SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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.
Jan 10, 2014
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.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
© 2023 EmptyWheel.net
Marcy Wheeler
Marcy Wheeler is a journalist who writes the blog Emptywheel. She publishes at various outlets including the Guardian, Salon and the Progressive. Wheeler won the 2009 the Hillman Award for blog journalism.
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.
Marcy Wheeler
Marcy Wheeler is a journalist who writes the blog Emptywheel. She publishes at various outlets including the Guardian, Salon and the Progressive. Wheeler won the 2009 the Hillman Award for blog journalism.
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.