Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Another take on the NSA/Snowden affair
59 views
Skip to first unread message
ChrisRobin
Jun 15, 2013, 12:08:13 PM6/15/13
to
This from author Naomi Wolf, who posits that this Snowden fellow himself
is actually an intelligence plant. Actually not at all implausible � for
instance I've long believed that the whole Wikileaks affair was a
"controlled opposition" set-up designed flush out potential whistleblowers.
Wolf has some very interesting points (excerpted in its entirety):
"I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my
creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and
that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they
appear to be. This is in no way to detract from the great courage of Glenn
Greenwald in reporting the story, and the gutsiness of the Guardian in
showcasing this kind of reporting, which is a service to America that US
media is not performing at all. It is just to raise some cautions as the
story unfolds, and to raise some questions about how it is unfolding,
based on my experience with high-level political messaging.
"Some of Snowden�s emphases seem to serve an intelligence/police state
objective, rather than to challenge them.
"a) He is super-organized, for a whistleblower, in terms of what
candidates, the White House, the State Dept. et al call �message
discipline.� He insisted on publishing a power point in the newspapers
that ran his initial revelations. I gather that he arranged for a talented
filmmaker to shoot the Greenwald interview. These two steps � which are
evidence of great media training, really �PR 101? � are virtually never
done (to my great distress) by other whistleblowers, or by progressive
activists involved in breaking news, or by real courageous people who are
under stress and getting the word out. They are always done, though, by
high-level political surrogates.
"b) In the Greenwald video interview, I was concerned about the way
Snowden conveys his message. He is not struggling for words, or thinking
hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do.
Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without
stumbling. To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points
� again the way that political campaigns train surrogates to transmit
talking points.
"c) He keeps saying things like, �If you are a journalist and they think
you are the transmission point of this info, they will certainly kill
you.� Or: �I fully expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.� He
also keeps stressing what he will lose: his $200,000 salary, his
girlfriend, his house in Hawaii. These are the kinds of messages that the
police state would LIKE journalists to take away; a real whistleblower
also does not put out potential legal penalties as options, and almost
always by this point has a lawyer by his/her side who would PROHIBIT
him/her from saying, �come get me under the Espionage Act.� Finally in my
experience, real whistleblowers are completely focused on their act of
public service and trying to manage the jeopardy to themselves and their
loved ones; they don�t tend ever to call attention to their own
self-sacrifice. That is why they are heroes, among other reasons. But a
police state would like us all to think about everything we would lose by
standing up against it.
"d) It is actually in the Police State�s interest to let everyone know
that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that
awful things happen to people who challenge this. Which is why I am not
surprised that now he is on UK no-fly lists � I assume the end of this
story is that we will all have a lesson in terrible things that happen to
whistleblowers. That could be because he is a real guy who gets in
trouble; but it would be as useful to the police state if he is a fake guy
who gets in �trouble.�
"e) In stories that intelligence services are advancing (I would call the
prostitutes-with-the-secret-service such a story), there are great sexy or
sex-related mediagenic visuals that keep being dropped in, to keep media
focus on the issue. That very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking girlfriend
who appeared for, well, no reason in the media coverage�and who keeps
leaking commentary, so her picture can be recycled in the press�really,
she happens to pole-dance? Dan Ellsberg�s wife was and is very beautiful
and doubtless a good dancer but somehow she took a statelier role as his
news story unfolded�
"f) Snowden is in Hong Kong, which has close ties to the UK, which has
done the US�s bidding with other famous leakers such as Assange. So really
there are MANY other countries that he would be less likely to be handed
over from�
"g) Media reports said he had vanished at one point to �an undisclosed
location� or �a safe house.� Come on. There is no such thing. Unless you
are with the one organization that can still get off the surveillance
grid, because that org created it.
"h) I was at dinner last night to celebrate the brave and heroic Michael
Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Several of Assange�s also
brave and talented legal team were there, and I remembered them from when
I had met with Assange. These attorneys are present at every moment when
Assange meets the press � when I met with him off the record last Fall in
the Ecuadoran embassy, his counsel was present the whole time, listening
and stepping in when necessary.
"Seeing these diligent attentive free-speech attorneys for another
whisleblower reinforced my growing anxiety: WHERE IS SNOWDEN�S LAWYER as
the world�s media meet with him? A whistleblower talking to media has
his/her counsel advising him/her at all times, if not actually being
present at the interview, because anything he/she says can affect the
legal danger the whistleblower may be in . It is very, very odd to me that
a lawyer has not appeared, to my knowledge, to stand at Snowden�s side and
keep him from further jeopardy in interviews.
"Again I hate to cast any skepticism on what seems to be a great story of
a brave spy coming in from the cold in the service of American freedom.
And I would never raise such questions in public if I had not been told by
a very senior official in the intelligence world that indeed, there are
some news stories that they create and drive � even in America (where
propagandizing Americans is now legal). But do consider that in Eastern
Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that
people believed watched them at all times � rather than the machine itself
� that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police
state and its interests � why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on
us at all times � unless we know about it?"
http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=35659
is actually an intelligence plant. Actually not at all implausible � for
instance I've long believed that the whole Wikileaks affair was a
"controlled opposition" set-up designed flush out potential whistleblowers.
Wolf has some very interesting points (excerpted in its entirety):
"I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my
creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and
that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they
appear to be. This is in no way to detract from the great courage of Glenn
Greenwald in reporting the story, and the gutsiness of the Guardian in
showcasing this kind of reporting, which is a service to America that US
media is not performing at all. It is just to raise some cautions as the
story unfolds, and to raise some questions about how it is unfolding,
based on my experience with high-level political messaging.
"Some of Snowden�s emphases seem to serve an intelligence/police state
objective, rather than to challenge them.
"a) He is super-organized, for a whistleblower, in terms of what
candidates, the White House, the State Dept. et al call �message
discipline.� He insisted on publishing a power point in the newspapers
that ran his initial revelations. I gather that he arranged for a talented
filmmaker to shoot the Greenwald interview. These two steps � which are
evidence of great media training, really �PR 101? � are virtually never
done (to my great distress) by other whistleblowers, or by progressive
activists involved in breaking news, or by real courageous people who are
under stress and getting the word out. They are always done, though, by
high-level political surrogates.
"b) In the Greenwald video interview, I was concerned about the way
Snowden conveys his message. He is not struggling for words, or thinking
hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do.
Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without
stumbling. To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points
� again the way that political campaigns train surrogates to transmit
talking points.
"c) He keeps saying things like, �If you are a journalist and they think
you are the transmission point of this info, they will certainly kill
you.� Or: �I fully expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.� He
also keeps stressing what he will lose: his $200,000 salary, his
girlfriend, his house in Hawaii. These are the kinds of messages that the
police state would LIKE journalists to take away; a real whistleblower
also does not put out potential legal penalties as options, and almost
always by this point has a lawyer by his/her side who would PROHIBIT
him/her from saying, �come get me under the Espionage Act.� Finally in my
experience, real whistleblowers are completely focused on their act of
public service and trying to manage the jeopardy to themselves and their
loved ones; they don�t tend ever to call attention to their own
self-sacrifice. That is why they are heroes, among other reasons. But a
police state would like us all to think about everything we would lose by
standing up against it.
"d) It is actually in the Police State�s interest to let everyone know
that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that
awful things happen to people who challenge this. Which is why I am not
surprised that now he is on UK no-fly lists � I assume the end of this
story is that we will all have a lesson in terrible things that happen to
whistleblowers. That could be because he is a real guy who gets in
trouble; but it would be as useful to the police state if he is a fake guy
who gets in �trouble.�
"e) In stories that intelligence services are advancing (I would call the
prostitutes-with-the-secret-service such a story), there are great sexy or
sex-related mediagenic visuals that keep being dropped in, to keep media
focus on the issue. That very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking girlfriend
who appeared for, well, no reason in the media coverage�and who keeps
leaking commentary, so her picture can be recycled in the press�really,
she happens to pole-dance? Dan Ellsberg�s wife was and is very beautiful
and doubtless a good dancer but somehow she took a statelier role as his
news story unfolded�
"f) Snowden is in Hong Kong, which has close ties to the UK, which has
done the US�s bidding with other famous leakers such as Assange. So really
there are MANY other countries that he would be less likely to be handed
over from�
"g) Media reports said he had vanished at one point to �an undisclosed
location� or �a safe house.� Come on. There is no such thing. Unless you
are with the one organization that can still get off the surveillance
grid, because that org created it.
"h) I was at dinner last night to celebrate the brave and heroic Michael
Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Several of Assange�s also
brave and talented legal team were there, and I remembered them from when
I had met with Assange. These attorneys are present at every moment when
Assange meets the press � when I met with him off the record last Fall in
the Ecuadoran embassy, his counsel was present the whole time, listening
and stepping in when necessary.
"Seeing these diligent attentive free-speech attorneys for another
whisleblower reinforced my growing anxiety: WHERE IS SNOWDEN�S LAWYER as
the world�s media meet with him? A whistleblower talking to media has
his/her counsel advising him/her at all times, if not actually being
present at the interview, because anything he/she says can affect the
legal danger the whistleblower may be in . It is very, very odd to me that
a lawyer has not appeared, to my knowledge, to stand at Snowden�s side and
keep him from further jeopardy in interviews.
"Again I hate to cast any skepticism on what seems to be a great story of
a brave spy coming in from the cold in the service of American freedom.
And I would never raise such questions in public if I had not been told by
a very senior official in the intelligence world that indeed, there are
some news stories that they create and drive � even in America (where
propagandizing Americans is now legal). But do consider that in Eastern
Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that
people believed watched them at all times � rather than the machine itself
� that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police
state and its interests � why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on
us at all times � unless we know about it?"
http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=35659
Adam Russell
Jun 16, 2013, 1:12:53 AM6/16/13
to
much as that since everyone knew the government could spy on them they
lived in fear of the government. That cant happen with a secret spy
program. The government needed the spying to be well known to
intimidate the population.
Pepe Papon
Jun 16, 2013, 2:41:38 AM6/16/13
to
As much as I'd like to write this off as the rantings of a conspiracy
kook, it does make a certain amount of sense. I have to admit that I
also felt like there was something fishy about the way Snowden
revealed himself.
--
Pepe Papon
kook, it does make a certain amount of sense. I have to admit that I
also felt like there was something fishy about the way Snowden
revealed himself.
Pepe Papon
Hollis2
Jun 16, 2013, 4:38:37 AM6/16/13
to
The interesting thing is that nothing that this guy Snowden has revealed
hasn't already known for years. Did you see that clip of Joe Biden
criticizing the Bush administration for collecting data on phone records?
That was seven years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2qgU8kJt-0
Then there's:
"Hepting v. AT&T is a United States class action lawsuit filed in January
2006 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) against the
telecommunications company AT&T, in which the EFF alleges that AT&T
permitted and assisted the National Security Agency (NSA) in unlawfully
monitoring the communications of the United States, including AT&T
customers, businesses and third parties whose communications were routed
through AT&T's network, as well as Voice over IP telephone calls routed
via the Internet."
It is alleged in the lawsuit that in 2002-2003, AT&T permitted and
assisted the NSA to install a NarusInsight system in its San Francisco
switching center (Room 641A), which was capable of monitoring billions of
bits of Internet traffic a second, including the playback of telephone
calls routed on the Internet, and thus in effect spying upon the entirety
of the communication of many or all American citizens and businesses who
use the Internet.
A former AT&T engineer, Mark Klein, attested that a supercomputer built by
Narus was installed for the purpose, and that similar systems were also
installed in at least Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. Wired
News states Klein said he came forward "because he does not believe that
the Bush administration is being truthful about the extent of its
extrajudicial monitoring of Americans' communications":
"Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record
of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the
NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is
otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA [...] And unlike
the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this
potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of Internet
communications of countless citizens."
"The EFF alleges in the suit that AT&T also allowed the NSA to data-mine
hundreds of terabytes of client records which included detailed
transaction records such as domestic numbers dialed since 2001, and all
Internet addresses visited, as well as other content."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T
I don't know if I ascribe to any particular theory, but it is strange that
all of a sudden the media is all ape shit about things that have been
public knowledge for years.
VegasJerry
Jun 16, 2013, 9:48:23 AM6/16/13
to
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 9:08:13 AM UTC-7, ChrisRobin wrote:
> This from author Naomi Wolf, who posits that this Snowden fellow himself
> is actually an intelligence plant. Actually not at all implausible – for
> instance I've long believed that the whole Wikileaks affair was a
> "controlled opposition" set-up designed flush out potential whistleblowers.
>
> Wolf has some very interesting points (excerpted in its entirety):
>
> "I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my
> creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and
> that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they
> appear to be.
.
> This from author Naomi Wolf, who posits that this Snowden fellow himself
> is actually an intelligence plant. Actually not at all implausible – for
> instance I've long believed that the whole Wikileaks affair was a
> "controlled opposition" set-up designed flush out potential whistleblowers.
>
> Wolf has some very interesting points (excerpted in its entirety):
>
> "I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my
> creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and
> that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they
> appear to be.
.>This is in no way to detract from the great courage of Glenn
> Greenwald in reporting the story, and the gutsiness of the Guardian in
> showcasing this kind of reporting, which is a service to America that US
> media is not performing at all.
Since when does it take "courage and guts" for a reporter to print a story? Especially when the explicate purpose is to sell advertizing space while doing it? Even Greenwald admitted he's holding back some of the information "for national security reasons," yet now says he'll "probably" publish them anyway. (Read the ad first).
> showcasing this kind of reporting, which is a service to America that US
> media is not performing at all.
And the press 'performing a service?' How soon you forget that the Bush Administration secretly "leaked" Iraq information to the NY Times (Aluminum tubes, et al), then used the NY Times leaks as a 'source' and basis for war. The Times (and other news media is) still embarrassed at having been used. (Fox, of course is not embarrassed).
-- Snip the rest of a very good article --
Jerry 'n Vegas
O-PGManager
Jun 16, 2013, 10:20:23 AM6/16/13
to
Eh. Lot of looking into his eyes and gazing into his soul going on here.
On Jun 15 2013 12:08 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
On Jun 15 2013 12:08 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
ChrisRobin
Jun 16, 2013, 12:53:57 PM6/16/13
to
On Jun 16 2013 9:48 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Since when does it take "courage and guts" for a reporter to print a story?
Because the Obama administration has proven that it's not above
> Since when does it take "courage and guts" for a reporter to print a story?
prosecuting journalists for doing their job, numbnuts.
brattt
Jun 16, 2013, 2:13:14 PM6/16/13
to
On Jun 16 2013 8:48 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Since when does it take "courage and guts" for a reporter to print a story?
Especially when the
> explicate purpose is to sell advertizing space while doing it?
Maybe James Rosen would be qualified to answer that question.
> Since when does it take "courage and guts" for a reporter to print a story?
Especially when the
> explicate purpose is to sell advertizing space while doing it?
Adam Russell
Jun 16, 2013, 5:55:44 PM6/16/13
to
thought 1 fox journalist might have been guilty of a crime well and
beyond "just doing his job". You know, journalists dont have blanket
diplomatic immunity from ALL prosecution just because they are
journalists. It IS still possible for a journalist to be guilty of a crime.
The fact that it was just 1 journalist shows that this was not an attack
on Fox News, and the fact that he never was indicted for anything shows
that they do not prosecute journalists just for doing their jobs.
brattt
Jun 16, 2013, 6:46:48 PM6/16/13
to
Pepe Papon
Jun 17, 2013, 3:22:54 AM6/17/13
to
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 15:46:48 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
Which AP reporters have they prosecuted?
--
Pepe Papon
--
Pepe Papon
brattt
Jun 17, 2013, 8:59:28 AM6/17/13
to
da pickle
Jun 17, 2013, 12:24:02 PM6/17/13
to
Travel A
Jun 17, 2013, 12:53:04 PM6/17/13
to
Turd blithered:
"Since when does it take "courage and guts" for a reporter to print a
story? Especially when the explicate purpose is to sell advertizing
space while doing it? Even Greenwald admitted he's holding back some of
the information "for national security reasons," yet now says he'll
"probably" publish them anyway. (Read the ad first).
And the press 'performing a service?' How soon you forget that the Bush
Administration secretly "leaked" Iraq information to the NY Times
(Aluminum tubes, et al), then used the NY Times leaks as a 'source' and
basis for war. The Times (and other news media is) still embarrassed at
having been used. (Fox, of course is not embarrassed)."
Imbecile, the media wasn't "used." The left, which is the media, and
Democrats (just check Hillary's vote for it, among many other Democrats)
wanted the war with Iraq. Iraq was Israel's biggest enemy, and the war
knocked Iraq out of the picture.
It was a smoke screen of the Democrats wanting the war with Iraq and
also criticizing "The Republicans" for no WMD found. They "worked it"
both ways.
brattt
Jun 17, 2013, 1:04:50 PM6/17/13
to
Adam Russell
Jun 17, 2013, 6:03:36 PM6/17/13
to
How many reporters were prosecuted for doing their jobs? 0
Hollis2
Jun 17, 2013, 9:21:22 PM6/17/13
to
go back to Abe Lincoln. Old Abe closed down hundreds of newspapers and
jailed journalists without charges.
Pepe Papon
Jun 18, 2013, 2:25:06 AM6/18/13
to
--
Pepe Papon
ChrisRobin
Jun 18, 2013, 11:37:13 AM6/18/13
to
this context. They are prosecuting the whistle blowers (the journalists'
sources), not the journalists themselves.
As for the journalists, the White House is merely subpoenaing and
intimidating them in an effort to get them to out their sources. My
apologies for the incorrect statement.
Adam Russell
Jun 18, 2013, 12:59:43 PM6/18/13
to
sources afaik. And this case wasnt about "whistleblowers". It was
about someone giving him classified info about what we know about NK.
“From the beginning of their relationship, the Reporter asked, solicited
and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose sensitive United States internal
documents and intelligence information about the Foreign Country(NK)”
Travel A
Jun 18, 2013, 2:22:50 PM6/18/13
to
You forgot to mention that Rosen works for FOX, and that Holden went the
over-the-top extra mile by marking Rosen as a "co-conspirator." Holder
was setting things up for an indictment, or at least the real-threat of
an indictment. Indictment means "charged with a crime," btw.
over-the-top extra mile by marking Rosen as a "co-conspirator." Holder
was setting things up for an indictment, or at least the real-threat of
an indictment. Indictment means "charged with a crime," btw.
ChrisRobin
Jun 18, 2013, 2:41:00 PM6/18/13
to
On Jun 18 2013 12:59 PM, Adam Russell wrote:
> No, Rosen himself has not been subpoenaed, nor has he been asked for his
> sources afaik. And this case wasnt about "whistleblowers". It was
> about someone giving him classified info about what we know about NK.
>
> “From the beginning of their relationship, the Reporter asked, solicited
> and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose sensitive United States internal
> documents and intelligence information about the Foreign Country(NK)”
"In yet other examples, for the Espionage Act prosecution of former CIA
> No, Rosen himself has not been subpoenaed, nor has he been asked for his
> sources afaik. And this case wasnt about "whistleblowers". It was
> about someone giving him classified info about what we know about NK.
>
> “From the beginning of their relationship, the Reporter asked, solicited
> and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose sensitive United States internal
> documents and intelligence information about the Foreign Country(NK)”
officer Jeffrey Sterling, the government has subpoenaed New York Times
journalist James Risen three times to testify about whether Sterling was
his source."
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/journalists_casualties_in_the_war_on_whistleblowers
Adam Russell
Jun 18, 2013, 6:27:02 PM6/18/13
to
On 6/18/2013 12:22 PM, Travel A wrote:
> You forgot to mention that Rosen works for FOX, a...
>
>
Out of the thousands of journalists Fox employs only 1 was investigated.
So how is this an attack on Fox again?
> You forgot to mention that Rosen works for FOX, a...
>
>
Out of the thousands of journalists Fox employs only 1 was investigated.
So how is this an attack on Fox again?
VegasJerry
Jun 19, 2013, 9:06:55 AM6/19/13
to
mo_ntresor
Jun 19, 2013, 10:05:29 AM6/19/13
to
On Jun 18 2013 4:27 PM, Adam Russell wrote:
> Out of the thousands of journalists Fox employs only 1 was investigated.
> So how is this an attack on Fox again?
it was every bit as likely they'd investigate the msnbc reporter who sucks
> Out of the thousands of journalists Fox employs only 1 was investigated.
> So how is this an attack on Fox again?
obama's cock nightly.
jesus, you're a total idiot.
mo_ntresor
Dave the Clueless
Jun 19, 2013, 4:20:32 PM6/19/13
to
http://bit.ly/12bKnmt
-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!
Travel A
Jun 19, 2013, 3:15:18 PM6/19/13
to
Obviuosly, they (Holder) found an "opening" to go after FOX with on this
particular situation, and they jumped on it with both feet.
They accused Rosen of being co-conspirator (to get a court order for the
investigation-surveillance) when they had no evidence of a conspiracy.
They weaseled themselves a license to go fishing, because it was FOX.
particular situation, and they jumped on it with both feet.
They accused Rosen of being co-conspirator (to get a court order for the
investigation-surveillance) when they had no evidence of a conspiracy.
They weaseled themselves a license to go fishing, because it was FOX.
O-PGManager
Jun 23, 2013, 7:48:29 PM6/23/13
to
On Jun 16 2013 5:55 PM, Adam Russell wrote:
> On 6/16/2013 10:53 AM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> > On Jun 16 2013 9:48 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> >> Since when does it take "courage and guts" for a reporter to print a
story?
> >
> > Because the Obama administration has proven that it's not above
> > prosecuting journalists for doing their job, numbnuts.
> >
>
> Baloney. They didnt prosecute any journalist for doing his job.
Julian Assange as soon as they get their hands on him.
> > On Jun 16 2013 9:48 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> >> Since when does it take "courage and guts" for a reporter to print a
story?
> >
> > Because the Obama administration has proven that it's not above
> > prosecuting journalists for doing their job, numbnuts.
> >
>
> Baloney. They didnt prosecute any journalist for doing his job.
They
> thought 1 fox journalist might have been guilty of a crime well and
> beyond "just doing his job". You know, journalists dont have blanket
> diplomatic immunity from ALL prosecution just because they are
> journalists. It IS still possible for a journalist to be guilty of a crime.
>
> The fact that it was just 1 journalist shows that this was not an attack
> on Fox News, and the fact that he never was indicted for anything shows
> that they do not prosecute journalists just for doing their jobs.
Clave
Jun 23, 2013, 8:18:29 PM6/23/13
to
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:d3ek9ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> On Jun 16 2013 5:55 PM, Adam Russell wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/2013 10:53 AM, ChrisRobin wrote:
>> > On Jun 16 2013 9:48 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since when does it take "courage and guts" for a reporter to print a
> story?
>> >
>> > Because the Obama administration has proven that it's not above
>> > prosecuting journalists for doing their job, numbnuts.
>> >
>>
>> Baloney. They didnt prosecute any journalist for doing his job.
>
> Julian Assange as soon as they get their hands on him...
>
>> On 6/16/2013 10:53 AM, ChrisRobin wrote:
>> > On Jun 16 2013 9:48 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since when does it take "courage and guts" for a reporter to print a
> story?
>> >
>> > Because the Obama administration has proven that it's not above
>> > prosecuting journalists for doing their job, numbnuts.
>> >
>>
>> Baloney. They didnt prosecute any journalist for doing his job.
>
Assange is not a journalist.
Jim
brattt
Jun 23, 2013, 9:15:19 PM6/23/13
to
On Jun 23 2013 7:18 PM, Clave wrote:
> Assange is not a journalist.
>
> Jim
wrong
> Assange is not a journalist.
>
> Jim
Clave
Jun 23, 2013, 9:21:42 PM6/23/13
to
"brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:76jk9ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
Jim
RedKnave
Jun 23, 2013, 10:49:05 PM6/23/13
to
"In June 2011, Assange was awarded the Martha Gellhorn Prize for
Journalism. The prize is awarded on an annual basis to journalists "whose
work has penetrated the established version of events and told an
unpalatable truth that exposes establishment propaganda, or 'official
drivel'". The judges said, "WikiLeaks has been portrayed as a phenomenon
of the hi-tech age, which it is. But it's much more. Its goal of justice
through transparency is in the oldest and finest tradition of
journalism."[236][237]
In November 2011, he was awarded the 2011 Walkley Award in the category
Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism. The annual Walkley Awards
honour excellence in journalism, and the Most Outstanding Contribution to
Journalism, awarded since 1994, recognises commitment and achievement in
the Australian media.[238][239]
On 17 September 2012, the Indigenous Social Justice Association awarded
Assange an Australian Aboriginal passport in a ceremony in
Sydney.[240][241] The legality of the passport has been questioned as it
is intended for internal Australian use between Aboriginal lands.[242][243]
Assange has been a member of the Australian journalists' union, the Media,
Entertainment and Arts Alliance, for several years, and in 2011 was made
an honorary member.[244][245] Alex Massie wrote an article in The
Spectator called "Yes, Julian Assange is a journalist", but acknowledged
that "newsman" might be a better description.[246] Alan Dershowitz said
"Without a doubt. He is a journalist, a new kind of journalist".[247]
Assange has said that he has been publishing factual material since age
25, and that it is not necessary to debate whether or not he is a
journalist. He has stated that his role is "primarily that of a publisher
and editor-in-chief who organises and directs other journalists".[248] He
has been described as a journalist by the Centre for Investigative
Journalism.[4]" Wikipedia
Clave
Jun 23, 2013, 11:33:13 PM6/23/13
to
"RedKnave" <a1b...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:1mok9ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> On Jun 23 2013 9:21 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:76jk9ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
>> > On Jun 23 2013 7:18 PM, Clave wrote:
>> >
>> >> Assange is not a journalist.
>> >>
>> >> Jim
>> >
>> > wrong
>>
>> Once again PDS thinks she can make up definitions for common words.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Some folks think he is:
"Contribution to Journalism" I can perhaps buy. "Polemicist" I can buy.
>
>> "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:76jk9ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
>> > On Jun 23 2013 7:18 PM, Clave wrote:
>> >
>> >> Assange is not a journalist.
>> >>
>> >> Jim
>> >
>> > wrong
>>
>> Once again PDS thinks she can make up definitions for common words.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Some folks think he is:
But "new kind of journalist" just reinforces my point that what Assange does
requires redefining the word. Most other sources I've seen calling him a
"journalist" qualify their use of the word.
Jim
brattt
Jun 24, 2013, 6:50:14 AM6/24/13
to
one liners and differing views so he won't admit it.
Bradley K. Sherman
Jun 24, 2013, 9:02:23 AM6/24/13
to
Petition to pardon Snowden:
<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD>
--bks
Clave
Jun 24, 2013, 12:57:05 PM6/24/13
to
"brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
Jim
Adam Russell
Jun 24, 2013, 3:50:04 PM6/24/13
to
time I get pulled over Ill just hand the cop my journal and say "forget
about it".
brattt
Jun 24, 2013, 4:07:38 PM6/24/13
to
0 new messages