"Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro with the Argentinean daily La Nacion.I hope that all of the data is made public once Snowden attains asylum. The drip-drip-drip approach is unendurable, and I suspect that it will have the effect of rendering both Snowden and Greenwald less sympathetic. (I certainly lost patience with Sibel Edmonds when she tried that trick.)
"The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."
Here's a hint of what's a-comin':
Greenwald said in his interview with La Nacion that documents Snowden has tucked away in different parts of the world detail which U.S. spy programs capture transmissions in Latin America and how they work.Which telephone company? I'm guessing AT&T. This story from 2001 may provide a clue or two...
"One way of intercepting communications is through a telephone company in the United States that has contracts with telecommunications companies in most Latin American countries," Greenwald said, without specifying which company.
But if you are the sort who prefers to wallow in cluelessness, you may want to follow the ravings of the goofball who offered this comment on Raw Story:
In addition to giving away state secrets of America to a communist country, this little hacker Snowden has now become reduced to blackmail.Yes, folks, that really is how this tale is being spun in wingnut-land.
Once again, we have the false characterization of Snowden as a "hacker" -- a fib that originated with Obama himself -- even though no-one has presented evidence that hacking has had any link to Snowden's revelations. Neither is there any evidence that Snowden gave away state secrets to China or Russia. (Russia stopped calling itself "communist" a long time ago. Is China is still a communist country? Maybe nominally.)
And I cannot see how anything said by Greenwald or Snowden counts as blackmail, unless you consider "Please don't kill me" to be blackmail. Here is Snowden's most recent statement. Not exactly the words you would expect from the reincarnation of Charles Augustus Milverton, are they?
It makes my head spin to contemplate the nonsense believed by vast numbers of my fellow Americans.
4 comments:
Never underestimate the ignorance of the American people. But understand that unlike you and me, they do not go out looking for news. They passively accept what they are told or not told.
I, for one, was totally shocked by Fahrenheit 9/11 back in 2004. "But!!! But!!! It can't be true!" I'd been listening to NPR and considered myself to be very well-informed by courageous, award-winning liberal media. Only when I started looking into stuff for myself did I realize that the media had been distracting me from what was going on.
Mass Media deceives in many ways, and a really big way is by omission.
If there is an event, or information, their owners don't wish the wider public to know, they just don't report on said story.
If omission is impossible the MM downplays the importance of the event or the information, or vilifies parties relative to the event or information.
For example, take the Mass Media' coverage of protests:
In the run up to the second Iraq war upwards of 10 million people around the world protested against going to war.
The Mass Media all but ignored what was possibly the largest protest in history.
When tens of thousands of Union workers, and others, protested Walker taking away collective bargaining rights from unions in Wisconsin,
the Mass Media did their best to ignore the protests.
http://world.time.com/2013/02/15/viewpoint-why-was-the-biggest-protest-in-world-history-ignored/
When the Mass Media is forced to cover protests their owners don't like, the protesters are vilified by the Mass Media which often claims they are composed of anarchist, misguided whiners, slovenly, rude, rapists, criminals.
Lots of cops seem willing to PS and beat peaceful protesters, but it always looks better if authorities have an excuse to attack.
Enter agent provocateurs, like Patrick Howley, Assistant Editor of The American Spectator.
While most agent provocateurs are cops of one form or another, this guy did what he did to make OWS look bad, and to create his own story about how bad OWS was by provoking the cops to pepper spray him and dozens of innocent people at an OWS event.
http://my.firedoglake.com/cgrapski/2011/10/09/american-standard-editor-admits-to-being-agent-provacateur-at-d-c-museum/
I don't recall Tea Party members being pepper sprayed, or beaten, by the hundreds, or called names by the Mass Media: do you?
And, if even small groups of Tea Party members held a rally/protest the Mass Media covered it big time.
That fact alone tells me the Tea Party is an officially sanctioned protest group.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daveserchuk/2011/10/20/the-tea-party-never-got-pepper-sprayed/
One can always tell which groups are on the side of the people rather than the status quo:
They are the groups cops pepper spray and beat en masse, and which the Mass Media either ignores as much, and as long as possible, then denigrates when it can no longer ignore them.
___________
Who was scheduled to have dinner with Scott Hinckley the evening after his brother tried to assassinate RR?
http://www.nathanielblumberg.com/bush.htm
Which parties -in a civil trial in Memphis in 1999 - did the jury find complicit in the assassination of MKJ Jr.?
http://actofstate.org/
Most Americans don't know the answers to these questions due to Omissions by the corporate owned/State Controlled MM.
"...I hope that all of the data is made public once Snowden attains asylum...."
Me too.
If Snowden really does have information that could hurt the criminal cabal that runs this country releasing said information would accomplish two things:
If true, it would expose these bass turds and hopefully heads would roll in high places.
Releasing the information would remove their incentive to, well, you know.
Either way if I were in his place I would release the information regardless.
In for penny, in for a pound.
Since he is already pertty much F'ed, if I were him I'd F them while I still could.
Agreed, Snowden should reveal everything. Then he'd no longer be a threat to anyone. That's what Richard Tomlinson did.
But Snowden is under KGB (oops, I mean FSB) 'protection'. That severely limits his scope.
With Pussy Riot etc., the US undermined the Putin regime's image in its home market. They tried to stop Putin getting elected. They got fucked. Those who think the FSB can't retaliate should think again.
Is the Snowden case damaging the US regime's image in its home market? Well maybe a tiny tiny bit. More so in US dependencies, such as France, Germany, and elsewhere in the EU.
I don't know who killed Boris Berezovsky, but I don't believe he did the deed himself.
The Russian angle is hardly being touched, except by nutcases who go on about "communist" goverments. But the Russian angle is important.
1) Snowden went to Moscow on his way to Ecuador via Cuba. He got stuck there because Ecuador pulled his safe passage, saying they'd issued it by mistake. Who set that up?
Pundits are talking about long and short ways around the world, but Moscow is on the long way round from Hong Kong to Cuba.
2) Apparently the US government was tricked into believing Snowden was flying aboard Morales's plane when he wasn't. What went wrong? Did the NSA accidentally lose its capability at Russian airports? Did it accidentally lose it in the electronics of French-manufactured aircraft? Maybe what's happening in Russian airports and French-made aircraft was always completely closed to the No Such Agency? But we know that that can't possibly be the case. Furthermore, if we assume that the US authorities really did think Snowden was on the plane, then they must have had a reason. Who tricked them?
The events suggest that the answer is a powerful agency which is not the NSA.
Could it be a rival US agency or interest? Possibly.
Could it be Wikileaks, acting as some kind of independent Great Power, à la Barings Bank? Anyone who thinks so is living in cloud cuckoo land.
More likely, the answer is a foreign state's agency. Putting Russia's FSB/SVR top of the list of likely candidates is a no-brainer.
When did a gnat fart at Sheremetevo without the FSB knowing about it?
Bear in mind that although there may be surprises to come in EU-US trade talks, the EU governments haven't yet publicly kicked up a great deal of stink about NSA spying on their patch.
As for NSA spying on Russia, no-one's even mentioning it.
The reasons are different.
The FSB have some strong cards.
Post a Comment