crazy world ya know. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

23. What ever happened to that guy who used to post that picture....

and refer to Snowden as Paul Revere with a thumb drive?

[struggle4progress]

28. there was a pizza delivery last august

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Oops!

There goes another libertarian

[Cha]

47. Oh really? Wow. Wonder what that was for? nt

[struggle4progress]

55. hiding under the bridge IIRC

[Cha]

60. Not nice to hide under the bridge..

come out in the open 'cause MIRT's gonna find ya anyway.

[SidDithers]

39. PPR. A few times...

Sid

[grasswire]

15. FWIW, Lucas is an associate of Brezhinski

.....at a D.C. think tank called CEPA. Is CEPA a CIA front? I don't know. But it's clear from his bio that Lucas is no stranger to Cold War relations and to spy lore.

[struggle4progress]

22. Snowden went to China, shared info with the Chinese press about NSA interests there, then

fled to Russia, where he has ever since been represented by a lawyer with close ties to Russian intelligence

Snowden first came into the public eye when in China by announcing he had stolen quite a few NSA documents

These are facts which can be considered without regard to such questions as Is CEPA a CIA front? or Is Lucas conditioned by old Cold War views?

[riderinthestorm]

40. Completely ironic that the very ones who ALWAYS ONLY want to dissect Snowden

instead of the issues, with another OP that's simply about Snowden and not about the issues, then falls back on "don't examine Lucas or his associations"!!111!!

[truebluegreen]

49. +100

[struggle4progress]

53. Perhaps "Snowden stole classified documents, went to China, supplied the Chinese press

with a list of NSA targets in China, then went to Russia, where a lawyer tied to Russian intelligence became his spokesman" is one of the issues here

[riderinthestorm]

61. Bwahaha! NOW you try to change what your very own OP is all about - Snowden exclusively

Soooo transparent and hilarious.

OP after OP avoiding the issues, always about bad-boy Snowden (or Assange, or Manning, or whistleblowers).

Its actually entertaining now.

Please proceed governor!

[randome]

56. Yeah, well, we could talk about the philosophy of boobs, I guess.

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

[JackRiddler]

18. No problem, I'll deny the "undeniable."

Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2014, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Unfortunately, the Snowden disclosures have not (yet) done "tremendous damage" to the "Western" "intelligence" agencies. Or barely any. Very unfortunate.

These authoritarian deep-state structures and their private corporate allies like Booz Allen remain firmly ensconced in their power. In every conceivable way, they continue to violating the rights and damage the interests of the very people they claim to be defending, as well as helping to create hell and destruction around the world, and thus to generate the very same "security threats" that they claim to be defending against.

We can hope, of course, that as a result of the Snowden disclosures, at some point down the line, others will be similarly inspired, and some real damage will be done to these fraudulent, criminal organizations.

We can hope for their eventual abolition, so that this country may one day truly serve as a light unto the world in inspiring other nations to also shake free of such parasitical, conspiratorial, criminal, and yet: state-financed agencies.

.

[Maedhros]

20. The key issue regarding Snowden/Greenwald, Manning, Assange et al. is this:

In each case, these people discovered government wrongdoing hidden behind a shield of secrecy and took action to inform the people of what was being done in their name. Governments responded by harassing and imprisoning these individuals.

This issue has uncovered a fundamental conflict between two groups of people.

One group believes that government secrecy is antithetical to democracy. Not operational secrecy, such as tactical plans or identities of agents, but "policy secrecy": secret laws enforced by secret agencies interpreted by secret courts. This group believes that it is more important to protect the civil and privacy rights of citizens that to protect the ability of governments to act in secret without accountability to the people. This group comprises small-d democrats, i.e. persons dedicated to government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Another group believes that government secrecy is necessary to keep us safe, because the government knows best. When confronted with the fundamental conflict of government secrecy vs. individual liberty, this group chooses the former. When presented with evidence that the government is acting to enhance its own power at the expense of personal freedom, they choose to attack the source of the evidence rather than the source of the problem. This group comprises persons who believe that an individual (such as Snowden, Manning or Assange) breaking the law is more reprehensible than a government doing so. This belief is consistent with an authoritarian mindset.

It's nearly impossible to reason with an individual with an authoritarian mindset, because that individual's sense of well-being is innately dependent on the perceived well-being of the authority figure - be that a charismatic leader, a national identity or a political party or movement. If something is perceived to threaten or attack the authority, it is perceived to threaten or attack the well-being of the authoritarian individual.

[struggle4progress]

27. Mass dumps, of documents the dumpers could not possibly have read, does not qualify

as "exposing wrong-doing"

Simple arithmetic shows that neither Manning nor Snowden could have been familiar with the actual contents of more than a handful of the documents they stole and handed on

The same applies to Assange who regularly dumped onto his website batches of millions of documents from various sources: he had little or no actual interest in the contents, beyond what might get him quick publicity

And if this applies to Assange, Manning, and Snowden, it must apply all the more to those who reflexively defend them -- since the defenders likewise can have no idea about the contents of the majority of materials released

[Maedhros]

63. It is impossible for you (or I) to know the motivations behind these acts of whistleblowing.

The evidence the whistleblowers made available, however, clearly indicates that the government is engaged in anti-democratic activities. I oppose anti-democratic activities, so I am happy this evidence was made available.

[struggle4progress]

72. Motivations usually do not concern me so much as intent and effect

[Maedhros]

83. Intent, like motivation, is also irrelevant.

The effect was that American citizens now know the nature and extent of the intrusion of the NSA into our privacy, and that is an unqualified positive since it allows us to fulfill our obligations as citizens to oversee our own government.

[jeff47]

35. Except they didn't.

In each case, these people discovered government wrongdoing hidden behind a shield of secrecy and took action to inform the people of what was being done in their name.

Except they didn't.

They discovered some activities that were questionable but legal. But those activities have been blown up into massive wrongdoing by their fans, usually by dropping important details.

Some examples: Manning - The Apache video matches the official report. Turns out war zones are dangerous, and the 'normal' civilian rules do not apply. As concluded by the official report. The rest of his dump? Well, just what benefit was it to reveal we know Castro's favorite ice cream?

Snowden: Usually, people talking about the programs Snowden leaked drop the "targeting" aspects of those programs. Leaving those in would damage the "NSA is spying on us!" story, so they're just left out of the discussion. Snowden's managed to leak one program that collects data on US persons, the phone metadata program. Problem with turning that into pure evil is it's legal under a 1979 SCOTUS decision - phone metadata was ruled a run-of-the-mill business record, not protected information.

Don't like it? You need a new law through Congress....and you'll also have to explain why it's kosher for those same phone companies to sell your private information to anyone with a check.

When presented with evidence that the government is acting to enhance its own power at the expense of personal freedom, they choose to attack the source of the evidence rather than the source of the problem.

Or perhaps they're actually looking at the evidence, instead of relying on third party analysis of the evidence. Third parties that have a vested interest in "tweaking" the story to get more readers/viewers.

For example, "US Spies on people in China" isn't going to get much excitement. Drop off "in China", and suddenly you can get a lot more page views. Especially when you don't correct people who are self-centered enough to assume any spying must be on themselves.

But I will say that is a good thing that Snowden, et al. are doing - they're releasing the actual sources so we can look at them.

[Maedhros]

64. "Legal" does not mean "not wrong."

Apartheid was legal in South Africa. Segregation was legal in the United States. Racial profiling is legal in Arizona.

[jeff47]

67. No, but they're also not doing 95% of what they're accused of doing.

According to the exact documents that are supposed to show they're doing it.

[riderinthestorm]

68. They're not spying on terrorists, er allies like Merkel? Or the "terrorist" EU trade commissioner?

Er, not a terrorist oops an ally, the EU trade commissioner...

Or other events like the G8 summits (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/12/03/cana-d03.html) etc.

You are absolutely right though. They aren't catching terrorists - that's not even their main goal as Alexander has admitted since they've (maybe) stopped one attack in their history. Clearly its about economic imperialism for the elites.

This is economic spying to enrich the 1%. Global shifts - OPEC, EU trade negotiations, G8 summits, Davos.... Why do you defend this? The NSA isn't designed to "help" us. Its designed to help "them".

[jeff47]

69. I'm talking about the accusations of spying on US persons.

Spying on non-US persons is perfectly legal, and has a very, very long history. With both us spying and with other countries, including Germany, spying on us.

And the spies aren't attaching the "terrorist" label to such activities. Those attacking the spies are in an attempt to discredit.

Why do you defend this? The NSA isn't designed to "help" us. Its designed to help "them".

Because I'd rather help our "them". We can at least catch some tax revenue from it.

The spying goes on whether or not the US participates. If you'd like an example, France was caught in the '90s spying on the US aerospace industry and handing the information over to Airbus. France. Ooooo. Scary. Or if you'd prefer, all the times China was caught spying on our Internet and computer industry in the last decade.

Would I prefer a world where such activity didn't happen? Yes. Can such a world be created? Nope. Every single advanced country is spying. Stopping the US isn't going to stop all the other countries, and the US has no way to force them to stop.

[riderinthestorm]

70. This isn't about industrial espionage and you know that. Its MUCH bigger

And the "tax revenue" you believe is being generated is an illusion. Corporations like Exxon, Halliburton, KBR etc don't pay taxes. In fact we SUBSIDIZE them! They get ALL the intel from an OPEC summit and pay no taxes.

Another example, the NSA is using its cell phone tapping capacity to drone anyone the PTB decide is ready to die (and cause Obama has the authority doncha know to make up his own personal kill list, habeous corpus be damned). The spies are absolutely attaching the "terrorist" label to anyone they want - without any due process which has already included American citizens.

And I have a bridge to sell you if you don't think the NSA isn't spying on American citizens. They've even admitted to spying on members of Congress so who are the rest of us paeans when it comes to breaking a few laws . http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/04/the-nsa-refuses-to-deny-spying-on-members-of-congress/

[jeff47]

71. Actually, it is about industrial espionage. And a host of other espionage.

Which was my point. There's a ton of spying going on. Demanding the US stop isn't going to stop all the other countries.

without any due process which has already included American citizens.

As unintended casualties. No US person has been the target. Yet.

And I have a bridge to sell you if you don't think the NSA isn't spying on American citizens. They've even admitted to spying on members of Congress so who are the rest of us paeans when it comes to breaking a few laws . http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/04/the-nsa-refuses-to-deny-spying-on-members-of-congress/

Your link does not say what you claim.

What Sanders asked is if the NSA has collected any call metadata from members of Congress. Given than that 1979 SCOTUS ruling gives them the ability to collect call metadata from EVERYONE, that would include members of Congress.

The phone companies delete the metadata after a while. How long depends on which company. 3 months to "never". I would far prefer the government store that data than the phone companies. Take a look at Target to find out how well we can trust private industry with data.

If I could wave a magic wand and make the program the way I'd like it, I'd want the phone metadata stored by the Library of Congress. The way the data could be used is the Executive branch would seek out a specific warrant from the Judicial branch (this number, these dates). Once the warrant was issued, they'd have to turn to the Legislative branch to actually get the data. Requiring all 3 branches would create safeguards.

And I really, really, really, really, really do not trust private industry to protect the data, as most reformers are currently proposing.

[Maedhros]

81. Pardon me if I don't just take your word for that. [n/t]

[jeff47]

85. Golly if only there were some released documents so you wouldn't have to.

[Maedhros]

86. Your assertion (they "not doing 95% of what they're accused of doing.") was a bit thin on details.

As the person making the assertion the burden is on you to:

1. Identify one or more of those accusations

2. Describe how they are false

3. Provide evidence supporting your assertion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Even he was (highly improbable) he did us a great service.

The author of the piece does deserve a LOL award when he claims that what the NSA doesn't constitute "abuse" or "injustice".

[GeorgeGist]

24. Have no fear ...

I'm sure NSA was on the case long before Mr. Lucas (Edward Lucas is a senior editor responsible for coverage of energy, commodities and natural resources. He also writes obituaries, book reviews and leaders. http://www.economist.com/mediadirectory/edward-lucas)

[grasswire]

48. yes, but Lucas does have a deep history in Eastern Europe

He has more than 30 years' experience dealing with the countries of central and eastern Europe, with postings which include Berlin for the BBC in 1988, stringing for The Economist in communist-era Czechoslovakia and later in the Baltic States, and being editorial director of the Economist Intelligence Unit in Vienna. In 1996 he became Berlin correspondent and in 1998 Moscow Bureau Chief. After returning to London in 2002 Mr Lucas worked for the Britain section and then became the Central and East European correspondent. He also worked for the International section, becoming its editor in 2010.

He is the author of "Deception", a book about Russian espionage, published in March 2012. His first book was the "The New Cold War" published in February 2008. He is a regular broadcaster on international and British outlets, including the BBC's "Today" programme, "Start the Week" and "Newsnight". He is a non-resident fellow at CEPA, a think-tank in Washington, DC.

Who can tell what his true interest is for attacking Snowden?

[TwilightGardener]

25. Seems plausible.

[geek tragedy]

34. if so, hat's off to them for playing the game well.

and shame on the NSA for getting so badly outflanked

[KittyWampus]

38. In a way, you get to an important point very succinctly. It's inexcusable someone w/Snowden's

record and credentials was allowed to get that far.

[Marr]

41. I see... yes, this would make mass NSA spying on US citizens acceptable.

[ellie50]

42. The Story isn't Snowden, its the NSA

No matter how hard they try to make this about Snowden, its about the NSA and their spyall programs. Snowden was merely the vehicle.


It matter not whether he is a "noble crusader" or "useful idiot."

Is the total information data capture program of the NSA constitutional? If it is, is it cost effective?

Those are the real issues that should be discussed.

[truebluegreen]

50. +100

And welcome to DU.

[struggle4progress]

54. Perhaps "Snowden stole classified documents, went to China, supplied the Chinese press

with a list of NSA targets in China, then went to Russia, where a lawyer tied to Russian intelligence became his spokesman" is one of the issues here

[randome]

57. '..total information data capture...' Where do you get this stuff?

Are you talking about the metadata? Or do you have evidence that the NSA is 'watching our thoughts form as we type'? Evidence that Snowden for some reason was unable to provide.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Must be Damaging Revelations Monday. nt.

[Union Scribe]

76. This guy's based his recent career

on trying to get all of us to join him in his cold war bunker. The Ruskies are coming, duck and cover!

[struggle4progress]

79. "Capitalism is amoral, verging on the immoral. What makes it tolerable is constraint and redress.

Voters, consumers, shareholders, public officials, lawyers, legislators, journalists and pressure groups are counterweights to the ruthless and narrow pursuit of private profit. That doesn't work perfectly in the west, but it doesn't work at all in Vladimir Putin's Russia, where the fusion of political and economic power is complete ..."
Putin's playground
Russia's leader and his cronies have crippled every constraint on their ugly brand of capitalism
Edward Lucas
The Guardian, Sunday 10 February 2008

Whatever Lucas' view, it doesn't sound particularly "Cold War"

[Hissyspit]

78. OR NOT

[Rex]

82. What if the Russians own Booz Allen?

Did anyone do a background check on his former employers?