And here I thought the claims around his four laptops were put to rest in July of last year or, at the very latest, after his meeting with Ray MacGovern, Jesselyn Radack and Thomas Drake in October.

There was nothing of substance on those laptops and to suggest otherwise with any credibility demands extraordinary proof.

Why?

Because of two primary reasons, as far as I am concerned:

- Any of Snowden's claims has yet to proven false. The entire apparatus is trying and they failed miserably so far. Probably because Snowden actually knows what he's talking about, unlike such cranks as Rep. Peter King.

- Snowden spent years working within the intelligence industry (CIA, NSA, private contractors) and he has proven to be careful and meticulous. Unlike the public (or the British MoD), he'd know better than to transport any sensitive information on a device like a laptop or a smartphone. Or an external harddrive. Or a disk. He'd use flash memory, possibly a thumb drive, probably an SD card -- the less embedded controllers a device has, the better. Heavily encrypted, of course, and if anyone doesn't believe that crypto works... tough luck, I'm done trying to convince people otherwise.

So, the only people who received data from him are Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. American journalists reporting on American issues, just like he said.

As for the the revelation of "tons of national secrets and techniques": he has revealed nothing. Let me say that again: Snowden has revealed nothing.

He has empowered members of the press, the fourth estate, to do their bloody jobs and fullfil their role as watchdog over the government, something they failed at miserably in this particular regard. All revelations happen at the discretion of those journalists who are now the sole proprietors of the Snowden-documents.

If, however, you don't subscribe to the notion of a free press as a line of defence against government abuse, then I can't change your mind.

By the way, "putting American lives at risk" should have received a trademark by now, the way it has been waved around to kill uncomfortable conversations. I vividly remember how desperate they were to find proof that the Afghan/Iraqi War Logs and the Gitmo Files were endangering lives. As far as I know, they never found any. And as far as I know, all releases based on Snowden-documents were carefully chosen and redacted where neccessary to protect the identity of human assets. All claims to the contrary need to provide evidence.

But I'm glad to see that the "American industry" has found its way into the argument. At least we don't have to pretend that this is solely about terrorism anymore. Industrial espionage, diplomatic advantages and... keeping your own population in check.

Yay! It's just like the old days.

Oh wait, I forgot. My country has been under full scale surveillance by the US, the British and the French since the late '40s, so it's actually business as usual.

@Yogi

Releasing everything in one big pile didn't get us anywhere in case of the Afghan War Logs, the Iraqi War Logs or the Gitmo Files. Piece by piece keeps it front and center, at least over here in Europe. Not to mention the fact that it also nullifies all criticisms of careless dumping of sensitive info, which reduces his risk of lead poisoning.

@shinyblurry

He wouldn't be stuck in Russia if a) the US hadn't canceled his passport and b) the entirety of Europe wasn't such whipped dogs. If, for instance, Germany had offered him asylum, he'd probably be in Berlin right now, just like Laura Poitras, Sarah Harrison and Jacob Appelbaum.

And no, I don't think the Russians, the Chinese, or anyone for that matter, have gained access to his hardware before he handed everything over to Greenwald amongst others. Snowden knows what he's doing.

If, however, you don't think that crypto works, then I can't convince you otherwise.

@zor

The copyright owner, a German public broadcaster, made sure it's geofucked on YouTube. By the time I submitted this, DailyMotion was the only source available without a German proxy. That said, Adblock Edge + Ghostery + NoScript and you don't have to endure any ads on DailyMotion.

"Have you been injured in an Afghan Lithium mine? Dial 1-800-*Bandito, and let our cheapsuit-wearing, male-pattern-baldness shaved-head, no-rules-reading douche sprocket, get you the cash you deserve!"

Little Afghan Audrey

@Kofi. It's pretty hard not to horrifically oversimplify Pakistan in only a few paragrahs. Pakistan only enjoys the third government branch of power thanks to very heavy American pressure. The ISI and military have dominated Pakistan's prior history, this years elections mark the first and only time in Pakistan's history that a civilian government there managed to serve it's full term and pass power on to another civilian government. Past governments like Bhuttos were dismissed by the military, and then saw Bhutto executed. Pakistan's road democracy is hardly secure yet either since for all the gains, Bhutto's daughter was assassinated before finishing her bid to run the exiting civilian government.

Kashmir is just the bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Within Pakistani politics the discussion is all about Balochistan and FATA. The internal divisions over those two regions was and still is being manipulated to maximum effect by Pakistan's enemies. Particularly, in FATA you have Saudi dollars building Madrassah's were Pakistan's government either won't or can't do anything about education for the tribal people. So on one hand it's giving a lifeline to a poverty stricken people, and on the other that life line is tied to a brick being thrown into the deep end of jihadist teachings and training. And when I say Saudi charities, I don't mean to suggest it's government backed. It is by all accounts privately donated monies by private Saudi citizens, the ones that give out candy to kids when parade worthy things happen.

"Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one"
You've got to be kidding on this, right?
I'd ask you maybe look at my point and counter more closely though. I was speaking to the comment that Al Qaida was wanting for supporters and didn't have peoples support prior to 9/11. I did not declare that all muslim nations were dominated by celebrations, I in fact stated that very few failed to officially condemn the attacks. I just asked how many did not see spontaneous celebrations, and yes even America saw spontaneous celebrations by the likes of Westboro nutters. My point was not paint entire muslim nations as celebrating, but that there existed elements virtually everywhere celebrating. Would you disagree on that, or is that essentially correct. As I see it, that is a clear refutation of the idea that groups like Al Qaida were starved for support prior to 9/11.

"The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda."

Maybe read my statement more closely again. My position is that while on one hand Drones help recruitment, and on the other they hurt not only recruitment and retention, but larger scale operational planning as well. Drones have done more than drive some angry youth to join the fight against America. They have also killed a great many of the Taliban's top leadership. More importantly, they have driven a near permanent wedge between the Taliban and Pakistan's military which is a value that is hard to underestimate. IMHO the 100% sole reason for the Afghan war was to either drive that wedge between Pakistan's military and extremists, or failing that to provide a location for waging a ground war with Pakistan. I also believe there was heavy calculations that the Afghan war would prove sufficient threat and deterrent that Pakistan's leadership would make the "right" choice.

I think it's important to make a distinction here. I almost feel like talking about "Al Qaida" as the problem is Bush(jr.) league type stuff. The bigger picture is jihadist terrorism, and who cares what label it wears. The reality after 9/11 was that jihadists terrorists in the form of the Taliban, Al Qaida and many other groups had a strong foothold inside of Pakistan. They were close friends and allies with the highest ranking officials within Pakistan. After the 9/11 attacks were committed, it was decided that a line needed to be drawn between the two and it was no longer acceptable to just let Pakistan hold these jihadist terrorist groups as friends and allies. After all, how emboldened would they be if they got to launch such an attack while still maintaining their alliance with Pakistan's ISI and military. Suddenly Pakistan's military has a pseudo mercenary/spec op force that is capable of organizing attacks on mainland America large enough to kill thousands in one round. The implications of that were deemed bad and in no uncertain terms the decision was made to put an end to it.

...And Bush 'sold' it to his demographic by giving a cowboy speech declaring your either with us or against us. I'm confident though that in the most bizarre of ways, that speech was carefully phrased diplomacy giving Pakistan a flashing red message without the public embarrassment of actually naming them in the process.(or Bush stumbled onto something in blind ignorance too, I'd flip a coin on it).

So, signature strikes are those that identify 'targets' by watching for things like people who leave militant camps with guns to go cross over into Afghanistan and then come back again...

Read up on the situation in Pakistan's tribal regions before setting your position on drone strikes in stone. America is at war with the powers controlling the tribal regions of Pakistan. It's not declaring it a war because that would enrage Pakistan even further, but it is the reality. Pakistan doesn't want to admit that the tribal regions have been essentially seized from them by the Taliban and have been in all but name an independent state that is actively waging war on Pakistan by launching endless attacks on it's civilians.

The deeper truth not spoken about is that the Afghan war was never about Afghanistan, though it was about the 9/11 organizers. After 9/11, America deemed it no longer acceptable for nuclear armed Pakistan to be allied with the groups that just attacked it. The war in Afghanistan was double edged. It gave a launching ground for a land war against Pakistan if needed, and it was a direct warning to Pakistan's leadership that America fully intended to wage war and remove power any government allying itself with the jihadists behind international terrorist attacks. It's just not politically expedient to say that, so president's say more veiled things like: "Your either with us or against us".

@hpqp The point is that there is no such thing as "plain old religious fanaticism" - it's always tied up in whatever economic and political circumstances are shaping the region and family and the person committing the act. Sure - religious people would like to think that their religion is separate from their worldly circumstances, but if you don't give credence to any supernatural dimension of religion, it also becomes impossible to separate religion from the other socio-cultural-economic-historic factors that also drive conflict.

I work regularly with Muslims who each are rich enough to buy my worldly belongings a couple of times over, and violence is the farthest thing from their minds. Exploiting migrant workers and suppressing equality and freedom of speech is quite familiar to them, but violence - despite their Muslim faith - is very foreign to most of them. Which of course is why Al Qaeda considers them traitors to Islam - they have too much in common with their supposed enemies the Israelis or Americans, and almost no common points of reference with a radical Muslim Chechen or Afghan.

Islam today is the most violent religion only in its overlap with regions that are good breeding grounds for violent extremism anyway - there's no reason to believe that in a country with the material preconditions the US has that fundamentalist Muslims wouldn't be more like the Westboro Baptists. By trying to indicate that Islam is in itself a greater driver of violence than Christianity, Maher conflates extremely disparate cultures and regions and obscures the real issues.

When did any Iraqis or Afghans?

....and there's that meaningless filler word "actually" again (description)-
The so-called, New World Order is in place and working fine with the complicity of peeps on both sides of meaningless debates addressing lamely, symptoms and temporary treatments for inoperable colon cancer.

Alex Jones (douchebag) needs to move to Bogata where can stretch his cocaine dollar...circa 1940 prices down there!

ooops, I meant to up-vote this viddy, sorry-Hedges has a handle on the dynamics and the soldiers they interviewed like he surmises will come back traumatized and the ones that gain self-awareness.???....these are the Afghan children you want to donate once a month to to insure they have enough food on their tables.

Absolutely, if we could target only those responsible for such atrocities as attacks on Afghan and Pakistani school girls, that would improve the world. My point is that the willfully negligent killing of children from "collateral damage" is every bit as reprehensible as the deliberate targeting of children. The Taliban and Al Qaeda deserve all the criticism in the world. But lets not add to the problem.

Every idea has been done.
>> ^luxury_pie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_(video_game)
Then again, everything is a copy of a copy of a copy.

I would quote back to you the bit where you mention Rosa Parks, but i sense it would be pointless.

The point is, should someone be allowed to get away with rape because bringing them to justice 'would push them too far'? Should any criminal be forgiven their crime because they threaten others with more crime? That would be a charter for scum like Assange to get away with murder.


>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^thumpa28:
Seriously, I cant believe youre comparing Rosa Parks to a scumbag like Assange. Rosa Parks took a stand at the risk of her liberty and even her life. She represented freedom against tyranny and fought for what she believed in.
Assange believes in nothing else but self promotion and when that landed him in deep water, self preservation at the cost of everyone who sheltered him and even paid for his freedom. Assange has never taken a stand in his life, if he had been on that bus he would not have supported Rosa Parks, he would have fled at the first sign of trouble or got coerced into the lynch mob. How many chinese dissident informants, fighting much the same fight for freedom against overwhelming odds, are now in jail or worse because Assange released the unredacted cables out of nothing but another attempt to keep himself in the limelight?
Assange should face the sexual assault charges, we in the UK have a long and lengthy tradition of separation of the judiciary and the organs of state, which includes our intelligence services. As much as it pains me to say so, Assange would receive a fair extradition hearing (whose decision he fled) and a fair trial in Sweden. Hes done the damage now, whilst I wouldnt complain if he had a sudden CIA inspired cardiac arrest, thats the realm of Bond and Bourne.
Dont confuse Assange with Wikileaks. Wikileaks was started up with a reason in mind, Assange took it over as his one man puppet show.
>> ^dannym3141:
There is such a thing as taking a stand. Sometimes, when humans are pushed beyond what they think is acceptable, they are willing to risk terrible consequences.
Rosa Parks did it with racism. How many poor 'negros' got slaughtered, beaten ...god knows what the trickle down effect would be... in the aftermath of ANY bold defiance by their brethren at the time? So then should we prefer the status quo? Should Rosa Parks also take a dum dum to the nuts because of she didn't tow the government line?
I think Assange is/was doing the world a great service, though we may not know it yet and we may never if we don't come out of this dark age. At some point, someone had to make a stand against this all-pervading government corruption. If he is a rapist, then he should be brought to justice - but how can you trust law/court justice when the law/court is effectively an involved party?>> ^thumpa28:
Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.





Before i even read your comment, in what dimension did i compare Rosa Parks to julian assange? I read it a few times before posting to make sure i wasn't. Please read it again and adjust your comment accordingly, this must be a misunderstanding?
Furthermore (though this is beside the point), if this were 1955 and i used the same argument to support Rosa Parks, you would probably be outraged that i dare compare a scumbag like Rosa Parks to ....I dunno, the blokes who said "I'm Spartacus"? Choose any you like pre-1955.
Regardless, the two parties are irrelevant. The underlying point is that when people are pushed to what they consider their limits (and our limits are all different) then they are prepared to risk hurting themselves and others in the interests of those who come after us.

>> ^thumpa28:

Seriously, I cant believe youre comparing Rosa Parks to a scumbag like Assange. Rosa Parks took a stand at the risk of her liberty and even her life. She represented freedom against tyranny and fought for what she believed in.
Assange believes in nothing else but self promotion and when that landed him in deep water, self preservation at the cost of everyone who sheltered him and even paid for his freedom. Assange has never taken a stand in his life, if he had been on that bus he would not have supported Rosa Parks, he would have fled at the first sign of trouble or got coerced into the lynch mob. How many chinese dissident informants, fighting much the same fight for freedom against overwhelming odds, are now in jail or worse because Assange released the unredacted cables out of nothing but another attempt to keep himself in the limelight?
Assange should face the sexual assault charges, we in the UK have a long and lengthy tradition of separation of the judiciary and the organs of state, which includes our intelligence services. As much as it pains me to say so, Assange would receive a fair extradition hearing (whose decision he fled) and a fair trial in Sweden. Hes done the damage now, whilst I wouldnt complain if he had a sudden CIA inspired cardiac arrest, thats the realm of Bond and Bourne.
Dont confuse Assange with Wikileaks. Wikileaks was started up with a reason in mind, Assange took it over as his one man puppet show.
>> ^dannym3141:
There is such a thing as taking a stand. Sometimes, when humans are pushed beyond what they think is acceptable, they are willing to risk terrible consequences.
Rosa Parks did it with racism. How many poor 'negros' got slaughtered, beaten ...god knows what the trickle down effect would be... in the aftermath of ANY bold defiance by their brethren at the time? So then should we prefer the status quo? Should Rosa Parks also take a dum dum to the nuts because of she didn't tow the government line?
I think Assange is/was doing the world a great service, though we may not know it yet and we may never if we don't come out of this dark age. At some point, someone had to make a stand against this all-pervading government corruption. If he is a rapist, then he should be brought to justice - but how can you trust law/court justice when the law/court is effectively an involved party?>> ^thumpa28:
Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.






Before i even read your comment, in what dimension did i compare Rosa Parks to julian assange? I read it a few times before posting to make sure i wasn't. Please read it again and adjust your comment accordingly, this must be a misunderstanding?

Furthermore (though this is beside the point), if this were 1955 and i used the same argument to support Rosa Parks, you would probably be outraged that i dare compare a scumbag like Rosa Parks to ....I dunno, the blokes who said "I'm Spartacus"? Choose any you like pre-1955.

Regardless, the two parties i use as examples are irrelevant. The underlying point is that when people are pushed to what they consider their limits (and our limits are all different) then they are prepared to risk hurting themselves and others in the interests of those who come after us, and the point you missed was that it is impossible to tell whether this is "a valiant stand" or not.

I should mention that i'm also british, and i'd insist that it's a bit naive to think that britain is immune to corruption, especially in the wake of the last few years. Our government is surely at least as corrupt as the US's. As a british man, i'm appalled to think that anyone (not necessarily you) is in favour of disrespecting another nation by marching into their embassy, compounded by the fact that THIS DOESN'T CONCERN US. Hell, if you're that much behind justice, why aren't you arguing in favour of britain granting him asylum and doing everything in our power to make sure he faces correct charges and doesn't disappear off the face of the earth? Are you after justice or baying for blood!?

Whatever. Disagree on what assange is or isn't; it's clear that you have strong feelings about assange and as i said before, this just shows how difficult an impartial trial would be for him. Please don't disagree that britain needs to concentrate on BRITAIN for a while, though.

Seriously, I cant believe youre comparing Rosa Parks to a scumbag like Assange. Rosa Parks took a stand at the risk of her liberty and even her life. She represented freedom against tyranny and fought for what she believed in.

Assange believes in nothing else but self promotion and when that landed him in deep water, self preservation at the cost of everyone who sheltered him and even paid for his freedom. Assange has never taken a stand in his life, if he had been on that bus he would not have supported Rosa Parks, he would have fled at the first sign of trouble or got coerced into the lynch mob. How many chinese dissident informants, fighting much the same fight for freedom against overwhelming odds, are now in jail or worse because Assange released the unredacted cables out of nothing but another attempt to keep himself in the limelight?

Assange should face the sexual assault charges, we in the UK have a long and lengthy tradition of separation of the judiciary and the organs of state, which includes our intelligence services. As much as it pains me to say so, Assange would receive a fair extradition hearing (whose decision he fled) and a fair trial in Sweden. Hes done the damage now, whilst I wouldnt complain if he had a sudden CIA inspired cardiac arrest, thats the realm of Bond and Bourne.

Dont confuse Assange with Wikileaks. Wikileaks was started up with a reason in mind, Assange took it over as his one man puppet show.

>> ^dannym3141:

There is such a thing as taking a stand. Sometimes, when humans are pushed beyond what they think is acceptable, they are willing to risk terrible consequences.
Rosa Parks did it with racism. How many poor 'negros' got slaughtered, beaten ...god knows what the trickle down effect would be... in the aftermath of ANY bold defiance by their brethren at the time? So then should we prefer the status quo? Should Rosa Parks also take a dum dum to the nuts because of she didn't tow the government line?
I think Assange is/was doing the world a great service, though we may not know it yet and we may never if we don't come out of this dark age. At some point, someone had to make a stand against this all-pervading government corruption. If he is a rapist, then he should be brought to justice - but how can you trust law/court justice when the law/court is effectively an involved party?>> ^thumpa28:
Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.