The Guardian Revealed A Major NSA 'Scoop' Then Deleted It From Their Website

reply to post by burntheships


@darkblade: Edward Snowden does not, I repeat NOT have a twitter account!! (or a facebook account)

And yes it was very naive of the person who posted the article at the Guardian. Anyone can make a mistake.
But you know what, to once and for all remove any doubt I'm just going to drop them a line and hopefully get some answer so this thread can be closed ( I can't believe this is on FP btw) and we can discuss more important things about the actual content of the files that are being disclosed and their implications.

I'll let you know if and when I get an answer

reply to post by bowaconstricta


Well, good luck.
And, btw Snowden does have a Twitter.

I guess that Twitter is not one of the PRISM partners yet.

It would be terrible for guardian owners or workers to suffer a michael hastings "accident" now would'nt it? Someone plants a bluetooth receiver in your ECM and you speed up and crash into some telephone pole.

No wonder they pulled the article off the site.

This whole citizen espionage thing is like the emperor's clothes: Everybody who actually cares already knows we are being spied on. But the person next to you on the bus doesn't know that you know and you don't know that they know. So the emperor must be fully clothed since nobody is acknowledging it, that is until a leak happens.

Regardless of whether this news story is true or not, are we so naive to believe that you can get away with saying anything potentially of defense interest (like "let's overthrow the government" or "let's bomb place xyz)" without it being known?

Do we need somebody in the media to come and tell us?

-rrr

Originally posted by rickyrrr
This whole citizen espionage thing is like the emperor's clothes: Everybody who actually cares already knows we are being spied on. But the person next to you on the bus doesn't know that you know and you don't know that they know. So the emperor must be fully clothed since nobody is acknowledging it, that is until a leak happens.

Regardless of whether this news story is true or not, are we so naive to believe that you can get away with saying anything potentially of defense interest

Do we need somebody in the media to come and tell us?

1. So we're just supposed to ignore it? Yeah. That's a perfectly rational way to deal with the foundation for tyranny. Let's pretend it isn't happening.

2. No. We don't need the media to tell us. The media isn't working for us anyway. It should automatically be suspect when the MSM is the source. That is - Why are they doing this? Any thinking person knows (and has known) this for a long time, intuitively. However, this is the kind of thing that cannot stand the light of day unless they have the tacit approval of the masses.

3. They expect us to grumble and complain a little bit and then to move on and just get used to it. This, in my view, is why they have chosen to bring it out and put it in the headlines. They are ready to normalize it. They will use the full persuasive power and influence of the media. They will pretend to be just as outraged as anyone else but they will sneak the justifications in. They will continue to show you "reality shows" like "Big Brother" in order to continue to foster an environment in which people feel this is normal and it's supposed to be happening. It will turn up in commercials in subtle ways. They will continue to flood the TV landscape with police shows and surveillance propaganda. All of this they will do because they know the power of television. They invented it. They know how to use it.

4. They do not expect people to continue to be creeped out by it despite their best efforts at normalizing it through propaganda and things like telling us "Well, this is really nothing new, is it?" As I said, it cannot stand the light of day if people don't accept it. If we reject their excuses. If we reject the propaganda and the lies. This obviously doesn't mean they won't still be doing it in the shadows but they cannot use it as part of the legal system (thereby effectively scribbling out the Fourth Amendment) if they cannot do it openly.

reply to post by burntheships


As promised I wrote to the Guardian to ask why they pulled the Wayne Madsen article and received the following reply:

Thank you for your email. The story was withdrawn from the Observer and the Guardian website after concerns were raised about one of the sources. However, as the thrust of the story was based on the Observer's analysis of declassified NSA documents and a European parliament report, the key allegations were republished on the website. The Observer is confident that its interpretation of the evidence is correct - that the documents demonstrate the existence of third party agreements for EU member states to supply communications data to the NSA under arrangements that have largely escaped public scrutiny.

So there you have it!