7 ms·

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

by rendall 4y ago

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.

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.