posted June 21, 2013 07:31 PM            

quote:

---

So even if technology enables them to watch people through their X-box or webcams

---

X-Box: You're saying that because Microsoft was mentioned by Snowden that every X-Box user can expect that their web cam is being actively used by the government to spy on them? Is that really likely?

Webcam: I've seen a news report on this. The person has to visit a site where a program is secretly downloaded by the computer, and then the hacker can turn on the webcam to watch. I guess you're not talking about that, but supposing that programs like Skype are being used against everyone: once again, I don't think that's likely.

Cell phones: The NSA is only tracking calls as far as we know. Not using the cell phones as bugs for listening to people while the people are unaware.

quote:

---

you still think it's incorrect to say that Big Brother is pretty close to watching everything, just because it's not always seen by human eyes in real time?

---

Yes, obviously. Our phones would not have the battery life that they do if the government were using them so extensively. (And they'd really be upset at the lack of coverage some of us encounter. They'd really be pushing for more cell towers, so that they could hear us everywhere. "Can you hear me now, Uncle Sam?")

quote:

---

Okay, to me that is a trivial issue, and the judicial breakdown allowing for virtual limitless intelligence gathering itself is a problem, regardless of how the intelligence is immediately handled.

---

Well, I think of the alternative, and that would take a rather extraordinary amount of manpower as well. Can you imagine hiring the number of spies you'd need in order to use these systems without their parent company's knowledge?

quote:

---

Ask yourself the same questions, they are monitoring everyone all the same.

---

How do you make such a charge? That's speculation. The only monitoring that I know of that's going on in relation to myself is phone calls I participate in. They are monitoring the phone numbers. That's it. They're not looking into my search history, or my Facebook, or checking if I'm on Skype. It would be a colossal waste of their time (same as it would be for most of us).

quote:

---

You think Snowden is lying, you think the manhunt for him is based on him spreading mere lies?

---

No, the manhunt is for sharing State secrets, and, yes, Snowden has already been found to have been inaccurate. That's why there was an immediate request for the clearance to be transparent on the part of the internet companies named, because such requests constituted far less intrusion than Snowden was implying. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-google-facebook-92937.html

quote:

---

What do YOU think is a "reasonable" guess as to the scope of their interceptions, and do you base that on your trustful attitude towards government or actual facts?

---

As a matter of practicality, the number couldn't exceed the manpower necessary to process such intelligence. They'd want to stick to people of interest. They certainly wouldn't want to tackle the minutiae of every single person's life without any cause whatsoever.

quote:

---

Clapper admits secret NSA surveillance program to access user data

---

I don't know what you mean to convey with this, and you posted Mainway before. None of that is new to me. Did you not understand the parts that said it was about collecting the data of the calls, not the conversations?

quote:

---

Um, the data collection is not really debatable as far as I'm concerned. I'm shocked you are trying to argue that. My point is, the collection isn't serving the purpose they say it is for. It's not even preventing imminent attacks against the NSA itself. Which begs the question, why are they collecting and storing all this information?

---

They've already provided the answer to that question: to match up phone numbers with terrorists.

quote:

---

According to what criteria would you become a person of interest, that's the big question, and the fact that so much of the language around "enemy combatants" and "persons of interest" remains nebulous has incited quite a firestorm of protest. It gives people the impression the government prefers to keep the rules secret just so people can accidentally break the rules and get punished for it.

Many political dissidents feel that the government's persecution of whistle-blowers is only a hair's breadth away from the persecution of regular journalists and then the ordinary activists who circulate those journalists' work. It's a climate of fear for good reason, IMO.

---

We all know that you think we're at some tipping point...much like many people have over the course of this country's history.

quote:

---

Who knows? I don't know how cryptic Snowden's initial contact to Greenwald was, I don't know the capabilities of the NSA spying. I do know that if they cannot break the encryption used by computer geeks, they aren't much further ahead with national security, which again begs the question: is it worth it to violate everyone's privacy, supposedly looking for signs of danger?

---

We know. There's only so much information you can get out of a person you're not interested in.

What you suggest after that is that the intelligence community should just give up, and avoid technology, and hope that old-school spies are enough. So essentially, you want us to be like a country that's too poor to have any intelligence capabilities. Maybe if they were good enough to crack computer-geek encryption you'd have a more solid footing for this belief in Big Brother, but noting their inefficiency only lends credibility to the notion that they're not effectively spying on you.

quote:

---

And why should I trust that that's the real reason they're gathering intelligence, anyway? Especially when there are alarming signs that we are headed towards an outright police state, complete with preventive detention?

---

posted June 21, 2013 09:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
You're saying that because Microsoft was mentioned by Snowden that every X-Box user can expect that their web cam is being actively used by the government to spy on them? Is that really likely?

---

Huh? Where'd you come up with that, I said no such thing. I was referring to X-Box One, now that you ask.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/05/27/the-five-biggest-problems-with-the-xbox-one/

More replies when I get time tomorrow.

posted June 22, 2013 09:21 AM            

Regarding webcams, cell phones, etc. You had said that you thought Big Brother wasn't capable of watching everything, I asked, "technologically what does he lack?" and you said "manpower." I said that, to me, it's still "watching" even if the data is being collected and not necessarily reviewed in real time. And I believe cell phones, webcams, and x-boxes are all venues through which the government is capable of monitoring or collecting data on people through most of their day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I guess you're not talking about that, but supposing that programs like Skype are being used against everyone: once again, I don't think that's likely.

---

What do you mean by "used against"? I'm not trying to argue that everyone is doomed, just that their privacy is being compromised from every angle.

quote:

---

The video calling service Skype recently made a change to how it routes calls.

Yawn, right? But here's where it get a little juicier: Hackers and bloggers are saying the changes, which push some of the video calling process onto Skype's own computers instead of onto random machines on the Internet, could help the app spy on users' calls, presumably at the request of a court or government.

"Reportedly, Microsoft is re-engineering these supernodes to make it easier for law enforcement to monitor calls by allowing the supernodes to not only make the introduction but to actually route the voice data of the calls as well," Tim Verry, from the website ExtremeTech, wrote last week. (Supernodes are third-party computers that act as a sort of directory service for routing calls.)

"In this way, the actual voice data would pass through the monitored servers and the call is no longer secure. It is essentially a man-in-the-middle attack, and it is made all the easier because Microsoft -- who owns Skype and knows the keys used for the service's encryption -- is helping."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
They are monitoring the phone numbers. That's it. They're not looking into my search history, or my Facebook, or checking if I'm on Skype. It would be a colossal waste of their time (same as it would be for most of us).

---

I don't know if you are talking about data collection in general or about live people actually scrutinizing your dossier. The data collection is happening, evidence of that is everywhere. How many times did Casey Anthony look up "chloroform" on Google and how do we all know that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
such requests constituted far less intrusion than Snowden was implying.

---

What makes their denials so convincing for you? That link told me nothing except that the companies are making denials.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
As a matter of practicality, the number couldn't exceed the manpower necessary to process such intelligence. They'd want to stick to people of interest. They certainly wouldn't want to tackle the minutiae of every single person's life without any cause whatsoever.

---

What about profiling, by having the computers pick up on the frequency of key words used, and then keeping persons who use objectionable words too much under heightened surveillance, or putting them on a watch list or no fly list? Not much manpower is necessary for that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Did you not understand the parts that said it was about collecting the data of the calls, not the conversations?

---

quote:

---

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant in the briefing said.

---

*Edit

Also see Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/can-nsa-analysts-listen-your-phone-calls

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
So essentially, you want us to be like a country that's too poor to have any intelligence capabilities.

---

LOL. You essentially want an actual Big Brother TV screen watching you from every room and body cavity checks before entering any government building. I mean, if you're going to tell me what my position is without asking, I'll tell you yours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I wonder at what age do you suddenly realize that your worst fears haven't come true?

---

posted June 22, 2013 11:06 AM            

quote:

---

As for phone records, it has already been confirmed that at least all of Verizon’s phone records are already being harvested by the agency for potential later use in another disclosure by the UK Guardian.

Supposedly, again, this does not include records of phone conversations.

But even that claim is now questionably suspect, in light of disclosures by Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, on May 1 on CNN’s Out Front with Erin Burnett.

Burnett asked if the government could listen in, after the fact, to telephone conversations between Katherine Russell, widow of the deceased Boston terrorist bombing suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and her late husband.

Clemente nonchalantly claimed it was possible: “[T]here is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation.”

Burnett was shocked, asking again: “So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.”

Clemente replied, “No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.”

---

posted June 22, 2013 12:29 PM            

quote:

---

I'm not trying to argue that everyone is doomed,

---

I thought you were. Actually, I'm pretty certain you were.

quote:

---

The data collection is happening, evidence of that is everywhere.

---

That's true. Data collection is happening. It's use of that data that is at stake.

quote:

---

What makes their denials so convincing for you? That link told me nothing except that the companies are making denials.

---

The fact that they were swift. They didn't take time to agonize over the best way to spin the story, but rather requested permission right away to be more transparent.

quote:

---

What about profiling, by having the computers pick up on the frequency of key words used, and then keeping persons who use objectionable words too much under heightened surveillance, or putting them on a watch list or no fly list? Not much manpower is necessary for that.

---

I think that would net more data than you think, but it is possible if the government does have open access to internet search histories. I believe they do have to request such access at this point, so it's not something they are doing on everyone.

quote:

---

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant in the briefing said.

---

Did you read the whole article, or are you trying to create a false narrative? That whole article is filled with contradictions.

The Mother Jones one admits to the picture not being super clear, and awaits further word from Nadler's office (which was provided in the CNET article).

quote:

---

LOL. You essentially want an actual Big Brother TV screen watching you from every room and body cavity checks before entering any government building. I mean, if you're going to tell me what my position is without asking, I'll tell you yours.

---

I wasn't telling you what your position was. I was communicating your position back to you as I understand it. If you wish to disagree, disagree, but don't think I'm going to fall for a simple manipulation in the course of a debate.

There is no Big Brother watching me from every room, and I don't mind being x-rayed before entering government buildings.

quote:

---

I wonder at what age you will understand that "vigilance against tyranny is the bedrock of a civil society."

---

So you're vigilant, but the people that are paid to be vigilant are not? Human nature.

quote:

---

http://www.americanclarion.com/21206/2013/06/10/is-the-nsa-recording-your-phone-calls/

---

As for whether federal courts have really approved this process, it may be high time that the Supreme Court get a whack at this. It is hard to contrive that it would forbid police from GPS tracking a motor vehicle without a warrant as in U.S. v. Jones, but then allow the NSA to record everything without any probable cause for later use.

The case would determine if there is any limit to the President’s war powers or not on U.S. soil. But finding a petitioner with standing could be problematic. Even if everyone is being surveyed, unless specific information about this technique leading to arrest and conviction is disclosed or made public, nobody actually arrested for a crime will ever know which conversations were recorded that might have led to a prosecution. (Because there would have to be abuse, as I said. -AG)

That makes the surveillance program particularly difficult to overturn.

But Congress has no such problems with making law, which they can change. Even if one thought in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that increased surveillance was necessary to counter threats to the homeland, it is time to reconsider at what cost this protection has come, and what sort of police state is being created in its wake. http://www.americanclarion.com/21206/2013/06/10/is-the-nsa-recording-your-phone-calls/

posted June 22, 2013 04:46 PM            

Your way of thinking and mine just clash so badly we end up wasting time correcting assumptions. But for the record:

I don't believe everyone is doomed to endure physical abuse or capture, but everyone's privacy is doomed. So I don't know what you were "pretty certain" about, aside from that.

Also I think it's swiftness of rebuttal from the communications industries is relatively meaningless. (My opinion.) I would be looking for substance and believability.

And finally, "vigilance against tyranny" automatically implies that the government (susceptible to devolving into tyranny) is what needs to be watched by the people. So yes, in this respect, vigilance means regular people watching what's happening and taking action when the government starts running amok.

posted June 23, 2013 03:30 PM            

This is twice recently that people here have accused me of making excuses. Is it not obvious from what I've said that I don't believe I have a stake in the matter one way or the other? I don't gain from the Patriot Act (to my knowledge). Nor do I lose (to my knowledge). Only a person that believes that there's something at stake has reason to "make excuses." Further, if you believe Snowden is a hero for what he did, consider the fact that he infiltrated private information (which was lawful in nature) and used it against the entity from which it came, which is exactly what you fear the government might do with your private information. You essentially own (or at the very least respect) the trait you fear in the government. Ironic, isn't it?

quote:

---

So yes, in this respect, vigilance means regular people watching what's happening and taking action when the government starts running amok.

---

posted June 24, 2013 05:28 PM            

AG, just a few things:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Further, if you believe Snowden is a hero for what he did, consider the fact that he infiltrated private information (which was lawful in nature) and used it against the entity from which it came, which is exactly what you fear the government might do with your private information. You essentially own (or at the very least respect) the trait you fear in the government. Ironic, isn't it?

---

I see institutions in a different light than individuals, and I don't have much interest articulating for you exactly why I think an individual's right to privacy is so important-- more important than, and quite different from, institutional security in general-- since I anticipate that you will try and tell me it's not important, or that there's something deranged about me because I treasure privacy...and I find that quite depressing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It also means that people directly involved in government have the same task.

---

And what if their vigilance costs them everything, as it's costing the whistle-blowers? I mean, what government officials were you talking about, who get "paid to be vigilant"? The ones who haven't lost their jobs because they never spoke out when they witnessed abuses?

I did want to supply some additional insight to the speculations about whether or not the NSA is recording actual conversations of regular Americans. Here the inestimable Glenn Greenwald provides a clue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFLUzHFFww4&feature=youtu.be

I could listen to Greenwald all day (and I've been reading his columns for years, so it's odd to see him suddenly in the spotlight everywhere) but the relevant section begins around 2:55.

posted June 30, 2013 08:12 PM            

Over the past week, many have embraced Edward Snowden as a ‘hero’, including a vast majority of people who purport to be in the ‘alternative media’ – all of whom would usually question what the mainstream news corporations present to them.

Numerous questions and concerns have been raised, albeit by a vocal minority, about the reality of what Snowden represents. Those who would usually be the ones to join this vocal minority in search for real answers, namely the aforementioned majority of alternative media personalities, appear to have been duped into jumping onto the latest staged bandwagon hero, along with large numbers of a naïve general public.

Edward Snowden’s leaks and scandals can be explained as a highly sophisticated, disinformation project of the highest order. Disinformation being defined as false information deliberately, and covertly, spread in order to influence public opinion (Merriam-Webster, 2013).

Historian Dr. Webster Tarpley (2013) has already noted that in 1620 a Venetian intelligence official recommended ‘saying something good about a person or institution while pretending to say something bad’. Tarpley provides the example of ‘criticizing a bloody dictator for beating his dog – the real dimensions of his crimes are thus totally underplayed’. So, we should be against the bloody dictator beating his dog, but ought to be more concerned with the more substantial crimes the ‘bloody dictator’ is known for. The scandals provided by Snowden are of an equivalent standard to the example of the dictator beating a dog. While we should be against unwarranted spying, this new scandal looks to distract us from the greater, and significantly more important, context of global affairs that are currently focused on Syria.

Snowden can be described here as an actor in a ‘limited hangout’ operation. Limited hangouts are described as when an intelligence agency resorts ‘to admitting, sometimes even volunteering, some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case’ (Marchetti, 1978). This coincides with the first of Tarpley’s (2013) three conceptual identifiers for a limited hangout operation – the revelation of little information that is actually new. Simply put, Snowden has told us that the NSA is spying on emails and telephone calls (Drury and Robinson, 2013), along with revelations that international super powers spy on one another (Chen, 2013). While this may be shocking to some, these revelations can hardly be detailed as ‘new’ or ‘ground-breaking’. Snowden has simply provided a name, PRISM, for what has already been understood to be going on for some time. This is somewhat similar to how Julian Assange of Wikileaks rose to fame after providing the graphic video for an already acknowledged incident. These new slivers of information can, however, be particularly impactful as Marchetti (1978) notes, ‘the public is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further’. Not pursuing Snowden further may have disastrous consequences for world peace and security.

For the press, it all makes perfect sense on the surface, and the surface is where the press operates. A deeper look, however, reveals the full picture…

The second conceptual identifier Tarpley (2013) provides for recognising a limited hangout operation is that the actors involved, Snowden and Assange for example, will become ‘instant media darlings’. A naïve view would suggest that this occurs due to the magnitude of information the person is presenting. Reality would show that when providing a critique of controversial issues that truly matter to the ‘Wall Street centered US ruling class’ (Tarpley, 2013), such a 9/11, that these critics are slandered, attacked and denigrated. It is also interesting to note that these limited hangout actors have themselves participated in the attacking of 9/11 truth activists. Assange has provided the most scolding attack stating ‘I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11’ (Bell, 2010). Glenn Greenwald, who brought Snowden forward, is not interested in veering from the official 9/11 story and instead focuses on ‘blowback’ being the cause of terrorism (Greenwald, 2013). Norman Solomon, a former U.S. State Department asset who is now supporting Snowden, ‘was notorious ten years ago as a determined enemy of 9/11 truth’ (Tarpley, 2013). The magnitude of the 9/11 issue is reflected in the authoritative status of those who question the official story such as: Andreas von Bülow, the former secretary of state for the German Federal Ministry of Defence, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former president of Iran. It must be asked why these ‘whistle-blowers’ seem so vehemently opposed to the issue of questioning the biggest elephant in the room per say – 9/11, and why they never have any new information to reveal regarding the event. They all appear to agree with the establishment, that they proclaim to be fighting against, on what is arguable the most important and controversial event in recent history; which provides much cause for concern.

These concerns are somewhat amplified when the characteristics of Snowden are looked at in detail. Naomi Wolf (2013) has stated that during his interview he looked like ‘someone who had learned his talking points’ and his message promoted fears that an oppressive government would want to instil in other would-be whistle-blowers; such as the idea that you will lose everything by standing up against it, in effect, demonstrating the omnipotent capacity of said government. Doubts have also been raised about whether Snowden had the ability to wiretap the president and shut down the NSA in a few hours, as he has claimed (Rappoport, 2013). These claims might be attributed to Snowden’s apparent narcissistic tendencies, most evident in modelling photographs and an online biography of his that have now been published (Reilly, 2013). Snowden is known to have enlisted in the U.S. Army in May 2004 where he wanted to fight for freedom in a Special Forces unit. Tarpley (2013) states that this ‘shift from militarist to civil libertarian remains unexplained and highly suspicious’, a conclusion that is substantiated by the other added character concerns.

One can also judge a man by the company he keeps and in Snowden’s case that means Wikileaks (Shane and Savage, 2013). Before shooting into mainstream fame, Wikileaks received an endorsement from Cass Sunstein suggesting that ‘they have immense potential’ (Sunstein, 2007). This should be of immediate concern to anyone looking for legitimacy in leaked information, as Sunstein is the author of a 2008 paper where he advocated the ‘main policy idea’ and ‘promising tactic’ of using ‘cognitive infiltration’ to disrupt and break up ‘ideological and epistemological complexes’ that investigate and promote anti-government conspiracy theories. He notes that ‘direct government rebuttals…will prove ineffective’ and therefore external government ‘allies’ will need to be used (Sunstein, 2008). Assange appears to fit perfectly into the role of an external government ‘ally’. His attack on 9/11 conspiracy theories, as documented earlier, appears to be an example of Sunstein’s ‘cognitive infiltration’ tactic in action as the information he ‘leaks’ looks to distract from greater areas of inquiry. Now that the organization is said to be working with Snowden, more questions of his legitimacy are inevitably raised. It’s also worth noting that the founder of Cryptome and mentor of Assange, John Young, denounced Wikileaks in 2007 as a CIA front (Tarpley, 2013).

Tarpley’s third and final identifier for a limited hangout operation is when they are used to prepare large covert operations, which in the case of Snowden would be to advance an attack on Syria. This is evident from a number of key points. The first being that Snowden’s initial revelations came on the same day that Qusayr, a crucial rebel stronghold, fell to the Syrian army; enraging British and French imperialist warmongers. Here we must remember the critical contextual point that Obama has refrained from an all out attack on Syria; something that those in London and Paris have been pushing for heavily over the past few months. Snowden’s revelations triggered what Tarpley (2013) described as ‘a firestorm of criticism’ specifically aimed at Obama. The London Guardian does not only publish the new ‘scandal’ that caused this uproar, but they also like to point out how it is causing damage to Obama by putting his approval rating at ‘its lowest point since last November’s election’ and has caused a ‘collapse in trust’ (Enten, 2013). Attacking Obama pushes him to a point where he must conform to the will of the establishment, to attack Syria outright, or be ousted.

For further evidence of The Guardian’s push for war in Syria, we can find an article titled ‘A Political Ploy: The Guardian Editors Swallow US Claims On Syrian WMD’ (Edwards, 2013). It documents the stunning comments from Guardian editors including: ‘that use (of Chemical Weapons) is an outrage and is against international agreements. It adds to the charge sheet against the Assad regime’. The article’s author states that these are ‘among the most shocking comments we have ever seen in the Guardian’, that they ‘endorse the latest claims on Syria’ and that ‘the Guardian editors are on-message, on-side and boosting war propaganda’. We can now understand why The Guardian would use Snowden to attack Obama as a means to fulfil the agenda, which they support, of a more open war against Syria.

It is possible to provide a real world example for another limited hangout operation that has prepared similar attacks by looking to none other than Wikileaks. As an organisation, they have never destroyed the career of a British, American or Israeli politician, but instead a laundry list of people that ‘bears a striking resemblance to the CIA enemies’ list’ (Tarpley, 2013). Their attack against Assad of Syria, through a somewhat pathetic email-sex scandal (Taher and Slater, 2012), should make it immediately clear whose interests they represent: the same ones who also control the direction of The Guardian. With both The Guardian and Wikileaks supporting Snowden, we can almost be certain of whose interests he too represents: those who are aiming for war. Therefore, the armies of dupes currently attacking Obama for what Snowden has revealed, many of who should know better, are in actual fact facilitating the establishment’s agenda for a wider war in Syria by weakening the anti-open war president.

While this is in no way seeks to aggrandise or apologise for Obama, the fact that he has not initiated a wider war in Syria must be recognised as a positive policy direction. We can see a similar direction during the attack on Libya where Obama officials refused to call the attack a ‘war’, they instead insisted on calling it ‘kinetic military action’ (York, 2011). To add to this anti-open war course, Obama’s actions against Iran do not include bombing runs and tactical nuclear strikes, but instead, methods of economic warfare that look to make Iran’s currency, the Rial, useless (Klimasinska and Katz, 2013). Articles are now emerging stating that ‘Obama needs to act now on Syria’ from those who clearly understand what Snowden represents: the manufactured opportunity to fulfil the agenda of war with Syria. They state that ‘lives have been lost, and battlefield gains the insurgents enjoyed six months ago have been squandered’ thanks to Obama not acting sooner (Doran and O’Hanlon, 2013). Are we really going to allow this new limited hangout operation to bring us into another war?

It is disappointing that so many are unable to understand the complexities of the disinformation, and limited hangout capacity, that Snowden symbolizes. But what is more worrying is the fact that many should simply know better when it comes to such matters. What is particularly interesting is how it was broadcast that Ed Snowden had been a supporter of, and donor to, libertarian Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign. The use of the name ‘Ron Paul’ appears to be an indispensable tool for ensnaring the support of the libertarian audience, an audience that is substantial in both physical size and influence particularly in the alternative media. Do libertarians have an almost childlike trust in anyone who supports Ron Paul? Would they allow this to blind themselves from the reality of a situation? It appears so, and also that the cunning minds behind the Snowden limited hangout are well aware of this. To what degree could this phenomenon be truly exploited? This is surely the question on the minds of those with nefarious intentions for future disinformation and limited hangout campaigns.

While we must be against warrantless spying, we must recognise the wider global context in which such scandals are presented to us. Remember the analogy of the brutal dictator beating the dog. This new limited hangout operation must be exposed as such in order to alleviate pressure on Obama, who is evidently attempting to maintain his Peace-Prize-Winner image. Hopefully, that can reverse the current trend of forcing both him, and the world, into yet another unnecessary conflict. Snowden is, at best, a fool who was deceived into his current position. At worst, he may be said to be a double agent who is fully aware of the wider consequences of his ‘leaks’. Interestingly enough, Snowden recently came out and stated that Britain’s ‘GCHQ (the NSA of the UK) is worse than the US’ (McDermott, 2013). Is this an attempt to shake the claims that Snowden is in fact a British sponsored limited hangout agent? Possibly. It would appear, therefore, as if we are on the right track. Following this line of enquiry may not only pull us away from war, but also remove many people from a state of what can currently only be termed as terminal naïveté or gullibility.

Author Stuart J Hooper can be followed here…
http://twitter.com/StuartJHooper
http://youtube.com/StuartJHooper

References

Bell, M. (2010) ‘Wanted by the CIA: Julian Assange – Wikileaks founder’ in Belfast Telegraph: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/features/wanted-by-the-cia-julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-28548843.html

Chen, T. (2013) ‘Snowden Alleges U.S. Hacking in China’ in The Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578562483284884530.html

Doran, M. and O’Hanlon, M. (2013) ‘Obama needs to act now on Syria: Column’ in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/23/michael-doran-and-michael-ohanlon-on-syria-column/2450419/

Drury, I. and Robinson, M. (2013) ‘US senators demand ‘traitor’ NSA whistleblower be extradited from Hong Kong to face trial in America after he reveals why he exposed online spy scandal’ in Daily Mail Online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338534/Edward-Snowden-speaks-NSA-contractor-leaked-details-surveillance-scheme-reveals-himself.html

Edwards, D. (2013) ‘A Political Ploy’? The Guardian Editors Swallow US Claims On Syrian WMD’ in Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-political-ploy-the-guardian-editors-swallow-us-claims-on-syrian-wmd/5339614

Enten, H. J. (2013) ‘Obama’s approval takes a hit over NSA leaks’ in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/obama-approval-hit-nsa-leaks

Greenwald, G. (2013) ‘Andrew Sullivan, terrorism, and the art of distortion’ in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/25/andrew-sullivan-distortion-terrorism-woolwich

Klimasinska, K. and Katz, I. (2013) ‘Useless Rial Is U.S. Goal in New Iran Sanctions, Treasury Says’ in Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-06/useless-rial-is-u-s-goal-in-new-iran-sanctions-treasury-says.html

Marchetti, V. (1978) The Spotlight

McDermott, K. (2013) ‘’GCHQ is worse than US’, says whistleblower Edward Snowden as he claims British spies are collecting huge amounts of data from internet and phone calls’ in Daily Mail Online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346310/GCHQ-worse-US-says-whistleblower-Edward-Snowden-claims-British-spies-collecting-huge-amounts-data-internet-phone-calls.html

Merriam-Webster (2013) ‘Disinformation’ in Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation

Rappoport, J. (2013) ‘NSA scandal: the deepest secret of the Ed Snowden operation’ in Jon Rappoport’s Blog: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/nsa-scandal-the-deepest-secret-of-the-ed-snowden-operation/

Reilly, J. (2013) ‘Whistleblower Edward Snowden smuggled out secrets with an everyday thumb drive banned from NSA offices’ in Daily Mail Online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341451/Whistleblower-Edward-Snowden-smuggled-secrets-everyday-thumb-drive-banned-NSA-offices.html

Shane, S. and Savage, C. (2013) ‘WikiLeaks Says It Is Working to Negotiate Asylum in Iceland for Snowden’ in The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/world/europe/wikileaks-says-it-is-working-to-negotiate-asylum-in-iceland-for-snowden.html?_r=2&

Sunstein, C. (2007) ‘A Brave New Wikiworld’ in Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301596.html

Sunstein, C and Vermeule, A. (2008) ‘Conspiracy Theories’ in Harvard University Law School
Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series

Taher, A. and Slater, R. (2012) ‘Assad’s mystery woman who ‘loves him’ is getting PhD from top UK university thanks to Syrian despot’s sponsorship, leaked emails reveal’ in Daily Mail Online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2170368/Wikileaks-Emails-reveal-Assad-mystery-woman-UK-university.html

Tarpley, W. G. (2013) ‘How to identify CIA limited hangout op?’ in Press TV: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/18/309609/how-to-identify-cia-limited-hangout-op/

Wolf, N. (2013) ‘My Creeping Concern that the NSA Leaker Edward Snowden is not who he Purports to be…’ in Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/my-creeping-concern-that-the-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-is-not-who-he-purports-to-be/5339161

York, B. (2011) ‘White House: Libya Fight is Not War, It’s Kinetic Military Action’ in Fox News: http://nation.foxnews.com/libya-war/2011/03/23/white-house-libya-fight-not-war-its-kinetic-military-action

____________

posted July 01, 2013 09:24 AM            

I've come to the point where I simply won't read an article that cites Webster Tarpley as some kind of "expert." Ditto for Sarah Palin being taken seriously. That's a litmus test.

So it's looking more and more like the situation is as I, the kooky Ron Paul fan, understood it from the beginning.

Washington Post releases four new slides from NSA's Prism presentation
Newly published top-secret documents detail how NSA interfaces with tech giants such as Google, Apple and Microsoft

Greenwald on ‘coming’ leak: NSA can obtain 1bn cell phone calls a day, store them and listen

Greenwald makes a strong point there:

quote:

---

“If you look at who really hates Bradley Manning or who has expressed the most contempt about Wikileaks or who has led the chorus in demonizing Edward Snowden, it is those very people in the media who pretend to want transparency because transparency against political power is exactly what they don’t want,” he opined.

---

posted July 01, 2013 02:12 PM            

I'm not familiar with Webster Tarpley, but I am glad to see your contempt for a fellow conspiracy theorist. It's interesting that you reject his anti-war assessment. Does Snowden's revelations pave the way for more war, or are those revelations peace-creating?

quote:

---

So it's looking more and more like the situation is as I, the kooky Ron Paul fan, understood it from the beginning.

---

I have the sense you would say that no matter what you uncovered. Did you look at the stuff over at the Washington Post?

This quote you posted doesn't seem very strong to me. How does he know who's pretending, and how is he assessing that they don't actually want transparency? This is just regular old speculation on his part. Once again, I'm a little stunned by a Conservative lauding a person who a Conservative would deem a "Socialist."

I'll leave you with this:

quote:

---

“Are they TRYING to start a war? Jesus christ. They’re like wikileaks.” Snowden wrote. “You don’t put that s— in the NEWSPAPER.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/26/four-years-ago-ed-snowden-thought-leakers-should-be-shot/

---

posted July 01, 2013 02:58 PM            

It's curious to me that you seem to think the phrase "conspiracy theorist" has teeth to it and use it repeatedly when talking to me. I think it's a trivial and shallow way of communicating. But since you insist on keeping things at that level: yes, AG, there ARE conspiracies, there are people in power who collaborate in often scandalous ways while keeping their projects out of the public view.

You can theorize about how they affect the overall power dynamic or not...to me, it's just an exercise in information gathering and then critical thinking, to see if that information is valid and consistent with other information that I've deemed credible.

Lumping me in with how others theorize hardly moves the conversation forward. Why not talk to me and stop trying to pigeonhole me on the basis of my support for Ron Paul?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It's interesting that you reject his anti-war assessment.

---

I said nothing of the sort. I just can't stand the guy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Does Snowden's revelations pave the way for more war, or are those revelations peace-creating?

---

posted July 01, 2013 07:34 PM            

That's nice that you think it's shallow of me to make you out as a conspiracy theorist. Why would I post such unique takes on things if I weren't looking to see if you had something to say about it? And your only answer to the charge: yes, AG, there ARE conspiracies. Lumping you in with others that are like you, but hold a different opinion than you may not move the conversation forward for you, but it moves the study forward for me. I don't think I'd have guessed you'd be so hostile towards a dissimilar like mind. The guy who wrote that gathers information just like you. He applied his critical thinking to see if it's valid, just like you. He doesn't deserve the time of day, but you've got everything figured out. If I'm testing for objectivity, how do you think you're doing?

quote:

---

One could argue the US is already at war with the world since it ostensibly declared the whole world a battlefield and is engaging in actions previously restricted to war conditions- like invasive spying.

---

posted July 01, 2013 09:31 PM            

quote:

---

Lumping you in with others that are like you, but hold a different opinion than you may not move the conversation forward for you, but it moves the study forward for me.

---

What's there to say? Glad you find satisfaction in making misleading generalizations (?)

I don't know if you want an apology from me or what. At this point in my life, I don't have much time to devote to weighing every Tom, Dick, and Harry's blog, so I reject things out of hand if they look bogus or follow a line of thought that I've either already travelled or see no immediate use for. Someone quoting Tarpley as an expert reminds me of myself about four years ago, back when I thought Tarpley was interesting. Now that I think he's got his head screwed on backwards, I have no patience for articles that take him seriously.

Don't take it personally. I've rejected a lot of articles on this basis or a similar one, usually without anyone knowing I've done it, because I skim and move on. For instance, I don't give much credence to Alex Jones or the people who seem to take him too seriously..I skim and move on.

posted July 01, 2013 09:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:

One could not really argue that with reasonable rationale, especially that first part. Scahill's take on Obama's justification for killing an American Al Qaeda leader Awlaki does not justify your pronouncement that Obama's at war with the world. If you're curious about the legal justification for taking out senior Al Qaeda leaders that happen to be American, there is a white paper you can read: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

---

I'm not curious. I think the New American Century aims for global dominion and may arrive there eventually; I only had time to supply that one article, but with more time and inclination, I could launch into a full-blown Link War with you, reminiscent of your glory days with jwhop.

It wouldn't be worth it to me.

posted July 01, 2013 09:59 PM            

Not endorsing this entire thing but a lot of it checks out as credible for me.

posted July 02, 2013 05:14 PM            

Sure, you can verify it. The person that wrote it, didn't do a stellar job at that. Frank Carlucci, for instance, is not the CEO of Booz Allen, but is a former Chairman.

Carlyle Group, for all the hype, is simply a company not unlike Mitt Romney's Bain Capital. Anyone that meets the buy-in requirements can invest with them including a relative of Osama bin Laden's (who was forced out of his investment when Carlyle Group got embarrassed because of the association).

The summary comes in with speculation that Booz Allen is looking at your taxes, which is unsupported.

It further speculates that it's funneling charitable donations to Clinton. The link provided to Booz Allen's website doesn't support that idea. The link suggests that Booz Allen is a partner with the Clinton Global Initiative. No Booz Allen executive has been a notable member: (this page asks you to click the link for notable members: http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/membership/faq_membership.asp and this link is the list of notable corporate members: http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/ourmeetings/past_attendees.asp) The link to Clinton's Global Initiative doesn't mention Booz Allen at all. The link to the Clinton Foundation is simply a link to that foundation. It doesn't endorse any view held by the writer of that article. This link is hilarious: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011559.php This is apparently supposed to support the assertion that "The Clinton Foundation has been implicated in bribery on an international level," but instead points out that a NYT article claiming as much did not provide any substantial proof of their accusations. That article also shows that Bill Clinton was open to listing donors should Hillary become the nominee, and showed that Hillary as a Senator suggested legislation whereby all presidential foundations would have to disclose their donors. There is a list of donors posted by FoxNews: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/18/clinton-foundation-donor-list/ , but I doubt that it's exhaustive, and it doesn't seem to be sourced. The wikipedia page for the foundation lists some additional known donors. Booz Allen isn't in any of them. I didn't go obtain a full roster of Booz Allen executives to match up, but each person listed on Clinton's site has the name of the company they are associated with.

quote:

---

Clinton gave himself a special little privilege while president wherein he exempted the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation from the normal rules of disclosure regarding publicly listing who its contributors were.

---

This is a completely un-sourced accusation. Clinton Global Initiative is a 501(C)(3) nonprofit organization. A 501(c)(3) does not need to disclose donors. And if we're splitting hairs, the former "William Jefferson Clinton Foundation" (Now "The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation") is also a 501(c)(3).

quote:

---

It's just a matter of being a more or less independent researcher instead of a passive consumer of "news."

---

I'm known to be either as suits my mood.
My wish is simply that when people did their research they looked for what is concrete and actual versus looking for whatever supports what they wish to believe. That guy's summary is such nonsense that I can see why you couldn't fully endorse it, but even saying that "it speaks your language" says that "your language" is not one that deals with hard facts. It shows an adherence to soft facts.

posted July 02, 2013 05:17 PM            

bettyellen 135. maybe repost with not such shi*ty sources? Locking this now.

posted July 03, 2013 07:23 AM            

You seem dead set on proving me wrong about everything. It's just annoying.

As I said, I'm not endorsing that article completely but it's talking about people who I regard as the power elite, the decision makers who go largely unrecognized. Therefore I don't care if Carlucci was CEO or Chairman, I just recognize the name and affiliations and the agenda becomes obvious, because of all my prior reading.

But what do you know about these people? Have YOU ever heard of Dov Zakheim before? Have you been paying attention to him? I have.

quote:

---

My wish is simply that when people did their research they looked for what is concrete and actual versus looking for whatever supports what they wish to believe.

---

I have the same wish, and it applies to you. I understand that the article I posted had its flaws, thus my non-endorsement as totally reliable.

But in our conversations, you are so resistant against learning anything new that you tear anything "different" to shreds looking for its invalidity before considering how it might be valid. So even the indisputable points in that article, like Carlyle's Bush-Bin Laden alliance, you reject as "hype," as if you had actually researched it.

All I'm doing is keeping my eyes on the neocons who are actually dictating our foreign policy.

Ron Paul Exposes the Neocons and their Global Plan

posted July 03, 2013 07:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I just noticed the post by the person that locked the thread you linked to:

bettyellen 135. maybe repost with not such shi*ty sources? Locking this now.

I was trying to check to see if anyone had checked the sourcing, and done all the work I'd done.

---

Maybe some sources are questionable, but most are Wikipedia or the organizations' own sites, a few are mainstream media, and a few are grassroots research.

posted July 03, 2013 07:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It further speculates that it's funneling charitable donations to Clinton. The link provided to Booz Allen's website doesn't support that idea. The link suggests that Booz Allen is a partner with the Clinton Global Initiative. No Booz Allen executive has been a notable member: (this page asks you to click the link for notable members: http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/membership/faq_membership.asp and this link is the list of notable corporate members: http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/ourmeetings/past_attendees.asp) The link to Clinton's Global Initiative doesn't mention Booz Allen at all.

---

posted July 03, 2013 04:10 PM            

quote:

---

See, you are trying to tell me that the Carlyle group is just like Bain. No it isn't. Why must you LUMP things together all the time?

---

The Carlyle Group is an American-based global asset management firm, specializing in private equity, based in Washington, D.C.. The Carlyle Group operates in four business areas: private equity, real assets, market strategies and fund of funds, through its AlpInvest subsidiary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group

Bain Capital is an American alternative asset management and financial services company based in Boston, Massachusetts. It specializes in private equity, venture capital, credit and public market investments. Bain invests across a broad range of industry sectors and geographic regions. As of early 2012, the firm managed approximately $66 billion of investor capital across its various investment platforms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital

I used Bain, because you'd have heard of it. I could have said Blackstone, if you prefer:

The Blackstone Group L.P. is an American-based multinational private equity, investment banking, alternative asset management and financial services corporation based in New York City. As the largest alternative investment firm in the world,[2] Blackstone specializes in private equity, credit and hedge fund investment strategies, as well as financial advisory services, such as mergers and acquisitions (M&A), restructurings and reorganizations, and private placements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone_Group

They are all quite simply investment groups.

Sure Michael Moore did mention Carlyle Group, for the same reason your guy did: Osama Bin Laden's estranged brothers invested in them. Osama bin Laden's estranged brothers shouldn't be of interest to us unless they are also known terrorist leaders, right?

quote:

---

You seem dead set on proving me wrong about everything. It's just annoying.

---

I know it's annoying. It's annoying for me, too, believe it or not. Part of me dreads finding out what's next in these threads. I persist in being annoying, however, for your sake. You're a Capricorn. You're supposed to be smart and practical and sensible. In this facet of your life dealings, you are not. I set out to disprove things for you, because YOU believe that you're a good independent researcher, and yet YOUR research doesn't get the facts right. Sometimes we learn in easy ways. We read about something, or listen to something, and since we lack a block to the information, since we're not personally invested in the information conforming to our beliefs we can accept it easily. Sometimes we learn by being wrong, though. Sometimes the facts run counter to what we might believe. If I'm proving everything wrong to you, you should have an a-ha moment other than just, "this guy is annoying." There's an opportunity for growth.

quote:

---

But what do you know about these people? Have YOU ever heard of Dov Zakheim before? Have you been paying attention to him? I have.

---

No. Not before today, and perhaps not after today either. You think a Sag is conspiring with an evil plot?

quote:

---

I have the same wish, and it applies to you.

---

You don't have the same wish. You wouldn't post things that don't check out if you did.

quote:

---

But in our conversations, you are so resistant against learning anything new that you tear anything "different" to shreds looking for its invalidity before considering how it might be valid.

---

And when I posted that latest article that was an exercise in proving something definitive, or something that "might be valid"? I'm interested in what might be valid, but I prefer what is actually valid. I'm absolutely not resistant whatsoever to learning something new. Every time we talk I have to go look into something new to me. You present something that you believe is true, and I see whether there are holes in it. How many holes do I have to find before one becomes valid?

quote:

---

So even the indisputable points in that article, like Carlyle's Bush-Bin Laden alliance, you reject as "hype," as if you had actually researched it.

---

I'm not the one with the defect in research on this point. I understand Carlyle. Go to their website, and tell me that they're not an investment group open to investors. http://www.carlyle.com/# It shouldn't surprise anyone that it attracts wealthy investors including former Presidents and wealthy middle easterners.

The financial interests of the bin Laden family are represented by the Saudi Binladin Group, a global oil and equity management conglomerate grossing $2 billion US annually, and the largest construction firm in the world, with offices in London, Dubai, and Geneva. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family

Just because you can use Carlyle Group to link the Bushes and bin Ladens doesn't mean they're driving some conspiracy.

quote:

---

Ron Paul Exposes the Neocons and their Global Plan

---

Ron Paul sees the success of a movement, and campaigns to counter with his own movement. He provides a line of blame to substantiate his claim, but leaves out any notion of individual thinking amongst the players. He talks of them as if they're clones of one another not interested in their own ideas, but those of a few influential people. There are certainly a lot of followers in the world, but in any decent-sized group there are going to be differences of opinion.

The speech is straight-forward politics of today: identify a problem that might scare people, and offer it up as an easily digestible piece. Conservatives do it. Liberals do it. Ron Paul does it.

quote:

---

General Wesley Clark on the "Policy Coup" by the Neocons

---

This is a good talk about how Neocons did have a nefarious plan, and failed. They failed by limiting debate, and they failed in implementing their plans. Wolfowitz, a fellow Capricorn of ours, also admits to those failures.

quote:

---

Maybe some sources are questionable, but most are Wikipedia or the organizations' own sites, a few are mainstream media, and a few are grassroots research.

---

I went through a number of them in my post. Most of them being wikipedia or the organizations' own sites didn't give them special merit in backing his story.

quote:

---

But since betty said wikipedia was sh*tty, I guess she must be right.

---

Who said this was about Betty? This is about the sources not supporting the conclusions written in the text. Betty understood the sources weren't sufficient. Why are you attacking her instead of checking out whether the sources back the guy's argument yourself?

quote:

---

Try this: ]http://www.boozallen.com/insights/ideas/clinton-global-initiative?pg=all

---

That is better, but there still exists no evidence that Booz Allen is funneling funds into shady CGI businesses, and it appears that they lost the desire to publish exit thoughts about the convention after 2011. Did you watch those videos? They consider it a networking and learning opportunity primarily. A couple of the videos talk about business implications of what they learned at CGI, and a few talk about new business opportunities in areas Booz Allen is entering. CGI says very pointedly that inclusion in the event is by invitation only, so we don't know the story behind their invitation to participate. (In saying that, I'm merely pointing out that there are still significant gray areas surrounding this subject. There's nothing remotely cut-and-dry like is supposed in the article you posted.)

quote:

---

Michael Moore, in Fahrenheit 9-11, talks about the Carlyle Group; ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sufM4Km4cc

---

The added wrinkle being that the bin Laden family participated in the defense fund, which stood to profit from the build-up post 9/11, and it does speak of them being forced out of that investment.

If I had a crazy terrorist relative, I certainly wouldn't want suspicion because I had been holding investments in the defense sector when said terrorist-relative does something that might affect my investment. I wouldn't consider such suspicions warranted. It's not as if defense stocks were a bad investment before 9/11: http://money.cnn.com/2000/10/12/companies/election_defense/ (Googled "defense stocks 2000")(In general, defense stocks are pretty decent investor bets.)

So what did I learn today:

I learned a little about the oddly-named Sagittarian you posted. I read an article from him on a blog he participates in, that advocates that the U.S. should arm the moderates in Syria.

I learned that one of the people most blamed for influencing Neocons is a Capricorn, who doesn't take credit for how the Iraq war was pursued, and who also held the belief that it was imperative to our national security that Iraq not become like Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

I learned that Ron Paul apparently seems sane to those that meet him. I learned that he engages in the political marketing trick of minimizing and simplifying an issue in order to provide a narrative for his ideas. I learned that he's never been an establishment guy. I learned his followers don't have a good reputation at events. I learned that his economic proposals when seeking the Presidency were overtly not of a practical nature, that implementation of his proposed cuts would be a tough issue to tackle.

I learned the bin Ladens are very successful, multinational contractors.