> "one of the biggest security leaks in the American history"
Is the prism slides really one of the biggest security leaks in the American history, comparable to the Pentagon Papers, the war logs or the diplomatic cables? The prism power point leak looks a bit tiny in comparison.
It seems to me as the reason prism get so much media attention, is that it confirmed something everyone already knew but refused to accept. That shock hit at peoples heart, and felt more than 250,000 United States diplomatic cables or 500,000 army reports. Knowing, rather than just suspecting that Google, FB or microsoft channels data over to the NSA feels worse than hearing about kids being shot at by an attack helicopter using 30 mm fire.
Still, using the description of biggest security leaks in the American history might be a bit much?
Well the guy responsible for leaking the pentagon papers (Daniel Ellsberg) had this to say:
"In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden’s release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago"
AIUI, he didn't leak any actual data. Just metadata. He leaked what information is being collected, rather than any information that actually was collected. Definitely nothing like "one of the biggest security leaks in the American history".
It is easier to digest a powerpoint presentation than huge load of legal documents. As well what the documents revealed is that program is spending considerable amount of money and no tiny blip on GDP - and it is being used to break all sort of essential freedoms that have been clearly penciled into the constitution by framers.
What has been revealed so far is cronyism, systemic corruption and trampling of citizen's rights while being paid by those same citizens out of their national debt, which is at 15 trillion at this moment.
I agree, it's not even the biggest "US is spying!" leak of this century. ECHELON[1] is larger, I would argue (though I'm not sure exactly if it was "leaked" per say).
> "Russia has never extradited anyone, and will not extradite," said Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
While part of me feels that this is good news, the other part - cynical from all the word games I've heard from my own government recently - suspects they could definitely send him back without calling it "extradition." Still, I am cautiously optimistic.
I don't think you need to be particularly cynical to assume that Russia might eventually send him away without calling it an extradition. After all, it doesn't look like Russia is interested in actively protecting Snowden. And if he doesn't get asylum in Russia neither somewhere else, it's plausible that the "default" alternative is deportation.
I don't know anything about spy exchanges, but based on the term I would imagine it works the other way: an American spy captured in Russsia would be traded for a Russian spy captured in the US. Do they usually trade defectors too?
To put it more generally, it would be for an American spy in Russia for any reason and under their control, for any similar Russian spy in America. Doesn't matter whether the "spies" want to go or not, nor how they got there. The spy exchange would be just window dressing for accomplishing some thing that either or both powers want.
Between this and both sides publicly announcing they're arming opposing sides of the Syrian conflict, I can't help but think the cold-war is making a comeback.
I am not saying that Russia should betray Snowden's trust and hand him over. Just that the two countries should have the appropriate communication channels to sort this out, and not air to the media in PR stunts. Public diplomacy often leads to oneupmanship, and makes concessions expensive.
It's not a cold war per default, when a country refuse to do what the US demands. This is just a conflict of interest. Syria is in Russia's backyard, so of course they'll have opposing viewpoints.
Snowden and Wikileaks moved it into the public for a reason. Russia/US can't change that right now, so they have to play along, which seems like a good thing for Snowden/Wikileaks.
>It's not a cold war per default, when a country refuse to do what the US demands. This is just a conflict of interest. Syria is in Russia's backyard, so of course they'll have opposing viewpoints.
They also don't take well to fundamentalists wanting to turn Syria into Afghanistan masquarading as "freedom fighters".
Europeans, and Israeli even more, don't want an extremist Islamic state on their doorstep. Mujhaeddins in Lebanon were enough of a headache already, before their "nationalist" switch; crazies controlling a state as big (and rich) as Syria would mean years of things blowing up from London to Tel Aviv. This is also why the European establishment is quite happy with developments in Egypt.
In this sense, the US-French-British axis gambling with Lybia and Syria was incredibly risky, and could end up creating more problems than Qadafi and Bashar ever did... But that's the nature of our elites, forever playing their little Great Games with no regard for everyday people.
If a military junta in Egypt suits the West as you suggest then so would Assad in Syria.
I think the west's motivations are complicated but certainly do contain an element of desire to help ordinary Syrians and also a fear the consequences of both acting and failing to act.
The problem with Assad (like originally with Qadafi) was that he was in the Russian sphere of influence, so he had to be replaced with a friendlier regime. Somehow, "we" thought the Arab Spring narration was "our" chance to achieve that. It's true that this development contains the possibility of a friendlier regime, which would not have been there with the previous status quo; whether this is actually likely though, it's another matter: the current track record for post-WWII regime-changes in the Middle East is dismal to say the least, and it didn't improve much in the last decade.
Call me cynic, but I believe "ordinary Syrians" are the last of "our" problems. Syrian middle-classes, like their Libyan and Egyptian counterparts, are largely compromised with the regime, and would have certainly favoured a peaceful (if lengthy) transition rather than a civil war where they stand to lose everything. Assad was not more brutal than, say, the King of Morocco, who does pretty much the same sort of thing but is in the Western orbit (and in a less strategic area).
If the alternative is a failed state, and breeding ground for terrorism, or anti-west propaganda, then sure. Assad would be the lesser of two evils from a certain point of view.
If we could get a full-blown democracy, and freedom for the Syrian people, that would of course be even better. But I fear someone else is exploiting their hopes and dreams for a better future to serve their own interests, and any intervention by the west would only fuel that exploitation. But then again seeing civilians getting caught in the crossfire is very painful. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Well I guess all the bankers who destroyed our economy for a decade can flea to Russia too.
Oh wait, they don't have to flea, no-one is pursuing them and they are gearing up for the next round of destruction since no laws were passed to restrict their behavior. We have great priorities and perspective.
You just couldn't resist, could you. I'm shocked no regulation has passed to limit the banker's power. And I'm even more shocked none of them spent any time in jail. Seems like they really do own capitol hill
At this point, I think capitol hill owns them, and would hate to send their lackeys to jail and interrupt what they have encouraged them to do: fleece the plebs to pay massive consultant fees for their insider information about bloated govt contracts and pending financial manipulations.
If we want to get down to nitty gritty, technically what the bankers did was not illegal. No matter how much we don't like it...the same goes for the NSA. They aren't breaking the law. That's what needs to be fixed.
In this case, "a pawn". I'm fairly certain the Russians are unwilling to antagonize the U.S. beyond mild annoyance (posturing, really) and if the issue is forced to any meaningful degree, Snowden is toast.
This whole episode has really shown the fallacy of US = Good, {Russia, China} = Bad.
If you're an American, this might be a bit hard to understand. But for those who don't hail from any of the above-mentioned countries, it's easier to take a more balanced perspective of each.
I don't think we can really look at any country in specific good/bad terms. I personally applaud Russia's actions on this matter.
Really? Have you read the history of US/CIA involvment in Latin America? From embracing "death squads" to endorsing Pinochet and tons of other dictators, to war with Panama, to meddling with Venezuela, Columbia, Peru, Brasil, Argentina, Mexico etc politics, heck almost everywhere. Do you know how the very term "Banana Republic" came to be?
I found this interesting as well. Putin has developed a reputation for being his own mouthpiece when it comes to anything that helps to further the cult of personality he's built around himself.
In other words, I'm shocked Putin had someone else say this instead of having cameras on him while he was shirtless and wrestling a bear for control of the life of a tiger cub.
Is the prism slides really one of the biggest security leaks in the American history, comparable to the Pentagon Papers, the war logs or the diplomatic cables? The prism power point leak looks a bit tiny in comparison.
It seems to me as the reason prism get so much media attention, is that it confirmed something everyone already knew but refused to accept. That shock hit at peoples heart, and felt more than 250,000 United States diplomatic cables or 500,000 army reports. Knowing, rather than just suspecting that Google, FB or microsoft channels data over to the NSA feels worse than hearing about kids being shot at by an attack helicopter using 30 mm fire.
Still, using the description of biggest security leaks in the American history might be a bit much?