In Brief
- The Facts:
Edward Snowden recently released a book titled "Permanent Record." The US government is now suing the publisher of the book for not giving the CIA and the NSA a chance to erase classified details from the book.
- Reflect On:
What is the government really protecting? Are they protecting the well being of the citizenry or are they protecting immoral, unethical, political, corporate and elitist interests?
George Orwell’s 1984 is a classic book depicting a populace ruled by a political regime that persecutes individualism and independent critical thinking as “thoughtcrimes” that must be enforced by the “thought police.” This party seeks power above all, and, through the propagandist Ministry of Truth, presents the people with their version of truth and casts away all other information and opinion. Sound familiar?
This is exactly what’s happening today right in front of our eyes. The “ministry of truth” comes in the form, at least on social media, as FakeNews watchdogs. These are entities that are flagging information that threatens corporate and political interests and labels it as “fake news” when a lot of it, is in fact, the complete opposite. Since when does an authoritative entity like the government have to step in and decide for the people what is real and what is not? Are people not capable of examining sources and determining this for themselves? These fake news watchdogs have some interesting sponsors. One of these sponsors, for example, is NewsGuard. They are funded by Clinton donors and big pharma, with ties to the CFR. You can read more about that entity here.
Companies and government agencies who are threatened by information also seem to be employing an “army of bloggers, surrogates, trolls, and bots on Twitter, Facebook, and by email” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) to try and sway discussion and brainwash people. We here at Collective Evolution have been experiencing them as well.
The world knows why the hunt for Julian Assange was ongoing for so long, it’s because he leaked secrets and exposed those who keep them. He exposed the lies, corruption and deceit that represents the backbone of the Western military alliance and the American empire. He exposed, in the words of John F. Hylan, former Mayor of New York City, the “real menace of Republic”, the “invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” He exposes the ones “who virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.” (source)(source)
He exposed immoral and unethical actions that have no basis and justification, he is a hero.
The same thing goes for National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, who leaked classified documents regarding the scope of the US governments surveillance programs, which is and was huge. He is and was not the first, William Binney did the same, along with Thomas Drake and many others.
Keep in mind that this is a global mass surveillance program. Snowden recently released a book about it, and more.
In the book, Snowden goes into great detail about how he risked everything to expose the US government’s system of mass surveillance. In it, he reveals the story of his life, including how he helped to build that system and what motivated him to try to bring it down.
Mass surveillance, facial recognition, etc, are justified by the national security state for the purposes of combating terrorism, for example. But, what does the connection between terrorist organizations and the US government say about these programs? If the US government itself, or factions of it, are arming these terrorists, creating them, and carrying out false flag events blaming them on terrorism in order to justify infiltration of a country for ulterior motives as well as a heightened the national security state which involves mass surveillance, this means that their justification for these programs is a complete lie. So what’s the real reason for them?
This is well known, a few years ago current democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard introduced the stop arming terrorist act, which would stop the U.S. government from using taxpayer dollars to directly or indirectly support groups who are allied with and supporting terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda in their war to overthrow the Syrian government. (source)
As far as false flag terrorist attacks go, many believe the chemical gas attacks in Syria were orchestrated by the western military alliance in order to justify the infiltration of the country. The evidence for this is quite grand. 9/11 is another example many people believe was false flag terrorism.
‘Protecting National security’ has now become an umbrella term to justify immoral and unethical actions.
Perhaps Snowden’s book sheds light on that. I have yet to read it.
William Binney is a former high ranking intelligence official with the National Security Agency (NSA). He’s had quite the go, starting in 2002 when he let the public know of a system ( ‘trailblazer’) intended to analyze data carried on communication networks (like the internet). He exposed the agencies eavesdropping program and has faced harassment from the FBI, NSA and more. He has been in and out of the court room ever since he decided to resign and blow the whistle.
Binney hasn’t stopped, one of the highest-level whistleblowers to ever come out of the NSA. He is now saying:
“At least 80% of fibre optic cables globally go via the US, this is no accident and allows the US to view all communication coming in. At least 80% of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US. The NSA lies about what it stores. The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.” (source)
The Takeaway
At the end of the day, the US government suing the publisher of Snowden’s book is only bringing more attention to the truth of mass censorship and that this global elite is losing power. The more the global elite respond the way they are, with this like the mass censorship of information, alternative independent media outlets being shut down, and jailing people like Julian Assange, the more they hurt their own interests… which is inspiring for humanity as we awaken.
#1: Liberator To: Deckard (#0)
Pretty much.
Yet we are gaslighted into the narrative, "BUT...BUT....THIS PROGRAM ONLY CONCERNS 'POTENTIAL TERRORISTS'!"*
*ALL 325+ million Americans.
Liberator posted on 2019-09-21 07:24:22 Reply Private Reply
#2: Gatlin To: Deckard (#0)
Hmmm …… “went #1 in the world” …
Hmmm …
It surely must be true since it says so on the Internet, but I can’t find it.
So, Deckard, please show exactly where this far-reaching and momentously important event in our lifetime that you are calling to our attention actually took place and went #1 In The World:
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-21 08:31:05 Reply Private Reply
#3: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#2)
Edward Snowden an American hero.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-21 08:44:28 Reply Private Reply
#4: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#0)
Uh Freedom of Speech and the press little bitches.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-21 08:45:14 Reply Private Reply
#5: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#4)
They want the proceeds from book sales given to them.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-21 08:46:43 Reply Private Reply
#6: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#3)
Thanks ...
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-21 10:02:13 Reply Private Reply
#7: Gatlin To: Deckard (#5)
Despite the absolute language of the First Amendment, wars, threats of wars, and perceived risks to national security have prompted the government to, at times, restrict freedom of speech and other First Amendment freedoms throughout U.S. history.
Sedition Act is an example of a freedom restriction for the sake of national security
A prime example is the legislation passed only seven years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, in 1791. In 1798 the Federalist Congress, fearful of an impending, full-blown war with France, adopted the Sedition Act, which attempted to stifle any speech that criticized the president, who was conducting an undeclared conflict with France at sea. The Federalist Party justified the Sedition Act as a measure needed to prevent threats to national security from within the country.
Other wars have seen First Amendment restrictions to protect national security interests
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in some parts of the North, especially those that were unstable, and the Confederate government acted in a similar fashion.
World War I saw the adoption of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which led to the first Supreme Court decisions, among them Schenck v. United States (1919) and Abrams v. United States (1919), that punished political dissidents because their speech allegedly presented a clear and present danger to national security and war efforts.
During World War II, the government incarcerated Japanese Americans. That war and the Cold War that followed spurred adoption of the Smith Act (making it illegal to call for the overthrow of the U.S. government), intrusive congressional investigations into personal beliefs and associations, and other efforts to suppress domestic Communism.
The prolonged U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and its high death toll prompted the eruption of protests nationwide, along with efforts to suppress them. Such issues were rekindled in the aftermath of the al-Qaida attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, and the U.S. responses to those events.
Periodically, the Supreme Court has examined whether the government can restrict speech to further the compelling interests of national security. In doing so, the Court has recognized that national security, as a governmental interest, does justify restrictions on First Amendment rights. In the landmark free press decision Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Court established a general rule against prior restraints on expression. However, the Court did note that the government could shut down a newspaper if it published military secrets: “No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.”
Nevertheless, the government must provide proof that national security interests really are in play—that is, the government cannot simply use national security as a blank check to sidestep constitutional challenges. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the majority of the Court rejected the government’s national security justifications for attempting to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the top-secret history of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In his concurring opinion, Justice Hugo L. Black explained that “the word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.”
War on Terror led to debate over the balance of liberty and security The War on Terror that commenced after the September 11 attacks on the United States brought into focus the debate over national security and the proper balance between liberty and security. One controversy arose over certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act, which Congress passed forty-five days after the attacks, especially the widespread use by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of national security letters (NSLs) under Section 505 of the act.
A national security letter is an administrative subpoena instrument used by the FBI to compel recipients of the letter to comply with requests for various data and records on the person who is the subject of the subpoena. This instrument requires no probable cause or judicial oversight. It also contains a gag order preventing recipients from even acknowledging they have received an NSL. A 2007 Department of Justice audit revealed that in 2005, 47,221 requests applicable to 18,000 people were issued. Similar numbers were posted for 2003 and 2004.
"Secret evidence" is a questionable instrument used by the government in national security cases
“Secret evidence” is another questionable instrument sometimes favored by the government, especially in immigration cases. In 2003 Sami al-Arian, a tenured professor of computer engineering at the University of South Florida, was arrested, based on secret evidence, for his alleged ties to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The al-Arian case caused an uproar within academia because of its free speech and free association implications as well as his termination from his academic posting.
Despite the credible nature of the charges against him, several prominent academicians came to al-Arian’s defense, demanding an inquiry and reinstatement. Al-Arian was charged with seventeen separate counts, but as part of a plea agreement, he was convicted on one count of conspiracy and sentenced to nineteen months in jail beyond the fifty seven months already served. Al-Arian admitted that he had raised funds for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
"Outing" intelligence operatives is a controversial national security issue
Yet another national security issue that continues to generate controversy is the published “outings” of known intelligence operatives. The best-known case is that of career Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative Philip Agee.
Agee served in Latin America but became disaffected by the CIA’s role there. He left the agency in 1968, a self-avowed socialist. In the 1970s, Agee published Inside the Company in which he named over 250 operatives and assets for the CIA in Latin America. In 1974 he announced a campaign against the CIA.
In response to Agee’s activities, Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. revoked Agee’s passport. Agee countered by charging that his right to criticize the government under the First Amendment had been infringed by Secretary Haig’s action. In its 7-2 decision in Haig v. Agee (1981), written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Supreme Court disagreed. Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall dissented.
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was drafted in the wake of the disclosures made in part by Philip Agee and the assassination of CIA Station Chief Richard Welch by the Greek terrorist group 17 November after his identity was revealed in the magazine Counter-Spy. The IIPA has been invoked twice since its passage: in the 1985 case of CIA operative Sharon Scranage, the only person convicted thus far under the IIPA, and most recently in the Valerie Plame affair.
In 2003 newspaper columnist Robert Novak publicly revealed that Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vociferous critic of the George W. Bush administration and the prewar intelligence on Iraq, was a nonofficial cover operative of the CIA. Later, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald under the IIPA for disclosing Plame’s name to journalists, who, in turn, disclosed her identity to the American public. On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. However, in the end he was not convicted under the IIPA.
Ultimately, policy makers are responsible for maintaining the delicate balance between the First Amendment and national security—a balance with which society continues to struggle in an age of international terrorism.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1134/national-security
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-21 10:12:19 Reply Private Reply
#8: Deckard To: Gatlin (#7)
Deckard posted on 2019-09-21 10:49:30 Reply Private Reply
#9: misterwhite To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#3)
Then the headline should read:
The Very Book The Government Does Not Want You To Read Just Went #2 On Amazon.
misterwhite posted on 2019-09-21 11:44:44 Reply Private Reply
#10: Gatlin To: Deckard (#8)
Why?
And now at the dawn of the Snowden revelations, many wondered – and hoped – that the U.S. intelligence community would be destroyed. It was not. It has strengthened since the opposite has happened. Despite undoubted intelligence losses, new collection barriers, and diplomatic embarrassments, the community has emerged as a stronger organization despite, indeed because of, Snowden.
Snowden actually helped that agencies. He made them aware of a problem and they scrapped much and they were forced to develop and install new and much better capabilities faster than before and ever planned.
Snowden’s influence has in many other ways been limited. For example, there in the rise of “smart speaker”, exemplified by Amazon’s Echo. It has left many privacy activists baffled. Why, just a few years after a global scandal involving government surveillance, would people willingly install always-on microphones in their homes?
Proving they really don’t give a shit – right? With the new-found privacy conundrum prevelant by installing a device that can literally listen to everything you’re saying represents a chilling new development in the age of internet-connected things.
We are still learning how Snowden helped the U.S. intelligence community.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-21 12:32:53 Reply Private Reply
#11: Liberator To: misterwhite (#9)
They still don't want the book read and info shared, do they?
Liberator posted on 2019-09-21 12:40:30 Reply Private Reply
#12: Liberator To: Gatlin (#10)
Liberator posted on 2019-09-21 12:41:25 Reply Private Reply
#13: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#3)
Why?
It is said that he provided proof that the government is spying on citizens.
… “provided poof” …
If you didn’t already know that and needed to be “provided proof” of such actions – then the only proof provided was that you were dumber that a pile of shit.
What some hoped for with Snowden’s revelations was that the U.S. intelligence community would be destroyed. It was not. Exactly the opposite has happened - It has strengthened since Edward Snowden became your American hero.
Despite undoubted intelligence losses, new collection barriers, and diplomatic embarrassments, the community has now emerged as a stronger organization discounting – yes indeed and because of – Snowden.
Snowden actually helped the agencies. He made them aware of a problem and they scrapped much and they were forced to develop and install new and much better capabilities faster than before and ever planned.
We are being spied on better and faster today because of your American hero, Snowden.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-21 12:52:44 Reply Private Reply
#14: Deckard To: Gatlin (#13)
Fixed it.
You seem to love warrantless spying on ALL American citizens.
Obviously you are one of those sheep who constantly bleat "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".
Those are the words of tyrants and their submissive sycophants.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-21 13:09:21 Reply Private Reply
#15: sneakypete To: A K A Stone (#4)
Freedom of Speech is NOT a universal right. When you have a security clearance you sign documents promising you will never reveal any information you gain due to the access your clearance gives you,and agree to the punishments outlined on the papers you sign.
This applies to Snowden. If you don't want to go to prison,either don't sign the papers and take the job,or stay silent. Snowden signed the papers and then went public,so now he is a whiny little bitch complaining about how "unfair" it is,just like he is some sort of spoiled 9 year old mama's boy.
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-21 13:18:49 Reply Private Reply
#16: sneakypete To: Deckard (#8)
He is a whiney little bitch,
ANYBODY with 2 IQ points to rub together knows the government "spies" on citizens.
You don't think the Feebs didn't spy on recent German immigrants during WW-2? Hell,they put Japanese people who were born as US citizens in internment camps for the duration of the war.
The ygly truth is the end result was they were protected from attack by idiot Americans for "looking like the enemy" during the war. People from Germany weren't put into containment camps because nobody could look at them and tell they were German.
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-21 13:23:41 Reply Private Reply
#17: sneakypete To: Liberator (#11)
So they are cleverly keeping it out of circulation by allowing Amazon to sell it via mail order?
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-21 13:25:06 Reply Private Reply
#18: Gatlin To: Deckard (#14)
Uh …
How?
It’s saying the same thing with the same end results.
But if you like your version better – then I am perfectly okay with it.
You go on to say … Nah, I seem to love – well, I actually really do love – pointing out the errors in the rational and your seemingly fact less postings. You are so closed-minded and extremely agenda-driven. Nope, I am one of those individuals endowed with the ability to use common sense and make good judgments. I can help you to learn those personal traits. No, those are YOUR words posted by YOU.Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-21 13:56:23 Reply Private Reply
#19: Deckard To: sneakypete (#16)
No one really knew the extent until Snowden revealed it.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-21 15:47:52 Reply Private Reply
#20: A K A Stone To: sneakypete (#15)
Since congress shall make NO LAW.......
There is no law.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-21 20:59:24 Reply Private Reply
#21: nolu chan To: A K A Stone, Gatlin, sneakypete, Deckard (#20)
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-civil-lawsuit-against-edward-snowden-publishing-book-violation-cia-and
nolu chan posted on 2019-09-21 22:04:18 Reply Private Reply
#22: Gatlin To: Deckard, sneakypete (#19)
Stop with the bullshit that “No one really knew the extent until Snowden revealed it.”
Since 2001 it has been common knowledge that the government has engaged in massive, illegal dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary citizens. There were full blown press reports in late 2005. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been at the forefront in an attempt to stops it. you can even read the timelines here.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-21 22:45:15 Reply Private Reply
#23: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#22)
It is a fact that no on knew the extent.
The contract can't make him keep things that are illegal secret. Since it requires a search warrant to search someone and they aren't they are in violation.
Real Americans understand that.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-21 23:07:44 Reply Private Reply
#24: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#13)
Snowden exposed corruption. You try your best to cover it up and put blinders on.
Your premise is a false.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-21 23:20:20 Reply Private Reply
#25: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#23)
NOTE – The date of Snowden’s information release was on June 5, 2013.
The massive, illegal dragnet surveillance of the domestic communications and communications records of millions of ordinary Americans since at least 2001 was first reported by the press and discovered by the public in late 2005. source
NOTE – The date of the MASSIVE surveillance was first discovered by the public in late 2005. [Definition of Massive: very large in size].
News reports in December 2005 first revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been intercepting Americans’ phone calls and Internet communications. Those news reports, combined with a USA Today story in May 2006 and the statements of several members of Congress, revealed that the NSA is also receiving wholesale copies of American's telephone and other communications records. [Definition of Wholesale: Done on a large scale; extensive]. source
Secret government documents, [furnished by Snowden then] published by Guardian and Washington Post in 2013, confirmed – CONFIRMED – that NSA obtains full copies of everything that is carried along major domestic fiber optic cable networks.
Well “Hot Diggity Dog” – I would perhaps consider becoming one of YOUR “real Americans” if you will please furnish me with factual evidence of your statement.While I await that, I will continue by stating tjat I simply cannot find information to agree with your statement that “it is a fact that no on[e] knew the extent.” I find in different articles that everyone knew from press reports about the massive, wholesale, illegal dragnet surveillance since late 2005 and all that Snowden did was to confirm that on June 5, 2013.
I would say that YOUR real Americans knew of the massive, wholesale, illegal dragnet surveillance – the simply did not know the amount [extent] of the sophisticated being used.
Snowden did not reveal the “extent of WHAT” – since that was already known – he revealed the “extent of HOW.” And I am fully prepared to discuss with you the biggest actual revelations from Snowden’s leaks.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-22 07:32:16 Reply Private Reply
#26: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#23)
Snowden signed non-disclosure agreements [contracts] with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) agreeing to keep ALL things there and from there SECRET – and yes, it definitely does include anything illegal.
You are right In that they can’t MAKE him keep the things that are illegal secret – but they sure as hell can take him to court for violating the non- disclosure agreements [contracts] and seek a judgment against him.
Which they are now doing …
For on Tuesday, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Edward Snowden for publishing a book, Permanent Record, in violation of non-disclosure agreements he had with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA).
I sincerely apologize to you – but I do not have any idea what you are saying here and what it is in reference to. If you would like to clarify, then I will be more than happy to respond.Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-22 07:52:55 Reply Private Reply
#27: Tooconservative To: Gatlin, A K A Stone (#26)
If you were a real American, you would know better than to even say something like this.
Another nonsense online apology. You state that your "apology" is "sincere" but you immediately gaslight Stone by insisting you have no idea what you are apologizing for. This is a way to deny Stone any agency in his own judgment of the matter and to try to pretend that he can have no rational basis for his opinion (even while you are "sincerely apologizing"). Why would you apologize to anyone unless you are admitting your own error in the matter?
First off, a sincere apology is one that is heartfelt, in which the wrongdoer has understood and confessed that they trampled on someone else's opinions and feelings and that they are resolved never to do that same thing again. Otherwise, apologies are simply empty meaningless words that are only used by psychopaths to manipulate others to do their will or accept their opinions or to persuade someone that their opinion is not a simple matter of right or wrong based on facts but is just one of many possible opinions on a matter that reasonable people might differ on.
So spare us all these self-serving, calculating and manipulative "sincere apologies".
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-22 08:09:03 Reply Private Reply
#28: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#26)
It is unlawful.
If that is to complicated for you then I cannot help you.
You can believe some lawyer talk to obscure the truth of what the constitution actually says if you like playing games.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-22 08:10:33 Reply Private Reply
#29: A K A Stone To: Tooconservative (#27)
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-22 08:11:48 Reply Private Reply
#30: Tooconservative To: A K A Stone (#29)
Gatlin is gaslighting you with his manipulative so-called "apology". If he isn't wrong about the matter, why should he apologize at all? Why should you accept this condescending "apology" if Gatlin continues to say he doesn't understand why he is "apologizing"?
This business of "I don't know what I'm sorry for but I sincerely apologize for everything" is never a sincere apology in any way. It is a way to placate an impulsive child or a vindictive hysterical woman or a senile person.
Gatlin is humoring you, probing for weakness. That's all his "apology" means. It's the sort of thing a con man makes their living from.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-22 08:27:27 Reply Private Reply
#31: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#28)
Let me see – how shall I properly express my take on this to you …
I will start by saying, Yes – they are using a law to prosecute him. But they are not using a law to prohibit his free speech. They are suinging him for breach of contract.
Please permit me to give you an example …
Okay. Let’s say that you [A K A Stone} want to come to work for me [Gatlin] and before I hire you, I have you sign a written agreement [contact] whereby you formally and legally agree that you will never tell anyone anything about me. But after you sign that agreement [contract] and come to work for me, you learn some things about me that you want to tell everybody about. So you say to me: “I am going to tell everyone things about you.” And then you proceed to do just that. Well, after you do that – I can then sue you for breech of contract and I will not be “ using a law [to] prohibit free speech.”
That, my dear friend, is as clear as I can possibly make it. And that is exactly what is happening between the DOJ and Snowden.
It has nothing – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING – to do with his freedom of speech.
And I close by wishing a happy Sunday morning to you.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-22 09:30:17 Reply Private Reply
#32: Liberator To: sneakypete (#15)
EVEN when the gubmint is clearly illegally VIOLATING the 4A ("unreasonable search & seizure")?
To whom is an Oath made? To certain people in a rogue Gubmint? Or on behalf of the US Constitution?
If you don't want to go to prison,either don't sign the papers and take the job,or stay silent.
So. Break the law. Murder people. It's ok cuz, "JUST FOLLOW ORDERS", eh? Worked well in the Reich.
Liberator posted on 2019-09-22 09:58:46 Reply Private Reply
#33: Liberator To: sneakypete (#17)
They apparently haven't much choice in the matter. Unless they openly assassinate him.
It's not as though the reptilian global spy agencies are "cleverly" and secretly wanting Snowden's book published -- is that what you're inferring?
Liberator posted on 2019-09-22 10:01:41 Reply Private Reply
#34: misterwhite To: Liberator (#11)
I have no idea. It does appear, however, that they don't want classified information released.
misterwhite posted on 2019-09-22 11:28:08 Reply Private Reply
#35: Liberator To: misterwhite (#34)
I concur.
But additionally, they also don't like their entire operation exposed as illegal, immoral, dishonest, and abuse of authority and resources.
Liberator posted on 2019-09-22 11:32:42 Reply Private Reply
#36: Liberator To: Gatlin, A K A Stone, Deckard (#31)
Maintaining privacy about personal matters are one thing....
It's when acts and events start adversely affecting others.
Would this mythical case of this written/oral contract (or oath) also necessarily exonerate you from extenuating circumstances -- like committing treason, hurting people, and committing other highly illegal, immoral acts?
By demanding oaths, isn't one justifying a "Code of Honor" among thieves, rogues and scoundrels?
THIS is one reason God has explicitly frowned upon taking oaths to men in Scripture. THEY become authority over God's Law.
Liberator posted on 2019-09-22 11:44:12 Reply Private Reply
#37: misterwhite To: Liberator (#35)
Yep. We never would have known all that without this book.
misterwhite posted on 2019-09-22 11:56:16 Reply Private Reply
#38: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#31)
No matter how you cut it they are using a law to silence him.
No search warrants shall be issued except describing the exact place to be searched and what they are searching for with the permission a a judge.
Well they don't have a warrant to listen to everyone's calls. They were breading the law. Snowden is a brave patriot for exposing the treasonous government.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-22 12:01:01 Reply Private Reply
#39: A K A Stone To: misterwhite (#37)
You are hinting that he said what we already knew.
Well if that is the case then you should shut up we already knew what he said.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-22 12:02:26 Reply Private Reply
#40: Liberator To: misterwhite (#37)
Well to be honest, most people still did NOT believe Snowden's revelations -- given the MSM and goobermint tag-teaming smear of Snowden as a malcontent and rat who "jeopardized America's national security."
THIS BOOK DOCUMENTS an entire operation of what was/is still an illegal, immoral, dishonest polcy and abuse by authority and resources.
Q: Do you believe there is good moral standing, legal standing and reason to surveil every single American's movement and life of every America? And if so, by what Constitutional Law or common sense reason?
Liberator posted on 2019-09-22 12:03:44 Reply Private Reply
#41: A K A Stone To: misterwhite (#34)
Yeah they don't want their confidential crimes exposed. Snowden exposed treason and the people responsible should pay the heaviest price.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-22 12:04:24 Reply Private Reply
#42: Liberator To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#38)
Truth.
Liberator posted on 2019-09-22 12:05:39 Reply Private Reply
#43: misterwhite To: A K A Stone (#41)
Where's THAT headline? Let's get those details out there into the public arena. Where are they?
misterwhite posted on 2019-09-22 12:57:12 Reply Private Reply
#44: CZ82 To: Tooconservative (#30)
CZ82 posted on 2019-09-22 13:02:55 Reply Private Reply
#45: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#38)
While hat is true about “everyone’s” calls, your old buddy Rand Paul said that the NSA is empowered to spy on Americans’ communications without a warrant.Huh – you say.
Well, it turns out that Rand Paul is absolutely correct.
Let’s understand how that is …
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-22 20:42:45 Reply Private Reply
#46: sneakypete To: Liberator (#32)
How do you know the government didn't apply for,and get a search warrant?
You don't. There IS such a thing as classified search warrants.
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-22 22:02:12 Reply Private Reply
#47: sneakypete To: Liberator (#33)
No,I am merely stating the obvious. The book and the classified info in it are already in the public domain,and you can't unring a bell.
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-22 22:03:59 Reply Private Reply
#48: sneakypete To: Liberator (#32)
How the HELL are they doing that?
To whom is an Oath made? To certain people in a rogue Gubmint? Or on behalf of the US Constitution?
To the Federal Government,and NOBODY MAKES you take the oath or sign the paper. You are free to walk away if you want.
So. Break the law. Murder people. It's ok cuz, "JUST FOLLOW ORDERS", eh? Worked well in the Reich.
When did you turn into a hysterical drama queen?
One word for you,"Midol".
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-23 01:26:36 Reply Private Reply
#49: sneakypete To: Liberator (#40)
Snowden is NOT a regular citizen whose mail is being read. He is a man that AGREED to not disclose any classified information he would gain access to after ACCEPTING a job that gave him access to classified information that could damage the security of America if it became general knowledge.
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-23 01:31:55 Reply Private Reply
#50: Tooconservative To: sneakypete (#16)
They put a significant number of Germans in America in the same kind of internment camps for the duration of the war. Interestingly, they were kept confined longer than the Japanese were after the war ended in 1945. These were the German American Bund which is a nice name to use instead of American Nazi Party (which was later established as a party in the Fifties).
A total of 11,507 people of German ancestry were interned during the war, comprising 36.1% of the total internments under the US Justice Department's Enemy Alien Control Program.[29] By contrast, an estimated 110,000–120,000 Japanese-Americans were forcibly relocated from the West Coast and incarcerated in internment camps run by the US War Department's War Relocation Authority.
None of these internees was ever found guilty of a crime or proven to be a threat to national security.
Those who were released back to their homes were obliged to sign a secrecy agreement regarding the time they spent in the camp. They were under threat of being returned to Germany if they breached the terms of the agreement. Staff who had worked at the camps also had to agree to secrecy. ...
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-23 10:07:52 Reply Private Reply
#51: Deckard To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#30)
I had to look that up - very apt description of Gatlin's tactics.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-23 10:13:20 Reply Private Reply
#52: Gatlin To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#51)
Hmmm…
Where were we?
Please help me correctly understand.
I think you said that “gaslighting” is a “very apt description of Gatlin’s tactics.”
I am a very old man, and I sometimes don’t get things straight.
Did I get that right?
Well, if that be so – then I guess that my “Columbo Method” needs more practice.
Obviously …
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-23 10:40:45 Reply Private Reply
#53: Gatlin To: Deckard (#51)
Hmmm…
Where were we?
Please help me correctly understand.
I think you said that “gaslighting” is a “very apt description of Gatlin’s tactics.”
I am a very old man, and I sometimes don’t get things straight.
Did I get that right?
Well, if that be so – then I guess I need to practice on my “Columbo Method” needs more practice
Obviously … Edit: Since I am so generous this morning – I will let you in on another of my techniques. I always start my effective price negotiations with “ I am an old man on fixed income and …”
Depending on the price and profit margin involved, that usually will get me five to ten percent right from the start.
Then I move ever so slowly forward with a hesitantly speech pattern using a modified “dumb” Columbo Method and work towards twenty five percent in my favor. Or, as close as I can get. I do often time use the “walk away” knowing full well they need to sell more that I want to buy.
I Have now shared with you, two secrets this morning. I will tell you more of my secrets. But it will cost you – dearly.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-23 10:57:46 Reply Private Reply
#54: Deckard To: Gatlin (#53)
Keep your perversions to yourself freakshow.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-23 11:19:11 Reply Private Reply
#55: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#53)
I'm a contractor and I hear that line I think hmm. I'll charge them a little more for trying to con me. They pay. lol.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-23 11:55:46 Reply Private Reply
#56: A K A Stone To: sneakypete (#49)
So if the government wants to do something unconstitutional. They just make you sign a paper so if you find out you can't tell anyone.
That's a pretty fucked up view of how things should work imo.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-23 11:57:12 Reply Private Reply
#57: sneakypete To: Tooconservative (#50)
I know. The difference is they were recent immigrants,not citizens. 2nd and 3rd generation Japanese went into the internment camps.
Nobody likes to talk about this,but the truth is the Japanese who had US citizenship should be happy about this because they had MP's protecting them from attack. I had a friend whose father enlisted in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team,a unit composed entirely of Japanese Americans,and rumored to have been the most decorated US Army unit of WW-2.
His uncle left home to enlist too,but was caught and beaten by his fellow Chicago citizens on the way to the enlistment office,and spent the rest of his life wearing diapers and being spoon fed.
The German Americans were lucky in that respect. The recent ones couldn't be told from any other American if they didn't have an accent or kept their mouths shut. The Japanese Americans weren't that fortunate.
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-23 12:04:35 Reply Private Reply
#58: sneakypete To: A K A Stone (#56)
No. You obviously have never had a security clearance,and don't understand the concept.
MOST military/national defense secrets are more related to not letting the enemy know what you know because if they did,it would be easier for them to track down the source in their country that supplied you with this information.
There are also METHODS OF OPERATION that are secret because you don't want the enemy to know how you operate to keep them from catching and executing your agents,who may be soldiers,diplomats,embassy workers,CIA agents playing the role of tourists,etc,etc,etc. They mostly "mine" the citizens of the nation you are investigating,and those citizens are providing the intelligence and they need to be protected. In most cases if they were exposed,they would die.
I used to have a Top Secret Crypto security clearance while in the army,and held a Secret security clearance at various times while working with the Army in an advisory role.
The whole time I held security clearances,I did not know of ONE single damn thing or operation that was being used against America or American citizens. Never even heard rumors. Such things are under the domain of the FBI,and they are VERY jealous when it comes to guarding their secrets. Even they are overseen and kept slapped into line by their political masters. Sure,some agent or tech geek sometimes goes wrong,but when they do,the Feebs go after them like a hungry dog after a nice raw steak.
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-23 12:16:28 Reply Private Reply
#59: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#55)
I know there is Financial Exploitation in Aging …
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-23 13:13:15 Reply Private Reply
#60: Liberator To: Deckard, A K A Stone, Deckard, sneakypete, misterwhite, tooconservative, CZ82, Gatlin, all (#0)
This post & thread appears to have struck clear dividing lines of cynicism or support.
The respective subjects of "911" and role of gubmint Alphabet Agencies and military (in the name of "national security") seem always to evoke polarized opinion. Why is that? (Yes, I have my own theory)
The degree of support/criticism the respective two subjects receive appears to be based primarily on the fundamental trust OF Government, loyalty TO IT, and supposed function OF IT and its purported "mission" of "national Security" -- regardless of its proper role, lack of transparency, evolved political agenda, and especially, regardless of honesty, responsibility or ethics.
The side from which respective relative position of support or criticism seems to be dependent on whether one has been in the employ of government or military to some major extent. That same side and perspective also appears to be determinate factor in whether one is more open and flexible to "Truther" issues, OR remains steadfast and more rigid in their respective loyalty to institutional/governmental narratives (as they present it.)
What say you?
Liberator posted on 2019-09-23 13:14:01 Reply Private Reply
#61: Gatlin To: Deckard (#54)
I realize that is your embarrassed way of saying that you can’t pay for them.
It’s okay – I understand …
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-23 13:17:35 Reply Private Reply
#62: Liberator To: Gatlin, Deckard (#61)
Liberator posted on 2019-09-23 13:27:36 Reply Private Reply
#63: Liberator To: sneakypete (#46)
You mean all 325 million of them?
Liberator posted on 2019-09-23 13:28:31 Reply Private Reply
#64: Liberator To: sneakypete (#46)
Yes.
In theory.
Q: Since when do all 325 millions Americans warrant 24/7 surveillance? The Patriot Act and NSA -- are you familiar with both of their alleged "mission"?
Are you familiar with the degree of carte blanche to which they routinely justfy and ignore the US Constitution?
Are you someone who supported the absurd the airport strip-searches of gramma, nuns, and WW2 vets (See Joe Foss) while ignoring obvious suspects (see Mooses.)
Liberator posted on 2019-09-23 13:34:48 Reply Private Reply
#65: Liberator To: sneakypete (#47)
Have you read the book?
Liberator posted on 2019-09-23 13:35:30 Reply Private Reply
#66: Liberator To: sneakypete (#48)
Do you really wonder *how* the NSA and various Alphabet Agencies are engaging in 24/7 surveillance and recording of our every PRIVATE phone and internet conversation? Or even watch our movements (via ubiquitous street cameras?)
Seriously?
ME: "To whom is an Oath made? To certain people in a rogue Gubmint? Or on behalf of the US Constitution?"
YOU: "To the Federal Government,and NOBODY MAKES you take the oath or sign the paper. You are free to walk away if you want."
Sure -- no one has a gun to the others head. But that's not the point. Any oath or signed paperwork regarding silence may indeed be mutual. These are the TWO points you missed (as well as a bonus point):
1) Illegal/rogue/immoral/unethical acts & missions may STILL be performed on behalf of these ruling overlords/commanders. WITH IMPUNITY. In complete disregard to justice OR actual security.
2) To whom does one owe allegiance? In support of US Constitution and to the citizenry (who actually pay a serviceman's salary)? OR, to a specific military/secret organization?
3) There is an obvious reason "Black Ops" is a thang. Some might consider the Coup against President Trump a less horrific JFK example.
When did you turn into a hysterical drama queen? One word for you,"Midol".
Hey, the "Midol" line was mine first.
Liberator posted on 2019-09-23 13:53:26 Reply Private Reply
#67: Liberator To: sneakypete (#49)
Complete and utter BS.
...."damage the security of America if it [the illegal targeting & surveillance of all 325 million Americans for no good reason, having NOTHING to do with National Security] became general knowledge."
FIXED.
Liberator posted on 2019-09-23 13:58:15 Reply Private Reply
#68: Tooconservative To: sneakypete, Deckard (#49)
Exactly so. He signed an NDA that did not differ substantially from the NDAs that employees sign in the private sector to keep company secrets in confidence in perpetuity unless they are released by the employer to publish something. The difference with Snowden compared to people like Stormy Daniels violating an NDA is that DoJ/NSA/CIA all have a lot of power to do something about someone violating their NDAs.
Clearly, Snowden and his publisher knew the DoJ was very likely to take this action. A few of the books that were published by SEAL Team 6 members about the (alleged) Bin Laden assassination in Pakistan were subject to this but I don't think they actually sued to recover the profits. There was at least one book by a former CIA employee, maybe 5 years ago, that was threatened with a similar lawsuit. So Snowden and publisher both had cause to know that DoJ would likely take this action.
According to the copyright page of the book:
First published in the UK 2019 by Macmillan
This electronic edition first published in the UK 2019 by Macmillan
an imprint of Pan Macmillan 20 New Wharf Road, London N1 9RR
Associated companies throughout the world
So the publisher is Metropolitan, one of five divisions of the big Holt publishing empire, and on their website they brag about publishing Lefty books specifically, mentioning a number of books by Chomsky. So it is a publishing house focused on Lefty books. Perfect for Snowden.
Snowden and the publisher must have known the DoJ would try to seize the proceeds. So they probably put a pile of royalty money in an escrow account overseas, possibly in a Russian bank, and have an agreement beforehand with the bank to pay out or transfer a certain amount to Snowden based on officially published book sales from Metropolitan for a certain period of time. There are likely some banks in Russia who don't care about U.S. sanctions at all, given how many oligarchs and businesses are under sanctions already. America already sanctioned Sberbank, VTB, Gazprombank, Russian Agricultural Bank, and VEB and we got the EU to join in. So they have nothing to lose as far as we're concerned.
I bet Snowden is getting paid, no matter what DoJ is doing. This is pretty much his only chance for a real payday for the rest of his life. We should assume that the Russkies have already pumped all the info he had from him by various means. They may not have but I think they have. It's just too valuable to them to leave him alone. Snowden has info they could not otherwise obtain or that would cost them billions in espionage costs to get. His familiarity with NSA software alone would be very valuable to them. So that is probably how he's earned his keep to stay in Russia. But he wants a nice fat bank account in Western money or cryptocurrency just in case his Russia gig ever goes south.
This may be a DoJ case where they prosecute only to uphold their NDAs with all their other contractors. If they fail to pursue Snowden and can be demonstrated in court as not enforcing their NDAs to the maximum, it could impede any future claims they have to enforce their NDAs on other employees or former employees or contractors. So this may be a pro forma case, not one intended to actually stop Snowden from getting his payoff from these book sales. It's to stop the next Snowden(s) and show the courts that they are serious about enforcing their NDAs.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-23 16:50:14 Reply Private Reply
#69: Tooconservative To: Deckard (#51)
I'm surprised you hadn't heard it before, given the articles you post. Gaslighting has become something of a buzzword in certain circles in recent years.
In truth, I should have called Gatlin's #FakeApology something like "a gaslit apology". Clearly, it was manipulative and deliberately so but it was not technically gaslighting which is used by psychopaths or con men to make a person doubt their own memory or understanding of events. But the #FakeApology does reveals that Gatlin either thinks he's a lot smarter than the rest of us or that Gatlin thinks we really are total morons. Probably the former since it is more self-flattering for Gatlin to think we are smart but that he is so much smarter in online debate tactics. If it were the latter, it isn't as much fun for Gatlin to try to play people that he considers to be morons; it's more rewarding emotionally to think you're much smarter than your devious but inferior opponents/rivals.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-23 17:25:33 Reply Private Reply
#70: Tooconservative To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#59)
There's a pretty ugly suggestion there that you are exploiting and preying upon your elderly customers.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-23 17:30:27 Reply Private Reply
#71: misterwhite To: Liberator (#60)
The conspiracy theorists said "no it didn't".
I'm going with the guys with the facts and figures.
misterwhite posted on 2019-09-23 18:32:31 Reply Private Reply
#72: nolu chan To: sneakypete, Liberator (#49)
The actual issue at litigation is the legal requirement for Snowden to have submitted his proposed publication to the agency, and to have obtained prior permission to publish it. As Snowden did not request permission, permission was not granted. The agency did not seek to prevent publication, but it has sought to prevent any financial income from the publication going to the benefit of Snowden.
As for the government acquisition of telephone and internet information, the 4th Amendment issue is muddied in that the information, or access to the information, was generally given to the government by entities such as AT&T or Facebook, or others. AT&T facilities (located at Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.) were in partnership with the NSA. In this circumstance, it is a bit difficult to maintain that the NSA searched and seized.
nolu chan posted on 2019-09-23 18:43:33 Reply Private Reply
#73: Tooconservative To: nolu chan, Liberator (#21)
Isn't that consistent with a pro forma case brought mainly to maintain the enforceability of NDAs with the feds in American courts?
They won't get any money from Snowden as his Lefty publisher no doubt pre-planned for this, probably is trying to get extra PR from the feds filing the lawsuit.
But the legal status of those NDAs will be maintained for anyone who remains under U.S. jurisdiction or within reach of our financial system. And that is probably the legal objective for DoJ.
I've pawed through the book some. The first third of it is a personal bio of his boyhood and teenage years and getting injured so he left the service voluntarily by signing a statement that he didn't hold the military responsible for his injuries or costs. But he got the multiple security checks and polygraph exams required to qualify for top secret clearances and that is how he, without a B.A. or even an A.A. normally required for NSA/CIA work, got hired and given top secret clearance to work for them directly, later switching over to being a Dell "contractor", a cover used quite often by the intel community to hide who really works for them and who doesn't.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-23 20:33:13 Reply Private Reply
#74: nolu chan To: Tooconservative, Liberator, Gatlin (#73)
They do not seek money from Snowden. Snowden will get little, if any, money.
The government seeks to freeze any publication income from being provided to Snowden. The publisher gets to keep their profits, but anything payable to Snowden is contested and the government prays the Court to order that it be placed in a constructive trust. There is U.S. Supreme Court precedent for this (Snepp) quoted below. There is no incentive for Macmillan to get into a pissing contest with the Federal government, or to defy a court order which is extremely likely to be forthcoming.
At this nascent stage, the legal case consists of a COMPLAINT in a civil case. All COMPLAINTs consist of allegations.
At 1-2:
At 6-8:
At 23-25:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PRIOR CASE LAW:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/507.html
nolu chan posted on 2019-09-23 23:46:05 Reply Private Reply
#75: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#74)
Snowden and the publisher knew in advance that this would be the case, that the feds would try to confiscate the proceeds.
I keep thinking that they must have had a signing bonus for Snowden and likely a final bonus for completing a book that the publisher was willing to bring to market. Maybe all of Snowden's income was front-loaded in the deal so he can't make any more money from the deal. There may also have been some sort of deal where Snowden got paid some portion of the initial first run of books prior to publication. The book apparently was for sale before the feds filed suit so Snowden had to make any money he was going to make from signing and completion bonuses and from front-loaded royalties, perhaps based solely on bookstore and Amazon pre-orders of his upcoming book.
It would be interesting to know the exact details of the Snowden deal with the publisher. I remain convinced that Snowden got paid or he wouldn't have written the book at all since he could otherwise hope for some change in the future after which he could get normal author's royalties.
I don't generally like NDAs but, if the feds are going to have them, they do have to enforce them even in a case where they won't get much money out of it.
I see you bolded this portion concerning Snowden giving paid speeches or paid interviews about the book or anything described in it. Were you highlighting that the feds had closed off that avenue of income? Since the first third of the book is biographical and is about Snowden's upbringing until after he left boot camp, the feds are claiming he can't even discuss this biographical filler in a speech now without the feds claiming the income from it. In that sense, the federal government now owns the proceeds of any speech or writing that Snowden put in his biographical portion of the book. That bio - up to age 22 - constitutes 196 pages of a 642 page book.
By including his biographical info in this book, the DoJ now has the legal rights to seize the proceeds of any further paid interviews or paid speeches or subsequent biographical writing by Snowden about his own life, before the time he ever worked for the feds. Snowden can't talk about anything in his past that he mentioned in the book and get paid for it or Uncle Sam will demand the proceeds from any entity within the empire's legal reach.
I guess the message is: don't piss off the feds. I'm sure Snowden has gotten the message long since; this case is still largely about deterring anyone else from going rogue with America's secrets. And the feds really have little choice in doing so since they must demonstrate that they expect to legally enforce NDAs and punish whistleblowers to the max. Otherwise, the oaths and NDAs will mean nothing to any court.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-24 03:54:54 Reply Private Reply
#76: sneakypete To: Liberator (#60)
I say to the people that blindly support all this nonsense "Be careful what you ask for because you might just get it."
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-24 13:43:41 Reply Private Reply
#77: sneakypete To: Liberator (#63)
Think you could narrow it down a bit better than that?
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-24 13:45:01 Reply Private Reply
#78: sneakypete To: Liberator (#65)
No.
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-24 13:46:39 Reply Private Reply
#79: sneakypete To: Liberator (#66)
Yes,that IS the point.
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-24 13:47:59 Reply Private Reply
#80: sneakypete To: Liberator (#67)
Nothing is fixed. Just more paranoid brain farts.
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-24 13:49:03 Reply Private Reply
#81: sneakypete To: Tooconservative (#68)
NOT a bet I would bet against.
The sad,sad truth is that all this senseless hysteria does is increase the profits of Snowden and the publishing company.
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-24 13:51:27 Reply Private Reply
#82: sneakypete To: nolu chan (#72)
You are,of course,correct as to the base of the story.
From that launching pad comes the allegations as to what specific secrets he made public,if any. For all we KNOW,he made most of this stuff up out of thin air in an attempt to provide moral justification for his desertion.
sneakypete posted on 2019-09-24 13:57:29 Reply Private Reply
#83: Tooconservative To: sneakypete (#81)
Yeah, kinda ironic. As Trump and Howard Stern would tell you, there's no such thing as bad press.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-24 14:39:52 Reply Private Reply
#84: Tooconservative To: sneakypete, nolu chan, Deckard, Liberator (#82)
I thought, for once, that someone should take a devil's advocate view of the entire Snowden affair.
What if Snowden is an entire counter-intelligence operation? What if, in the wake of Wikileaks revelations, the U.S. intel community (CIA/NSA in particular) decided they needed to completely throw off all their rivals in the spy business?
What if they chose Snowden as their agent, vetted out his various accounts of American electronic spying and methods, gave him copies of very old and defunct NSA software to help "prove" his case?
I only mention it because, in espionage, you need to consider those unthinkable cases that no one would ever suspect. Those are the perfect counter-espionage operations.
To be honest, I've never seen a single mention of the idea that Snowden is actually an American double-agent, passing false or defunct information to enemy intel services, while the American press shouts the Snowden news to the world and senators and DoJ staff stomp around acting Very Angry about it all. The very fact that no one has ever remotely suggested in public that Snowden is actually working for us makes me think it isn't such a bad theory after all.
At the least, there's a pretty good little CT in my theory for Deckard and Liberator who - let's face it - can't keep their pants zipped up when they hear of such a juicy underhanded government conspiracy.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-24 15:03:41 Reply Private Reply
#85: nolu chan To: Tooconservative (#75)
I was pointing out the breadth of scope of the government claim. Note that it goes to speeches he has given disclosing information subject to his prepublication review obligations. The classified information he obtained is the property of the U.S. Government. The Government seeks to enjoin him from profiting from his unlawful acts, or the wrongful use of government property. If a book is contaminated with information subject to prepublication review obligations, the government can claim any derived income.
A new book, with no problematic content would not be subject to the same litigation.
nolu chan posted on 2019-09-24 18:50:13 Reply Private Reply
#86: nolu chan To: Tooconservative (#84)
Anything is possible, but it seems unlikely to me.
A more intriguing possibility of a sting operation is the ongoing Ukraine/Trump/Biden affair. That may have been Grandmaster Trump serving up a poisoned pawn variation, with the Dem/Libs and MSM jumping at the bait, only to find themselves stuck with a Dem/Biden (and Obama?) super-scandal rather than a Trump impeachment. Nancy goes all in today and Trump announces he is releasing an unredacted transcript of the conversation tomorrow.
Following a positive test for cocaine, Hunter Biden was separated from the Naval Reserve in February 2014. Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of directors of Burisma on April 18, 2014. Daddy made it rain money.
nolu chan posted on 2019-09-24 19:14:35 Reply Private Reply
#87: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#85)
I agree. Perhaps they wouldn't go after his biographical details but I seem to recall that he was going to make some paid speeches through a speakers bureau and it got abruptly cancelled. Fear of Uncle Sam's control of the global banking system, I think. After that, I don't think he gave any public paid speeches. One can imagine he could still get paid speech gigs in secret though.
I think for Snowden, they'd cast a wide prosecutorial net and throw every charge in the book at him, just to see what sticks in court. That is, if he was ever foolish enough to return to the West (and if Russia would even allow him to leave Russia). I don't think he's ever been given the full rendition by the Russians and he says he has kept our most secret info to himself and not given it to any hostile power.
If I were Snowden, I wouldn't leave Russia. I'd try to escape Russia to a non-extradition country. But Russia is one of the safest bets for him to live as a fairly free man. They are likely to remain outside U.S. jurisdictional claims for decades into the future. The Russians just like to be our rivals and opponents, always did, going back to the tsars when they sailed their version of the Great White Fleet around the world, well, before the Japanese sank most of the Russian fleet (which they're still rather proud of).
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-24 20:09:32 Reply Private Reply
#88: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#86)
A little cocaine and the Naval Reserve gets all uppity about it.
I seem to recall that Hunter was boffing his dead brother's widow for a while, comforting the grieving widow. I haven't heard much more about it. I suppose Joe put the kibosh on it so he didn't have to answer questions about Biden family inbreeding or make up some weird Onanistic story for the public.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-24 20:12:09 Reply Private Reply