Live data from Hacker News

America’s Open Wound

edwardsnowden.substack.com

281–290 of 349 posts

Re: America’s Open Wound

#281

So many people comment about how Snowden can't say things like this because he is in Russia. I wonder: how does it invalidate the facts? He links to Wikipedia. Maybe you don't want to believe Snowden, him being a traitor. Don't you believe Wikipedia? I don't see how Snowdens identity is even relevant to the subject.

Snowden is stuck in a lose-lose position. Do you choose to go behind bars or do you embrace the hypocrisy in the hope that you can still do some good? This is the interpretation I choose to believe, until I see any proof to the contrary. Ultimately his whistle-blowing was a good thing.

He would have had whistleblower protection had he gone to Congress with his findings.

It could have been win-win

Re: America’s Open Wound

#282
post #28
post #2

Did any American read this without alarm? If so, why not?

Well I think this article does a good job of saying CIA has done some crazy stuff. But then it goes from there to -> so let's get rid of it, which to me seems like potentially a much scarier proposition. It's not clear to me exactly how real the threat of foreign countries trying to tamper with our elections is, but if this is what the CIA does, I think it's probably naive to think no other nation would try things li…

>8-year-old girls shouldn't be assassinated

Anyone who asserts that what happened to Nawar al-Awlaki during the Raid on Yakla was an assassination is either lying or was lied to.

It is impossible to even discuss the matter if someone starts at such an impossibly indefensible position.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CIA being a nasty organization that does nasty things has been well-known for decades. What makes (most) Americans tolerate this is the same reason anyone tolerates such nasty things -- they're being done to other people. Drone strikes in particular have been discussed since the Obama administration. It's not okay, but as Snowden himself points out, it is normal. What did alarm me was Snowden mischaracterizing Bi…

As Biden gets into his speech, and for about 98% of the video - the framing is exactly as Snowden presented. Given politicians are the sort of people that obsess over the implications of the color of a tie, this visual was chosen absolutely intentionally: a flag hung vertically, blood red imposed on a dark scene, and two shadowy marines in the rear. I have no idea why they went for this visual, but it's difficult to…

> I have no idea why they went for this visual, but it's difficult to attribute it to any motivation that is at all desirable.

I think Hanlon's Razor is a better explanation. Look at a wider picture[1][2], and the start of the CBS video I linked above. The building was well-lit, including the doorway area. When Biden starts speaking, the doorway light is turned off, plunging the background into darkness. This was probably done because the lit doorway was brighter than Biden. After a couple minutes, the light comes back up, but dimly. The background is still too dark, but it looks like they only had that one light to work with. Clearly this was being done on the fly.

CNN's color shift at ~12:40, on the other hand, probably had nothing to do with the background. Compare Biden's face before and after the shift. Before the shift, he looks yellow. After the shift, he looks much more natural. The lighting was just bad. CNN decided to adjust for it; CBS didn't.

Meanwhile, photographers love contrast, and the dynamic range of a camera is much smaller than that of a human eye. So a scene that probably looked normal in person turns into something dramatic in photographs. (And I bet Photoshop was used to enhance that drama even more.)

The conclusion I draw from this is that bad lighting produces bad images, and that politicians are not hyper-competent when it comes to such things. The content of the speech reinforces this -- far from being an eliminationist screed, Biden's speech is yet another hand extended to moderate Republicans inviting them to leave the Trump coalition and reject fascism. (Much like Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" speech, I expect this invitation to be ignored, but that's another matter.) Here are some representative quotes, none of which sound particularly fascist to me:

> Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy.

> So I want to say this plain and simple: There is no place for political violence in America. Period. None. Ever.

> On top of that, there are public figures — today, yesterday, and the day before — predicting and all but calling for mass violence and rioting in the streets. This is inflammatory. It’s dangerous. It’s against the rule of law. And we, the people, must say: This is not who we are. (Applause.)

> We’re a big, complicated country. But democracy endures only if we, the people, respect the guardrails of the republic. Only if we, the people, accept the results of free and fair elections. (Applause.) Only if we, the people, see politics not as total war but mediation of our differences.

> The soul of America is defined by the sacred proposition that all are created equal in the image of God. That all are entitled to be treated with decency, dignity, and respect. That all deserve justice and a shot at lives of prosperity and consequence. And that democracy — democracy must be defended, for democracy makes all these things possible.

This is bog-standard Americanism. The idea that it's some sort fascist rally speech simply doesn't hold water.

[1] https://billypenn.com/2022/09/01/biden-philadelphia-speech-i...

[2] https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-joe-biden-picture...

Re: America’s Open Wound

#284
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I think this article does a good job of saying CIA has done some crazy stuff. But then it goes from there to -> so let's get rid of it, which to me seems like potentially a much scarier proposition. It's not clear to me exactly how real the threat of foreign countries trying to tamper with our elections is, but if this is what the CIA does, I think it's probably naive to think no other nation would try things li…

My reading of TFA is that the CIA cannot continue to operate without real oversight. Snowden was a part of the intelligence apparatus, every interview I've seen with him has indicated that he still sees a need for it. However he also believes that the apparatus must be accountable to the legislature, and that in a functioning democracy, representatives of the intelligence apparatus should not be allowed to lie and co…

That's my reading. All of the comments that do not address this specific point are missing it.

Is Snowden now a Russian asset? Maybe. Doesn't matter. Why doesn't Congress have true oversight of the CIA?

It's necessary to "break a few eggs to make an omelet" and that's how "the sausage is made"? Ok, but why doesn't Congress have true oversight of the CIA?

Snowden writes too flowery? Sure, but why doesn't Congress have true oversight of the CIA?

90% of the freakouts over each President each term is because the Office of the Presidency has so much power ceded by Congress over the decades. No one would have been so deeply freaked out by Trump if the President did not have the power to wage war, to assassinate US citizens, for secret trials, to spy domestically, to put people on no-fly lists, order nuclear strikes and so on.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CIA being a nasty organization that does nasty things has been well-known for decades. What makes (most) Americans tolerate this is the same reason anyone tolerates such nasty things -- they're being done to other people. Drone strikes in particular have been discussed since the Obama administration. It's not okay, but as Snowden himself points out, it is normal. What did alarm me was Snowden mischaracterizing Bi…

As Biden gets into his speech, and for about 98% of the video - the framing is exactly as Snowden presented. Given politicians are the sort of people that obsess over the implications of the color of a tie, this visual was chosen absolutely intentionally: a flag hung vertically, blood red imposed on a dark scene, and two shadowy marines in the rear. I have no idea why they went for this visual, but it's difficult to…

I think there are many better explanation for the video, most of them have to do with hiding the fact that Biden is old as fuck.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#286
Truman's letter to Washington Post, 1963, a month after JFK's assassination, in full:

-- begin quote --

The Washington Post (December 22, 1963)

"Limit CIA Role To Intelligence" by Harry S Truman

INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.

I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.

Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.

But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.

Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department "treatment" or interpretations.

I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.

Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset."

For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.

I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.

With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.

I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.

But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.

We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.

-- end quote --

Re: America’s Open Wound

#287

CIA is bad says FSB spokesman. If you think that's unfair, I invite you to scroll through his Twitter account right before Feb 24th.

Are you saying that the CIA is good? What good has the CIA done for this world & the ordinary US citizen?

It's hard to say, because you rarely hear about the successes they have, just the failures. But the US intelligence community played a key role in the fall of the USSR, denuclearization of Iran, and I guess arguably the success of south korea given the US's required action to stop the invasion from the North. Obviously all those things could be bad depending on your political philosophy, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say most Americans approve.

And that's to say nothing of the intelligence community's key role in Ukraine and specifically the recent counterattacks.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#288
post #87

Has everyone on Hacker News lost their minds? I come here to read and sometimes participate in rational discussions. These comments are some of the lowest effort, least rigorous, paranoid bullshit I’ve ever seen on this site. We’re a step above Facebook comments on NPR articles, here. Partisanship, viciousness and lazy conspiracy theories are not a good look for this site.

Snowden is absolutely a hero for what he did to expose US surveillance. It is also right for people to be suspicious of anything he says at the moment given his current situation. There’s no contradiction between the two. As I wrote elsewhere in the comments on this story, the atrocities of the CIA are sadly well known. There’s nothing new here. The beginning of Snowden’s post is a surprisingly poor take on Biden’s r…

> reposting the same zoomed-in image with the red background, ignoring the additional context

Biden's team staged it that way intentionally. They knew red would be the only color in the background when Biden was the focus. The other lighting was for plausible deniability only. No one focuses on an entire building when a single person is giving a speech. You cannot see the body language. How often does a presidential address get displayed from any side other than directly from the front? The red and military personnel were entirely intentional.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you post the wrong link or something? I clicked the video you linked, and most of the speech is Biden with red walls and marines to either side of him.

Yes... but it's a joke to suggest it is anything like the picture in the article.

I don't want to get drawn into your flame war, but that picture from the article is exactly the same as what's in the bulk of that YouTube video, just from a slightly different angle. You're acting like Snowden deceptively cherry-picked a photo to look like Dictator Biden, but any screengrab from that YouTube video link you posted is going to look almost as malicious as the photo Snowden picked

Re: America’s Open Wound

#290

I think I was already aware of most of the facts presented, but I'm not sure I know what argument is being made? That the CIA has not enough oversight? This is like a standard plot element in Hollywood movies and comic books, so that seems a little obvious. That the President of the United States shouldn't mention it if he learns someone is plotting a coup or terrorism in his country because that's hypocrisy? Legacy…

Recommended book on CIA, by someone who had to deal with them and the NSC during Vietnam War:

The Secret Team, Col. Fletcher Prouty, 1972

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2438756.The_Secret_Team

In full: https://un-forum.org/books/library/EBOOK%20COLLECTION%20(PAR...

From intro:

"For nine consecutive, long years during those crucial days from 1955 through January 1, 1964, I was one of those briefing officers. I had the unique assignment of being the "Focal Point" officer for contacts between the CIA and the Department of Defense on matters pertaining to the military support of the Special Operations[1] of that Agency. In that capacity I worked with Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles, several Secretaries of Defense, and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as many others in key governmental places. My work took me to more than sixty countries and to CIA offices and covert activities all over the world--from such hot spots as Saigon and to such remote places as the South Pole. Yes, there have been secret operations in Antarctica.

"It was my job not only to brief these men, but to brief them from the point of view of the CIA so that I might win approval of the projects presented and of the accompanying requests for support from the military in terms of money, manpower, facilities, and materials. I was, during this time, perhaps the best informed "Focal Point" officer among the few who operated in this very special area. The role of the briefing officer is quiet, effective, and most influential; and, in the CIA, specialized in the high art of top level indoctrination.

...

"Henry Kissinger was a briefing officer. General John Vogt was one of the best. Desmond Fitzgerald, Tracy Barnes, Ed Lansdale, and "Brute" Krulak, in their own specialties, were top-flight briefing officers on subjects that until the publication of the "Pentagon Papers," few people had ever seen in print or had ever even contemplated.

...

I have not chosen to reveal and to expose "unreleased" classified documents; but I do believe that those that have been revealed, both in the "Pentagon Papers" and elsewhere, need to be interpreted and fully explained.

I am interested in setting forth and explaining what "secrecy" and the "cult of containment" really mean and what they have done to our way of life and to our country.

Furthermore, I want to correct any disinformation that may have been given by those who have tried to write on these subjects in other related histories."

Post reply on HN