THE INTERCEPT IS BROADENING ACCESS TO THE SNOWDEN ARCHIVE. HERE’S WHY
Glenn Greenwald, May 16 2016, 11:37 a.m.
… that [Snowden leaks] be released in conjunction with careful reporting that:
a) puts the documents in context,
b) makes them digestible to the public,
c) safeguards the welfare and reputations of innocent people.
Glenn on §a you/TheIntercept definitely get a passing grade even if nowhere near a perfect score. You have indeed contextualized those documents, but (IMO) not entirely well covering their true reach, as well as in their proper and true dimensions.
On §b, don’t take it from me. As I have pointed out before, John Oliver did masterfully illustrate why and how you have failed miserably:
// __ Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Government Surveillance (HBO)
Don’t you find §b a bit “responsible”? What makes you think you have the right or “responsibility” to stand in the way of people knowing how they are being played, blackmailed, harassed, persecuted and, in many cases, experimented with and even tortured and fatally hit by their governments?
It may all be a terminological misunderstanding and you definitely deserve the benefit of the doubt, what exactly do you mean when you say “make them ‘digestible’ to the public”?
On §c, I would agree with you against the Catholic Church when they claimed that “… the innocence of the human soul was corrupted by the seduction of the serpent …”
In fact, I happen to personally know “Innocence”. She is a sensual, witty, downright good looking and sexually appealing girl who used to walk the streets of Havana. Rappers have even dedicated to her a hip-hop tune: “little princess”
// __ Los Aldeanos – Princesita
“Innocence”, “Faith”, “Hope” and “Charity” know each other well. They are just not the same kinds of girls.
Yet, the “Innocence” that matters to me when it comes to such issues, is the one of thousands of children, women and men being killed by USG without even having a clue as to why they are being killed or having the power of abstraction to understand what “signature strikes” are or the “logical” perversity of “freedom-loving” double-tapping strikes institutionalized by “God bless ‘America'” U.S. President Obama. The “Innocence” of those whose mental prowess can’t even begin to understand how those agents in the collateral murder video (“innocently” assuming they would never be heard, their actions seen) make fun of the people they are killing even mockingly saying (something along the lines of): “they well deserve it for being at ‘the wrong place at the wrong moment'” … Most likely they won’t be able to understand what you mean by “innocence” either (something you/TheIntercept could yourself test)
I think anyone with a healthy sense of reality could see a difference in kind and degree between different types of “innocences”: serving as a SRC snitch or pressing a joystick to “surgically” kill dozens of unsuspecting people, who may have not had a chance to sense, let along conceptualize their lives’ fate; or the self-servingly chosen pretentious innocence of the German government when they claimed to have taken at face value the answer of their gringo counterpart about the base at Ramstein/Germany or probably it is all about the innocence of Maxwell’s formulation of electromagnetism, which makes the speed of light a seemingly innocent invariant; yet, fast enough to enable the military command centers in the U.S. to operate real time their drones on the other side of the globe in their version of 24×7 sigint world wide war; or the innocence robed from many children in the middle East who fear playing outdoors, would rather remain inside drawing drones and having nightmares about themselves or their loved ones being killed by one …
Many are self-serving and boastful, designed to justify budgets or impress supervisors.
Well, yes, comedians are included as “interested parties”, too, right?
Further information about how we prepared the documents for publication is available in a separate article.
In keeping with The Intercept’s editorial standards, we redacted the names of covert agents and the names and contact information of government personnel who are neither high-ranking nor already publicly associated with the NSA. We also removed information if we believed its release could cause serious injury or death to innocent people.
Quite a bit of obfuscation in that paragraph. It seems to have come straight from U.S. Academia.
Again the word of the day seems to be “innocence”. It seems to have become the “I was just following orders” of our days. If you think of it, terrorists are downright “innocent” as well. They hate, kill us “for having a free media”.
Should we thank the Intercept for their “innocence”, too?
the NSA’s comments resulted in no redactions other than two names of relatively low-level employees that we agreed, consistent with our long-standing policy, to redact
Oh, thank you very much the Intercept! Not only are you “keeping your editorial standards” and “taking into consideration NSA’s opinions” (I would love to just enjoy the prosody of those conversations), but also you seem to have the literary touch not to forget Dante’s depictions of the underworld.
… and also ensured that stories that most affect specific countries are reported by the journalists who best understand those countries.
Ha! That was a joke, right? Thank you for keeping your sense of humor alive. “Journalists who best understand those countries” may be the best ones at lying to and manipulating “We the people” in “those countries”
… allowing other journalists full access to the archive presented security and legal challenges that took time and resources to resolve.
I wonder if I am the only one who notices how common doublespeak has become. You don’t have to be an EL major or a computer programmer to notice the huge bug biting that statement’s butt.
There are also documents in the archive that we do not believe should be published because of the severe harm they would cause innocent people (e.g., private communications intercepted by NSA, the disclosure of which would destroy privacy rights; and documents containing government speculation about bad acts committed by private individuals (typically from marginalized communities), the disclosure of which would permanently destroy reputations).
Are we talking here about the kind of stuff that Michael Hastings was about to reveal? He however died “innocently”, indeed …
Again, am I the only one who notices how common doublespeak has become? Even by those supposedly fighting against it?
Glenn, we consider you smart and knowledgeable enough to see that (whatever you mean by) “privacy rights” “‘will’ not be ‘destroyed'” by you or the Intercept. In fact, we consider you smart, knowledgeable and morally grounded enough to realize it is your effing job as a journalist to raise public awareness about such issues. Why is it that Western media talks about all kinds of sh!t (true, imagined, as a way to justify their own …) about the stasi, the KGB, that Chinese Internet Wall, … but not about their own?
Do you, guys, remember that “Socrates of the NSA”? (just saying such a thing would sound odd to anyone with some healthy sense of reality):
We quickly indeed figured out who that insufferably idiotic “NSA patriot” was. Has anything happened to that idiot (not caused by his own idiocy)? What do those NSA morons think of themselves? I mean at the point that some people even believe someone to be “‘the’ Socrates of the NSA” you could expect they also have a “Saint Francis of the torture teams of the CIA”. Do those NSA kinds of morons really believe morality is a closed-doors, “patriotic”, “by invitation-only” club membership thing?
Why should we respect “their innocence”? They don’t have anything to hide right? You can say that Peter McIntyre works even as a low level mechanic or janitor for the U.S. Air force. Why can’t you say he works for the NSA?
I’ve always believed that WikiLeaks’ reporting on and disclosure of the materials provided by Chelsea Manning and other sources have been superb. But that does not mean that it is the only viable framework, or the optimal tactical approach, for all leaks.
We consider you smart, knowledgeable, morally grounded enough and with plenty of prior art, “precedence” (if you prefer that wording) backing your actions to realize what is the right thing to do. Imagine the collateral murder video had been “‘redacted’ to standards”. Sting’s song’s stanza (from when we used to have songs) goes: “If You Love Somebody Set Them Free” …
// __ If You Love Somebody Set Them Free
You can’t possibly understand, respect truth and then see yourself in the “responsible” position of compromising it so that it becomes “digestible to the public”
WikiLeaks did not only show the raw footage of that video but did identify every single person affected in the video (even the mother of the kids whose husband was killed while “innocently” and compulsively acting on his sense of humanity, even while he had two small children to care for) and visited them to show them what actually happened.
IMO, until they “watch the(ir own) monkeys get hurt” and they are forced to “shock their monkeys to life” it will all be “jogo belo”. In order to “help” them get to that point we will have to “Fox the fox”, “Rat the rat” and “ape the ape” …
// __ Peter Gabriel – Shock The Monkey
At times I wonder if you understand you are trying to speak a language of “morality”, “humanity” to the NSA, politicians, military and police.
Not long ago a good friend of mine let me know about Karen Stewart
Initially she was furious about my opinion
But, she then may have seen “the light” and we have become friends of friends of the same cause.
truth and peace and love,
Sat May 21 20:33:45 EDT 2016