http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertyunderground/ http://clearingthefogradio.org/ https://www.facebook.com/login.php?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgroups%2F461619557192964%2F --------------------------------------------------------------------------
*WHAT THE MEDIA OWES TO BRADLEY MANNING* * * <http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/06/bradley-manning-court-martial-wikileaks-trial-comes-into-focus-on-day-3-89732.html> * * ** As I keep saying, I know I shouldn't be surprised by hypocrisy anymore at my age, yet I am. And the hypocrisy of the media in the case of Bradley/Chelsea Manning is off the charts. I don't have anything to add to *this superb piece by Hamilton Nolan at Gawker*<http://gawker.com/what-the-media-owes-to-bradley-manning-1182562107>. -LS ** ------------------------------ *WAR CRIMES OK WITH THE "RIGHT" WEAPON* * * <http://mickymouseamerica.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/phosphorus-musharraf-micky-mouse-usa-both-sent-pakistan-into-stone-age/> * * ** In the on-going controversy over whether or not "chemical weapons" are being used in Syria, I have to ask: what difference does it make if you murder people by blowing their brains out or murder people by gassing them? It's still murder. Bombing them via drones is okay, but killing them via chemicals is some kind of "red line"? Don't people see the insanity in this argument? Why do they reflexively repeat it? Oh, I know. Because our Fearless Leader says it; therefore, it must be true. And heads up -- the Obama administration is now "studying" the NATO bombing in Kosovo as a way to start bombing Syria<http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/23/obama-aides-see-kosovo-as-precedent-for-attacking-syria/> . Read *this account*<http://wikileaks-press.org/soldiers-perspectives-on-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/>of how the U.S. used chemical weapons in Iraq, maiming and murdering hundreds of thousands of people. It's via WikiLeaks. Thank you again, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. -LS ** ------------------------------ *$$$$* <http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/nsa_surveillance_20130606/> Oh, great. So not only is the NSA snooping on and screwing us six ways to Sunday, it's paying internet service providers for the privilege. Yep, Google, Verizon, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, et. al. are taking, essentially, bribes to help the government do its dirty work and lie to the rest of us <http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/23-2>. What a country. -LS * * ** ------------------------------ As we know, it's okay if leaked documents come from "official" sources, not okay if they come from mere peons like us. The Obama administration has been selectively leaking classified information to the press when that leaking suits the government's purposes. But when anyone else leaks it, it's a crime. It's treason. Now we see that the UK has also gotten in on the act; read Glenn Greenwald's latest below. -Lisa Simeone<http://abombazine.com> Snowden: UK government now leaking documents about itself<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base> *The NSA whistleblower says: 'I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent.'* *by Glenn Greenwald* *, * *Friday, 23 August 2013* *(updated below)* The Independent this morning published an article<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uks-secret-mideast-internet-surveillance-base-is-revealed-in-edward-snowden-leaks-8781082.html> - which it repeatedly claims comes from "documents obtained from the NSA<http://www.theguardian.com/world/nsa> by Edward Snowden" - disclosing that "Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls, and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies." This is the first time the Independent has published any revelations purportedly from the NSA documents, and it's the type of disclosure which journalists working directly with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have thus far avoided. That leads to the obvious question: who is the source for this disclosure? Snowden this morning said he wants it to be clear that he was not the source for the Independent, stating: "I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent. The journalists I have worked with have, at my request, been judicious and careful in ensuring that the only things disclosed are what the public should know but that does not place any person in danger. People at all levels of society up to and including the President of the United States have recognized the contribution of these careful disclosures to a necessary public debate, and we are proud of this record. *"It appears that the UK government is now seeking to create an appearance that the Guardian and Washington Post's disclosures are harmful, and they are doing so by intentionally leaking harmful information to The Independent and attributing it to others. The UK government should explain the reasoning behind this decision to disclose information that, were it released by a private citizen, they would argue is a criminal act."* In other words: right as there is a major scandal over the UK's abusive and lawless exploitation of its Terrorism Act<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/david-miranda-law-detention-heathrow> - with public opinion against the use of the Terrorism law to detain David Miranda<http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/500591/20130821/miranda-glen-greenwald-britons-nsa-snowden.htm> - and right as the UK government is trying to tell a court that there are serious dangers to the public safety from these documents, there suddenly appears exactly the type of disclosure the UK government wants but that has never happened before. That is why Snowden is making clear: despite the Independent's attempt to make it appears that it is so, *he is not their source for that disclosure. Who, then, is?* *The US government itself has constantly used this tactic<http://www.salon.com/2012/06/07/probing_obamas_secrecy_games/>: aggressively targeting those who disclose embarrassing or incriminating information about the government in the name of protecting the sanctity of classified information, while simultaneously leaking classified information prolifically when doing so advances their political interests.* One other matter about the Independent article: it strongly suggests that there is some agreement in place to restrict the Guardian's ongoing reporting about the NSA documents. Speaking for myself, let me make one thing clear: I'm not aware of, nor subject to, any agreement that imposes any limitations of any kind on the reporting that I am doing on these documents. I would never agree to any such limitations. As I've made repeatedly clear, bullying tactics of the kind we saw this week will not deter my reporting or the reporting of those I'm working with in any way. I'm working hard on numerous new and significant NSA stories and intend to publish them the moment they are ready. Related question For those in the media and elsewhere arguing that the possession and transport of classified information is a crime: does that mean you believe that not only Daniel Ellsberg committed a felony, but also the New York Times reporters and editors did when they received, possessed, copied, transported, and published the thousands of pages of top-secret documents known as the Pentagon Papers? Do you also believe the Washington Post committed felonies when receiving and then publishing top secret information that the Bush administration was maintaining a network for CIA black sites around the world, or when the New York Times revealed in 2005 the top secret program whereby the NSA had created a warrantlesss eavesdropping program aimed at US citizens? *Or is this some newly created standard of criminality that applies only to our NSA reporting? Do media figures who are advocating that possessing or transmitting classified information is a crime really not comprehend the precedent they are setting for investigative journalism?* UPDATE The Independent's Oliver Wright just tweeted the following<https://twitter.com/oliver_wright/status/370883254989365248> : "For the record: The Independent was not leaked or 'duped' into publishing today's front page story by the Government." Leaving aside the fact that the Independent article quotes an anonymous "senior Whitehall source", *nobody said they were "duped" into publishing anything. The question is: who provided them this document or the information in it? It clearly did not come from Snowden or any of the journalists with whom he has directly worked. The Independent provided no source information whatsoever for their rather significant disclosure of top secret information.* Did they see any such documents, and if so, who, generally, provided it to them? I don't mean, obviously, that they should identify their specific source, but at least some information about their basis for these claims, given how significant they are, would be warranted. One would think that they would not have published something like this without either seeing the documents or getting confirmation from someone who has: the class of people who qualify is very small, and includes, most prominently and obviously, the UK government itself. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base ** ------------------------------ *If you wish to be removed from this list, please let us know* ** *To join the Liberty Underground news service go here: http://luvnews.info/Join.htm* ** *You may also join our talk group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertyundergroundtalk/ if you would like to participate * *or join our Facebook group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/461619557192964/**. * *email: [email protected]* ** *Tell your friends about LUV News because some people just don't get it.* [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
