Bob Cesca is one of the few journalists consistently providing a critique of the entire Snowden Show on the Daily Banter. Here's what he says in discussing the issue of real and fake whistleblowers
-- he describes some workers who found that some of their colleagues were listening in on soldiers' phone calls with their girlfriends, especially if they were cybering, and they blew the whistle on this invasion of privacy:
This pair of former analysts were real-life whistleblowers. They witnessed serious abuses within the system and came forward to Swanson, Bamford and ABC News, respectively. They didn’t barf up volumes of top secret documents onto the internet. They didn’t flee the country. They didn’t speak to overseas reporters about secret operations against China and the EU having zero to do with spying on Americans. Their claims were restricted solely to the abuses they witnessed firsthand. Surely they embarrassed the government and NSA, but if President Obama was truly fighting a “war on whistleblowers” (he’s not), he could’ve prosecuted them upon taking office several months later. But he didn’t. To date Faulk and Kinne are living their lives, free from prosecution because the information they revealed was direct and narrowly confined.
My emphasis added. They didn't hack files and barf them up. They stuck to the story that had originally outraged them.
That's exactly what Bradly Manning and Julian Assange didn't do, and why I rapidly concluded they were not human rights activists. Manning claimed he decided to commit his treasonous hack over what he saw as mistreatment of Iraqis running a printing press, but he never published the story in any form, never released any files from the incident, nor did Assange, who decided it "wasn't interesting". Or how about this: would be checked, and found not to be as Manning claimed. That's what I suspect.
This aspect of the fraudulent nature of these anarchists is never called out, but I call it out as I think it is emblematic.
We see the same thing with Snowden.
He has produced only two specific cases of wrong-doing in his volumes of sweeping generalizations.
One is the story of the "suspected hacker's girlfriend" who has had her phone abroad snooped -- and he doesn't tell us who this is. If he did, we might check the facts, and the NSA might tell us if in fact she was snooped. If she wasn't, or if in fact she was properly snooped because she was aiding and abetting felonious hacking (like that of Aaron Swartz), then we might put paid to his claims. That's why he doesn't tell us.
The other is that story about the banker who was supposedly recruited to the CIA by being caught at drunk driving. It'd be great to actually come up with this guy and inspect the bona fides of this this claim. I suspect it is not as Snowden claims.
So instead, broad, sweeping claims about data being slurped up, and no concrete cases.
Recent Comments