Edward Teller at FDL has this up on Snowden leaving Hong Kong for Moscow and then on to…?

Someone put up this link in the comments.  They’re taking the technology and selling it to other countries….why isn’t that illegal?  And they’re worried about ordinary Americans disclosing secrets?? How is Snowden being charged with espionage while Booz is not?

Also in the comments is a link to Glenn Greenwald’s smackdown of psuedo journalist David Gregory.

In the comments, someone mentioned Naomi Wolf’s comments on Snowden…so naturally, I went in search of her article. She has it on…wait for it…f_cebook….of all places.  So, I went to gawker and found this.

I agree that her comments are bizarre.  They make no sense at all–because he’s articulate he should be considered a spy? Seriously?

…and he’s too organized.  Say what??  She infers that because he has a GED that he couldn’t possibly be that analytical.  Um…he does have expertise with sophisticated software, correct?

She questions why Hong Kong–Snowden answered that question–he stated that they were actually more open…than the U.S.

From the gawker:

This is why our surveillance apparatus operates using secret orders that are secretly overseen by a closed court, whose decisions are classified. This is why the technology and communications companies cooperating with the surveillance program are forbidden to acknowledge that the surveillance program exists. This is why the Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress about what the surveillance program collected. Because they all wanted you to know about it.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Here’s another take on Wolf from Dave Lindorff at counterpunch.  He also notes the condescending attitude of Wolf’s disbelief that a person with a GED could make reasoned, intelligent arguments:

[quote] As a long-time investigative reporter, I also dispute Wolf’s self-serving claim that her own experience in dealing with whistleblowers shows them to be uniformly disorganized and inarticulate. In my experience, some are very disorganized and hard to follow because of their focus on the trees in their personal forest, but some whistleblowers are intensely organized and know exactly what they want to tell you as a journalist. They are also apt, organized or not, contrary to what Wolf says, to highlight the danger they are in, and that they may be putting the reporter in. Sometimes this may be simply to make sure you are interested and recognize the seriousness of what they have to say, and sometimes it is out of genuine fear for themselves and concern for the journalist’s safety, and perhaps also to make sure you fully understand what you’re getting into and that you will not cave and reveal their identity the moment you are put under pressure yourself.

Wolf, who always makes a point of mentioning she’s a Yale grad and a Rhodes Scholar who studied at Oxford, should take care in assuming that someone with only a high school diploma speaking in whole sentences or paragraphs is probably reciting “talking points” from a script. Her assumption reeks of class-based stereotyping. I have met car mechanics, who besides working miracles on my old cars, can speak in multiple paragraphs about politics, often with more wisdom and insight than most of the ivy-league pundits on the tube. [/quote]

~~~~~~~~~

Love that he states that he’s not against outing fakes, but Wolf’s accusations are without hard evidence.  Not only that, but she is apparently ignorant that there would be hiding places for folks in Hong Kong.  On another site, Lindorff makes this statement in the comments section:

Reply to Rob Kall:   
No, it’s not the same at all Rob…

I was presenting pieces of evidence. Not rank speculation. As I demonstrate in this article, Naomi Wolf has not one shred of evidence to support her wild speculation, and she is even ignorant of such things as the easy ability to hide in Hong Kong, which is a teeming city of many small apartments, set in a large, mountainous jungle environment, with 8 million people, many of them hiding from authorities for one reason or other.

I have no objection to someone raising questions, but not something like: The US government lies and makes up stories, so maybe Ed Snowden is a fraud. Please. Not saying that whistleblowers are disorganized and incoherent, and Snowden is articulate and organized, so he must be reciting a script. That’s not journalism. That’s just stupid stereotyping.

Dave Lindorff

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Submitted on Sunday, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:57:46 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~