Can someone put me right?
https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEED81E3E...
Doesn't seem like a cover up to me.
The Collateral Murder video shows you what actually happened, and the clear intent and callous laughter from those total shitheels in the gunship.
It was a war crime and the public deserved to see the video.
And that's just from the last week or so. She doesn't strike me as someone with very nuanced positions.
edit: case in point https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/903326954266517504
I think what she did was very, very wrong, but I'm also sympathetic - she was pretty young. Young people do dumb things sometimes.
American corporations, yes. The public, no.
So there is a very real possibility that the answer to the question: "does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect?" cannot be answered until you add a qualifier " .. for its masters?", and then ask yourself, just who does the CIA answer to. The answer is, American, for sure not you...
As the CIA is an American intelligence organization, responsible for American interests, the correct question would be: "Does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect on American power and stability?"
Now, we can debate that question all day long, but AFAIK the CIA has no responsibility to "the globe".
I guess I'm not the only one.
It's a nice message to send to people that having the courage to do what they believe is right will be heavily second-guessed by people who dislike emoji.
She's become pretty interesting since her release.
Can someone put me right?
List the things you admire about Snowden, and decide why they don't apply to Manning.
She recognizes what she did was wrong, plead guilty to half the charges, and served her time.
Snowden fled to China to leak what he did and then defected to Russia. He barely acknowledges the damage he did to US intelligence, and insists he was right in doing it.
He was stranded in Russia after the US cancelled his passport.
He was actually on his way to South America.
> and insists he was right in doing it.
Many people would agree.
If you believe him and Russia. Weird that Russia and Hong Kong would let him board the Moscow flight with a revoked passport (and an extradition request), but not the Havana flight. You can't rule out that the stuck-at-the-airport routine was just plausible deniability that Russia wasn't actively recruiting American intelligence assets.
But, sure, if you believe him, he was trying to defect to some other country instead.
He handed over ALL documents to journalists before boarding a plane to Russia. He had no information to give the Russians as it was all about to hit the papers under someone else's guidance.
The whole Russian agent argument just reeks of pig-headed, jingoistic unwillingness to look a simple fact in the face; Russia granted asylum because Russia loves telling the US "no" and giving them the middle finger.
Instead Snowden's detractors are coming up with all manner of mental gymnastics to justify why they believe an American might leak sensitive intelligence, because perish the thought the US might not be the paragons of virtue they make themselves out to be. What an uncomfortable thought for its citizens, subjected to weird exceptionalist propaganda from childhood, forced to recite pledges of allegiance as a child like some weird cult.
You also can't rule out that Hong Kong/China wanted to get rid of him, to keep from being embroiled in precisely the international brouhaha that happened.
Snowden applied for political asylum in 20 or so countries. If one of them had accepted - let's say Germany, Finland or India - then your hypothesis is no longer valid, no?
It seems very risky to do all that if his goal is to defect to Russia. Had one other nation granted asylum, it would have ruined his narrative.
Regarding "to defect", has he pledged allegiance or loyalty to Russia?
Otherwise, why isn't he simply an exile? Do you consider all of the Cubans who fled to the US also defectors from Cuba?
I suspect Cuba might.
Since if you want to reframe the question that way, does the US government - not some people in the US, but the US government - consider Assata Shakur a defector? Or William Morales?
When Eldridge Cleaver fled to exile in Cuba was he considered a defector? Several years later, when he continued his exile but in Algeria, was that another defection?
(Or Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin's exile, first in Cuba than Czechoslovakia; or all the others listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_citizens... .)
If the US does not consider all of those to be defections, then what makes Snowden a defector?
Not to say that Snowden planned to "defect" to Russia. But we're seeing how skillfully the FSB played the Trump campaign. Let's consider the possibility that they played Snowden and Greenwald as well.
Someone's being played, that's for sure.
As a non-American, what I find amusing is how quickly the rhetoric changed from before the election "elections can't be rigged/influenced, Trump should stop complaining and such claims undermine democracy" to "Russia/Trump hacked^H^H^H^H^H^H colluded to influence the election and undermine democracy" once Trump won.
Heads I win, tails you lose.