Video courtesy of Freedom of Speech and Expression
by A.C. Johnson
Is Edward Snowden a whistle-blowing patriot or a lying traitor? After watching his recent interview with NBC News anchor and softball player Brian Williams, I have the answer. Snowden is not telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why is that a surprise? By his own admission, Snowden is a spy. Spies lie.
The interview makes it evident Snowden is here to snow us into believing the official 9/11 fairy tale, the Boston Marathon street theater, and to make us believe our national security apparatus lacks competency. His job is to make sure we know the extent of NSA surveillance conducted upon us, while pushing the story that this intelligence is incompetently interpreted and processed: a giant “haystack” that the NSA lacks the ability to understand.
What a joke. What a lie. What a useful fellow he is.
Snowden is lauded as opening a dialogue about mass surveillance yet one year later not a single major NSA program has been halted. Nothing he has revealed so far is novel information. The PRISM leak was already known. In these weak revelations, the true Snowden agenda emerges.
It is important that we know we are being spied on constantly so we watch not only what we do, but what we say and what we write. This is a critical component of a surveillance agenda. The final piece of that puzzle is ensuring that the sheeple police themselves because that creates a mental habit: Watch what you think.
Snowden is part of a grand tradition of officially sanctioned whistleblowers that includes Daniel Ellsburg, Thomas Drake and Julian Assange (who ‘hid’ in Britain where MI5 apparently couldn’t find him). Like Assange before him, Snowden has gotten a lot of press. You can be certain that Hollywood does not make movies or give airtime to real whistleblowers.
Why do you think Oliver Stone is making the Ed Snowden story and not the Willy Rodriguez story?
Look at what is missing in his 9/11 film, “World Trade Center”. William Rodriguez was the last man in the North Tower and rescued 15 people from the WTC. This man risked his own life, re-entering the Towers three times. He survived the collapse by diving under a firetruck at the last minute. His story would make a great film. But Rodriguez openly talks about the explosions he heard in the Tower before it was hit with a plane. Rodriguez, a true whistleblower, is ignored by the elite-controlled mainstream press.
When the spying revelations were revealed, Obama promised modest changes to NSA surveillance while reinforcing the false narrative of 9/11 and claiming that “our framework of laws was not fully adapted to prevent terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own, or acting in small, ideologically driven groups…”
The result was passage of the USA Freedom Act, a piece of legislation that does little to impede domestic spying. The Orwellian named Freedom Act was supposedly a bipartisan effort to restore Americans’ civil liberties in the wake of Snowden’s revelations. But of course the most important reforms in the USA Freedom Act fell by the wayside during negotiations, leaving a law that, in the words of Rep. Justin Amash, “codified a large-scale, unconstitutional domestic spying program.” Mission accomplished.
My first red flag was when Snowden showed up virtually at the TED2014 conference for a conversation with TED curator and Snowden’s legal advisor, Chris Anderson. Snowden tells us how we can take back our online privacy which, according to this technical specialist/cybersecurity expert, means “enabling SSL or web encryption on every page you visit” to prevent intelligence agencies from finding out what you are looking at online. Because the NSA can’t break your over-the-counter encryption? Call me skeptical, but that sounds like bullshit.
The second red flag was reading Noam Chomsky’s article in TruthOut on June 2, 2014 titled Edward Snowden, the World’s Most Wanted Criminal. Chomsky calls Snowden “a courageous fighter for freedom” and lauds his actions in revealing the massive scope of NSA spying, along with Snowden’s collaborator, Glenn Greenwald. While describing the “instructive lessons on the nature of state power and the forces that drive state policy” provided by Snowden’s reveal, it is noteworthy that Chomsky does not acknowledge the leverage that spying provides – through coercion and blackmail – in the management of both foreign and domestic policy.
It is the kind of significant oversight expected from somebody so carefully selective in his dissenting views. Chomsky tries to distract from the most important conclusion to be drawn from the reality of a massive spy program – how can we trust our officials, our judges or our politicians when they may be compromised?
If we didn’t have Snowden to convincingly reinforce the surveillance agenda, the State would not be able to rely on us frisky citizens to police ourselves. It would be forced to pull off the velvet gloves and punish us for what we say. If that happened, Americans might actually stand up on their hind legs and start roaring.
Call me a dreamer, I still think they might.
Hillary Clinton, the queen of humanitarian plunder, spent some of her time at the University of Connecticut last Wednesday promoting the persecution of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden along with the official rationale for NSA overreach. Edward Snowden succeeded in obtaining documentation showing that most civilian electronic communications are recorded and monitored by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Widespread acceptance of a surveillance state is one of the political objectives behind the attacks on September 11, 2001.
“People were desperate to avoid another 9/11 attack”, claims Hillary as she defends mass surveillance programs. Like a mafioso flunky, Clinton testifies to the condition of “people right this minute trying to figure out how to do harm to Americans”. This raises the question, ‘what about those outside of the cast and crew participating in the U.S. theatrical presentation known as the “War on Terror?”‘ Way to go, Hillary! You might have been called ‘Secretary of State’, but we recognize a hoodlum when we see one shaking us down for humanity’s last few tokens of governmental restraint. Even if we fork over every last provision of the Constitution, how can we be assured that this thieving mob won’t attack us again? Hillary Clinton has come a long way since the day three thousand were murdered in an effort to change the political landscape. Then she was standing on the front steps of the capital building with her colleagues to introduce a new era of torture beginning with the mangling of “God Bless America”. It couldn’t be more punk.
Publicly taunting NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, Hillary says it’s “odd that he would flee, we have all these protections for whistle-blowers…” Snowden was fleeing the worst conditions in U.S. history for whistleblowers. The “Espionage Act”, an archaic law aimed at German spies during World War I, was resurrected for the task of putting Bradley Manning away for 35 years. If exploitation of past war-time legal missteps fails to intimidate leakers, there’s always President Obama’s new and improved NDAA (Natonal Defense Authorization Act) that comes complete with a sufficiently vague definition of ‘illegal support of terrorists’. Does such support include paying federal taxes?
“I think turning over a lot of that material—intentionally or unintentionally—drained, gave all kinds of information, not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups and the like.” As we listen to ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accuse Snowden of providing “materials to terrorists”, should we really think it’s “odd” that Snowden decided to flee the country? Snowden couldn’t have predicted these hysterics ahead of time? He chose to alert the public about NSA overreach because he’s aware of dangerous developments brewing in the United States. No entity would need to usurp that much power without the intent to engage in tyrannical pursuits like the “War on Terror”. Today, we recognize Hillary Clinton’s most visible role in this game as far worse than what she accuses Snowden of doing. A role most notoriously evident is the United State’s criminal intervention of Libya and the arming and funding of terrorist rebels in Syria.
Hillary Clinton then attempts to further misrepresent Snowden’s intentions by exploiting misguided public sentiment over the Ukrainian crisis. We’re supposed to believe that Snowden is a cold war spy in cahoots with the ‘Ruskies':
I have a hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in Russia, under Putin’s authority”
It’s called irony, Hillary. It is indeed a sad day when a champion of privacy and liberty has no choice but to take refuge in Russia.