Obama Approves Releasing Classified Information to Attack Snowden for Leaking Classified Information
Kudos to Shane Harris who, unlike a number of other reporters, brought the appropriate skepticism to Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger's attempt to fearmonger Edward Snowden's leaks.
Kudos to Shane Harris who, unlike a number of other reporters, brought the appropriate skepticism to Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger's attempt to fearmonger Edward Snowden's leaks. Not only did Harris use the correct verb tense -- "could" as opposed to "has" -- to describe documents describing the activities of the Armed Services that have not yet been released (and note, implicitly Rogers and Rupp are saying the risk is to forces in the field but not within the domestic US). But he repeatedly noted Rogers and Rupp's complete failure to provide any evidence:
But the lawmakers -- who are working in coordination with the Obama administration and are trying to counter the narrative that Snowden is a heroic whistleblower -- offered no specific examples to substantiate their claims.
[snip]
The lawmakers cited no articles or specific documents to support that claim.
[snip]
But the spokesman did not say what, if any, conclusions the task force had reached about actual damage caused by documents Snowden took, regardless of whether they've been disclosed or not.
My favorite part of Harris' piece, however, is the way he makes clear that Rogers and Rupp are selectively releasing classified information -- with the Administration's approval -- to complain about Snowden releasing classified information.
A congressional staffer who is familiar with the report's findings said that the lawmakers chose to make some of its contents public in order to counter what they see as a false impression of Snowden as a principled whistleblower who disclosed abuses of power.
"Snowden has been made out by some people to be a hero. What we need to do is really look at the effect of his leaks and see that what he's done is really harm our country and put citizens at risk. The purpose [of releasing some findings] is to clear the record and show that he's not a hero," the staffer told Foreign Policy.
The staffer said that the administration approved the information that the lawmakers disclosed in advance.
Because some leaky pigs are more equal than other leaky pigs.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Kudos to Shane Harris who, unlike a number of other reporters, brought the appropriate skepticism to Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger's attempt to fearmonger Edward Snowden's leaks. Not only did Harris use the correct verb tense -- "could" as opposed to "has" -- to describe documents describing the activities of the Armed Services that have not yet been released (and note, implicitly Rogers and Rupp are saying the risk is to forces in the field but not within the domestic US). But he repeatedly noted Rogers and Rupp's complete failure to provide any evidence:
But the lawmakers -- who are working in coordination with the Obama administration and are trying to counter the narrative that Snowden is a heroic whistleblower -- offered no specific examples to substantiate their claims.
[snip]
The lawmakers cited no articles or specific documents to support that claim.
[snip]
But the spokesman did not say what, if any, conclusions the task force had reached about actual damage caused by documents Snowden took, regardless of whether they've been disclosed or not.
My favorite part of Harris' piece, however, is the way he makes clear that Rogers and Rupp are selectively releasing classified information -- with the Administration's approval -- to complain about Snowden releasing classified information.
A congressional staffer who is familiar with the report's findings said that the lawmakers chose to make some of its contents public in order to counter what they see as a false impression of Snowden as a principled whistleblower who disclosed abuses of power.
"Snowden has been made out by some people to be a hero. What we need to do is really look at the effect of his leaks and see that what he's done is really harm our country and put citizens at risk. The purpose [of releasing some findings] is to clear the record and show that he's not a hero," the staffer told Foreign Policy.
The staffer said that the administration approved the information that the lawmakers disclosed in advance.
Because some leaky pigs are more equal than other leaky pigs.
Kudos to Shane Harris who, unlike a number of other reporters, brought the appropriate skepticism to Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger's attempt to fearmonger Edward Snowden's leaks. Not only did Harris use the correct verb tense -- "could" as opposed to "has" -- to describe documents describing the activities of the Armed Services that have not yet been released (and note, implicitly Rogers and Rupp are saying the risk is to forces in the field but not within the domestic US). But he repeatedly noted Rogers and Rupp's complete failure to provide any evidence:
But the lawmakers -- who are working in coordination with the Obama administration and are trying to counter the narrative that Snowden is a heroic whistleblower -- offered no specific examples to substantiate their claims.
[snip]
The lawmakers cited no articles or specific documents to support that claim.
[snip]
But the spokesman did not say what, if any, conclusions the task force had reached about actual damage caused by documents Snowden took, regardless of whether they've been disclosed or not.
My favorite part of Harris' piece, however, is the way he makes clear that Rogers and Rupp are selectively releasing classified information -- with the Administration's approval -- to complain about Snowden releasing classified information.
A congressional staffer who is familiar with the report's findings said that the lawmakers chose to make some of its contents public in order to counter what they see as a false impression of Snowden as a principled whistleblower who disclosed abuses of power.
"Snowden has been made out by some people to be a hero. What we need to do is really look at the effect of his leaks and see that what he's done is really harm our country and put citizens at risk. The purpose [of releasing some findings] is to clear the record and show that he's not a hero," the staffer told Foreign Policy.
The staffer said that the administration approved the information that the lawmakers disclosed in advance.
Because some leaky pigs are more equal than other leaky pigs.