Did any American read this without alarm? If so, why not?
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.
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.
What's the grain of salt, if all of the information he presented is already well-known?
> But now, he's a citizen of the Russian Federation
In fact he is not. Although he has applied.
> Does he take that oath seriously?
It's unknown. Do you have access to any special information on this subject?
> If not, why do they tolerate him?
Can you truly not think of any reasons Russia might tolerate his presence even if he were not to seriously and honestly swear to do whatever they say?
He is a living middle finger to the US. Russia benefits from him simply being there and staying in the public awareness. I'm sure loyalty to Putin would be nice, but I bet they'd gladly accept simply not actively working to undermine Russia while he's there.
In this case, it's bit of suspicion about his motivations. And if he presents claims of new factual information in other communications, I would require more rigorous verification of their truth than I would if he was, say, in France taking advantage of some extradition loophole.
> In fact he is not. Although he has applied.
That appears to be correct. So I don't know if he has yet taken an oath of allegiance to the Russian Federation, though he has certainly announced his intention to.
> It's unknown. Do you have access to any special information on this subject?
Of course not; it's a rhetorical question that follows from his previous statements about his belief that the oath he took to the United States required him to do what he did, despite the personal cost.
> Can you truly not think of any reasons Russia might tolerate his presence even if he were not to seriously and honestly swear to do whatever they say?
Of course I can; there is a continuum of possibilities between "He is free to say whatever he wants but he only says bad things about Russia's adversaries for obvious practical reasons, in return for which his presence is tolerated" to "He is and has been for many years a paid FSB agent or asset and a true believer in the geopolitical agenda of the Russian Federation and everything he writes is crafted specifically by him and a FSB propaganda team to serve their goals of the moment". My personal opinion is that he lies somewhere much closer to the first than the second, but in the end we don't know. Thus, grain of salt.
Unnecessary. American and Russia do not have an extradition treaty. There are Russians here that Russia would like extradited (if you weren't aware of this you need to expand your news sources) and there are Americans in Russia that America would like extradited (Snowden obviously). But they don't trade. Why? American doesn't want Snowden badly enough to give up anyone Russia wants. So the reason he's there is America is choosing to keep him there. Russia doesn't have to do anything at all and they get free criticism about America coming from a (in)famous American, again without having to lift a finger. It's win win for Russia. And win win for America, the American government can pretend Russia is evil and harboring a fugitive without having to lift a finger.
The only people losing here are predominantly Snowden, the American people, and arguably the Russian people.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
So no, the EPA cannot kill anyone as the law only allows the military to engage in offensive operations. (USC Title 10)
Nope https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-gave-cia-power-to-launch-... The CIA has the authority and hardware to launch their own drone strikes. It was classified, so we don't know when it started, but Obama removed their power to do it and Trump gave it back.
The US has two separate drone strike programs. The military runs one, and the CIA runs the other.
Edit: Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ayman_al-Zawahiri it's specifically noted that the CIA conducted the drone strike after approval from Biden.
If your child is killed, even in the most horrifically tragic of circumstances, you might think you're morally entitled to everything the killers have and more, but under any civilized legal system in the world, you aren't.
You might get a few hundred-thousand dollars, maybe even millions. But you're not getting 50 million, or even 10 million. Blood money is a thing, it has never ceased to be a thing, and it's arguable that no system of government could function if it wasn't a thing. If every life is priceless then entitlements would rack up to impossible levels really quickly, there's a great deal of tragedy and brutality in the world that would overwhelm such a system, well beyond the tiny fraction that makes any part of the news.
This is a long winded way of saying: assassinating an 8 year old girl should lead to various corrections, and generally shouldn't happen, but the CIA as a whole is worth more than one life.
Good thing you're not in charge, your idealism would quickly turn to anarchism and despair if you saw how the sausage is made. You'd bring the whole house down on all our heads just to spite it.
You're living in a hell. The gates of your hell are not locked nor guarded, you can leave whenever you want, but you have to realize that you're in hell before you can realize that there's a better place to be.
But the article literally says she was killed during a commando attack ordered by Donald Trump.
I agree the CIA has done lots of awful things, and that knowingly or carelessly killing children should not be allowed. But did the CIA do this particular killing?
> "When you get these terrorists," Trump said, "you have to take out their families."
> O’Reilly asked Trump if he meant it when he said that he would "take out" the family members of terrorists. He didn’t believe that Trump would "put out hits on women and children" if he were elected. Trump replied, "I would do pretty severe stuff." The Mesa crowd erupted in applause. "Yeah, baby!" a man near me yelled. I had never previously been to a political event at which people cheered for the murder of women and children.
And then when asked about it being illegal:
> Taking part in the Fox News GOP debate last night, the billionaire was asked about General Michael Hayden saying that the military would refuse to follow illegal orders such as the intentional killing of terrorists’ families.
> Mr Trump said: “They won’t refuse, they’re not going to refuse me — believe me.”
> The entrepreneur elaborated with claims that the wives of the 9/11 terrorists knew what was going to happen and fled to Saudi Arabia just before the attacks.
I don't think that sentence needed a "but" part
Why be a jerk?
Proper adversarial (a la GAO) oversight is hinted at when he points out the failure to inform Congress about multiple activities. A commission appointed by Congress to inspect CIA activities could go a long way.
If we elect representatives who run on a platform of assassinating 8-year old US Citizens, and overthrowing leaders of foreign democracies, then that's terrible, but it's far superior to a world in which a single person can unilaterally decide to do these things and then hide it from Congress.
Is Snowden now a Russian asset? Maybe. Doesn't matter. Why doesn't Congress have true oversight of the CIA?
It's necessary to "break a few eggs to make an omelet" and that's how "the sausage is made"? Ok, but why doesn't Congress have true oversight of the CIA?
Snowden writes too flowery? Sure, but why doesn't Congress have true oversight of the CIA?
90% of the freakouts over each President each term is because the Office of the Presidency has so much power ceded by Congress over the decades. No one would have been so deeply freaked out by Trump if the President did not have the power to wage war, to assassinate US citizens, for secret trials, to spy domestically, to put people on no-fly lists, order nuclear strikes and so on.
Anyone who asserts that what happened to Nawar al-Awlaki during the Raid on Yakla was an assassination is either lying or was lied to.
It is impossible to even discuss the matter if someone starts at such an impossibly indefensible position.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/20...
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
[2] - https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/09/02/veteran-r...
I think Hanlon's Razor is a better explanation. Look at a wider picture[1][2], and the start of the CBS video I linked above. The building was well-lit, including the doorway area. When Biden starts speaking, the doorway light is turned off, plunging the background into darkness. This was probably done because the lit doorway was brighter than Biden. After a couple minutes, the light comes back up, but dimly. The background is still too dark, but it looks like they only had that one light to work with. Clearly this was being done on the fly.
CNN's color shift at ~12:40, on the other hand, probably had nothing to do with the background. Compare Biden's face before and after the shift. Before the shift, he looks yellow. After the shift, he looks much more natural. The lighting was just bad. CNN decided to adjust for it; CBS didn't.
Meanwhile, photographers love contrast, and the dynamic range of a camera is much smaller than that of a human eye. So a scene that probably looked normal in person turns into something dramatic in photographs. (And I bet Photoshop was used to enhance that drama even more.)
The conclusion I draw from this is that bad lighting produces bad images, and that politicians are not hyper-competent when it comes to such things. The content of the speech reinforces this -- far from being an eliminationist screed, Biden's speech is yet another hand extended to moderate Republicans inviting them to leave the Trump coalition and reject fascism. (Much like Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" speech, I expect this invitation to be ignored, but that's another matter.) Here are some representative quotes, none of which sound particularly fascist to me:
> Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy.
> So I want to say this plain and simple: There is no place for political violence in America. Period. None. Ever.
> On top of that, there are public figures — today, yesterday, and the day before — predicting and all but calling for mass violence and rioting in the streets. This is inflammatory. It’s dangerous. It’s against the rule of law. And we, the people, must say: This is not who we are. (Applause.)
> We’re a big, complicated country. But democracy endures only if we, the people, respect the guardrails of the republic. Only if we, the people, accept the results of free and fair elections. (Applause.) Only if we, the people, see politics not as total war but mediation of our differences.
> The soul of America is defined by the sacred proposition that all are created equal in the image of God. That all are entitled to be treated with decency, dignity, and respect. That all deserve justice and a shot at lives of prosperity and consequence. And that democracy — democracy must be defended, for democracy makes all these things possible.
This is bog-standard Americanism. The idea that it's some sort fascist rally speech simply doesn't hold water.
[1] https://billypenn.com/2022/09/01/biden-philadelphia-speech-i...
[2] https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-joe-biden-picture...
Do you genuinely believe the long zoomed out and angled images that are required to make this scene look less creepy are what the scene was intended to be streamed as? Or it was it intended to be streamed like literally every other single 'serious speech', the sort of which Biden's team, a group absolutely obsessed with visuals and apperance, have decades of experience orchestrating - front and center, zoomed on speaker?
I looked at the C-SPAN video and saw the same crappy background lighting and the same on-the-fly attempt to fix it, along with occasional crowd shots of people in folding chairs politely applauding.
I think you are overestimating both how much thought the people who prepared this scene put into the visuals and how much control they had over the setting. In order to believe that something sinister is going on, I would have to believe that:
1. The Biden team (or whoever did the lighting) was "obsessed" with the visuals and highly competent, but changed their minds about the lighting two minutes into the speech.
2. The Biden team intended to produce fascist-style visuals for the speech, but instead of having the audience be rows of soldiers they put a bunch of ordinary-looking people in lawn chairs around a circle.
3. CNN is in the tank for Biden, but decided to suddenly ignore his "clear intent" and "fix" the visuals twelve minutes into the speech.
4. Biden decided to use Nazi imagery in a speech opposing fascism and supporting pluralistic democracy, for... some reason?
5. Anyone, anywhere, could ever see Joe Biden (of all people) as a fascist Great Leader figure.
I think you are looking for conflict and complexity where there is none. The simplest and most plausible explanation for the visuals is that someone did a crappy job on the setup.
If you genuinely believe what you're saying here, then you would hold those exact same opinions in such a scenario.
This is not an issue I pay a lot of attention to, so you should probably find other summaries as well.