Shadow Reporters in Conversation with Snowden

 Truth Sandwich with Extra Pickles, Please

…by  Cara St. Louis

There has appeared very recently a transcript of what appears to be a press opportunity between Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, and certain invited members of the German press. 

As the transcript encompasses twelve pages, I will include the transcript in whatever form I can but perhaps not in the body of this announcement in its entirety. 

I was given this information in the form of a pdf by a mid to high level German politician. I cannot say that it exists on the internet as of yet.  I actually have no real idea of the stealth with which the press conference may have been conducted.  However, I was given permission to use the material.

The first thing I thought, as I always do, when we here some supposedly monumental collection of revelations from Mr. Snowden is, why now? I have been covering the Ukraine and the Crimea for The People’s Voice for the last few weeks and so, knowing what has happened so quickly and slickly in the last few days, it strikes me as tres convenient that all of a sudden we have a question and answer session with the vulnerable NSA man.

The business of distraction, as I wrote in a previous article and call HKKK, Inc. (Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty…) is one of the slickest, strongest and best built mechanisms in our current collective unconsciousness.

The next thing that caught my attention was this idea of ‘shadow’ reporters.  Shadow Rapporteur. Seemingly, this means only reporters and journalists from the alternative press.  Definitely, it is how the reporters present were characterized in the transcript.  However, the appellation ‘shadow’ reporters is a conversation stopper for anyone truly paying attention. 

What does this conjure for us? Is it meant to deride the reporters themselves?  Shadows are not quite real and they are perhaps a little scary, a little dangerous…like spooks?  Are they even real? Is the entity who released this transcript indicated a wink-wink nudge-nudge, we’re really on your side collusion? Doubtful.

And, within the body of the introduction, at least, the weary spectres of the Underwear Bomber and the Boston Marathon ‘Massacre’ arise, as examples of incidents that could have and should have been prevented by NSA snooping.   The idea here is, apparently, to take an erroneous supposition…that these incidents were exactly what they were purported to be…and apply the logic that NSA snooping is meant to stop terrorist acts and, if it really worked, these sorts of things would not have happened.  Where, oh where, to begin?

Here, I guess, is as good a place as any to do some algebra.  The NSA surveillance is not going to discover, pick up, or prevent any phenomena that the USA itself conjures up and perpetrates on its own people for its own purposes.

Those two things run side-by-side, they do not intersect.  So, already we’ve got a big problem with this oh-so-timely press release.  Any conversation that contends, as it’s starting assumption, that these incidents were real is deeply, deeply flawed and suspect.  One is tempted to dismiss the entire piece.

However, we still have this compelling use of the word ‘shadow’ reporters.  Additionally, we have the timing of the release and the very fact of a press conference to begin with.  In sending this to Veteran’s Today, at least we have the opportunity to serve up on a silver platter a spicy little piece of controlled opposition. Here, kitty, kitty, kitty…..

Also, when one reads the piece with the real and unreal in mind, one is struck by the idea that one is eating what my husband lovingly refers to as a Truth Sandwich: A slice of truth on the top, a slice of truth on the bottom, and a Lie-Salad filling with extra pickles.

Slice of truth: the NSA should not be collecting conversations and data from every sentient being on the planet.  OK.

Other slice of truth: These (spying apparati) are not the capabilities in which a free society invests. Mass surveillance very much risks our rights, risks our safety, and threatens our way of life. This last is a quote from Snowden’s prepared statement before the press conference.

After the prepared statement was read, according to the transcript, Snowden answered questions submitted previously by the attending journalists.  Since they were European journalists…Shadow Rapporteurs, so-called…the questions submitted and answered have to do with effects of NSA surveillance on the EU.  There are also some general questions about whistle-blowing as a second career.  And, one fellow did ask whether there was anything anyone could do to help Snowden.

All in all, I find the statement and follow-up questions to be broad, well-covered, safe territory. It is interesting that the press conference occurred, it is interesting that the questions were submitted ahead of time and, mostly, it is interesting the timing of the release of the transcript considering the fact that the Ukraine has gone up in flames very recently.  Since the situation in the Ukraine is also a distraction, albeit a deadly and tragic one, I propose we all start looking around to figure out from what what They are really distracting us.

I guess, to be fair, the transcript reads that Snowden states categorically that he will not be disclosing any new information.  He reiterates that he is fully prepared to testify before the US Congress.

Shadow Rapporteur Claude Moraes from S&D Group asked Snowden to elaborate on the extent of the cooperation that exists between the NSA and EU member states.  Snowden replied that the prime directive of the NSA’s Foreign Affairs Directorate has been to incentivize EU member states to change their laws to enable mass surveillance.  Not a surprise.

Snowden stated, “Once the NSA has successfully subverted or helped repeal legal restrictions against the unconstitutional mass surveillance in our partner states, it encourages partners to perform operations.”  Well, my goodness me.  That’s a stand-alone statement.

Other questions included, Do you feel you had exhausted all avenues before making the decision to go public? and Do you think procedures for whistleblowing have been improved now?  This is not earth-shattering stuff here.

Shadow Rapporteur Jan Philipp Albrecht from Greens Group asked, Could we help you in any way, and do you seek asylum in the EU?  The interesting part of the response reads thusly: As for asylum, I do seek EU asylum, but I have yet to receive a positive response to requests I sent to various EU member states.

Parliamentarians in the national governments told me that the US, and I quote, ‘will not allow’ EU partners to offer political asylum to me which is why the previous resolution on asylum ran into such mysterious opposition.” Yes. Much more interesting, this.

Next question: Can you confirm cyber-attacks by the NSA or other intelligence agencies on EU institutions or telecommunications providers such as Belgacom and SWIFT, or any other such EU-Based companies?  “Yes.  I don’t want to outpace the efforts journalists, here, but I can confirm that the documents reported thus far are authentic and unmodified, meaning the alleged operations against Belgacom, SWIFT, and the EU as an institution, the United Nations, UNICEF…based on documents I have provided have actually occurred.

Within the body of the responses, Snowden did indicate that he still feels strongly that surveillance for reasons of national security is necessary and ‘above reproach.’ I disagree, naturally.  I disagree because the NSA gets to decide what is in the interests of national security and since the Great Babylonian Twin Towers Terror Campaign began all movement everywhere is in the ‘national security’ Go file.

Here is Snowden’s idea of the Good News: “…is that there are solutions.  The weakness of mass surveillance is  and can very easily be made much more expensive through changes in the technical standards…end-to-end encryption can quickly make indiscriminate surveillance impossible on a cost-effective basis.”

My initial reaction? Since when is a country in which black-ops entities have virtually unlimited funds with which to do their thing care about cost-effective fascism?  Since never, that’s when.  He also talks about oversight. What oversight?  Oversight by whom and over whom?

Interesting question:  Who is currently financing your life? Answer: I am.  OK, it’s mildly interesting at best but still…the question was asked.

 ______________________________