Thủ đoạn hạ thấp bôi nhọ và chia rẻ nhóm Snowden-Greenwald của chính phủ Anh Mỹ đang gia tăng cường độ tấn công sau khi đã thất bại trong nỗ lực dùng cặp vợ chồng tội phạm luật sư gốc Do Thái Bruce Fein và ông Lon Snowden tung tin thất thiệt và sau đó chặn bắt thân nhân gia đình Greenwald để khủng bốp tinh thần... cũng thất bại.
Vừa qua chính phủ Anh Mỹ lại tung thêm một đòn nữa đó là đã dùng tờ báo chính qui khác của Anh là tờ The Independent, tung ra một bản tin rất chi tiết về "việc tình báo Anh Quốc thiết lập một hoạt động địa phương tại Trung Đông nghe lén trộm cắp thư tín, điện thoại hàng loạt để cung cấp cho Âu Mỹ".... Bản tin được tuyên bố là có gốc từ các hồ sơ do Snowden nắm giữ!!!
Ngay sau đó chính Edward Snowden đã phải lên tiếng khẳng định:
Tôi chưa bao giờ nói chuyện, làm việc, hay cung cấp bất kỳ thông tin tài liệu nào cho tờ Independent. Những ký giả cùng tôi làm việc đều được tôi yêu cầu là phải công chính và cẩn trọng để bảo đảm rằng chỉ có những điều công chúng cần biết là được cần tung ra, và rằng những bản tin sẽ không đặt bất cứ ai và tình trạng nguy hiểm. Tất cả mọi người mọi cấp trong xã hội kể cả tổng thống Mỹ đã xác nhận sự đóng góp của những tiết lộ cẩn trọng này cho một cuộc tranh luận công chúng cần thiết, và chúng tôi rất tự hào về thành quả này.
Có vẻ như chính phủ Anh hiện nay đang tìm cách tạo một hình ảnh rằng những tiết lộ của tờ Guardian, tờ Washington Post là tác hại, và chính phủ Anh đang thực hiện điều này bằng cách tự họ cố tình tiết lột cho tờ Independent những thông tin gây tác hại , rồi đổ thừa cho người khác. Chính phủ Anh nên giải thích lý do của việc quyết định tiết lộ thông tin mà nếu như do một thường dân làm thì sẽ bị lên án là một hành động tội phạm"
(I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent. The journalists I have worked with have, at my request, been judicious and careful in ensuring that the only things disclosed are what the public should know but that does not place any person in danger. People at all levels of society up to and including the President of the United States have recognized the contribution of these careful disclosures to a necessary public debate, and we are proud of this record.
"It appears that the UK government is now seeking to create an appearance that the Guardian and Washington Post's disclosures are harmful, and they are doing so by intentionally leaking harmful information to The Independent and attributing it to others. The UK government should explain the reasoning behind this decision to disclose information that, were it released by a private citizen, they would argue is a criminal act."Hiện nay dư luận quần chúng đang xôn xao bất lợi cho phía Nhà Nước Chính phủ. Và như chúng tôi đã đăng tải, Nhà Nước Chính phủ Âu Mỹ đang điên cuồng như "con gà bị chặt đầu". Bọn chúng không dừng lại ở bất cứ thủ đoạn nào, dù nhỏ bé đê tiện hay tàn sát thường dân v,v miễn đạt mục tiêu CỦNG CỐ QUYỀN LỰC và KHUẤT PHỤC QUẦN CHÚNG với hình ảnh và niềm tin Nhà Nước Tận Thiện phải được duy trì tiếp tục trong não trạng nhân loại!
Bằng chứng??? Hãy nhìn những xác chết nằm phơi ở Ai Cập và những xác chết do "hóa học" tại Syria. Đó chính là tác phẩm của Nhà Nước và bọn Quân Đội Công An, là tác phẩm phối hợp chặt chẻ của Âu Mỹ, Ai Cập, Syria và bọn Tôn Giáo khủng bố. Đó chính là "đòn trừng phạt" nếu dám đối kháng Nhà Nước và Chúa TRời Allah!
11111 
GCHQ's headquarters on the outskirts of Cheltenham. Photograph: Barry Batchelor/PA
(Updated below)
The Independent this morning published an article - which it repeatedly claims comes from "documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden" - disclosing that "Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies." This is the first time the Independent has published any revelations purportedly from the NSA documents, and it's the type of disclosure which journalists working directly with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have thus far avoided.
That leads to the obvious question: who is the source for this disclosure? Snowden this morning said he wants it to be clear that he was not the source for the Independent, stating:
The US government itself has constantly used this tactic: aggressively targeting those who disclose embarrassing or incriminating information about the government in the name of protecting the sanctity of classified information, while simultaneously leaking classified information prolifically when doing so advances their political interests.
One other matter about the Independent article: it strongly suggests that there is some agreement in place to restrict the Guardian's ongoing reporting about the NSA documents. Speaking for myself, let me make one thing clear: I'm not aware of, nor subject to, any agreement that imposes any limitations of any kind on the reporting that I am doing on these documents. I would never agree to any such limitations. As I've made repeatedly clear, bullying tactics of the kind we saw this week will not deter my reporting or the reporting of those I'm working with in any way. I'm working hard on numerous new and significant NSA stories and intend to publish them the moment they are ready.
Do you also believe the Washington Post committed felonies when receiving and then publishing top secret information that the Bush administration was maintaining a network for CIA black sites around the world, or when the New York Times revealed in 2005 the top secret program whereby the NSA had created a warrantlesss eavesdropping program aimed at US citizens?
Or is this some newly created standard of criminality that applies only to our NSA reporting? Do media figures who are advocating that possessing or transmitting classified information is a crime really not comprehend the precedent they are setting for investigative journalism?
The Independent this morning published an article - which it repeatedly claims comes from "documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden" - disclosing that "Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies." This is the first time the Independent has published any revelations purportedly from the NSA documents, and it's the type of disclosure which journalists working directly with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have thus far avoided.
That leads to the obvious question: who is the source for this disclosure? Snowden this morning said he wants it to be clear that he was not the source for the Independent, stating:
I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent. The journalists I have worked with have, at my request, been judicious and careful in ensuring that the only things disclosed are what the public should know but that does not place any person in danger. People at all levels of society up to and including the President of the United States have recognized the contribution of these careful disclosures to a necessary public debate, and we are proud of this record.In other words: right as there is a major scandal over the UK's abusive and lawless exploitation of its Terrorism Act - with public opinion against the use of the Terrorism law to detain David Miranda - and right as the UK government is trying to tell a court that there are serious dangers to the public safety from these documents, there suddenly appears exactly the type of disclosure the UK government wants but that has never happened before. That is why Snowden is making clear: despite the Independent's attempt to make it appears that it is so, he is not their source for that disclosure. Who, then, is?
"It appears that the UK government is now seeking to create an appearance that the Guardian and Washington Post's disclosures are harmful, and they are doing so by intentionally leaking harmful information to The Independent and attributing it to others. The UK government should explain the reasoning behind this decision to disclose information that, were it released by a private citizen, they would argue is a criminal act."
The US government itself has constantly used this tactic: aggressively targeting those who disclose embarrassing or incriminating information about the government in the name of protecting the sanctity of classified information, while simultaneously leaking classified information prolifically when doing so advances their political interests.
One other matter about the Independent article: it strongly suggests that there is some agreement in place to restrict the Guardian's ongoing reporting about the NSA documents. Speaking for myself, let me make one thing clear: I'm not aware of, nor subject to, any agreement that imposes any limitations of any kind on the reporting that I am doing on these documents. I would never agree to any such limitations. As I've made repeatedly clear, bullying tactics of the kind we saw this week will not deter my reporting or the reporting of those I'm working with in any way. I'm working hard on numerous new and significant NSA stories and intend to publish them the moment they are ready.
Related question
For those in the media and elsewhere arguing that the possession and transport of classified information is a crime: does that mean you believe that not only Daniel Ellsberg committed a felony, but also the New York Times reporters and editors did when they received, possessed, copied, transported and published the thousands of pages of top-secret documents known as the Pentagon Papers?Do you also believe the Washington Post committed felonies when receiving and then publishing top secret information that the Bush administration was maintaining a network for CIA black sites around the world, or when the New York Times revealed in 2005 the top secret program whereby the NSA had created a warrantlesss eavesdropping program aimed at US citizens?
Or is this some newly created standard of criminality that applies only to our NSA reporting? Do media figures who are advocating that possessing or transmitting classified information is a crime really not comprehend the precedent they are setting for investigative journalism?
UPDATE
The Independent's Oliver Wright just tweeted the following:"For the record: The Independent was not leaked or 'duped' into publishing today's front page story by the Government."Leaving aside the fact that the Independent article quotes an anonymous "senior Whitehall source", nobody said they were "duped" into publishing anything. The question is: who provided them this document or the information in it? It clearly did not come from Snowden or any of the journalists with whom he has directly worked. The Independent provided no source information whatsoever for their rather significant disclosure of top secret information. Did they see any such documents, and if so, who, generally, provided it to them? I don't mean, obviously, that they should identify their specific source, but at least some information about their basis for these claims, given how significant they are, would be warranted. One would think that they would not have published something like this without either seeing the documents or getting confirmation from someone who has: the class of people who qualify is very small, and includes, most prominently and obviously, the UK government itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment