HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Glenn Greenwald: Edward S...

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 08:47 PM

 

Glenn Greenwald: Edward Snowden Confirmed WikiLeaks Statement Was Written By Him

Source: TPM

After doubts surfaced Monday regarding the authenticity of an Edward Snowden statement released by WikiLeaks, The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald claimed in a tweet Saturday that he has proof.


Glenn Greenwald ✔ @ggreenwald

Edward Snowden confirmed to me today that the statement released by @Wikileaks was written exclusively by Snowden.
5:03 PM - 6 Jul 2013



WikiLeaks released the letter Monday evening, which was signed by Snowden. He wrote that he was "unbowed" in his convictions, vowing that the Obama administration should be afraid.

"In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake," the letter read. "We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised — and it should be."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/glenn-greenwald-edward-snowden_n_3555541.html

26 replies, 4963 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply Glenn Greenwald: Edward Snowden Confirmed WikiLeaks Statement Was Written By Him (Original post)
frontier00 Jul 2013 OP
Scurrilous Jul 2013 #1
MADem Jul 2013 #2
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #3
MADem Jul 2013 #6
JDPriestly Jul 2013 #7
MADem Jul 2013 #8
midnight Jul 2013 #14
Name removed Jul 2013 #9
MADem Jul 2013 #13
Name removed Jul 2013 #15
MADem Jul 2013 #16
Tunkamerica Jul 2013 #11
MADem Jul 2013 #12
Tunkamerica Jul 2013 #17
MADem Jul 2013 #18
Tunkamerica Jul 2013 #19
MADem Jul 2013 #20
Tunkamerica Jul 2013 #21
MADem Jul 2013 #22
Tunkamerica Jul 2013 #23
MADem Jul 2013 #26
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #4
24601 Jul 2013 #24
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #25
Psephos Jul 2013 #5
Name removed Jul 2013 #10

Response to frontier00 (Original post)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 09:10 PM

1. Unbowed in his convictions!!1!

< User9> haha did you see ron paul at the latest bailout hearings

< User9> he brought up the gold standard

< TheTrueHOOHA> He's so dreamy.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 10:15 PM

2. His comments on Social Security give us a great insight into his views on social safety net programs

He's a real .... jewel!

A family one...!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 11:39 PM

3. Your desperation is showing. How sad. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 01:36 AM

6. Why would you even say something like that?

If anyone is desperate--and a rather anxious cheerleader--it ain't me.

You're saying his views on social security correspond with yours? Please, elucidate!

You know, I do judge people in many ways--one particular, unyielding way I judge people is how they treat the poor, the sick, children and the elderly. If people don't have compassion for these groups, I tend to look askance at them.

And you call me "desperate" for feeling that way? How special!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 02:27 AM

7. I agree with you on many things, but we disagree on the surveillance and collection of metadata.

We are both Democrats.

Democrats do not always agree on everything. I expect additional facts to emerge about the spying on Americans. And when that happens, I expect more DUers to agree with me.

I assume we are all in favor of freedom of the press.

How can a journalist freely research a news story that is critical of our government if the government is collecting the journalist's metadata and can identify all the people the journalist talks to and all the e-mails the journalist receives when preparing the story?

Collecting metadata is huge violation of our rights.

If a government employee becomes aware of graft and corruption and needs to report it to a member of Congress, his communications with Congress can be discovered in the person's metadata.

The program has already been seriously abused:

WASHINGTON — A wide-ranging surveillance operation by the Food and Drug Administration against a group of its own scientists used an enemies list of sorts as it secretly captured thousands of e-mails that the disgruntled scientists sent privately to members of Congress, lawyers, labor officials, journalists and even President Obama, previously undisclosed records show.
Enlarge This Image

A list names three of the 21 people said to be collaborating in criticism of the F.D.A., including employees and outside contacts.

Document: Reports From F.D.A. Surveillance Operation

National Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Enlarge This Image

A memo reports that monitoring software had been placed on the laptop of an agency medical officer.

What began as a narrow investigation into the possible leaking of confidential agency information by five scientists quickly grew in mid-2010 into a much broader campaign to counter outside critics of the agency’s medical review process, according to the cache of more than 80,000 pages of computer documents generated by the surveillance effort.

Moving to quell what one memorandum called the “collaboration” of the F.D.A.’s opponents, the surveillance operation identified 21 agency employees, Congressional officials, outside medical researchers and journalists thought to be working together to put out negative and “defamatory” information about the agency.

F.D.A. officials defended the surveillance operation, saying that the computer monitoring was limited to the five scientists suspected of leaking confidential information about the safety and design of medical devices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/fda-surveillance-of-scientists-spread-to-outside-critics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

How can such surveillance be justified? It can't. It is illegal for many reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 03:55 AM

8. The courts will decide if it is justified or not.

Someone is going to have to sue, to challenge the constitutionality of the process. I'm sure someone will. Right now, what they are doing is entirely legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 03:05 PM

14. I wonder how the FDA discouraged dissent?

"Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican whose former staff member’s e-mails were cataloged in the surveillance database, said that “the F.D.A. is discouraging whistle-blowers.” He added that agency officials “have absolutely no business reading the private e-mails of their employees. They think they can be the Gestapo and do anything they want.”


Thanks for link....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #2)


Response to Name removed (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 02:55 PM

13. And that, to you, is the same as opposing a fundamental democratic principle, one leaders as

diverse as FDR and Reagan agreed upon?

OK--we know exactly where you're coming from!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #13)


Response to Name removed (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 03:26 PM

16. Crapping on old people is a pretty fundamental stance.

Cat hating is unrelated to this matter, concepts of essential human compassion are not. Mean and nasty is mean and nasty, and he didn't show any signs of getting more compassionate with age.

This is a guy who donated to Ron Paul RECENTLY--not as an eighteen year old.

Obama, if you checked his background, was for gay marriage BEFORE he went for the civil union "compromise" in order to get elected. He said as much in an interview when he was a local pol in Chicago. You'd have to be clueless to not have seen the nudge-wink in everything he did on that score. And Obama didn't take four laptops and a pocketful of thumb drives full of stolen intelligence and hand it out to our adversaries.

This wasn't a question of hiding his light under a bushel--this guy has a "Fuck old people" attitude, an "I've got mine" worldview, and all that goes to character.

There's a right way and a wrong way. He chose the wrong way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 05:17 AM

11. please explain wtf that has to do with anything

i heard he hates cats, so everything relevant he says is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tunkamerica (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 02:53 PM

12. Hating cats isn't a character flaw.

Being gleeful and vicious about denying a basic social safety net service to senior citizens is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 8, 2013, 04:05 AM

17. And is still irrelevant when looking at the import of the info. he revealed.

I could give a rat's ass if he thought the moon landing was fake if what he revealed is true. Attacking the messenger is lame. No if he was against SS and he also was responsible for NSA spying then I'd be down for piling on, but his personal views have very little to do with this story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tunkamerica (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 8, 2013, 11:05 AM

18. He was part of the system for years. It was only when his place at the trough was at risk

and he was on the verge of disgrace as a result of faked information on his clearances that he got "the spirit" about "truth telling."

He was told there was a problem with his clearance, so he gathered up a ton of material and did a runner.

More is going to dribble out on this guy, and "attacking the messenger" is not "lame." The messenger is not telling the truth, he doesn't have a full understanding of the law, and he's giving our adversaries quite the amusing time of it.

His personal views have everything to do with this story--he knew the shit was about to hit the fan, so he threw down in a way designed to damage the politician he disliked. If Ron Paul were the President, I am betting that little turd would have found his way to the AG or the Senate Intel Oversight Committee to voice his concerns quietly so his hero wasn't discommoded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #18)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 05:26 AM

19. So, I hadn't heard anything about his clearance being in jeopardy.

Could you supply a link or links preferably?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tunkamerica (Reply #19)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:12 PM

20. Happy to oblige.

He was told there were "problems" with his clearance--he had to know that it was only a matter of time before his web of lies came crashing down--he "explained away" the discrepancies, but anyone who has been in the system knows that they'll send the paperwork back through for another go-round, giving him about three months, tops:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/booz-allen-hamilton-edward-snowden_n_3475518.html
Snowden, who disclosed top secret documents about U.S. surveillance of telephone and Internet data after leaving his job as a systems administrator at an NSA facility in Hawaii, was hired this spring after he convinced his screeners that his description of his education was truthful, said the source, who is not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

It is unclear precisely which element of Snowden's resume caused personnel officials at Booz Allen Hamilton to raise questions about his background. Also unclear is how he satisfied their concerns
.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-usa-security-snowden-idUSBRE95K01J20130621?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

Exclusive: NSA contractor hired Snowden despite concerns about resume discrepancies
...It is unclear precisely which element of Snowden's resume caused personnel officials at Booz Allen Hamilton to raise questions about his background. Also unclear is how he satisfied their concerns....According to sources familiar with the matter, Snowden, a high school dropout who later passed the high school equivalency test known as the GED, stated on his resume earlier this year he attended computer-related classes at Johns Hopkins University, a Tokyo campus of the University of Maryland and the University of Liverpool in Britain.

According to the sources, the resume stated that Snowden "estimated" he would receive a master's degree in computer security from Liverpool sometime this year.

Some of the educational information listed on the resume did not check out precisely, said the sources, who are not authorized to comment publicly.

Despite that, Booz Allen Hamilton hired him at an annual salary of $122,000 to work as a contractor for the NSA in Hawaii. Snowden had been on the job there for about four weeks when he traveled to Hong Kong last month and leaked the U.S. government secrets that made him known around the world.


As the private firm that vetted Edward Snowden in 2011 for the U.S. faces a criminal investigation, it looks like Booz Allen Hamilton hired the PRISM leaker despite noticing some discrepancies in his resumé. That's according to a scoop by Reuters, citing anonymous sources. The development indicates that pretty much everyone responsible for screening the former employee of the NSA contractor is facing fine-toothed scrutiny after a series of disclosures revealing some of the depth of the government's data collection programs.

Reuters has few details on what exactly raised questions about Snowden, and how those questions were answered, presumably by Snowden himself. He'd previously gotten security clearance after a USIS investigation — they're a private firm hired by the U.S. to do background checks. Snowden had top-secret clearance. As Reuters notes, Snowden was just one of 480,000 contractors with that clearance level, so the U.S. is probably looking for a way to avoid a repeat performance. On Thursday, the Senate held a hearing to look at how the government evaluates whether an employee or contractor is fit to handle confidential information. Sen. Claire McCaskill indicated that USIS “is under active criminal investigation,” but didn't specify whether it related specifically to Snowden's case, or predated it.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/snowdens-resume-raised-questions-booz-allen-hired-him-anyway/66466/



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 26, 2013, 05:42 AM

21. well, that's three articles about exactly the same thing using almost exactly the same language

and they all say the questions were cleared and he got hired. No reference to any impending actions at all. Just that he got hired after a discrepancy. Pretty weak. Seems like one source provided these papers with something to print which they all did verbatim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tunkamerica (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 26, 2013, 01:43 PM

22. Uh....he got hired BEFORE the discrepancy. The discrepancy was noted AFTER he was on the job.

And less than a month later--sooner than it would take for his "discrepancy" to be challenged, investigated, turned around, and sent back to the instigating agency--he was ... poof .... gone!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #22)

Sat Jul 27, 2013, 07:02 AM

23. from your excerpt:

was hired this spring after he convinced his screeners that his description of his education was truthful, said the source,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tunkamerica (Reply #23)

Sat Jul 27, 2013, 01:46 PM

26. That's not the end of it, though--him convincing the screeners. The paperwork still has to be sent

back through. And when it went back through, it would get the fine-toothed comb, at least on the education piece.

He knew the clock was ticking. He knew, eventually, that the system would kick back a MAJOR discrepancy.

Also--and as I've said many, many times already--I believe he lied on his Army enlistment documents, quite possibly with the aid of a recruiter (they know how to fake a high school diploma, e.g.).

I think he was coasting on his ENTNAC and NAC, which was sloppily done--rubber stamped based on no criminal record, never mind the faked education-- and all of the new investigation they were doing was "after" that bit (they don't generally replow old ground). I think he knew that once they discovered the discrepancy in his "graduate education in London," that they'd go back and learn that he didn't finish any college classes in MD or graduate HS.

He KNEW he was finished. The toast was in the toaster, it was only a matter of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 11:43 PM

4. You have nothing but crap. I feel bad for you. Your god James Clapper is a Republican

 

as is Mueller and Alexander and all of the current men in power. They are Republicans and you support them. Bernanke, Tim Geitner, Lawrence Summers, William M. Daley, Jeff Immelt, Alan Simpson, Dave Cote, Jeb Bush, Robert Gates, Gen Stanley McChrystal, Jacob Lew, Jeremiah Norton, Gen Petraeus, John Brennen, Chuck Hegal, Michael Taylor, James Comey. All are Republicans and you love them. You worship their authoritarian power.

We are at war with the 1% Oligarchs. Whose side are you on? Like I have to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 27, 2013, 08:38 AM

24. Lifelong Democrat Jacob Lew would probably find it very amusing that you have changed his

party affiliation to republican, ditto for the others I've noted.

Why did you call Lew, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner , William Daley and John Brennan republicans? Is it that you really don't know, don't know how to find out, or don't care about accuracy because the way you want to tell it fits your narrative better than the truth?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Lew

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Daley

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/03/john_brennan_michael_chertoff_michael_hayden_on_meet_the_press_99758.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #24)

Sat Jul 27, 2013, 10:12 AM

25. Again some of the list are hard line Republicans. I agree that some call themselves Independents

 

and even some call themselves Democrats. They are all Wall Street corporatists. Summers calls himself a Democrat but has done as much damage to this country as any Republican. Penny Pritzker also calls herself a Democrat but her actions are very similar to Mit Romney. There isnt a person in my list that is looking out for anyone but the 1%. Some love to side with the big bullies, but I side with the 99%. I am guessing you will support Ms. Clinton and all the above list will be with us for years more. Do you not recognize that the middle class is dying and we need to change our leaders??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 01:00 AM

5. The guy trashed his life to reveal government criminality and you're licking Clapper's feet.

mmmmmmm

love me some authority

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Psephos (Reply #5)

Reply to this thread