Thread: Op-Ed: Snowden Affair — How the White House managed to cover its face

Digital Journal
By Ernest Dempsey Jul 26, 2013

Washington - With Edward Snowden being cornered by the US government across borders, the White House is directly revealing its desperation to hide the embarrassment it caused to the American nation, both nationally and internationally.

Edward Snowden’s revelations about the NSA were a major quake shaking the foundation of the Obama Administration for violating the civil rights of the citizens.

The fact that the US government was spying on its citizens, violating their right to privacy as defined by the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, and even the cyber giant Microsoft was partnering with Intelligence to access citizens’ communication was opened to the world. And this was the case not only for American citizens but also for foreign embassies (which are considered foreign territories outside the direct administration of the US jurisdiction). The leak came from a first-hand source – Snowden – who himself work as an NSA contractor. It was impossible to deny this disaster. What was the US government to do now?

It would resort to old, tried techniques of psychological weapons to win the war. The biggest and most powerful weapon in this scheme is language. Using the word “traitor” to assassinate Snowden’s character was vital to the US administration’s face-saving priority. That it did immediately and on a wide scale, in combination with the word “spy”, only bolsters this point. But the latter alone was not effective because it is more descriptive of an act and the NSA or the US government itself was the prime accused in this context. To effectively throw the masses quickly into a psychically numb state, “traitor” was the word used by the administration – a word with emotive meaning of someone who is guilty of treason, a definition which if pursued logically will point fingers more toward the authorities than the individual wanted by them.

In a recent interview on Australia’s ABC radio, Professor James Morone at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, pointed to the “American puritan tradition” that works by focusing on “sinners” instead of “sins”. And those who, like the medieval clerical authorities, speak of punishing the sinners spontaneously get exempted from this label. In making Snowden a sinner, a traitor, the White House had to find the drum over which the face-saving song of “traitor Snowden” could be beaten loud enough to suppress any voices of protest against the sin the authorities had been caught doing. This drum was to be none else than the modern puritanical channel of mass-deception, aka mainstream media.

Over the years, the so-called professional media sources have repeatedly been exposed for serving corporate and institutional setups. Being an institution itself, mainstream media prostitutes its role out to save institutions while destroying individuals and their voices in situations when it comes to choose between institution and individual – again focusing on sinner rather than the sin; for doing the latter will lead to the eradication of the evil that is the stronghold of the rulers. By constantly talking about Snowden and what’s going to happen to him, the media enabled the White House to cleverly cover its political sin – the violation of civil and human rights. Whether we can trust the mainstream media, especially the American media in Snowden’s case, remains a big question after its open service to protecting institutional interests.

And the power of its service can’t be denied. Still the contradictions within media speak for the inadequacies howling in this channel of political power over people. That is how we see the Business Insider claiming that majority (53%) of Americans now consider Snowden a criminal while another report in Providence Journal says he is a hero to majority of Americans. No media outlet, however, is hammering people’s minds with the question whether US Intelligence or the White House is traitor for the same reason – spying – as applied to Snowden. The White House also failed miserably on another ground in Snowden’s case.

If Snowden is a traitor, a security risk, how come a single young guy like him got away with secrets of the White House (and they don’t tell what secrets except that they were spying on civilians) and made it to “enemy” countries? Those beating the drum of “enemy countries” are too afraid to ask if we have enemy countries; how come we have close agreements and trade ties with those states – mainly China and Russia in this case.

In terms of security, however, whose responsibility was it to guard state secrets? And those who failed to guard it are to be considered incompetent. But why has no person in the government resigned yet over this terrifying failure? In the good old days, we had a tradition of responsible people resigning over a big slip. Sadly, those days are gone and the ideals of freedom and individuality are being drained down the political gutter as the authorities in American today save their face with the complicity of media and other institutions.

Perhaps we don’t have any “responsible” people anymore. America’s latest tactic to save face is to bully other nations with sanctions, implying further large-scale violations of human rights for economic sanctions can lead to poverty and crime in nations. In short, the White House wants the world to suffer because its administration is too dumb to do its job, guard against security threats, and protect sensitive documents from leaking out to the world. But still, it is clever enough to save its face, for which one can’t but acknowledge the role of media, the ultimate weapon of mass mis-communication.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/articl...#ixzz2aAOstFSJ

To effectively throw the masses quickly into a psychically numb state, “traitor” was the word used by the administration – a word with emotive meaning of someone who is guilty of treason, a definition which if pursued logically will point fingers more toward the authorities than the individual wanted by them.

Being the first the shout out a person's "crime" is a very old trick for hiding one's own faults.

I've seen a 4-year old who had just upset a table point to another child and say, "He did it". So I doubt that this ruse is either time or culture specific. It's both human and weak.

Edward Snowden claims Microsoft collaborated with NSA and FBI to allow access to user data

New allegations from the NSA whistleblower suggest a degree of collusion between US intelligence agencies and Microsoft that had been previously denied

Microsoft has been accused of actively colluding with US intelligence agencies, helping both the NSA and the FBI to access individuals’ communications and data processed by the tech company’s various services.

These procedures allegedly included helping the NSA to bypass encryption on the Outlook.com email client; providing the FBI and the NSA with easier access to SkyDrive, Microsoft’s cloud storage service, and helping the NSA to boost their capability threefold to intercept video calls made via Skype.

The information is the latest to be revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in a series of leaks.

Citing top-secret documents provided by Snowden, the Guardian newspaper claims that Microsoft collaborated with intelligence agencies in order to streamline their access to citizen’s data.

One document referenced also referred to the collection of information via Prism and shared amongst the FBI, CIA and NSA as a “ team sport”.

Tech companies of Silicon Valley have previously sought to distance themselves from accusations of active collaboration with intelligence agencies, claiming that when they have provided data it has only been because of legal compulsion. However, these allegations suggest a far more willing relationship between government organizations and technology companies.

In a statement given to the Guardian Microsoft repeated their line of defence, saying: “We have clear principles which guide the response across our entire company to government demands for customer information for both law enforcement and national security issues.”

“We take our commitments to our customers and to compliance with applicable law very seriously, so we provide customer data only in response to legal processes.”

Microsoft, Google, and other companies implicated in the Prism program have all issued public statements urging the US government to allow them to reveal the full extent and details behind data requests but so far the only forthcoming information has been via Snowden’s leaks.

In their statement regarding the latest allegations Microsoft also stated that “there are aspects of this debate that we wish we were able to discuss more freely. That's why we've argued for additional transparency that would help everyone understand and debate these important issues.”

The Guardian have declined to release the documents detailing Microsoft’s actions, with Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald stating that this because the information was gathered from an online bulletin system, rather than through official documentation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ed...a-8705755.html

A condition of Snowden's asylum in Russia, I understand, is that he will not release any more info while he is there.

The link below takes one to some -- maybe all -- of what he put out there already.

-------------------------------------------------

Snowden Disclosures: What's Behind Hidden CIA Base in Brazil?

As whistle-blower Edward Snowden releases more and more sensitive National Security Agency (NSA) files, the public is gaining unique insights into Washington's underhanded foreign policy in South America. It's no secret that both the Bush and Obama administrations have viewed Venezuela as a threat, but Snowden's disclosures suggest that Washington has a bead on Brazil, too. For some time I've been writing about such rivalry, and recent explosive reports merely confirm what many U.S. diplomats already concede privately: that is to say, Brazil is a force to be reckoned with and the country may even undermine or upset traditional regional U.S. dominance in the not too distant future.

Snowden's revelations, which have given rise to a firestorm of international controversy, underscore the growing importance of the NSA, which worked in tandem with the CIA to set up a spying operation in Brasilia. The joint espionage program, code-named "F6" but more commonly known as the "Special Collection Service," sought to scoop up and obtain valuable satellite data. According to a recent article in The Week, "the men and women of the Special Collection Service are responsible for placing super-high-tech bugs in unbelievably hard-to-reach places." According to the publication, Special Collection Service teams comprised of two to five people rotate into American embassies around the world, working undercover as diplomats. When the State Department is unable to offer official cover, agents may pose as businesspeople.

Glenn Greenwald, who broke the NSA story for O Globo newspaper, says the U.S. used Brazil as a "bridge" to collect data on more protected countries whose traffic nonetheless passed through the large South American nation. At present, Brazil has no satellites of its own though the country leases eight satellites operated by foreign companies. There's some indication that Washington views Brazil as more than just a bridge to spy on other countries, however. According to Snowden's leaked documents, the NSA has targeted Brazil with as much vigor as other large nations like China, Pakistan and Russia. Speaking candidly, the Brazilian Minister of Communications has stated that he "has no doubt" that his country's citizens and institutions were spied upon, and politicians from across the political spectrum have voiced outrage over U.S. spying.

A History of Surveillance

Today, Brazil is a somewhat reliable U.S. partner though political frictions are beginning to emerge between the two powers. Go back some twenty years, however, and relations were somewhat more harmonious. In 1994, Washington welcomed the victory of Fernando Henrique Cardoso who beat challenger Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva in the Brazilian presidential election. During the go-go 1990s, Cardoso was well regarded in Washington circles for espousing conservative economic policies. Lula, by contrast, was a member of the Workers' Party and therefore more suspect in the eyes of the Clinton administration.

Whatever the case, it seems the U.S. wasn't taking any chances with Cardoso. According to Folha de São Paulo, Brazil's ambassador to the U.S. suspected that his embassy had been spied upon prior to a Cardoso trip to Washington in 2001. At the time, the ambassador noted that embassy phone lines had behaved rather erratically. Cardoso himself must have been aware of such reports, though the former president recently claimed that he did not know about the Special Collections Service during his tenure. Cardoso may not have had direct knowledge of the joint NSA-CIA base in Brasilia, but he was most certainly aware of U.S. capabilities more broadly. Indeed, according to a separate Folha de São Paulo article, Cardoso's Minister of G.S.I. (Institutional Security Office) testified to Congress as early as 2001 that the NSA had developed a program called Echelon which was designed to intercept e-mail and other communications.

Perhaps, the government was being surveilled from within as well. According to Correio do Brasil, the Cardoso administration contracted security firm Booz Allen no less to help carry out privatization plans and restructuring of the Brazilian financial system. Whistle-blower Snowden worked at the company, which has links to the N.S.A. and helps to prosecute the drug war in Latin America. Booz Allen in turn is owned by the infamous Carlyle Group, a corporation known for ties to insider politicians. Carlyle once employed none other than George Herbert Walker Bush as an adviser. His son George W., meanwhile, served on the board of directors of Carterair, an airline food company which was later acquired by Carlyle.

From Cardoso to Lula

In 1998, Lula ran for president against Cardoso for the second time but was once again roundly defeated. Four years later, however, the political situation had begun to change. For one thing, Cardoso could no longer run for reelection, and meanwhile South America's "Pink Tide" to the left had taken Venezuela out of Washington's traditional political orbit. Out on the campaign trail, Lula accused Cardoso of being too friendly and "submissive" to the U.S. What is more, Lula accused Washington of wanting to "annex" Brazil through the Free Trade Area of the Americas or F.T.A.A. This time, Lula finally got his wish and was elected president.

Once in office, however, Lula started to push familiar economic policies from the Cardoso era. Moreover, according to WikiLeaks cables the wily Lula sought to placate the Bush administration while occasionally appearing to side against fellow leftists across the wider region. There's even some suggestion in the cables that members of Lula's cabinet received U.S. intelligence dealing with Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. At the U.S. embassy in Brasilia, meanwhile, American diplomats exploited internal divisions within the Lula government to gain political advantage.
Despite such crass and cynical opportunism, the Lula administration pursued a much more independent foreign policy than Cardoso. How did the new political shakeup affect U.S. espionage? Greenwald's reporting leads to some intriguing yet still unanswered questions. According to O Globo, the joint NSA-CIA spying hub functioned "at least until 2002," the same year Lula took over from Cardoso. Somewhat vaguely, O Globo adds that "there's no proof" that the espionage station still exists in Brasilia.

Brazil is Powerless

In light of Snowden's recent bombshell disclosures, many Brazilians may wonder whether the U.S. is concerned about the South American nation's rise on the world stage. On the surface at least, Washington has somewhat strained if cordial diplomatic relations with Brasilia, and the two nations even conduct military exchanges. On the other hand, the Pentagon has embarked on an effort to establish military bases throughout the Southern Cone and in countries bordering Brazil. In Chile, for example, the U.S. Southern Command operates a military facility in the port city of Concón in the central province of Valparaíso. In Argentina meanwhile, the Pentagon tried to establish another military base in the Chaco region but was rebuffed by the Kirchner administration.

It's anyone's guess what the Brazilian military makes of such aggressive Pentagon maneuvering, but at long last the government seems to have woken up to the threat of electronic eavesdropping. According to a recent Inter Press Service report, Brazil is now "attempting to untangle a web of hi-tech espionage with low-tech equipment reminiscent of a novel by British author John le Carré." One Brazilian foreign affairs expert told the news outlet that "in the past, spying had a specific target. It was very low-tech, and action was taken on the basis of suspicions. But now, le Carré's novels look like they were written in the Middle Ages. We are looking at a qualitative and quantitative change in espionage."

According to Folha, an intelligence officer told the Brazilian Congress in 2008 that G.S.I. knew about Echelon and had studied the NSA's program. Nevertheless, Brazil earmarked less than $44 million for cyber-security in 2013, a pittance which leaves the country vulnerable to attack. Though Brazil will shortly launch its own satellite, undersea fiber optic cables and internet data collection center, the Defense Minister has openly admitted that his country "is still in diapers" in terms of cyber-security.

Surveying frenetic N.S.A. spying and U.S. Pentagon activity on its borders, the Brazilian government must surely wonder about wider American objectives. The larger question, however, is whether Brasilia can do anything to counteract or mitigate Washington's intelligence gathering. During the Cardoso years, and possibly leading into the Lula administration, the NSA seems to have been able to carry out its objectives in Latin America with relative ease.

Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left. Follow him on Twitter here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikola...b_3652983.html