Difference between revisions of "Document:Snowden Civil War"
m (Text replacement - " -- " to " — ") |
|||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{Document |
| − | | | + | |publication_date=2013/12/05 |
| − | | | + | |leaked=No |
| − | | | + | |type=article |
| − | | | + | |description=A pithy and on-the-button forecast from John Young about the how the Edward Snowden affair will likely pan out: if the NSA does not yet have effective control of the Snowden leaks, then they are going to make sure that those that have not been published already (i.e. >99% of Snowden's cache) never see the light of day. This is authoritative stuff from a seasoned professional. |
| − | + | |subjects=Edward Snowden Affair, Surveillance State | |
| − | | | + | |authors=John Young |
| − | | | ||
|AuthorDetail=Cryptome webmaster | |AuthorDetail=Cryptome webmaster | ||
| − | | | + | |source_name=Cryptome |
| − | | | + | |source_URL=http://cryptome.org/2013/12/snowden-civil-war.htm |
| − | | | + | |local= |
}} | }} | ||
==Snowden Civil War== | ==Snowden Civil War== | ||
| − | The Director of [[NSA]] claims Snowden stole 200,000 documents. Allegations in Australian press claim he stole "up to 20,000." British authorities accuse Snowden of stealing 58,000. Claims are bruited in the 5 Eyes | + | The Director of [[NSA]] claims Snowden stole 200,000 documents. Allegations in Australian press claim he stole "up to 20,000." British authorities accuse Snowden of stealing 58,000. Claims are bruited in [[UKUSA#"The 5 Eyes"|the 5 Eyes]] that this is the "greatest intelligence failure since World War 2." High officials and ex-spies accuse Snowden and related media of engaging in terrorism. |
This suggests a counter-espionage campaign to exaggerate Snowden's damage, of betrayal to his country, of aiding the enemy, of threatening national security. It is successfully restricting release of the Snowden material and will likely become more forceful as releases continue to the extent of legislation (open or secret) to criminalize release as a national security threat. | This suggests a counter-espionage campaign to exaggerate Snowden's damage, of betrayal to his country, of aiding the enemy, of threatening national security. It is successfully restricting release of the Snowden material and will likely become more forceful as releases continue to the extent of legislation (open or secret) to criminalize release as a national security threat. | ||
| − | This counter-espionage shares features of the Red Scare, of the Cold War, of 9/11, of the Global War on | + | This counter-espionage shares features of the [[Red Scare]], of the [[Cold War]], of [[9/11]], of the Global [[War on Terror]]ism. |
It duplicates these precedents to enhance the powers of intelligence and increase its funding for protecting national security. This is the post-WW2 deeply-seated and deeply-mined heritage of governmental and public policy. | It duplicates these precedents to enhance the powers of intelligence and increase its funding for protecting national security. This is the post-WW2 deeply-seated and deeply-mined heritage of governmental and public policy. | ||
| Line 27: | Line 26: | ||
There will be incidents and revelations proving the case of both sides. Some will be authentic, some false, some a hybrid of credibility. Some of these will occur in courts, some will occur in public relations, some in contract negotiations, some through "insider leakage" genuine and confected. | There will be incidents and revelations proving the case of both sides. Some will be authentic, some false, some a hybrid of credibility. Some of these will occur in courts, some will occur in public relations, some in contract negotiations, some through "insider leakage" genuine and confected. | ||
| − | From the Rosenbergs to Osama bin Laden to Edward Snowden, the "enemy of the state," most often invoked by nations ruled by national security secrecy, generates undercover investigations, provocateurs, informants, covert agents, black lists, turn coats, confessions, plea bargains; leading to trials, convictions, imprisonment, public executions, covert assassinations. | + | From [[the Rosenbergs]] to [[Osama bin Laden]] to [[Edward Snowden]], the "enemy of the state," most often invoked by nations ruled by national security secrecy, generates undercover investigations, provocateurs, informants, covert agents, black lists, turn coats, confessions, plea bargains; leading to trials, convictions, imprisonment, public executions, covert assassinations. |
As the debate moves from Roberts Rules of Order to national security unlimited rules of engagement, there will be divisions among the public separating those favoring civilized discourse from those favoring official violence. | As the debate moves from Roberts Rules of Order to national security unlimited rules of engagement, there will be divisions among the public separating those favoring civilized discourse from those favoring official violence. | ||
| − | As extremism takes hold | + | As extremism takes hold — inevitably the outcome of great differences of privilege, wealth, belief and policy — remaining neutral, or indifferent, will be called aiding the enemy. And with precedents a guide, most of the public will support whatever it takes to "defeat the enemy," in particular the "enemy inside." As threats of official violence increase there will be rapid conversions to the winning side of those most privileged, wealthy and honored by official policy. |
| − | Based on precedents there will be today's ex-Communists, Saudi benefactors, and First Amendment advocates jumping the ship of dissent when coming under the fire of official withdrawng privilege of speech and profitability looms. So it was after WW2, after 9/11, as it appears looming for the Snowden campaign by the kick in of official exaggeration. | + | Based on precedents there will be today's ex-Communists, Saudi benefactors, and First Amendment advocates jumping the ship of dissent when coming under the fire of official withdrawng privilege of speech and profitability looms. So it was after [[WW2]], after [[9/11]], as it appears looming for the Snowden campaign by the kick in of official exaggeration. |
| − | This is the arc of civil wars from high-toned, lawful debate to cruel and vicious laws of war. | + | This is the arc of civil wars from high-toned, lawful debate to cruel and vicious laws of war. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 08:42, 26 August 2016
| A pithy and on-the-button forecast from John Young about the how the Edward Snowden affair will likely pan out: if the NSA does not yet have effective control of the Snowden leaks, then they are going to make sure that those that have not been published already (i.e. >99% of Snowden's cache) never see the light of day. This is authoritative stuff from a seasoned professional. |
article by John Young dated 2013/12/05Subjects: Edward Snowden Affair, Surveillance State
Source: Cryptome (Link)
★ Start a Discussion about this document
Snowden Civil War
The Director of NSA claims Snowden stole 200,000 documents. Allegations in Australian press claim he stole "up to 20,000." British authorities accuse Snowden of stealing 58,000. Claims are bruited in the 5 Eyes that this is the "greatest intelligence failure since World War 2." High officials and ex-spies accuse Snowden and related media of engaging in terrorism.
This suggests a counter-espionage campaign to exaggerate Snowden's damage, of betrayal to his country, of aiding the enemy, of threatening national security. It is successfully restricting release of the Snowden material and will likely become more forceful as releases continue to the extent of legislation (open or secret) to criminalize release as a national security threat.
This counter-espionage shares features of the Red Scare, of the Cold War, of 9/11, of the Global War on Terrorism.
It duplicates these precedents to enhance the powers of intelligence and increase its funding for protecting national security. This is the post-WW2 deeply-seated and deeply-mined heritage of governmental and public policy.
The "public debate" Snowden is said will justify his action is underway with competing programs to garner public support, for curtailing covert surveillance on the one side, for sustaining and increasing it on the other. A legacy of practices in such debates is driving the dialogue, the propaganda, the accusations, the standard means and methods, the competing interests, for public endorsement.
There will be demons and angels on both sides, there will be casualties, there will be treacheries and betrayals, there will be lies and dissimulations, there will be open and secret meetings, bribes, thefts, confessions and punishments.
There will be incidents and revelations proving the case of both sides. Some will be authentic, some false, some a hybrid of credibility. Some of these will occur in courts, some will occur in public relations, some in contract negotiations, some through "insider leakage" genuine and confected.
From the Rosenbergs to Osama bin Laden to Edward Snowden, the "enemy of the state," most often invoked by nations ruled by national security secrecy, generates undercover investigations, provocateurs, informants, covert agents, black lists, turn coats, confessions, plea bargains; leading to trials, convictions, imprisonment, public executions, covert assassinations.
As the debate moves from Roberts Rules of Order to national security unlimited rules of engagement, there will be divisions among the public separating those favoring civilized discourse from those favoring official violence.
As extremism takes hold — inevitably the outcome of great differences of privilege, wealth, belief and policy — remaining neutral, or indifferent, will be called aiding the enemy. And with precedents a guide, most of the public will support whatever it takes to "defeat the enemy," in particular the "enemy inside." As threats of official violence increase there will be rapid conversions to the winning side of those most privileged, wealthy and honored by official policy.
Based on precedents there will be today's ex-Communists, Saudi benefactors, and First Amendment advocates jumping the ship of dissent when coming under the fire of official withdrawng privilege of speech and profitability looms. So it was after WW2, after 9/11, as it appears looming for the Snowden campaign by the kick in of official exaggeration.
This is the arc of civil wars from high-toned, lawful debate to cruel and vicious laws of war.
