Streetwise Professor

A recurring theme in the Snowden saga has been the debunking of the most spectacular claims, with metronomic regularity.  The NSA has direct access to Google, Facebook, and Yahoo servers! Uhm, no.  The NSA has spied on French and Spanish and Dutch citizens! Uhm, no: the French and Spanish and Dutch intelligence services collected data and shared it with the NSA.  And on and on.  Many claims have disintegrated within 24 hours.  Several others survived a whole two or three days before imploding! But nonetheless, every new revelation is treated uncritically by a fawning press, as if Ed has brought down Powerpoints from a burning bush.

Given this record, any good Bayesian would discount each new allegation, and the haircut would increase every time one of these allegations proves to be overblown (which happens to be every time an allegation is made).  The most recent “bombshell”-that the NSA is somehow accessing the cloud storage of Google*, etc.-is a case in point.  I would give good odds that this story too will prove to be all hat, no cattle.  (It’s based on a doodle from Post-It note, for crying out loud.)

One of the more enduring claims-meaning that it lasted more than a week-is that the US eavesdropped on Angela Merkel’s cellphone.  Look at that article. 7 pages when printed out, with a cast of thousands given bylines (including the noted “journalist” Jacob Appelbaum).  There have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles written since repeating the “US spied on Merkel claim.”  With nary a soul pushing back.

Well, at least there was one soul. CNN’s (will miracles never cease?) Becky Anderson called total bullshit on Holger Stark, one of the authors of the article and the primary German bag man for the Snowden material.

Note how Anderson utterly demolishes him.  He repeats the claim that the NSA was “monitoring” Merkel’s cellphone.  Then Anderson swoops in: “What you don’t report is what information the spy agency was gathering.  Were her conversations for example recorded, or was this the gathering of what we’ve come to know as metadata?”

Stark: “We’ve been shy on commenting on those points because we just can’t know that for sure.”

Seriously? Shy? Are you kidding me?  Shy?  Seven pages in Der Spiegel screaming “NSA spied on Merkel” is shy? You “don’t know for sure”?  Funny.  I hadn’t noticed. Y’all seemed pretty damned sure.

More Stark: “The only thing we know for sure is that this entry shows her as an active target.” Then he goes on to say that she is the target of a special unit that collects everything.  Then he admits “we don’t know that for sure [what has been collected] and we only want to report on things that are confirmed.”

Really?  She’s on a list. That’s all Stark knows.  The rest is pure speculation with zero documentary support. Do know for sure. Don’t know for sure. Whatever.  Only report on things that are confirmed: again, that’s news to me.

And speaking of documents.  The most spectacular conclusions that Greenwald, Poitras, Gelman, Stark, etc., have drawn from these documents are not supported by the documents themselves.  But are the documents even authentic?  If they aren’t, even the shrunken allegations are not supportable.

What measures have the gang taken to establish the validity and provenance of the documents? Most are Power Point presentations.  Who’s to say Ed didn’t create them, or embellish them?  (Trivial to add a slide or two.)  Would it be possible to prove the authenticity of these documents so that they could be admitted as evidence as a trial?  If not, why not?

It seems that everything is taken on faith.  My motto in this instance would be: don’t trust, and verify.  But the motto of the gang appears to be: these documents are too good to check because they support our agenda!

Watch the rest of the interview.  Anderson just owns Stark, who attempts to weasel his way out of his repeated overstatements.  She almost gives me some hope for journalism and journalists.  Would that more of that craven set follow her example.

*Google’s Eric Schmidt expressed outrage at the claim that the NSA had penetrated the cloud, or intercepted data en route to the cloud.  Spare me.  I mean, seriously, people.  I know Google reads my email.  I know it.  How do I know it?  The banner ads that creepily echo subjects of my email.  I write an email including a discussion of Russia, and up pops a banner advertisement for Russian dating services  I write an email mentioning the stock market, and up pops an ad for stock brokerages.

Google obviously doesn’t give a rat’s rump about my privacy, or yours.  Indeed, our information is its livelihood.  And I know that the NSA couldn’t care less about my email, unless my metadata intersected with that of bomb makers from the Tribal Territories of Pakistan, or Yemen, or Somalia.

So don’t worry about the NSA having access to information you communicate via Google.  Worry about Google having information you communicate via Google.

I’ve written several pieces on the contradictions between Snowden and Snowden, Snowden and Greenwald, and Greenwald and Greenwald.  It seems that they are finally getting their stories straight, though there are still some glaring conflicts.

At one time Snowden said he had vetted every document to ensure that nothing damaging to US security was leaked.  (Ha!) Then he said that he had no control over what was released, but left that up to the journalists to whom he’d given the documents.

Greenwald has said that he speaks with Snowden daily, and coordinates with Ed on what to release.  But now Greenwald has changed his tune, and is now singing off of Ed’s latest score:

Mr Greenwald says that he and Ms Poitras are in charge of the documents, and that they decide how and when the documents are disseminated.

“We each have a complete set, and Snowden is not the one making the decisions,” he says. “That’s Laura and myself.”

There is one major problem with this story.  It is hard to reconcile with Greenwald’s repeated claim that he communicates daily with Snowden.  What do they talk about?  The weather?  Or is Greenwald (who practiced law) engaging in lawyerly evasion?  He and Snowden talk about what to do but the final decision is his.  Or something.

There is an obvious reason to converge on this story, despite the fact that it contradicts previous iterations.  Kucherena has said that any stories based on documents that Snowden gave to reporters before leaving Hong Kong do not violate the risible condition of Snowden’s asylum, viz., that he does not make further revelations that harm the US.

As if.

It is evident that every revelation is deliberately intended to harm the US, notably by causing problems with US allies.  It is also evident that Russia is a major beneficiary of these rifts.

Greenwald, for his part, has the audacity to say crap like this:

Their goal, he says, is simple: “We want to inform people about what’s being done to privacy.”

What tripe.  Most of the revelations after the very first (which really weren’t revelations, if you’d been paying attention) have had zero to do with individual privacy.  They have had to do with US intelligence operations in, and sometimes against, foreign counties.

The privacy meme was developed to make Snowden a sympathetic figure, and to immunize him against criticism.  This identity as civil liberties crusader is trotted out every opportunity to preempt and respond to criticisms of other leaks which are related to the kinds of operations intelligence services have been carrying out since time immemorial.

One last thing.  Snowden has released a “Manifesto for Truth,” which is just more preening, self-serving, self-justifying gas-baggery.

Rule of thumb: only grandiose twats release manifestoes.

The Benghazi story came back to life last week with a story on 60 Minutes. The new part of the story was an interview with a British employee of the security firm Blue Mountain, who claimed that he went into the US consulate building while it was under attack.  This man, who was referred to by the pseudonym “Morgan Jones”, also stated that it was evident that security conditions around the facility had become perilous in the weeks before the attack.  Jones has also written a soon-to-be-released book about his experiences in Libya.

This implicit criticism of the Obama administration has led, not surprisingly, to a vicious counterattack.  “Morgan” was revealed, through a leak, to be Dylan Davies.  Moreover, Davies’ after action report filed with Blue Mountain was leaked.  In this report, Davies states that he did not go to the US facility because the route to it was blocked by militia checkpoints.  The administration has seized on this to discredit Davies and the entire CBS story.

Several points.  First, one explanation for the discrepancy-that Davies lied in his report because he had been ordered to stand down-is plausible.

Second, even if Davies did exaggerate his role on 9/11/12, his characterization of the degenerating security situation in Benghazi has not been contradicted.  Indeed, it was confirmed by the statements of State Department official Gregory Hicks.

Third, Hicks’s statements are even more damning, because he confirms that not only was the security situation fraught, but that when he asked for reinforcement, he was told that none were available.

Someone in the administration, who bravely made himself (or herself) available for quotation without attribution, made a despicable attack against those who have raised questions about the administration’s actions in Benghazi before, during, and after the attack:

Administration officials seized on the discrepancies to again criticize GOP zeal in pursuing the Benghazi incident. “The people who were injured and the families of those who died are owed an apology” by Davies and “60 Minutes,” said a senior administration official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. “There were real heroes that night, including the quick response team that actually got into the U.S. compound and saved lives. Davies was, according to his own after-action report, not one of them.”

Unbelievable. The people who are responsible for the deaths and injuries, and who have not apologized (can anyone forget Hillary’s “what difference does it make?”), and who have in fact offered outrageously false accounts of events (notably, the MoVid), are demanding apologies from others who demand a fair accounting, and accountability?  Do you remember the desperate pleas of Sean Smith’s mother for an explanation of what happened, but was given nothing?

Some people have no shame.  None.

If you followed events last year, you will know that there is virtually nothing new in the 60 Minutes story.  The only news is that a leading news organization decided to run a major piece on it.   The only problem is that it’s over 12 months too late.  And note the immediate fire dropped on CBS’s position for having the temerity to challenge the party line.

The main open question is what was the CIA doing in Benghazi.  CBS didn’t ask the question.  Nobody has, really. The administration appartchik quoted above lambastes the Republicans for their criticism of the administration’s actions in Benghazi, but note that the Republicans like Graham and McCain have not said anything about the CIA operation.  Presumably they have been briefed on it, and are fine with it.  They might have indeed been aware of what was going on before 9/11/12.

Obviously something big was going down there.  Something big means a big target. Which makes the failure to have forces in place to respond to an attack on that target all the more reprehensible.

In brief, the administration was derelict before, during, and after the attack.  60 Minutes rather timidly criticized the pre- and during attack dereliction, and has elicited a very non-timid response from the administration.  No doubt that will convince the rest of the media to continue its adherence to omertà.  The important truths about Benghazi are known, but not told.

It is becoming clear that Edward Snowden’s theme song was penned by Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil, and performed by the Animals, in 1965, well before he was born.  But the Russian response was penned centuries before, by Dante: Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

The latest episode in the Snowden farce was a visit by German parliamentarian, and noted watermelon (green on the outside, very red on the inside) Hans-Christian Stroebele.  (I’m sure you’ll be stunned to learn that he said nothing about the Greenpeace group currently facing hard time in Russian prisons for their trespass on a Gazprom rig in the Arctic.) In the meeting, Snowden gave Stroebele a letter, which included the following rather elliptical statement*:

I hope that when the difficulties of this humanitarian situation have been resolved, I will be able to cooperate in the responsible finding of fact regarding reports in the media, particularly in regard to the truth and authenticity of documents, as appropriate and in accordance with the law.

I look forward to speaking with you in your country when the situation is resolved. . .

In other words: I WANT OUT.

Not gonna happen.

First, there is no way that Merkel’s government is going to give Snowden asylum.  They may be peeved at Obama, but not that peeved.  And Poitras and her lot are deluded if they think that some Red Depends Baby legislator speaks for the German government. (By the way, the fact that Stroebele, defender of the Red Army Faction, ardent anti-American, and advocate of the legalization of incest, is on the parliamentary committee that oversees German intelligence is sufficient reason for the US to spy on the Germans.)

Second, the Russians shot down the suggestion in technicolor flames:

But Kucherena warned that if Snowden were to leave Russia, as he offered in the letter given to visiting German Greens Party member Hans-Christian Stroebele on Thursday, that his Aug. 1 asylum grant would be voided.

“He can’t leave Russia. As you know, he got refugee status and if he moves to a different country, he loses this status,”Kucherena told RT through a translator.

My, my said the spider to the fly.

When asked about testifying in Russia, Snowden demurred:

Snowden’s Russian lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, told the Interfax news agency that Snowden would not violate the conditions of his asylum if he talked to the Germans in the wiretapping case. But Stroebele said Snowden had “significant reservations” about that idea, fearing that speaking to foreign officials on Russian soil could cause him problems.

Problems like, if he says something the FSB doesn’t like, he’s in in for some time in the cooler-or worse-to get his mind right.

So Ed is well and truly stuck in Russia. Hell, he isn’t even allowed access to Skype or YouTube.  Because, you know, he might signal “H-E-L-P M-E!” by blinking his eyes in Morse Code.

So abandon all hope, Ed. You entered Russia, and you are doomed to stay there for the duration of your miserable, natural life.

Most likely his bleak fate was determined by his ostensible savior, Wikileaks, which posted this risible tweet (h/t @Libertylynx). Sure. Wikileaks has eyes on Snowden 24/7 in Russia, but Russian intelligence doesn’t interrogate him.  Even though even Stroebele admits that the meeting with Snowden was under “strict security”.  From whom?  The Russian branch of Anonymous?

In addition to crushing Ed’s slim hopes of an exit to Germany, Kucherena also signaled that there is a huge, yawning loophole in the alleged condition for his asylum that he not engage in additional leaks.  Kucherena said that anything that Snowden provided to journalists prior to his departure from Hong Kong would not violate the condition, and since Snowden claims he gave everything to Poitras and Greenwald before then, the condition is vacuous.

Not that that’s a surprise.

It should be clear that Snowden is just a puppet of the FSB (or GRU or SVR-whatever).  The only question of when they started pulling his strings, and who else (Assange, Greenwald, Poitras, Appelbaum) knowingly assisted in the puppetry.

* The WSJ article repeatedly refers to the letter as “purportedly” from Snowden.  It’s about time that a reputable media source expresses skepticism about any communication bearing Snowden’s name.