MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
The U.S. government is putting on a full-court press to track down, arrest and prosecute Edward Snowden for blowing the whistle on the National Security Agency’s massive collection of data on phone calls by Americans and Internet use by foreigners.
Comments
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 06/25/2013 - 11:27pm
On a different bent, and I know Lulu and others will disagree, I'm beginning to believe that anyone doing business with the Assange/Greenwald nexus is making a huge life screwing mistake. They want all the secrets you can get, then they throw you away, they are users, scumbags frankly.
For instance, Manning was rightfully upset about the helicopter massacre in Baghdad. Yet, for some reason, he released half a million other documents to Assange. Why? Did Manning read them? No. Did Assange ask for it all? Almost surely yes. Did Assange care that releasing all that material made Mannings defense all but impossible? No.
I presume Assange asked Manning for everything he could get, and Assange/Greenwald asked Snowden for all he could get. Both leakers apparently naively went along. Assange could care less if Manning or Snowden go before a firing squad. Assange got the goods and the fame.
Does Greenwald give a crap about Snowden? Beyond what $$ he can make from writing about it all? No. Does Assange, no. And regardless of the 'legal team' they sent to Russia, they could give a rats ass where Snowden spends the rest of his life.
Snowden should never have linked up with these guys, he should have followed the Ellsburg script and done a controlled release of info to the NYT while negotiating (with the help of a real lawyer, not a wikileaks lawyer) for protected testimony on the NSA programs before Congress and plea bargaining for a light sentence after (if any).
Greenwald and Assange are scumbags, and Snowden and Manning are just road kill in their game of political secrets, grand theft, as Ramona calls it.
by NCD on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:52am
Assange didn't release it all. He used mainstream newspapers to help vet what was safe to release and even asked the State Dept for its input in reviewing.
You're just spreading FUD that was disproved ages ago.
As for Greenwald, he undoubtedly cares enough to have written tons over the last decade about reductions in freedom, surveillance, unsolved mysteries of anthrax. He almost certainly could have made much more money as a litigation lawyer as he had his own firm for 10 years.
What exactly did Greenwald reveal irresponsibly that has you calling him a "scumbag"? Was some hugely dangerous material dropped on the public or to enemies without careful screening & consideration that I don't know about? And Greenwald contacted this guy or he contacted Greenwald? You're just getting weirder by the moment - perhaps we can find you slot on talk radio.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 6:12am
Assange and/or Greenwald are the last guys Manning and Snowden should have gone to to accomplish their objectives. They are bloodsucking users of these leakers.
And Greenwald writes, yes, he gets paid for it. He loves what he does, Does he give a crap about the leakers fate? How could he, the leaks are his material, plus after the leakers are arrested he can opine about their terrible mistreatment and get paid for that too.
Do you think Manning released 500,000 secret cables because he felt strongly about them, after not having read any of them, or did Assange/Wiki goad him on to give them all of it?
I go with the last. Possible conversation:
Assange: What else can you get into other than the Baghdad chopper video?
Manning: Lots of stuff, I don't know for sure.
Assange: Why don't you just see what you can get, and send it. You are a smart guy Brad and we really really need you to help us expose it all, we'll go through it, you have the power to make history dude.
Manning's goal to expose the chopper massacre was noble and defensible, the other 500,000 was not. Manning could have done the chopper video release a dozen different ways through US newspapers and with help from a lawyer that had his fate first in mind. He chose to go with the leak suckers and got nailed, and although they will mouth lamentations about his fate, neither Assange nor Greenwald will cry themselves to sleep at night if Manning/Snowden spend 40 years in jail.
They only care about the leaks, not the fate of the people they get them from. The ultimate fates of Manning or Snowden are of no concern, their lives and even their initial personal ideological objectives and how to accomplish them are of no concern, it's all just collateral damage in the game of Grand Theft Secrets.
by NCD on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:16am
It's not as simple as just blowing the whistle on the National Security Agency’s massive collection of data on phone calls anymore.
This explains better than I have seen before what NSA fears he might have available to spill further, and even Greenwald does seem to agree that he might have some stuff that would be dangerous if released, but implies he is just holding it as a bargaining chip and never intended it to be released unless something happens to him:
Sorry, but can't get away from thinking of the word blackmail after reading the whole thing.
Especially if these parts are true:
by artappraiser on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 1:01am
Is Snowden being arrested and tried in a US court among the things that could cause the release of the data?
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 8:08am
My guess is yes. That is a card he is playing or at least keeping up his sleeve in hope that the threat of playing it is enough to keep him out of jail or off of a Tuesday hit list. [He is safe from a drone strike in China, Hong Kong, or Russia, maybe not in a small South American country] One way to look at this whole chain of events, dealing only with Snowden personally but not the bigger picture, is as a flow chart. Beginning with reference to the so-far released information which has caused no real harm except to the credibility of our government:
1. Is it ever justified for a person to deliberately break a law?
If no, then Snowden guilty and no further questions need answering.
If yes then go to #2.
2. Was Snowden justified in breaking the law?
If no, then Snowden guilty and no further questions need answering.
If yes then go to #3.
3. Is Snowden obligated to give himself up when history and common sense say he will be
persecuted as well as prosecuted, and not necessarily fairly?
If yes, then Snowden is guilty for not giving himself up and no further questions need answering.
If no, then go to #4.
4. Is it fair for Snowden to take steps to maintain some leverage against the government which now considers him an enemy?
If no, then then Snowden guilty and no further questions need answering.
If yes then ... ...
This could get even more interesting. Suppose Russia lets him live with his computer in the airport for as long as he wishes, as AA has shown can happen, but does not aid him or allow him to reach a safe haven. How long would he last before he takes the next step and plays that hole card? Putin could be laughing his ass off and surely would if our own government's mishandling of Snowden pushes him to do some real damage to us.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 1:02pm
Who is Ed Snowden? Friend shares memories, offers support for NSA leaker
Editor's note: Mavanee Anderson, a Vanderbilt Law School graduate who lives in Washington, D.C., is a personal friend of Edward Snowden, the former Central Intelligence Agency employee and National Security Agency contractor who leaked classified material on top-secret NSA programs including the PRISM surveillance scheme. In support of Snowden, Anderson, who is friends with Free Press opinion page editor Drew Johnson, wrote the following guest commentary as a special to the Free Press.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jun/12/who-is-ed-snowden/
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 2:00pm
The difference between Snowden and others who have fled prosecution in the United States is the classified information used as blackmail. The FBI put Assata Shakur on its terrorist wanted list for the May 2, 1973 murder of. New Jersey police officer. Shakur was shot by police while surrendering, left for dead, tortured in jail. She escaped to Cuba where she currently resides. The NAACP called for a Truth & Reconciliation Commission to review the case. The threat of the release of data changes my view of Snowden.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 2:50pm
Huh? You were hating on Snowden before any mention of "threat of release of data". You're saying you "evolved" on the issue to go from hate to hate?
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 7:25pm