18 ms·

America’s Open Wound

248 points by skilled 4y ago

rendall 4y ago
Did any American read this without alarm? If so, why not?
- newaccount2021 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
    - TeeMassive 4y ago
      Which one? 2000? 2008? 2016? 2020?
      - anoonmoose 4y ago
        I think they meant the one with the unprecedented violent riots in the Capitol that resulted in some folks dying. Could be wrong.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
        ... Are you seriously implying that the Jan6 riot didn't happen? Despite all the video proof of it? I'm starting to think "Trump Derangement Syndrome" actually is a thing, but it's not his detractors that have it, it's his supporters.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        anoonmoose 4y ago
        I mean, what could I possibly say that would convince you that neither is the case? Probably nothing. I saw what I saw.
        TeeMassive 4y ago
        anoonmoose 4y ago
        somenameforme 4y ago
        On the off chance you weren't aware, the story about an officer being bludgeoned to death by a rioter wielding a fire extinguisher was completely fabricated. [1] He was uninjured during the riots, and died the following day of a stroke due to a preexisting blood clot. Kind of interesting the massive propaganda campaign following his death that was maintained for months, even though the coroner's report on his death would have been available within days of his death. And the powers that be obviously knew, whatever the cause, it had 0 to do with the lie that was told, and repeated for months by the media, to the American people. The only people that died during the riot were unarmed rioters. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick
        anoonmoose 4y ago
        I am aware of that. No need for the data dump. Unarmed rioters that were ignoring LEO instructions to stop trying to breach an area containing a number of politicians. There is every reason to believe that, had they breached, violence would have occurred. Acting as if their violent behavior was not the direct cause of their death just because they were unarmed is not reasonable, in my opinion.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        TeeMassive 4y ago
        "The last election" was a valid statement in 2000 as it is today
      - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
        I definitely remember a bunch of democrats being convinced that 2004 was stolen. Amusingly enough, they blamed Diebold too. 2000 is probably the one for which the strongest case exists, but people don't care about that one anymore.
        anoonmoose 4y ago
        If you remember Dems claiming that the 2004 election was stolen, then you should be able to remember that the tenor, tone, and energy level was radically different than the events of 2020, and it all went away much faster. For example, I don't believe any Democrat candidates ran an '06 or '08 campaign around the idea that the '04 election was stolen, something which is happening right now in a number of states.
        disgruntledphd2 4y ago
        I do. The real purpose behind that comment was to add the one election that the parent had not included. I entirely agree that this is a completely different level of election fraud insanity.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  I did, because I already knew about most of the atrocities and subversions of democracy etc. described in the article. But I've been called all sorts of things for not inherently trusting my government. Being called a conspiracy theorist doesn't bother me, but the people who call me a fascist while demanding daddy government stomp on their rights a little harder just baffle me.
- yardie 4y ago
  There are the ones that would read it and agree with it. The agency could do no wrong. There are those that read it, knew about some or most of it, and really not surprised. You possibly believe in conspiracy theories. And find out a few may be true. Then there are those who are alarmed and shocked the CIA would do such a thing.
- zug_zug 4y ago
  Well I think this article does a good job of saying CIA has done some crazy stuff. But then it goes from there to -> so let's get rid of it, which to me seems like potentially a much scarier proposition. It's not clear to me exactly how real the threat of foreign countries trying to tamper with our elections is, but if this is what the CIA does, I think it's probably naive to think no other nation would try things like hacking elections. 8-year-old girls shouldn't be assassinated, but in the scope of things, that's not a reason to get rid of an entire agency. (Also it's a shame Biden's speech about "hey we're a democracy" had bad visual optics, but again, not really relevant) Maybe this article isn't saying to eradicate the whole intelligence apparatus, but it's not clear to me what incremental practical step it is proposing.
  - jobs_throwaway 4y ago
    >8-year-old girls shouldn't be assassinated, but in the scope of things, that's not a reason to get rid of an entire agency. Really? That seems exactly like the kind of thing that should get an agency canned, especially because its not an aberration. In fact, I'd say virtually any other agency that did so would be canned in short order. Why doesn't the CIA have to play by the same rules as everyone else? Especially when those rules are as basic as 'don't murder American children'.
    - zug_zug 4y ago
      ??? Killing is one of the CIA's sanctioned duties, so it's a bit different to compare the CIA killing a child to the EPA killing a child. But nonetheless, no, we wouldn't shut down the whole EPA, fire everybody, delete all the databases, and cancel worrying about pollution if the EPA killed a child. I know this is an emotional topic, but imo overreacting proposals actually make less progress toward a concrete improvement than practical ideas.
      - everforward 4y ago
        > Killing is one of the CIA's sanctioned duties, so it's a bit different to compare the CIA killing a child to the EPA killing a child. I don't think this is true. Executive Order 12333 states: > No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. They then go on to note that it was "re-interpreted" to not apply to counterterrorism. Under the same logic, the EPA could be extended to allow assassination of people harmful to the environment. The problem is that the CIA is meant to operate in secrecy, which makes sense for information gathering. Having a secretive group that's also tasked with extrajudicial killings virtually guarantees ineffective oversight. Let the CIA go back to gathering info, and let the SEALS or rangers or whoever do the killing. Some branch of government with a level of oversight.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  I think I read it with a sense of alarm fatigue, if that makes sense. The government has been doing extrajudicial killings of leftist leaders internationally and internally for a long time, so in socialist circles you tend to hear these stories regularly. Folks like Fred Hampton (and COINTELPRO generally), and Martin Luther King, Jr, (who the FBI wiretapped and then sent a letter demanding he commit suicide). And international cases like Operation PB Fortune, which overthrew democracy at the behest of fruit companies. And we can reach further back to cases like the Haymarket Affair, Blair Mountain, the internment of us citizens into concentration camps during WW2, etc. So... Am I alarmed? Yes, but have I been alarmed for a long time? Also yes.
- rascul 4y ago
  The actions of intelligence agencies have long ago stopped surprising me. It's hard to be more alarmed than I already am and still live my life.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Sure. And a huge grain of salt for someone who is under the protection of a country like Russia.
- everforward 4y ago
  I didn't. None of this is really new info, most of it's been through the media before. Nobody cared enough to do anything then, and I'm doubtful they will now. It's not particularly shocking that the force responsible for foreign psyops is somehow really good at escaping domestic criticism. The FBI is complicit as well, they've also got a long history of sordid affairs.
- spamizbad 4y ago
  Already well aware our alphabet agencies are deeply problematic. But that's hardly unique to the US. We do need better accountability - something that we've lacked. Keep in mind it's Snowden - the guy who insisted prior to Feb 24th that all that talk about Russian military build-up was just war-mongering. Turns out the NSA and CIA were right on the money.
- AdamH12113 4y ago
  The CIA being a nasty organization that does nasty things has been well-known for decades. What makes (most) Americans tolerate this is the same reason anyone tolerates such nasty things -- they're being done to other people. Drone strikes in particular have been discussed since the Obama administration. It's not okay, but as Snowden himself points out, it is normal. What did alarm me was Snowden mischaracterizing Biden's Philadelphia speech[1][2] as something out of a Nazi propaganda film by using out-of-context quotes and selective photography. There are plenty of liberals/leftists for whom drone strikes are their biggest issue (often so they can claim that both major parties are basically the same), but this is a step even beyond that. Given that the collapse of American democracy would be worse even for his pet issues, I find it hard to believe that Snowden is being sincere. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/09/01/remarks-by-president-bidenon-the-continued-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-nation/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA3Outfs7K8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA3Outfs7K8
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    As Biden gets into his speech, and for about 98% of the video - the framing is exactly as Snowden presented. Given politicians are the sort of people that obsess over the implications of the color of a tie, this visual was chosen absolutely intentionally: a flag hung vertically, blood red imposed on a dark scene, and two shadowy marines in the rear. I have no idea why they went for this visual, but it's difficult to attribute it to any motivation that is at all desirable. Incidentally, if you originally watched the video on CNN, I'd encourage you to check out your own link, past the 40 second mark! Because that leads to a much more light hearted (though not really, if you really think about the implications of this) issue. As this video was streamed CNN distorted the colors, in real time, to try to increase the apparent lighting while also turning the crimson red into something like a fuchsia pink. [1] If you think that link might itself be fake, feel free to just look at any of CNN's coverage [2] and compare it against the source videos. Everybody understood exactly the sort of imagery Biden's writers were looking to evoke. The only question that remains to be answered is why. [1] - https://twitter.com/burackbobby_/status/1565543514137677824 https://twitter.com/burackbobby_/status/1565543514137677824 [2] - https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/09/02/veteran-reaction-biden-speech-marine-background-sot-newday-vpx.cnn https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/09/02/veteran-r...
- isx726552 4y ago
  Anyone who knows anything about the CIA is already rightly horrified and outraged. Snowden is correct about how terrible the CIA is, however there’s no new revelations to be had here. Books like “Legacy of Ashes”[0] cover the atrocities of the CIA already. As others have pointed out, Snowden never comes back to addressing the main content of Biden’s speech, which is about a very real and very immediate threat to the US. I hate what the CIA does and represents, but there are more pressing things to worry about at the moment. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_Ashes_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_Ashes_(book)
- CommieBobDole 4y ago
  'Alarm' is not really the right word; the CIA and its lack of accountability is a problem, but it's not a new problem or a particularly recently-worsening problem. It's one of the bad things about America that needs to be fixed, but Snowden does not provide any new information here. And honestly, while I agree with the gist of what he's saying here, I tend to view his more recent stuff with a bit of a suspicious eye; he has made a pretty big deal about the oaths he swore that he believed required him to reveal the extent of the illegal NSA spying at great personal cost. But now, he's a citizen of the Russian Federation, which is basically a rogue intelligence agency with a kleptocracy attached to it. Which means he's sworn an oath (as all naturalized citizens must) to protect and serve the interests of that nation, to uphold its laws, etc. Does he take that oath seriously? If not, why do they tolerate him? I appreciate what he did back in 2013. But now that he's under the defacto control of the Russian FSB, I will take what he says with a grain of salt. Especially something like this, which is an opinion piece with no new information attached.
  - lambdasquirrel 4y ago
    Kind of convenient that Snowden has been pushed into that corner, isn't it?
    - CommieBobDole 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you're suggesting here? Snowden has definitely been pushed into a corner, which benefits multiple entities, but I'm not clear on which particular view of events you're talking about - can you elaborate?
    - diputsmonro 4y ago
      As with any complicated situation, there are multiple conflicting interpretations that could be possible. Since we can't collapse the uncertainty, we must take the grain of salt. I do generally trust Snowden, but I can't deny that Russia would likely do everything they could to leverage the information he has against the US. Has he given them NatSec secrets in return for asylum? Unlikely I think, but possible. IMO, Russia is just keeping Snowden around as a general anti-US voice in the global conversation to air credible dirty laundry of their biggest rival. As an honest patriot, I welcome the tough criticism and aspire to fix the problems he highlights. But it's a fair concern that some of that is potentially embellished or selectively censored for Russian propoganda purposes.
- blantonl 4y ago
  Nothing new here. In any advanced society, how the sausage is made is typically pretty gross. If this seems like it is hand waving it away, it might be.
hunglee2 4y ago
it is not clear what could be done should an intelligence agency turn rogue, and become operationally independent from the government. It's basically a non-democratic power centre which - because it is not subject to elections - will always outlast any politician, and because of the nature of the work, has vast powers of direct and indirect influence. Good job that this is not the case in the US
- banannaise 4y ago
  It gets extra fun when you realize that all of this also applies to the police.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    And now google "J. Edgar Hoover blackmail" and despair...
  - dfxm12 4y ago
    Most of it applies to the Supreme Court as well.
    - newaccount2021 4y ago
  - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
    Even more fun when you realize that the "War on Drugs" has nothing to do with drugs, and is intended to militarize the police.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  It's worse, because intelligence agencies surveil politicians, and can manipulate both them directly and the elections that get them their jobs. It's inevitable that the government will be controlled by the person at the highest levels of surveillance (the unsurveilled one) in a world of complete surveillance. Surveillance gets you power, and more power gives you better ability to exploit and increase surveillance. SF idea: The secrecy around your intelligence budget rises along with the size of your intelligence budget. Eventually the intelligence budget completely disappears, and people forget that there ever were intelligence agencies. But that's only because everything is now actually part of the intelligence budget, and the publicly-released budget numbers are determined by an team for the purpose of creating popular support for current initiatives, creating popular rage at troublesome trends, and designing election outcomes.
anon291 4y ago
We have known for many years the CIA is awful. Get rid of it. We can achieve national security goals via alternate means. It's probably going to get me banned, but we know they interfere in foreign elections. Why is it such a long shot to believe they don't interfere locally?
- mellavora 4y ago
  > Why is it such a long shot to believe they don't interfere locally? Because this goes strongly against the culture of the organization? People are funny. They may be willing to bend any law and/or see themselves as above the law in some aspects (see i.e. the Iran/contra affair), yet will honor-bind themselves to other ways. Because at the end of the day they want to be the heros, the good guys. And the C.I.A. is an organization, so people within it are bound to a culture which is part of the organization. They might be perfectly willing to betray the American people (as you or I might see it), but they will not betray the C.I.A. Part of C.I.A. is that it operates outside of US territory.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    You're right, they want to be the heros. And some people would convince themselves that being a hero is to prevent a particular person from becoming president, because it would be "a danger to our democracy."
  - anon291 4y ago
    I'm not sure I buy this argument that they see interfering in our elections as dishonorable. People so willing to break American laws have no good sense of honor for me
  - michael1999 4y ago
    Do you think it was a coincidence that Nixon recruited his plumbers from the FBI and CIA?
  - tarakat 4y ago
    > Why is it such a long shot to believe they don't interfere locally? > Because this goes strongly against the culture of the organization? No it doesn't, and I'm curious where you got that impression: A Brief History of the CIA's Unpunished Spying on the Senate - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief-history-of-the-cias-unpunished-spying-on-the-senate/384003/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief... Through these programs, the CIA's Office of Security received information from US based informants regarding individuals and groups with anti-war views. [..] According to a 1977 New York Times article, the CIA conducted a covert propaganda campaign to squelch criticism of the Warren Report. The CIA urged its field stations to use their "propaganda assets" to attack those who didn't agree with the Warren Report. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_United_S... In 1975, Church Committee Congressional investigations revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird At various times, under its own initiative or in accordance with directives from the President of the United States or the National Security Council staff, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has attempted to influence public opinion both in the United States and abroad. [..] Ralph McGehee, a former CIA officer, stated that the CIA often placed news stories anonymously in news publications to spread false ideas favorable to CIA goals. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinio... And that's only what we know about.
AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
roenxi 4y ago
I have to ask, because I know that Biden was said to give a speech with bad optics but I never looked it up seriously - is that photo doctored?^W^W^W I just googled it myself. Whoever is doing his PR needs to be sacked for leaving him open to a photo like that.
- brink 4y ago
  > Whoever is doing his PR needs to be sacked for leaving him open to a photo like that. The speech wasn't any better.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    what was wrong with it?
- CommieBobDole 4y ago
  The building was lit up in red, white and blue, and whoever took/published the photo either chose their angle or cropped it for dramatic effect. But yeah, I assume there's someone whose job is to avoid things like this who wasn't doing their job very well. https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-joe-biden-pictures-20220901.html https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-joe-biden-picture...
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    No — the US feeds of the speech all had the tight red framing, while international ones did not. That photo is the same framing as his speech broadcast on US networks. Such a market split indicates the framing was intentionally authoritarian and meant to provoke/intimidate political rivals.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      No it's not, stop being a joker. Here is what US sources had: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JemWkV2Vcic&t=967s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JemWkV2Vcic&t=967s That is massively different than the pic in the article.
d23 4y ago
It's a shame he addresses none of the points of the speech he premises the article on. He could be an important voice right now speaking out against tyranny and fascism.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  This guy only pops up when Putin needs to dust him off for some anti-American propaganda. The chances of Snowden speaking out against tyranny are zero.
- qaq 4y ago
  And where would he move ?
- roflyear 4y ago
  Did you listen to Biden's speech?
dvt 4y ago
A bit hypocritical of Snowden to criticize the USA while holed up in Russia. But maybe I'm a bit partial considering the USSR destroyed every semblance of culture and national identity in my home country, causing generations of corruption and trauma, and ultimately emboldening my family to move to the States--abandoning lifelong friends and family--where a much better life was possible. But please, keep lecturing us on how the US is "problematic." It's highly indicative that someone hasn't lived even a remotely hard life (nor traveled extensively, at least not without a US passport) when their criticism of the US is so paper thin. We get it: US imperialism bad, CIA evil, etc. But boy am I happy (not to mention proud) to be an American.
- malwrar 4y ago
  Where else do you think he’ll be safe from US vengeance?
  - spamizbad 4y ago
    China.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Any country that is an enemy of the US, which unfortunately does mean that when he criticizes the US (a country he has not lived in for nearly a decade) you have to take it with a grain of salt.
- libraryatnight 4y ago
  Taking Russian sins out on a man stuck there because he's wanted is an odd take.
- jwond 4y ago
  > A bit hypocritical of Snowden to criticize the USA while holed up in Russia. Seeing how Julian Assange has been treated I think Snowden is acting wisely and I’m not going to hold it against him.
  - deleted 4y ago
recursivedoubts 4y ago
All empires end up controlled by the praetorian guard. Don't like it? (I don't.) Don't become an empire.
martythemaniak 4y ago
CIA is bad says FSB spokesman. If you think that's unfair, I invite you to scroll through his Twitter account right before Feb 24th.
- briantakita 4y ago
  Are you saying that the CIA is good? What good has the CIA done for this world & the ordinary US citizen?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Ask Ukraine. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-russia-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-rus... But even as the Biden administration has declared it will not deploy American troops to Ukraine, some C.I.A. personnel have continued to operate in the country secretly, mostly in the capital, Kyiv, directing much of the vast amounts of intelligence the United States is sharing with Ukrainian forces, according to current and former officials.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    It's hard to say, because you rarely hear about the successes they have, just the failures. But the US intelligence community played a key role in the fall of the USSR, denuclearization of Iran, and I guess arguably the success of south korea given the US's required action to stop the invasion from the North. Obviously all those things could be bad depending on your political philosophy, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say most Americans approve. And that's to say nothing of the intelligence community's key role in Ukraine and specifically the recent counterattacks.
jnovek 4y ago
Has everyone on Hacker News lost their minds? I come here to read and sometimes participate in rational discussions. These comments are some of the lowest effort, least rigorous, paranoid bullshit I’ve ever seen on this site. We’re a step above Facebook comments on NPR articles, here. Partisanship, viciousness and lazy conspiracy theories are not a good look for this site.
- adultSwim 4y ago
  We are witnessing information warfare unfold in real time. Every government and many companies are trying to exert pressure. People are responding by picking sides. It's a dangerous situation.
- blub 4y ago
  Yes, the amount of hate for Snowden and Assange is dismaying. These men sacrificed their lives to expose the crimes of one of - if not the most -powerful organizations on Earth. And people nitpick that they’re not criticizing the other most powerful entities too. Basically they’re criticizing them for not committing suicide in the name of a people which were impotent of unwilling to do anything with the revelations provided. I’d be surprised to hear that these people even contradict their boss, never mind reveal any compromising information on anyone.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    Assange has been a Russian asset for a long time. Snowden is a spokesman for Putin now. What a coincidence.
    - not1ofU 4y ago
      Source?
      - HyperSane 4y ago
        https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/15/ecuador-concluded-that-assange-has-ties-to-russian-intelligence/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/15/ecuador-concluded-t... https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia...
O__________O 4y ago
America even prior to its founding was built upon covert operations, expecting it to change is pointless; Washington was leader of a spy network [1] and my understanding is even the original federal budget for spying was unusually high. What’s unclear to me is if it’s possible for a completely open and truthful society to exist at every level. I just find it hard to believe it is, but I have also never seen any proof that it is not either. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culper_Ring https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culper_Ring
csours 4y ago
We say: Hey, the police are killing us, could you please stop that. No, we need to be tough on crime. It's just too bad that some people die, but I need to feel secure. We say: Hey, the police are still killing us, could you please stop that. It looks like we need to reboot the justice system. No, we need to be tough on crime. Why do you want the crime rate to go up? We say: Hey, the police are still killing us, we need to abolish the police. No, we need to be tough on crime. Why do you want everyone to be murdered in their beds? --- Imagine just showing up at each of those exchanges, what would it look like without the history if you just saw a point in time. We all live with an internal moral history - what we thought was righteous and unrighteous at any point in time. --- In my canned example at the top, I didn't talk about the actual changes that took place in policing. There's just no way for me to write my whole viewpoint on this situation in a comment. If it's possible for you to do that, then maybe you don't want a complex society with people who want different things and have different points of view. I deeply understand this perspective. It would be so nice if everyone just agreed with me. It would be so nice if everyone had the same moral history and there was no deep division and hatred. But that's just not the world we have. People are complicated and want different things. People have histories that lead them to believe a certain way. --- Anyway, I think any police organization or system of justice should be based on reduction of harm.
- mc32 4y ago
  The solution isn't "throw more police at crime". It's multi-faceted. It's not just make work/life more worthwhile either because there are places with relatively high unemployment but also low crime. It's about civics and what society sets as acceptable boundaries and enforcing those boundaries and punishing those that stray too far. Looks at the USA's wild west. It went from rampant violent crime to acceptable social order. The impetus often was locals wanting to transform from territory to union member state. The country required certain control over crime and usually the solution was to bring in sheriffs to control crime, bring in schools to teach civics and bring civilization (law and order) to a lawless place.
  - csours 4y ago
    We all have a little policeman in our heads.
cheaprentalyeti 4y ago
Not replying to anyone in particular, but regarding Assange, Snowden, and Putin (and by extension his /patron/ Xi): has it ever occured to any of you that our corruption has turned into a weapon in the hands of our enemies, and that we can't deal with the situation if we never address the corruption to begin with?
humanistbot 4y ago
> Flanked by the uniformed icons of his military and standing atop a Leni Riefenstahl stage, the leader clenched his fists to illustrate seizing the future from the forces of “fear, division, and darkness.” I stopped reading once Godwin's Law applied. This was the first paragraph.
- CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
  - nilespotter 4y ago
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I think I was already aware of most of the facts presented, but I'm not sure I know what argument is being made? That the CIA has not enough oversight? This is like a standard plot element in Hollywood movies and comic books, so that seems a little obvious. That the President of the United States shouldn't mention it if he learns someone is plotting a coup or terrorism in his country because that's hypocrisy? Legacy of Ashes is a good book on the CIA and he has one on the FBI (which covers the two groups petty infighting as well). https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7441109M/Legacy_of_Ashes https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7441109M/Legacy_of_Ashes
- ur-whale 4y ago
  > This is like a standard plot element in Hollywood movies and comic books, so that seems a little obvious. Are you choosing to base your understanding of the world on the information found in Hollywood movies? I am not certain that's a very rational way to do things. BTW, no worries, you're not the only one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNy6F7ZwX8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNy6F7ZwX8I
  - diputsmonro 4y ago
    No, the point is that it's an idea that everyone is likely to be familiar with, so it's not particularly novel. Why do you think that became a trope in the first place? Sure, the blog post is good in that it references specific real world events, but the thesis is not really new information. Movies often show that the sky is blue, but that doesn't mean that our expectation of a blue sky is irrational. Nevermind the fact that those movie tropes, and much of art in general, is a reflection of real world issues and events. The idea is so pervasive because we already know that it's true.
- yucky 4y ago
  The most concerning thing for me is how the CIA and other branches of our intelligence agencies avoid oversight by funneling work through foundations like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democra... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Institute and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Republican_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Republican_Insti... etc. If we have no accountability for our intel agencies then what do we really have?
helen___keller 4y ago
I've never been a huge fan of his overly-evocative writing style. Not to say that what he's written is fake or wrong or misleading, but when I see this sort of emotionally charged writing my propaganda radar goes off. I can't stand reading it.
smm11 4y ago
We support the police, yet attacked them on Jan. 6. We don't trust the government, yet those who were on the inside telling us what is wrong are also the enemy.
keepquestioning 4y ago
This rings entirely hollow since his patron launched an illegal war in Ukraine.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Both things can be bad simultaneously. P.S. Consider why you felt obligated to specify "illegal" war. Could the tremendously inhumane war in Ukraine be legal somehow? Would it be OK then? I hope not.
1970-01-01 4y ago
Supported by a foreign enemy, defending domestic interests. A Russian citizen with a warrant for his arrest. His words are true, but his honor remains conflicted at best.
euphetar 4y ago
So many people comment about how Snowden can't say things like this because he is in Russia. I wonder: how does it invalidate the facts? He links to Wikipedia. Maybe you don't want to believe Snowden, him being a traitor. Don't you believe Wikipedia? I don't see how Snowdens identity is even relevant to the subject.
- emptyparadise 4y ago
  Snowden is stuck in a lose-lose position. Do you choose to go behind bars or do you embrace the hypocrisy in the hope that you can still do some good? This is the interpretation I choose to believe, until I see any proof to the contrary. Ultimately his whistle-blowing was a good thing.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    He would have had whistleblower protection had he gone to Congress with his findings. It could have been win-win
    - LunaSea 4y ago
      You're very naive if you think this would have worked. Look at what happens to other whistleblowers destiny.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        I've worked in defense and I've worked in intelligence collection in the service before that. We might disagree but I don't think I'm naive on this topic. Whistleblower protections are set up in such a way as to protect the whistleblower. This means you don't hear about a majority of whistleblowers. We can agree to disagree since we are ultimately arguing a hypothetical (what would have happened) but I think Snowden should have at least tried to go that route.
- 1970-01-01 4y ago
  >I wonder: how does it invalidate the facts? It doesn't. His loyalty is unbounded. His honor, however, is open to interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_loyalty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_loyalty
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/15/494157921/house-intel-panel-edward-snowden-was-no-whistleblower https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/15/494157921... Snowden is "a serial exaggerator and fabricator" who told a series of untrue stories about his health, education and performance reviews. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/12/edward-snowdens-claim-that-as-a-contractor-he-had-no-proper-channels-for-protection-as-a-whistleblower/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/... Obama, at an August news conference, specifically said that “I signed an executive order well before Mr. Snowden leaked this information that provided whistleblower protection to the intelligence community — for the first time.”
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
  >* Snowden is "a serial exaggerator and fabricator" who told a series of untrue stories about his health, education and performance reviews.* Oh look, propaganda in the form of an ad hominem fallacy.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Have you read the intelligence report that the NPR article references? It's good. It even says Snowden had whistleblower protection but never tried to use it. Nobody he worked with remembers him bringing it up. Etc. Had he gone to Congress he would be considered a whistleblower. That report is what made me do a 180 on Snowden fyi Pdf warning: https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt891/CRPT-114hrpt891.pdf https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt891/CRPT-114hrpt891.pd...
    - softcactus 4y ago
      Just finished reading through the whole thing. I am curious which part changed your opinion on him? I'll go through my thoughts: 1. I don't think whistleblower protection would have applied anyways since what the government was doing was technically legal. 2. Snowden seems like an asshole and a nightmare to work with, but I don't think that should factor in to the credibility of any arguments he makes which are backed up with sufficient evidence. 3. The biggest thing that changed his perception for me was how much he leaked. It would have been better if he had only gone after documents that pertained to privacy of US citizens.
CharlesW 4y ago
Note for writers: In paragraph 3, Snowden uses the word "premises" but means "premise". These are similar-looking words with very different meanings. My inner paranoid now wonders if Snowden wrote this, because in my experience this is a mistake most commonly made by ESL writers. It would be interesting to perform stylometry on his history of work to see if there's a break.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  That's just the plural form, is it not? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/premises#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/premises#English
  - CharlesW 4y ago
    Oh, I didn't even consider this given the seemingly-singular premise (paragraph 2 after the quote) but I think your explanation is more likely. Thank you!
trabant00 4y ago
There can be no long lived instution, let alone an intelligence agency, without sin. Presenting only the bad things is not how you evaluate one, or its country. Half truths are the best lies. This IS propaganda. And this is Snowden's current position and role.
jononomo 4y ago
Snowden has never struck me as a particularly interesting thinker. I listened to some interviews he gave a few years ago and he came off as dull-witted, frankly.
pwinnski 4y ago
President Biden gave a speech about a specific person and what he perceives that person's threat to America to be, and Snowden omits any mention of that person, describes Biden's speech as being only about "his political opposition" and uses that as a springboard for... stuff. It's almost as if he didn't watch or read the speech, but only saw screen grabs and headlines from people who hate Biden.
- softcactus 4y ago
  I read it more as him trying to point out an incongruence between American political discourse and the realities of American realpolitik. On the one hand you have Biden calling out Trumpism/MAGAism as a threat to democracy, on the other hand you have the media hyperfixation on the optics of his speech: 'omg he looks like a dictator!!' Meanwhile when you look at the machinery underneath and how our system really maintains the status quo, fascism is the standard operating procedure. How can someone claim they want to restore justice and the sanctity of democracy when the extrajudicial killings of US citizens is just another Tuesday? I don't think he really needed to criticize the substance of Biden's speech, since, given our leaders hyperfixation on optics, there was no substance to analyze in the first place. The speech was nothing but a layer of feel-good frosting concealing the violent means of control underneath.
softcactus 4y ago
For anyone who thinks that Snowden is just a puppet of Russia, or that the CIA needs to walk a gray line to defend the US interests in the name of some global greater good: Do you think those chickens will never come home to roost? Do you think their training and equipment and tactics wont soon come to border patrol, and then your local police department? Sure, this agency with a carte blanche now is 'only' targeting people who don't look like you or speak your language or share the same values as you. But how long do you think the US can go before its departments are weaponized by someone who has dreams of being dictator of the US? 20 years? 50? 100? Rather than just writing Snowden off because he would rather live in the relative freedom of an authoritarian nation than rot in the cell of a 'free' one, maybe take his argument at face value and recognize the real danger of unaccountability.
eternalban 4y ago
Truman's letter to Washington Post, 1963, a month after JFK's assassination, in full: -- begin quote -- The Washington Post (December 22, 1963) "Limit CIA Role To Intelligence" by Harry S Truman INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President. I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility. Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work. But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions. Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department "treatment" or interpretations. I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating. Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset." For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas. I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda. With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people. I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge. But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere. We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it. -- end quote --

248 points by skilled 4y ago

rendall 4y ago

Did any American read this without alarm? If so, why not?

newaccount2021 4y ago
[flagged]
- disgruntledphd2 4y ago
  - TeeMassive 4y ago
    Which one? 2000? 2008? 2016? 2020?
    - anoonmoose 4y ago
      I think they meant the one with the unprecedented violent riots in the Capitol that resulted in some folks dying. Could be wrong.
      - Ekaros 4y ago
        Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
        ... Are you seriously implying that the Jan6 riot didn't happen? Despite all the video proof of it? I'm starting to think "Trump Derangement Syndrome" actually is a thing, but it's not his detractors that have it, it's his supporters.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        anoonmoose 4y ago
        I mean, what could I possibly say that would convince you that neither is the case? Probably nothing. I saw what I saw.
      - TeeMassive 4y ago
        anoonmoose 4y ago
      - somenameforme 4y ago
        On the off chance you weren't aware, the story about an officer being bludgeoned to death by a rioter wielding a fire extinguisher was completely fabricated. [1] He was uninjured during the riots, and died the following day of a stroke due to a preexisting blood clot. Kind of interesting the massive propaganda campaign following his death that was maintained for months, even though the coroner's report on his death would have been available within days of his death. And the powers that be obviously knew, whatever the cause, it had 0 to do with the lie that was told, and repeated for months by the media, to the American people. The only people that died during the riot were unarmed rioters. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick
        anoonmoose 4y ago
        I am aware of that. No need for the data dump. Unarmed rioters that were ignoring LEO instructions to stop trying to breach an area containing a number of politicians. There is every reason to believe that, had they breached, violence would have occurred. Acting as if their violent behavior was not the direct cause of their death just because they were unarmed is not reasonable, in my opinion.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - TeeMassive 4y ago
        "The last election" was a valid statement in 2000 as it is today
    - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
      I definitely remember a bunch of democrats being convinced that 2004 was stolen. Amusingly enough, they blamed Diebold too. 2000 is probably the one for which the strongest case exists, but people don't care about that one anymore.
      - anoonmoose 4y ago
        If you remember Dems claiming that the 2004 election was stolen, then you should be able to remember that the tenor, tone, and energy level was radically different than the events of 2020, and it all went away much faster. For example, I don't believe any Democrat candidates ran an '06 or '08 campaign around the idea that the '04 election was stolen, something which is happening right now in a number of states.
        disgruntledphd2 4y ago
        I do. The real purpose behind that comment was to add the one election that the parent had not included. I entirely agree that this is a completely different level of election fraud insanity.
HideousKojima 4y ago
I did, because I already knew about most of the atrocities and subversions of democracy etc. described in the article. But I've been called all sorts of things for not inherently trusting my government. Being called a conspiracy theorist doesn't bother me, but the people who call me a fascist while demanding daddy government stomp on their rights a little harder just baffle me.
yardie 4y ago
There are the ones that would read it and agree with it. The agency could do no wrong. There are those that read it, knew about some or most of it, and really not surprised. You possibly believe in conspiracy theories. And find out a few may be true. Then there are those who are alarmed and shocked the CIA would do such a thing.
zug_zug 4y ago
Well I think this article does a good job of saying CIA has done some crazy stuff. But then it goes from there to -> so let's get rid of it, which to me seems like potentially a much scarier proposition. It's not clear to me exactly how real the threat of foreign countries trying to tamper with our elections is, but if this is what the CIA does, I think it's probably naive to think no other nation would try things like hacking elections. 8-year-old girls shouldn't be assassinated, but in the scope of things, that's not a reason to get rid of an entire agency. (Also it's a shame Biden's speech about "hey we're a democracy" had bad visual optics, but again, not really relevant) Maybe this article isn't saying to eradicate the whole intelligence apparatus, but it's not clear to me what incremental practical step it is proposing.
- jobs_throwaway 4y ago
  >8-year-old girls shouldn't be assassinated, but in the scope of things, that's not a reason to get rid of an entire agency. Really? That seems exactly like the kind of thing that should get an agency canned, especially because its not an aberration. In fact, I'd say virtually any other agency that did so would be canned in short order. Why doesn't the CIA have to play by the same rules as everyone else? Especially when those rules are as basic as 'don't murder American children'.
  - zug_zug 4y ago
    ??? Killing is one of the CIA's sanctioned duties, so it's a bit different to compare the CIA killing a child to the EPA killing a child. But nonetheless, no, we wouldn't shut down the whole EPA, fire everybody, delete all the databases, and cancel worrying about pollution if the EPA killed a child. I know this is an emotional topic, but imo overreacting proposals actually make less progress toward a concrete improvement than practical ideas.
    - everforward 4y ago
      > Killing is one of the CIA's sanctioned duties, so it's a bit different to compare the CIA killing a child to the EPA killing a child. I don't think this is true. Executive Order 12333 states: > No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. They then go on to note that it was "re-interpreted" to not apply to counterterrorism. Under the same logic, the EPA could be extended to allow assassination of people harmful to the environment. The problem is that the CIA is meant to operate in secrecy, which makes sense for information gathering. Having a secretive group that's also tasked with extrajudicial killings virtually guarantees ineffective oversight. Let the CIA go back to gathering info, and let the SEALS or rangers or whoever do the killing. Some branch of government with a level of oversight.
socialismisok 4y ago
I think I read it with a sense of alarm fatigue, if that makes sense. The government has been doing extrajudicial killings of leftist leaders internationally and internally for a long time, so in socialist circles you tend to hear these stories regularly. Folks like Fred Hampton (and COINTELPRO generally), and Martin Luther King, Jr, (who the FBI wiretapped and then sent a letter demanding he commit suicide). And international cases like Operation PB Fortune, which overthrew democracy at the behest of fruit companies. And we can reach further back to cases like the Haymarket Affair, Blair Mountain, the internment of us citizens into concentration camps during WW2, etc. So... Am I alarmed? Yes, but have I been alarmed for a long time? Also yes.
rascul 4y ago
The actions of intelligence agencies have long ago stopped surprising me. It's hard to be more alarmed than I already am and still live my life.
roflyear 4y ago
Sure. And a huge grain of salt for someone who is under the protection of a country like Russia.
everforward 4y ago
I didn't. None of this is really new info, most of it's been through the media before. Nobody cared enough to do anything then, and I'm doubtful they will now. It's not particularly shocking that the force responsible for foreign psyops is somehow really good at escaping domestic criticism. The FBI is complicit as well, they've also got a long history of sordid affairs.
spamizbad 4y ago
Already well aware our alphabet agencies are deeply problematic. But that's hardly unique to the US. We do need better accountability - something that we've lacked. Keep in mind it's Snowden - the guy who insisted prior to Feb 24th that all that talk about Russian military build-up was just war-mongering. Turns out the NSA and CIA were right on the money.
AdamH12113 4y ago
The CIA being a nasty organization that does nasty things has been well-known for decades. What makes (most) Americans tolerate this is the same reason anyone tolerates such nasty things -- they're being done to other people. Drone strikes in particular have been discussed since the Obama administration. It's not okay, but as Snowden himself points out, it is normal. What did alarm me was Snowden mischaracterizing Biden's Philadelphia speech[1][2] as something out of a Nazi propaganda film by using out-of-context quotes and selective photography. There are plenty of liberals/leftists for whom drone strikes are their biggest issue (often so they can claim that both major parties are basically the same), but this is a step even beyond that. Given that the collapse of American democracy would be worse even for his pet issues, I find it hard to believe that Snowden is being sincere. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/09/01/remarks-by-president-bidenon-the-continued-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-nation/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA3Outfs7K8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA3Outfs7K8
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 4y ago
  As Biden gets into his speech, and for about 98% of the video - the framing is exactly as Snowden presented. Given politicians are the sort of people that obsess over the implications of the color of a tie, this visual was chosen absolutely intentionally: a flag hung vertically, blood red imposed on a dark scene, and two shadowy marines in the rear. I have no idea why they went for this visual, but it's difficult to attribute it to any motivation that is at all desirable. Incidentally, if you originally watched the video on CNN, I'd encourage you to check out your own link, past the 40 second mark! Because that leads to a much more light hearted (though not really, if you really think about the implications of this) issue. As this video was streamed CNN distorted the colors, in real time, to try to increase the apparent lighting while also turning the crimson red into something like a fuchsia pink. [1] If you think that link might itself be fake, feel free to just look at any of CNN's coverage [2] and compare it against the source videos. Everybody understood exactly the sort of imagery Biden's writers were looking to evoke. The only question that remains to be answered is why. [1] - https://twitter.com/burackbobby_/status/1565543514137677824 https://twitter.com/burackbobby_/status/1565543514137677824 [2] - https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/09/02/veteran-reaction-biden-speech-marine-background-sot-newday-vpx.cnn https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/09/02/veteran-r...
isx726552 4y ago
Anyone who knows anything about the CIA is already rightly horrified and outraged. Snowden is correct about how terrible the CIA is, however there’s no new revelations to be had here. Books like “Legacy of Ashes”[0] cover the atrocities of the CIA already. As others have pointed out, Snowden never comes back to addressing the main content of Biden’s speech, which is about a very real and very immediate threat to the US. I hate what the CIA does and represents, but there are more pressing things to worry about at the moment. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_Ashes_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_Ashes_(book)
CommieBobDole 4y ago
'Alarm' is not really the right word; the CIA and its lack of accountability is a problem, but it's not a new problem or a particularly recently-worsening problem. It's one of the bad things about America that needs to be fixed, but Snowden does not provide any new information here. And honestly, while I agree with the gist of what he's saying here, I tend to view his more recent stuff with a bit of a suspicious eye; he has made a pretty big deal about the oaths he swore that he believed required him to reveal the extent of the illegal NSA spying at great personal cost. But now, he's a citizen of the Russian Federation, which is basically a rogue intelligence agency with a kleptocracy attached to it. Which means he's sworn an oath (as all naturalized citizens must) to protect and serve the interests of that nation, to uphold its laws, etc. Does he take that oath seriously? If not, why do they tolerate him? I appreciate what he did back in 2013. But now that he's under the defacto control of the Russian FSB, I will take what he says with a grain of salt. Especially something like this, which is an opinion piece with no new information attached.
- lambdasquirrel 4y ago
  Kind of convenient that Snowden has been pushed into that corner, isn't it?
  - CommieBobDole 4y ago
    I'm not sure what you're suggesting here? Snowden has definitely been pushed into a corner, which benefits multiple entities, but I'm not clear on which particular view of events you're talking about - can you elaborate?
  - diputsmonro 4y ago
    As with any complicated situation, there are multiple conflicting interpretations that could be possible. Since we can't collapse the uncertainty, we must take the grain of salt. I do generally trust Snowden, but I can't deny that Russia would likely do everything they could to leverage the information he has against the US. Has he given them NatSec secrets in return for asylum? Unlikely I think, but possible. IMO, Russia is just keeping Snowden around as a general anti-US voice in the global conversation to air credible dirty laundry of their biggest rival. As an honest patriot, I welcome the tough criticism and aspire to fix the problems he highlights. But it's a fair concern that some of that is potentially embellished or selectively censored for Russian propoganda purposes.
blantonl 4y ago
Nothing new here. In any advanced society, how the sausage is made is typically pretty gross. If this seems like it is hand waving it away, it might be.

hunglee2 4y ago

it is not clear what could be done should an intelligence agency turn rogue, and become operationally independent from the government. It's basically a non-democratic power centre which - because it is not subject to elections - will always outlast any politician, and because of the nature of the work, has vast powers of direct and indirect influence. Good job that this is not the case in the US

banannaise 4y ago
It gets extra fun when you realize that all of this also applies to the police.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  And now google "J. Edgar Hoover blackmail" and despair...
- dfxm12 4y ago
  Most of it applies to the Supreme Court as well.
  - newaccount2021 4y ago
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
  Even more fun when you realize that the "War on Drugs" has nothing to do with drugs, and is intended to militarize the police.
pessimizer 4y ago
It's worse, because intelligence agencies surveil politicians, and can manipulate both them directly and the elections that get them their jobs. It's inevitable that the government will be controlled by the person at the highest levels of surveillance (the unsurveilled one) in a world of complete surveillance. Surveillance gets you power, and more power gives you better ability to exploit and increase surveillance. SF idea: The secrecy around your intelligence budget rises along with the size of your intelligence budget. Eventually the intelligence budget completely disappears, and people forget that there ever were intelligence agencies. But that's only because everything is now actually part of the intelligence budget, and the publicly-released budget numbers are determined by an team for the purpose of creating popular support for current initiatives, creating popular rage at troublesome trends, and designing election outcomes.

anon291 4y ago

We have known for many years the CIA is awful. Get rid of it. We can achieve national security goals via alternate means. It's probably going to get me banned, but we know they interfere in foreign elections. Why is it such a long shot to believe they don't interfere locally?

mellavora 4y ago
> Why is it such a long shot to believe they don't interfere locally? Because this goes strongly against the culture of the organization? People are funny. They may be willing to bend any law and/or see themselves as above the law in some aspects (see i.e. the Iran/contra affair), yet will honor-bind themselves to other ways. Because at the end of the day they want to be the heros, the good guys. And the C.I.A. is an organization, so people within it are bound to a culture which is part of the organization. They might be perfectly willing to betray the American people (as you or I might see it), but they will not betray the C.I.A. Part of C.I.A. is that it operates outside of US territory.
- seanw444 4y ago
  You're right, they want to be the heros. And some people would convince themselves that being a hero is to prevent a particular person from becoming president, because it would be "a danger to our democracy."
- anon291 4y ago
  I'm not sure I buy this argument that they see interfering in our elections as dishonorable. People so willing to break American laws have no good sense of honor for me
- michael1999 4y ago
  Do you think it was a coincidence that Nixon recruited his plumbers from the FBI and CIA?
- tarakat 4y ago
  > Why is it such a long shot to believe they don't interfere locally? > Because this goes strongly against the culture of the organization? No it doesn't, and I'm curious where you got that impression: A Brief History of the CIA's Unpunished Spying on the Senate - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief-history-of-the-cias-unpunished-spying-on-the-senate/384003/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief... Through these programs, the CIA's Office of Security received information from US based informants regarding individuals and groups with anti-war views. [..] According to a 1977 New York Times article, the CIA conducted a covert propaganda campaign to squelch criticism of the Warren Report. The CIA urged its field stations to use their "propaganda assets" to attack those who didn't agree with the Warren Report. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_United_S... In 1975, Church Committee Congressional investigations revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird At various times, under its own initiative or in accordance with directives from the President of the United States or the National Security Council staff, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has attempted to influence public opinion both in the United States and abroad. [..] Ralph McGehee, a former CIA officer, stated that the CIA often placed news stories anonymously in news publications to spread false ideas favorable to CIA goals. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinio... And that's only what we know about.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago

I have to ask, because I know that Biden was said to give a speech with bad optics but I never looked it up seriously - is that photo doctored?^W^W^W I just googled it myself. Whoever is doing his PR needs to be sacked for leaving him open to a photo like that.

brink 4y ago
> Whoever is doing his PR needs to be sacked for leaving him open to a photo like that. The speech wasn't any better.
- roflyear 4y ago
  what was wrong with it?
CommieBobDole 4y ago
The building was lit up in red, white and blue, and whoever took/published the photo either chose their angle or cropped it for dramatic effect. But yeah, I assume there's someone whose job is to avoid things like this who wasn't doing their job very well. https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-joe-biden-pictures-20220901.html https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-joe-biden-picture...
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  No — the US feeds of the speech all had the tight red framing, while international ones did not. That photo is the same framing as his speech broadcast on US networks. Such a market split indicates the framing was intentionally authoritarian and meant to provoke/intimidate political rivals.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    No it's not, stop being a joker. Here is what US sources had: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JemWkV2Vcic&t=967s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JemWkV2Vcic&t=967s That is massively different than the pic in the article.

d23 4y ago

It's a shame he addresses none of the points of the speech he premises the article on. He could be an important voice right now speaking out against tyranny and fascism.

jeffbee 4y ago
This guy only pops up when Putin needs to dust him off for some anti-American propaganda. The chances of Snowden speaking out against tyranny are zero.
qaq 4y ago
And where would he move ?
roflyear 4y ago
Did you listen to Biden's speech?

dvt 4y ago

A bit hypocritical of Snowden to criticize the USA while holed up in Russia. But maybe I'm a bit partial considering the USSR destroyed every semblance of culture and national identity in my home country, causing generations of corruption and trauma, and ultimately emboldening my family to move to the States--abandoning lifelong friends and family--where a much better life was possible. But please, keep lecturing us on how the US is "problematic." It's highly indicative that someone hasn't lived even a remotely hard life (nor traveled extensively, at least not without a US passport) when their criticism of the US is so paper thin. We get it: US imperialism bad, CIA evil, etc. But boy am I happy (not to mention proud) to be an American.

malwrar 4y ago
Where else do you think he’ll be safe from US vengeance?
- spamizbad 4y ago
  China.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Any country that is an enemy of the US, which unfortunately does mean that when he criticizes the US (a country he has not lived in for nearly a decade) you have to take it with a grain of salt.
libraryatnight 4y ago
Taking Russian sins out on a man stuck there because he's wanted is an odd take.
jwond 4y ago
> A bit hypocritical of Snowden to criticize the USA while holed up in Russia. Seeing how Julian Assange has been treated I think Snowden is acting wisely and I’m not going to hold it against him.
- deleted 4y ago

recursivedoubts 4y ago

All empires end up controlled by the praetorian guard. Don't like it? (I don't.) Don't become an empire.

martythemaniak 4y ago

CIA is bad says FSB spokesman. If you think that's unfair, I invite you to scroll through his Twitter account right before Feb 24th.

briantakita 4y ago
Are you saying that the CIA is good? What good has the CIA done for this world & the ordinary US citizen?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Ask Ukraine. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-russia-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-rus... But even as the Biden administration has declared it will not deploy American troops to Ukraine, some C.I.A. personnel have continued to operate in the country secretly, mostly in the capital, Kyiv, directing much of the vast amounts of intelligence the United States is sharing with Ukrainian forces, according to current and former officials.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  It's hard to say, because you rarely hear about the successes they have, just the failures. But the US intelligence community played a key role in the fall of the USSR, denuclearization of Iran, and I guess arguably the success of south korea given the US's required action to stop the invasion from the North. Obviously all those things could be bad depending on your political philosophy, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say most Americans approve. And that's to say nothing of the intelligence community's key role in Ukraine and specifically the recent counterattacks.

jnovek 4y ago

Has everyone on Hacker News lost their minds? I come here to read and sometimes participate in rational discussions. These comments are some of the lowest effort, least rigorous, paranoid bullshit I’ve ever seen on this site. We’re a step above Facebook comments on NPR articles, here. Partisanship, viciousness and lazy conspiracy theories are not a good look for this site.

adultSwim 4y ago
We are witnessing information warfare unfold in real time. Every government and many companies are trying to exert pressure. People are responding by picking sides. It's a dangerous situation.
blub 4y ago
Yes, the amount of hate for Snowden and Assange is dismaying. These men sacrificed their lives to expose the crimes of one of - if not the most -powerful organizations on Earth. And people nitpick that they’re not criticizing the other most powerful entities too. Basically they’re criticizing them for not committing suicide in the name of a people which were impotent of unwilling to do anything with the revelations provided. I’d be surprised to hear that these people even contradict their boss, never mind reveal any compromising information on anyone.
- HyperSane 4y ago
  Assange has been a Russian asset for a long time. Snowden is a spokesman for Putin now. What a coincidence.
  - not1ofU 4y ago
    Source?
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/15/ecuador-concluded-that-assange-has-ties-to-russian-intelligence/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/15/ecuador-concluded-t... https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia...

O__________O 4y ago

America even prior to its founding was built upon covert operations, expecting it to change is pointless; Washington was leader of a spy network [1] and my understanding is even the original federal budget for spying was unusually high. What’s unclear to me is if it’s possible for a completely open and truthful society to exist at every level. I just find it hard to believe it is, but I have also never seen any proof that it is not either. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culper_Ring https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culper_Ring

csours 4y ago

We say: Hey, the police are killing us, could you please stop that. No, we need to be tough on crime. It's just too bad that some people die, but I need to feel secure. We say: Hey, the police are still killing us, could you please stop that. It looks like we need to reboot the justice system. No, we need to be tough on crime. Why do you want the crime rate to go up? We say: Hey, the police are still killing us, we need to abolish the police. No, we need to be tough on crime. Why do you want everyone to be murdered in their beds? --- Imagine just showing up at each of those exchanges, what would it look like without the history if you just saw a point in time. We all live with an internal moral history - what we thought was righteous and unrighteous at any point in time. --- In my canned example at the top, I didn't talk about the actual changes that took place in policing. There's just no way for me to write my whole viewpoint on this situation in a comment. If it's possible for you to do that, then maybe you don't want a complex society with people who want different things and have different points of view. I deeply understand this perspective. It would be so nice if everyone just agreed with me. It would be so nice if everyone had the same moral history and there was no deep division and hatred. But that's just not the world we have. People are complicated and want different things. People have histories that lead them to believe a certain way. --- Anyway, I think any police organization or system of justice should be based on reduction of harm.

mc32 4y ago
The solution isn't "throw more police at crime". It's multi-faceted. It's not just make work/life more worthwhile either because there are places with relatively high unemployment but also low crime. It's about civics and what society sets as acceptable boundaries and enforcing those boundaries and punishing those that stray too far. Looks at the USA's wild west. It went from rampant violent crime to acceptable social order. The impetus often was locals wanting to transform from territory to union member state. The country required certain control over crime and usually the solution was to bring in sheriffs to control crime, bring in schools to teach civics and bring civilization (law and order) to a lawless place.
- csours 4y ago
  We all have a little policeman in our heads.

cheaprentalyeti 4y ago

Not replying to anyone in particular, but regarding Assange, Snowden, and Putin (and by extension his /patron/ Xi): has it ever occured to any of you that our corruption has turned into a weapon in the hands of our enemies, and that we can't deal with the situation if we never address the corruption to begin with?

humanistbot 4y ago

> Flanked by the uniformed icons of his military and standing atop a Leni Riefenstahl stage, the leader clenched his fists to illustrate seizing the future from the forces of “fear, division, and darkness.” I stopped reading once Godwin's Law applied. This was the first paragraph.

CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
- nilespotter 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

I think I was already aware of most of the facts presented, but I'm not sure I know what argument is being made? That the CIA has not enough oversight? This is like a standard plot element in Hollywood movies and comic books, so that seems a little obvious. That the President of the United States shouldn't mention it if he learns someone is plotting a coup or terrorism in his country because that's hypocrisy? Legacy of Ashes is a good book on the CIA and he has one on the FBI (which covers the two groups petty infighting as well). https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7441109M/Legacy_of_Ashes https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7441109M/Legacy_of_Ashes

ur-whale 4y ago
> This is like a standard plot element in Hollywood movies and comic books, so that seems a little obvious. Are you choosing to base your understanding of the world on the information found in Hollywood movies? I am not certain that's a very rational way to do things. BTW, no worries, you're not the only one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNy6F7ZwX8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNy6F7ZwX8I
- diputsmonro 4y ago
  No, the point is that it's an idea that everyone is likely to be familiar with, so it's not particularly novel. Why do you think that became a trope in the first place? Sure, the blog post is good in that it references specific real world events, but the thesis is not really new information. Movies often show that the sky is blue, but that doesn't mean that our expectation of a blue sky is irrational. Nevermind the fact that those movie tropes, and much of art in general, is a reflection of real world issues and events. The idea is so pervasive because we already know that it's true.
yucky 4y ago
The most concerning thing for me is how the CIA and other branches of our intelligence agencies avoid oversight by funneling work through foundations like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democra... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Institute and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Republican_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Republican_Insti... etc. If we have no accountability for our intel agencies then what do we really have?

helen___keller 4y ago

I've never been a huge fan of his overly-evocative writing style. Not to say that what he's written is fake or wrong or misleading, but when I see this sort of emotionally charged writing my propaganda radar goes off. I can't stand reading it.

smm11 4y ago

We support the police, yet attacked them on Jan. 6. We don't trust the government, yet those who were on the inside telling us what is wrong are also the enemy.

keepquestioning 4y ago

This rings entirely hollow since his patron launched an illegal war in Ukraine.

kevingadd 4y ago
Both things can be bad simultaneously. P.S. Consider why you felt obligated to specify "illegal" war. Could the tremendously inhumane war in Ukraine be legal somehow? Would it be OK then? I hope not.

1970-01-01 4y ago

Supported by a foreign enemy, defending domestic interests. A Russian citizen with a warrant for his arrest. His words are true, but his honor remains conflicted at best.

euphetar 4y ago

So many people comment about how Snowden can't say things like this because he is in Russia. I wonder: how does it invalidate the facts? He links to Wikipedia. Maybe you don't want to believe Snowden, him being a traitor. Don't you believe Wikipedia? I don't see how Snowdens identity is even relevant to the subject.

emptyparadise 4y ago
Snowden is stuck in a lose-lose position. Do you choose to go behind bars or do you embrace the hypocrisy in the hope that you can still do some good? This is the interpretation I choose to believe, until I see any proof to the contrary. Ultimately his whistle-blowing was a good thing.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  He would have had whistleblower protection had he gone to Congress with his findings. It could have been win-win
  - LunaSea 4y ago
    You're very naive if you think this would have worked. Look at what happens to other whistleblowers destiny.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      I've worked in defense and I've worked in intelligence collection in the service before that. We might disagree but I don't think I'm naive on this topic. Whistleblower protections are set up in such a way as to protect the whistleblower. This means you don't hear about a majority of whistleblowers. We can agree to disagree since we are ultimately arguing a hypothetical (what would have happened) but I think Snowden should have at least tried to go that route.
1970-01-01 4y ago
>I wonder: how does it invalidate the facts? It doesn't. His loyalty is unbounded. His honor, however, is open to interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_loyalty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_loyalty

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/15/494157921/house-intel-panel-edward-snowden-was-no-whistleblower https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/15/494157921... Snowden is "a serial exaggerator and fabricator" who told a series of untrue stories about his health, education and performance reviews. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/12/edward-snowdens-claim-that-as-a-contractor-he-had-no-proper-channels-for-protection-as-a-whistleblower/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/... Obama, at an August news conference, specifically said that “I signed an executive order well before Mr. Snowden leaked this information that provided whistleblower protection to the intelligence community — for the first time.”

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
>* Snowden is "a serial exaggerator and fabricator" who told a series of untrue stories about his health, education and performance reviews.* Oh look, propaganda in the form of an ad hominem fallacy.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Have you read the intelligence report that the NPR article references? It's good. It even says Snowden had whistleblower protection but never tried to use it. Nobody he worked with remembers him bringing it up. Etc. Had he gone to Congress he would be considered a whistleblower. That report is what made me do a 180 on Snowden fyi Pdf warning: https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt891/CRPT-114hrpt891.pdf https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt891/CRPT-114hrpt891.pd...
  - softcactus 4y ago
    Just finished reading through the whole thing. I am curious which part changed your opinion on him? I'll go through my thoughts: 1. I don't think whistleblower protection would have applied anyways since what the government was doing was technically legal. 2. Snowden seems like an asshole and a nightmare to work with, but I don't think that should factor in to the credibility of any arguments he makes which are backed up with sufficient evidence. 3. The biggest thing that changed his perception for me was how much he leaked. It would have been better if he had only gone after documents that pertained to privacy of US citizens.

CharlesW 4y ago

Note for writers: In paragraph 3, Snowden uses the word "premises" but means "premise". These are similar-looking words with very different meanings. My inner paranoid now wonders if Snowden wrote this, because in my experience this is a mistake most commonly made by ESL writers. It would be interesting to perform stylometry on his history of work to see if there's a break.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
That's just the plural form, is it not? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/premises#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/premises#English
- CharlesW 4y ago
  Oh, I didn't even consider this given the seemingly-singular premise (paragraph 2 after the quote) but I think your explanation is more likely. Thank you!

trabant00 4y ago

There can be no long lived instution, let alone an intelligence agency, without sin. Presenting only the bad things is not how you evaluate one, or its country. Half truths are the best lies. This IS propaganda. And this is Snowden's current position and role.

jononomo 4y ago

Snowden has never struck me as a particularly interesting thinker. I listened to some interviews he gave a few years ago and he came off as dull-witted, frankly.

pwinnski 4y ago

President Biden gave a speech about a specific person and what he perceives that person's threat to America to be, and Snowden omits any mention of that person, describes Biden's speech as being only about "his political opposition" and uses that as a springboard for... stuff. It's almost as if he didn't watch or read the speech, but only saw screen grabs and headlines from people who hate Biden.

softcactus 4y ago
I read it more as him trying to point out an incongruence between American political discourse and the realities of American realpolitik. On the one hand you have Biden calling out Trumpism/MAGAism as a threat to democracy, on the other hand you have the media hyperfixation on the optics of his speech: 'omg he looks like a dictator!!' Meanwhile when you look at the machinery underneath and how our system really maintains the status quo, fascism is the standard operating procedure. How can someone claim they want to restore justice and the sanctity of democracy when the extrajudicial killings of US citizens is just another Tuesday? I don't think he really needed to criticize the substance of Biden's speech, since, given our leaders hyperfixation on optics, there was no substance to analyze in the first place. The speech was nothing but a layer of feel-good frosting concealing the violent means of control underneath.

softcactus 4y ago

For anyone who thinks that Snowden is just a puppet of Russia, or that the CIA needs to walk a gray line to defend the US interests in the name of some global greater good: Do you think those chickens will never come home to roost? Do you think their training and equipment and tactics wont soon come to border patrol, and then your local police department? Sure, this agency with a carte blanche now is 'only' targeting people who don't look like you or speak your language or share the same values as you. But how long do you think the US can go before its departments are weaponized by someone who has dreams of being dictator of the US? 20 years? 50? 100? Rather than just writing Snowden off because he would rather live in the relative freedom of an authoritarian nation than rot in the cell of a 'free' one, maybe take his argument at face value and recognize the real danger of unaccountability.

eternalban 4y ago

Truman's letter to Washington Post, 1963, a month after JFK's assassination, in full: -- begin quote -- The Washington Post (December 22, 1963) "Limit CIA Role To Intelligence" by Harry S Truman INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President. I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility. Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work. But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions. Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department "treatment" or interpretations. I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating. Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset." For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas. I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda. With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people. I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge. But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere. We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it. -- end quote --