FWIS3

Huh. You know what? I think I have to admit I was wrong about this. WikiLeaks seems to be engaged in some suspicious cooperation with Russian intelligence.

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/25/487356470 ... dnc-emails

Which is... bonkers. Putin is a corrupt despot, and Russia has plenty of its own dirt. Which WikiLeaks doesn't seem to cover very much of.

Suddenly, the Obama Administration's attitude towards certain whistleblowers makes a whole damn lot more sense.

This really pisses me off, too, because WikiLeaks could be a good and useful thing if it weren't getting suborned by wannabe dictators. It is really not okay for governments to cover up murder, torture, etc. by classifying it. That stuff needs to be found out and made public, and the people who did it need to be held criminally liable. But good luck getting anyone to believe you about it, if you're helping out a schmuck like Putin who does exactly the same shit, with an extra side of media censorship and political imprisonment. Jesus!

Edit: also, WikiLeaks' official Twitter stream is now posting anti-Semitic crap. Uh... what?!

Haters got to hate.

Once you start hating, and once you start believing in conspiracies, it is hard to stop.

Swift wrote:Haters got to hate.

Once you start hating, and once you start believing in conspiracies, it is hard to stop.

It's those damn movies that make conspiracies easy to believe.

SciFi Chick wrote:It's those damn movies that make conspiracies easy to believe.

Maybe it's a conspiracy?

Gullible Jones wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:It's those damn movies that make conspiracies easy to believe.

Maybe it's a conspiracy?

It's only paranoia if they aren't out to get you.

Gullible Jones wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:It's those damn movies that make conspiracies easy to believe.

Maybe it's a conspiracy?

It could be...

Why is this thread in the Mosh Pit ??

SciFiFisher wrote: And as Swift has pointed out we know that his actions have led to the death of a number of people.

Could someone please direct me towards some evidence of this?

squ1d wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote: And as Swift has pointed out we know that his actions have led to the death of a number of people.

Could someone please direct me towards some evidence of this?

Unfortunately, much of the evidence is considered classified.

There is an article that quotes a number of sources. One such statement was:

[quote"This report confirms my greatest fears — Snowden's real acts of betrayal place America's military men and women at greater risk," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (who shares the same name as the current NSA director) said in a statement in January 2014. "Snowden's actions are likely to have lethal consequences for our troops in the field."][/quote]

The Article is more about what the government won't say due to almost everything being classified. But here is the link

I cannot recall now but there were a number of people who testified to congress that the information Snowden and Manning released resulted in a number of people being killed outright or killed as a result of terrorists or others finding out information from the leaks. Other consequences would include terrorists acts that were now successful because the leaks gave the terrorists information about how we collected information. So, now they don't use cell phones. Or they shut down a website that they know was compromised. etc.

The most obvious ones are sources of information i.e. people who were willing to give us information. Or ones who aided us against the Taliban, Al Quida, or others. For those HUMINT sources the consequences are beyond devastating. We are talking about people who use drills as instruments of torture and death. And they don't mind using them on entire families to ensure that no one else is tempted to feed the U.S. or it's allies information.

I don't require lots of proof in this case to know that one of the consequences of Manning or Snowdens' actions are that people died directly or indirectly. Sadly, part of the reason for that is because I do have the background to appreciate the ramifications of those actions.

Well, I thought I'd ask since we're talking about deaths as though they're fact, and so far as I can tell, we don't know if they are.

Just blindly trusting went out of fashion with Iraq and WMDs.

I'm not saying I think Snowden is without guilt, but I also think a lot of the information he leaked was in the public interest to be leaked.

People DON'T trust the holders of secrets, and sometimes with good cause.

squ1d wrote:Well, I thought I'd ask since we're talking about deaths as though they're fact, and so far as I can tell, we don't know if they are.

Just blindly trusting went out of fashion with Iraq and WMDs.

I'm not saying I think Snowden is without guilt, but I also think a lot of the information he leaked was in the public interest to be leaked.

People DON'T trust the holders of secrets, and sometimes with good cause.

Sadly, I can't "prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt". I can say that people I trust, who are knowledgeable on this topic, have stated that Manning and Snowden's actions have led to deaths both directly and indirectly. As I stated in my previous post. I have reason to believe that this a true statement.

I think one big issue here is also we have three different people who are whistleblowers (Assange, Manning, and Snowden) and frankly all three have really different motives.

Assange, for one, is pretty clearly an asshole if you look at various things he's done in his life. I think by this point he must be bored as fuck and is well known for hating the Clintons, so I'm guessing he decided "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and is turning a blind eye to getting hacker information to Russia. Plus, you know, this is the first election since he's holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, and I'm pretty sure he's wanting to help Trump to win as he's much more likely to finally leave said embassy. (Also, minor note, the only non American in all this.)

Snowden- I will agree with whoever said upstream that I don't think he was planning to end up in Russia either. He's always struck me as an idealist, for better or worse, and saying the NSA is spying on Americans is a different kettle of fish in many ways to releasing military intelligence or information hacked by another nation. Plus you know it's not like his life in Russia is hunky dory- I'm sure they're nice enough to his face, but you know he had a helluva interrogation when he landed there and people are listening in even as he fucks his girlfriend.

Manning I honestly don't have as much an opinion on because the first two were civilians, and I know that the military is a different and much more serious kettle of fish. Honestly I think I never quite got her motivations either.

So yeah, just wanted to point that out, as it's easy to conflate one with the other- it's all part of the same story, but it's too simplistic to take too many motivations from one and translate it to the other.

I can say that people I trust, who are knowledgeable on this topic, have stated that Manning and Snowden's actions have led to deaths both directly and indirectly.

So you're saying your bros have illegally leaked information then?

squ1d wrote:

I can say that people I trust, who are knowledgeable on this topic, have stated that Manning and Snowden's actions have led to deaths both directly and indirectly.

So you're saying your bros have illegally leaked information then?

Ah Geez! Now I am going to have to have you erased. And FWIS wiped. And I was really just starting to like you guys to.

It was always going to happen.

You can't erase me. I don't exist.

SciFiFisher wrote:

squ1d wrote:

I can say that people I trust, who are knowledgeable on this topic, have stated that Manning and Snowden's actions have led to deaths both directly and indirectly.

So you're saying your bros have illegally leaked information then?

Ah Geez! Now I am going to have to have you erased. And FWIS wiped. And I was really just starting to like you guys to.

We are on FWIS 3.0. You can erase us, but we will return. mwahahahaha

So now there is a movie about Snowden. Predictably, it looks... rather glamorized.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/17/494356297 ... wden-movie

What strikes me as weird is the NSA's, and the civilian government's, entire attitude towards this thing. You have a guy leaking info about massive illegal wiretaps; you have much of the public considering him a hero; you have much of the public still considering him a hero, even now that Wikileaks looks like a bunch of Russian intelligence toadies, and the original leak is conveniently holed up in Russia.

Any normal person would look at that, and think, Wow, the government has a huge PR problem there. Large numbers of Americans do not feel that the NSA is working in their best interest. Seeing as it is a military intelligence agency supposedly dedicated to keeping the country safe, that's a pretty serious problem, isn't it?

They want to make people distrust Snowden and Wikileaks, fine. They should also give people a reason to trust them. They should try to look at least somewhat more responsible, and at least somewhat more accountable for their mistakes, than the people trying to sabotage them.

Gullible Jones wrote:So now there is a movie about Snowden. Predictably, it looks... rather glamorized.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/17/494356297 ... wden-movie

What strikes me as weird is the NSA's, and the civilian government's, entire attitude towards this thing. You have a guy leaking info about massive illegal wiretaps; you have much of the public considering him a hero; you have much of the public still considering him a hero, even now that Wikileaks looks like a bunch of Russian intelligence toadies, and the original leak is conveniently holed up in Russia.

Any normal person would look at that, and think, Wow, the government has a huge PR problem there. Large numbers of Americans do not feel that the NSA is working in their best interest. Seeing as it is a military intelligence agency supposedly dedicated to keeping the country safe, that's a pretty serious problem, isn't it?

They want to make people distrust Snowden and Wikileaks, fine. They should also give people a reason to trust them. They should try to look at least somewhat more responsible, and at least somewhat more accountable for their mistakes, than the people trying to sabotage them.

What do you suggest? The NSA could say "we aren't spying on U.S. citizens". No one would believe them. They could produce a series of PSA's. Maybe they could get the Allstate Guy to say "You are in Good Hands with the NSA".

It's challenging when you are a spy agency and you are supposed to spy on people.

Again, this is more of an opinion piece. But, it pretty much damns Snowden for the fact that what he did was far more than just whistleblowing. Why President Obama Won't And Shouldn't Pardon Snowdon

On Facebook there is a guy who goes by the Nom De Guerre of Doctrine Man. He actually works in uniform at the Pentagon. His take on the Snowden leaks in short is:

Ultimately, it's the costs that we can't and won't document that Snowden should answer for -- operatives have gone dark and died as a result of his disclosures, which go way beyond NSA transparency, or lack thereof. No pardon. Not now, not ever.

I honestly believe that anyone who is willing to examine critically what the authorities are saying officially and unofficially can reasonably infer there is a reason that Snowden can be considered a traitor. Same with Manning. As for Assange and Wiki Leaks they might as well be getting paid by the Chinese and the Russians. They certainly seem to be working for them.

I know, he's also responsible for global warming, the holocaust, the Mongol invasion and a few other things that we really can't get into because you need security clearance. Pretty sure JFK was shot because of the leaked information too.

vendic wrote:I know, he's also responsible for global warming, the holocaust, the Mongol invasion and a few other things that we really can't get into because you need security clearance. Pretty sure JFK was shot because of the leaked information too.

I could tell you but then I would have to kill you. It's not just about National Security. We have to keep the space time continuum paradoxes to a minimum.

@Fisher

At this point, I would believe that Snowden was responsible for agents' deaths. But, we are talking about an agency that violates federal law, with no accountability whatsoever, for reasons that are classified to the gills. Do you see where civilians might have a problem taking this on faith? Especially considering the US government's long historical record of abuses, and of not giving a shit about certain groups?

Furthermore, this kind of wiretapping is not just intelligence gathering. If the NSA can gather security credentials from online accounts, then they can also hack those accounts. They, or the FBI (which they can now share information with), can freely plant evidence. Think about that. If there's a community organizer who they don't like, they can just e.g. plant child pornography in the person's GMail account, and have law enforcement get conveniently tipped off. And it would be entirely okay.

Silly pinko civvies like myself do not want to rely on their government's goodwill in violating its own laws, with no accountability anywhere in the picture. And I think that's perfectly sane. Loyalty and trust have to be earned, especially by governments.

Edit: BTW, I almost agree with the pro-pardon essay from the site you linked, except for that line at the end:

"We're the good guys."

Based on what? Good intentions killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Good results may never materialize. It's pretty explicit that we put our own military interests ahead of foreign civilian lives.

How is that "good"? It's better than Russia or China, but see again "comparison to Charles Manson". Being good compared brutal authoritarian states isn't nearly enough IMO for claiming righteousness.

So yeah - I have a lot of trouble taking this stuff seriously. Snowden being full of shit doesn't mean the NSA isn't also full of shit.

Gullible Jones wrote:... And it would be entirely okay....

Well, no. That would be a criminal act, which is by definition 'not okay'.

I'm with you on the gist of your argument, however. The NSA's activities needed to be exposed and it really only could have been done by someone with Snowden's access. We can argue till the cows come home about whether that makes him a traitor or not.

As I've argued before, the damage done by Snowden's leaks due to exposure of NSA are unfortunate. But it's collateral damage, not intentional. How is that different than other types of collateral damage in a righteous cause?

I'll say again, the NSA's activities and the administration's (primarily the Bush administration) complicity in the extra-legal activities needed to be exposed.

And can we please stop conflating Snowden and Manning? Or Assange, for that matter.