Snowden filtered by Janes Risen filtered by New York Times, as with all other filterings by special-interested Snowden filters, does deliver a reassuring message to precisely answer highly filtered questions and charges that have been made about his heavily filtered, nay, almost negligible releases. Perhaps Snowden actually speaks in person, appears in a filtered documentary, in a WikiLeaks filtered video, emails encryptically! via Greenwald and Risen, like a character from a brain-washing film, formulaicly, always on point, no ifs and buts, no waverings from propaganda-like rationales and justifications. But so far every version of his apperances by whatever medium come across as carefully vetted by WikiLeak's Sarah Harrison, lawyers and PR wizards, as over-edited, sanitized and directed, as little substantiated despite alleged thousands of documents as hard driven advocacy so like reviled special-interested groups of all persuasions. This critique applies to the dog and pony shows now ranging the globe by freedom of information special interests, staffed by a coterie of so-called ex-spies, their lawyers, their PR wizards, national security journalists and civil liberties exploiters, bedded and applauded by camp followers, funded by egotically, narcissisticly bored and wealth-drunk patrons like Omidyar, Soros, and, why not j'accuse the combine, the USG and its filthy rich spies long known to use the wealthy to protect their common special interests since corruption was invented, Day One. Snowden is either an ignorant fool, seduced along with Manning, by the narcotic dispensed by govs, NGOs, spies and the wealthy "to do good" or a fabulous con artist like Assange to "fleece the fuckers" as he emailed January 2007, via leaks extortion, that is, adopt the strategy and tactics of the "enemy" to seduce others into their concentrated wealth carnal palace. At 01:08 AM 10/18/2013, you wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... He's still loyal to the american nazis. That's praiseworthy?
he is showing extraordinary discretion and restraint, and an underlying approval for some fundamental american ideals, like guaranteed right to individual privacy, though of course this should extend to the world not just US citizens.
let's not forget that Guardian was forced to move this reporting to the USA, because of GCHQ/her majesty's interference. and of course there are plentiful locales where the activities of anyone involved would strongly encourage a less than discrete "summary lack of continued living incident" of some obscure manner.
at any rate, this is too long and detailed a conversation for today.