Bradley Manning Gets No Love From The New York Times

The Times has covered Mannings trial to some degree--in early November, the paper published a story about Mannings plans to plead guilty to some charges and the Times editorialized against Mannings poor treatment at Quantico back in March of 2011. But last weeks hearing, with Mannings direct testimony, seemed especially newsworthy--outlets including CNN, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, and New York Magazine covered it. The Guardian, another newspaper that collaborated with Wikileaks and the Times, sent veteran reporter Ed Pilkington, the chief reporter for Guardian U.S. and a former national and international editor for the paper. Pilkington called his decision to cover the hearings in depth pure news judgement, when we spoke.

Like thorough, unbiased reporting that challenges your way of thinking? Subscribe to The New Republic for $3.99/month.

The Times has always had a rocky relationship with WikiLeaks, Manning, and other leakers of state secrets. After publishing the cables, Bill Keller, the Times executive editor at the time, wrote an 8,000-word New York Times Magazine story in which he compared Julian Assange to a bag lady. We regardedAssange throughout as a source, not as a partner or collaborator, he wrote. The Guardian, on the other hand, sought partnership between a mainstream newspaper andWikiLeaks: a new model of cooperation aimed at publishing the world's biggest leak, as Yochai Benkler described it in the Harvard Civil-Rights Civil-Liberties Law Review. (My emails to Times executive editor Jill Abramson, Washington bureau chief David Leonhardt, and Keller, were not answered.)

The Times attitude towards Assange and Manning is, at least, consistent with its treatment of leakers in the past. Even though the Times had to defend itself in court for publishing the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellberg told me over the phone that the papers lawyers refused to offer him even the smalles amount of help with his criminal case (which was eventually dismissed). In Ellsbergs telling, A.M. Rosenthal, then the editor-in-chief of the Times, told him there was no policy at the paper regarding prosecutions of sources: Ellsberg was, after all, the first person ever prosecuted for leaking classified government documents to the press.

Editors and reporters have a good deal of ambivalence towards their sources, especially in the national security field, Ellsberg told me. They all thought I had broken the law, and a lot of them may have thought I was a traitor even though they used the material. When Assange expressed his shock to Ellsberg over a critical profile the Times published about him, Ellsberg told him dont take it personally, they didnt treat me any better.

See more here:
Bradley Manning Gets No Love From The New York Times

Pentagon Papers vs. WikiLeaks: Is Bradley Manning the new Ellsberg …

Washington

Four decades after The New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, supporters of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning are drawing parallels between the motives that drove Daniel Ellsberg to disclose the Pentagon Papers and Mannings alleged handover of secret government documents to the website WikiLeaks, which released them in tandem with several newspapers.

Moreover, the Pentagon Papers, made public 40 years ago today, were more highly classified than any of the secret materials published by WikiLeaks, according to the Bradley Manning Support Network. President Obama has said that Ellsbergs material was classified on a different basis than were the WikiLeaks disclosures. Thats true, Mr. Ellsberg says. Mine were top secret.

After the Pentagon Papers leaks, which established a record of government intent to mislead the American public about US involvement in Southeast Asia, Ellsberg was charged with 12 federal felony counts and faced a possible 115 years in prison. All charges against Ellsberg were eventually dismissed by the trial judge on the grounds of what the judge called the totality of governmental conduct that "offends a sense of justice.

Private First Class Manning could face the death penalty for leaking US diplomatic cables and US military video and field intelligence reports, though the US military has said it will not request the death penalty.

With the release of the Pentagon papers on Monday, the Department of Defense said it has no security concerns about their becoming public in their entirety.

Ellsberg used the occasion to lambast the government, saying in a statement that it has done little to improve its treatment of whistle-blowers. Instead, he said, "were seeing an unprecedented campaign to crack down on public servants who reveal information that Congress and American citizens have a right to know.

In April, Manning was transferred to the US military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., after repeated criticism about his treatment at the Quantico Marine Corps base in Virginia. He has been held in US military custody since May 26, 2010.

If Bradley Manning did what hes accused of, then hes a hero of mine, the Ellsberg statement said. The government continues to persecute Manning, much as it did Ellsberg in the 1970s, he said. I wish I could say that our government has improved its treatment of whistle-glowers in the 40 years since the Pentagon Papers.

Mannings treatment amounts to governmental misconduct that offends a sense of justice, Ellsberg added, borrowing words from the judge who presided over his own trial.

The Pentagon says the leaked WikiLeaks documents allegedly provided by Manning have harmed the US military. We deplore WikiLeaks for inducing individuals to break the law, leak classified documents, and then cavalierly share that secret information with the world, including our enemies, Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell said last year. We know terrorist organizations have been mining the leaked Afghan documents for information to use against us, he added. By disclosing such sensitive information, WikiLeaks continues to put at risk the lives of our troops, their coalition partners, and those Iraqis and Afghans working with us.

Jeff Paterson, a steering committee member of the Bradley Manning Support Group, pushed back against the characterization that Manning had aided Americas enemies, noting that the Pentagon Papers helped to build public pressure to end the Vietnam War, just as Wikileaks revelations are helping to catalyze democratic movements across the Middle East.

History has vindicated Daniel Ellsberg, he said, and history will vindicate Bradley Manning. Both men are American heroes.

The Bradley Manning Support Network is "dedicated to securing due process and a public trial for PFC Manning," according to the group's spokesman. So far, 4,300 people have donated $333,000 to Manning's legal fees and network "public education" efforts.

RECOMMENDED: Five bombshells from WikiLeaks' Iraq war documents

Read more from the original source:
Pentagon Papers vs. WikiLeaks: Is Bradley Manning the new Ellsberg ...

By Commuting Bradley Mannings Sentence, Obama … – nationalreview.com

Manning in custody during his trial at Fort Meade in 2011. (Reuters photo: Benjamin Myers)The military cant function without trust and discipline. Mannings commutation undermines that warrior ethos.

It might just take going to war to truly understand the nature of military justice. During my deployment to Iraq, I was the only JAG officer at an isolated outpost near the IraqIran border. I worked closely with my commander on the dizzying array of disciplinary issues that arise on deployment: Soldiers fight, they sometimes defy their officers and NCOs, and some of them take drugs. Drop 800 men far into the most stressful situations imaginable thousands of miles from home and some will crack. Its that simple.

But heres the key to military justice: Both words matter. In the civilian system, we tend to think only of justice. Does the punishment fit the crime? Are we punishing the guilty? Are we vindicating the rights of their victims? But theres an additional, supplemental goal to military justice. The Manual for Courts-Martial puts it this way:

The purpose of military law is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to strengthen the national security of the United States.

In other words, military justice is designed to make the armed forces more cohesive and effective, in addition to punishing service members crimes. Military justice helps preserve the warrior ethos.

The warrior ethos is simple, but profound: I will always place the mission first, I will never accept defeat, I will never quit, and I will never leave a fallen comrade. The amount of self-denial and self-sacrifice this requires is extreme and completely alien to most civilians. Does your job demand that you lay down your life for your colleagues? Does it demand that you follow orders even if following orders may mean death or serious injury? Do you have no option of resigning if you disagree?

For a military to function well under such circumstances, it must demand a degree of obedience and trust that is hard to fathom. The obedience requirement is clear: Soldiers must obey lawful orders. The trust requirement is just as vital: To do their deadly jobs, they have to trust that the men and women around them are also willing to lay down their lives for the mission and for each other. In essence, soldiers make two simple pledges: I will obey lawful orders, and I will lay down my life for the mission and my brothers and sisters.

Good commanders know that soldiers trust them to reinforce the warrior ethos with effective discipline. Soldiers who cant be trusted cant be coddled; violating orders, acting selfishly, or disregarding the mission can ultimately break units and armies.

Good commanders know that soldiers trust them to reinforce the warrior ethos with effective discipline.

Given that context, its obvious that Bradley Manning was no ordinary leaker. When he dumped hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic secrets into the public domain, he violated every single tenet of the warrior ethos. He abandoned the mission. He accepted defeat and, through his data dumps, worked to facilitate it. He quit on his comrades, acting with utter, callous disregard for their lives. His message to his unit and to his nation was clear: He would disobey lawful orders and risk killing his comrades to, in his words, stimulate worldwide discussions, debates, and reforms.

In such a case, commanders have a sacred obligation to protect their soldiers. Its a matter of maintaining a bond with the men and women they lead. There can be no tolerance of true betrayal, and the military to its credit sought a severe sentence for Manning, attempting to make the punishment fit his crime. It fought for life imprisonment, and ultimately obtained a 35-year sentence that itself was an act of unreasonable mercy.

When Barack Obama commuted Mannings sentence yesterday, he signaled once again that, even after eight long years as commander-in-chief, he simply does not understand the essence of military leadership or the core of military culture. By minimizing Mannings crimes, he violated his own obligation to men and women in uniform. It was his job to enforce the lawful military norms that have been forged through centuries of bitter battlefield experience. Instead, he violated those norms, ensuring that Manning will serve no more time than men convicted of far more mundane crimes.

I have seen with my own eyes the character-building power of effective military discipline, of rehabilitating good soldiers and returning them to the fight. I have seen how punishing the craven returns resolve to fractured units. Reserve mercy for the true warriors, the courageous men and women who make mistakes. As for the traitors? Judgment should be their earthly destiny. Leave their mercy to the church.

Read the rest here:
By Commuting Bradley Mannings Sentence, Obama ... - nationalreview.com

No, Bradley Manning, you are not a woman – spiked

Bradley Manning has said he wants to change his name to Chelsea Manning. Fine. Thats his business. But he also says that from now on he wants to be referred to as a woman and by female pronouns only: she, her, etc. Sorry, but no. You dont become a woman simply by saying, I am a woman. Such an attempted flight from objective reality, in this case from the objective reality of being male, is bizarre. Mannings name is his business alone, but his sex is not so personal, or so malleable. As is the case for all of us, it is governed by basic scientific and social facts. It is the height of narcissistic arrogance to expect society to refer to you as a woman simply because you say you are one. If I said, I am black, so from now please refer to me as Afro-British, people would mock me. Why? Because Im not black. And likewise, Mr Manning is not a woman.

I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female, said Mr Manning in a statement issued today. He asked that starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun. The Guardian has already complied with this reality-denying request, constantly saying she in its piece on Mr Mannings phantom sex change. To its credit, the BBC has not complied, showing that it still has at least one foot in the real, tangible, sentient world by quite rightly referring to Mr Manning as he. It would be weirdly relativistic for the media now to refer to Mr Manning as she. Journalists are supposed to find facts, to report on the world as it exists, not communicate one mans version of reality as outlined in a statement issued from jail.

Mr Mannings request is of a piece with our therapeutic times, in which were constantly told that how we feel about ourselves is more important that what we actually are or what we really do. So you often see happy-clappy, Oprah-style TV presenters telling objectively ugly people You are beautiful before sometimes adding that sting in the tail: on the inside Young people are taught to worship their self-esteem, to focus on making themselves feel good rather than on achieving something significant in the outside world. We are told that we all have fluid, playful identities, which we can mould and remould however we choose. This is all meant to be quite radical, but in truth it is deeply conservative it encourages people to ignore reality, to forge a myopic obsession with the self, with ones own navel and image and tag, rather than engaging with the broader world and its inhabitants. Theres nothing rebellious in pissing about with ones identity and descriptor it merely speaks to a profound and narcissistic retreat from the physical, social world in favour of, as Christopher Lasch described it, an intense preoccupation with the self.

Of course, some men undergo sex-change surgery, which some people might view as odd but we can at least accept that after such surgery the former man is now a kind of woman. But simply to declare I am a woman when you are in fact a man is surreal. Mr Manning, no man (or woman) is an island; you exist in a world where we have names for things, where language exists for the purpose of expressing ideas about material reality, which means that just as surely as up is up, and down is down, so you are a man.

Brendan ONeill is editor of spiked.

See the rest here:
No, Bradley Manning, you are not a woman - spiked

Bradley Manning generates more sympathy abroad

LONDON (AP) It's rare for an American to generate more sympathy abroad than at home, but Bradley Manning and his trial are unique in a host of ways.

With Manning's trial heating up in the United States, where he is accused of aiding the enemy by leaking classified material to anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, his vocal supporters in Britain and Europe are again rallying to his side.

While support for the imprisoned soldier may be weak in the U.S., Manning a dual U.S. and British national by virtue of his Welsh mother has a solid band of supporters in Britain.

In countries with few national secrets at stake in the trove of classified documents that Manning unleashed, many have seized upon his case as a focal point for a wide range of human rights issues, from the ethics of waging pre-emptive wars to the protection of individual freedoms on the Internet. Many saw his harsh treatment in a U.S. military prison as a violation of his own human rights.

"Every solder in every nation has a duty to expose war crimes. That's what Bradley Manning did," said Peter Tatchell, a British gay rights activist who has taken part in the "support Manning" movement. "In many ways, Manning is a true patriot because he's sought to uphold the U.S. constitution. Thanks to Bradley, the American people now know the truth."

Manning, a 25-year-old former intelligence analyst from Oklahoma who is accused of leaking more than 700,000 U.S. battlefield reports and diplomatic cables, has also drawn support from members of the Occupy movement, an international grassroots campaign that has opposed corporate greed.

Naomi Colvin, an Occupy activist, said attitudes toward Manning, an openly gay soldier, are more open-minded in Britain than in America.

"It's much less politicized here than in the U.S. It's not really about 'Is Manning a traitor or not?' that's never been the central question here," she said.

Instead, Colvin said she and her fellow activists were more concerned with the rights abuses that Manning exposed and the humiliation he experienced in detention. When the group started lobbying on Manning's behalf, its focus was on the mistreatment of a U.K. citizen abroad, she said.

Manning's assertion that he was kept in isolation for months and stripped to his underwear every night while in pretrial detention helped build support for him from human rights groups around the world, including from some in the United States.

Still, they face fierce criticism from Americans who side with the prosecutors. U.S. critics argue that Manning had no right to publicly release the classified material, and some have called him a traitor for embarrassing the U.S. military and threatening U.S. national security.

"He indiscriminately put on the Internet the names of hundreds of people, risking their lives for cooperating with the U.S.," said Gabriel Schoenfeld, author of "Necessary Secrets" and a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute.

"I think he behaved recklessly," he said. "I think it's strange for people here that many in Europe are treating him as a hero."

Manning admitted in court in February that he had provided a vast number of documents to WikiLeaks.

In London, protesters have held vigils and demonstrations outside the U.S. Embassy to demand better treatment for Manning, most recently on Saturday. More rallies are planned in the coming weeks, Colvin said.

Nathan Fuller, a campaigner for the Support Bradley Manning Network, said from Fort Meade in Maryland that when the group marked Manning's 1,000th day in prison in February, half of its events took place outside the U.S., in countries ranging from Uganda to Australia and Germany.

Backing for Manning has come from an official level, too. In a 2011 report, Council of Europe rapporteur Dick Marty, a noted human rights investigator, praised Manning for uncovering information about the secret rendition of terror suspects. Marty blasted the "cult of secrecy" in western governments and defended the "fundamental role" that whistleblowers like Manning play in society.

Left-leaning segments of Britain's diverse press have been largely sympathetic to Manning's cause, particularly when compared to media coverage in America.

The Guardian newspaper, which has given the Manning and WikiLeaks cases extensive coverage, said 2,500 of its readers voted in favor of Manning winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011 more support than any other candidate received.

On Tuesday, commentators in The Guardian again praised Manning, with one saying he had risked everything to stand up for truth.

It may be easier for the British press, and newspapers in other countries, to be sympathetic to Manning's point of view because the secrets he made public deal with the American military and U.S. diplomats and not their own soldiers and envoys.

Joshua Benton, director of the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University, said American press coverage has been more "uniformly unsympathetic" than press reports from abroad.

"Part of that is the mainstream press here doesn't cover the same ideological turf that it does in the U.K. or elsewhere," he said. "But I'd suspect most of it is the mundane fact it's American interests he's accused of threatening, and thatpeople accused of 'aiding the enemy,' rightly or wrongly, tend not to get the most flattering coverage in their home country."

Tim Price, a British playwright who wrote a sympathetic play about Manning's teenage years in Wales called "The Radicalization of Bradley Manning," believed the harsh media coverage in the United States had exposed a blind spot in the U.S. press.

"I think the U.S. media has been unable to make the leap that Bradley might actually be the one soldier defending American ideals and principles and the U.S. military is the party guilty of putting soldiers at risk on a daily basis by waging wars with little idea how to end them," he said.

___

AP writer Jill Lawless contributed to this report.

See the original post:
Bradley Manning generates more sympathy abroad

Edward Snowden Bullish On Crypto: Blockchain Money Makes Sense

In 2013, to the chagrin of the U.S. government, Edward Snowden broke Americas laws of secrecy in dramatic fashion, unveiling metaphorical heaps of the NSAs classified documents to the public at large. As explained in a number of interviews from his Russian refuge, Snowden believed that the worlds people shouldnt be supervised incessantly, finding it logical to break the ice on the NSAs most caged initiatives.So, it should come as no surprise, that Snowden himself is a fan of blockchain technologies and crypto.

And as such, Snowden has cemented himself as someone that is near and dear to the hearts ofdiehard non-traditionalists, anarcho-capitalists, and zealot libertarians worldwide, a majority of which are advocates for blockchain and decentralized crypto assets.

Since Snowden fled to Russia for asylum, the world-renowned whistleblower has appeared in a number of interviews and talks around the globe. Keeping in mind that his views of the world are in-line with Bitcoins ethos and raison dtre, many have asked the former NSA contractor about his thoughts on blockchain technologies as a whole. And while he has brieflyexplained his conjectures on the matter,via a transcript outlining a blockchain-centric candid conversation between Edward Snowden and his legal counsel, it appears he knows more than he may let on.

Ben Wizner, Snowdens personal lawyer, ashamedly asked the controversial figure about blockchain, noting that he doesnt really get it. In an extended conversation, Snowden broke down the basic of a blockchain, conferring on what makes this newfangled data structure tickand, more importantly, the value of blockchains themselves.

Snowden, likening blockchains to a new form of database, gave Wizner a single word to exemplify the issue that blockchains solve trust.

Prior to 2008s Great Recession, consumers blindly threw capital at centralized banks, presumably due to the fact that they trusted these institutions. But, as the crash began, sending millions into a state of financial disrepair and ruin, it became palpable that trusting centralized entities with data and money was a risky business. And hence, as alluded to by Snowden, the creation of Bitcoin, the worlds first bonafide blockchain network. The seeming libertarian noted:

Imagine that instead of todays world, where publicly important data is often held exclusively its in a thousand places with a hundred jurisdictions. There is no takedown mechanism or other lets be evil button, and creating one requires a global consensus of, generally, at least 51 percent of the network in support of changing the rules.

Wizner, taken slightly aback by Snowdens technical explanation, posed an interesting question to his client, asking him if blockchain technologies can weaken huge tech platform monopolies, like Amazon or Google?

Snowden, remaining cautiously optimistic on the prospects of this innovation, said that for the foreseeable future, usurping such giants from their high horses through blockchain is nothing more than wishful thinking. However, he went on to acknowledge that money is, of course, the best and most famous example of where blockchains have been proven to make sense, leading him logically to the topic of Bitcoin.

Although he pointed out that cryptocurrencies, namely Bitcoin, have limited fundamental value, Snowden then eulogized Bitcoin for its scarcity, censorship-resistant, and borderless nature. However, he was tentative to call Bitcoin private money, but rather, the worlds first free money, which is valued by the need for transactions without intermediaries.

Keeping his penchant for privacy in mind, Snowden also brought up Monero and ZCash, alluding to his sentiment that he prefers the former because Monero is private by default.

While he may be touting his opinion that cryptocurrencies should hold value, Snowdens views on blockchain arent all sunshine and rainbows. Concluding his comments, Snowden told his lawyer that Bitcoins current Proof of Work (PoW) consensus mechanism is flawed, adding that these protocols are destructive and slants the game in favor of the rich, while adding that the rise of blockchains may lead to an over-transparent world, where everything can be traced.

Follow this link:
Edward Snowden Bullish On Crypto: Blockchain Money Makes Sense

Bradley Manning’s lawyer gives more details on client’s …

PROVIDENCE, R.I. Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, who now prefers to be called Chelsea Manning, decided to announce the desire to live as a woman the day after sentencing took place because a military prison said publicly it would not provide hormone treatment, his attorney said Monday.

Attorney David Coombs told The Associated Press that Manning had known for a long time he would make such a statement but, "She wanted, essentially, for the media surrounding the trial to dissipate."

Manning did not want people to think the statement was insincere.

"People might think it was an effort to get further attention," said Coombs, who lives in Providence, R.I.

Coombs said he and Manning knew the Army might not provide hormone treatment, but they were hoping the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., would allow it since Manning had been diagnosed with gender-identity disorder by an Army psychiatrist who testified at his trial.

It wasn't until they read a Courthouse News Service story that Manning decided to make the announcement. The story quoted prison spokeswoman Kimberly Lewis saying the prison would not provide hormone therapy. It was published Aug. 20, the day before Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking mountains of classified material to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

"It was Chelsea's intent to do this all along," Coombs said. "It was only after Fort Leavenworth had said that they would not provide any sort of medical treatment that we decided not to wait."

Coombs said he hoped the military prison "will simply do the right thing" so Manning will not have to sue in military or civilian court.

Coombs said at this point, Manning does not want sex-reassignment surgery and expects to be kept with men in prison. The Fort Leavenworth prison is all-male. He said Manning is exploring changing names legally and would request that the military recognize the new name.

Coombs said he had seen online people objecting to taxpayer-funded hormone therapy and said if the Army won't pay for it, Manning will.

Hormone therapy, which typically involves high doses of estrogen to promote breast development and other female characteristics, can help Manning, Coombs said.

"It's just to be comfortable in her own skin," Coombs said.

He described it as similar to ensuring someone with high blood pressure gets medication.

Coombs also said on his blog Monday that Manning chose Elizabeth as his middle name, replacing Edward.

Coombs said Manning knows there is the potential for confusion with the name change, and said Manning expects to be referred to as Bradley when it has to do with events prior to sentencing, the appeal of the court-martial and the request for a presidential pardon. Prison mail must be addressed to Bradley Manning.

"There's a realization that most people know her as Bradley," Coombs said. "Chelsea is a realist and understands."

Manning was demoted from private first class to private at sentencing. Manning will be dishonorably discharged when the soldier finishes the prison sentence. The earliest Manning could be released on parole is 2020.

Coombs also said the Bradley Manning Support Network is changing its name to the Private Manning Support Network. The group has raised more than $1 million and is paying Manning's legal expenses.

2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

More:
Bradley Manning's lawyer gives more details on client's ...

The Mind of Leaker Edward Snowden: An Armchair Analysis

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden may just be a naive do-gooder in over his head. Or he could be a narcissist, motivated by the glory of seeing his name in print. Maybe he's just a disgruntled guy who thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

The psychological motives of the former CIA employee, who worked as a U.S. contractor in Hawaii before he became the latest snitch to divulge highly sensitive government information, are far from clear. But these are the possibilities offered by professional criminal profilers who have analyzed Snowdens published quotes in the Guardian and the Washington Post as well as a 12-minute video posted by the Guardian.

He thinks hes a hero, says Dr. Casey Jordan, a criminologist who specializes in crime and human behavior. He thinks of himself as a conscientious objector. He thinks hes going to be like the French revolutionaries in Les Miserablesthat if you die trying you will be remembered for your actions.

Snowden, who made a roughly $200,000 salary and had a live-in girlfriend before he went into hiding, said he decided to disclose information about the governments PRISM program, which makes use of internet surveillance to assist counterterrorism efforts, to protect "basic liberties for people around the world." He became disenchanted with the Obama administration, he said, after it continued the policies of former president George W. Bush.

Retired FBI profiler Clint van Zandt, a former U.S. Army counterintelligence agent and onetime supervisor of the bureau's Behavioral Science Unit, also sees sign of vanity in Snowdens explanations. For someone to believe he could make decisions on world events and he can shape the world and he alonenot the federal judges, or the attorney general, or the Supreme Courtshould be the only one to determine what should be a national secret...Thats a level of arrogance only he can explain.

Van Zandt says there are usually personal reasons why someone like Snowden gives up the goods. FBI and CIA agents have given up secret information to the Sovietssometimes for money and sometimes because they were underpaid and underappreciated and this was their way of saying, Look how smart I am. Was there a level of narcissism? Did he feel his supervisors demeaned him? Did he feel he was underpaid? All these questions will have to be answered.

According to Canadian criminal-profile expert Jim van Allen, who specializes in analyzing threatening cyber communications, Snowden was the wrong guy in the wrong placesomeone who shouldnt have had access to the information he had access to. They put him in areas where he sees this data collection at such a large scale and he feels affronted by it. Hes more loyal to his personal ideals than government and national security.

Holed up in a swank hotel in Hong Kong, Snowden said he has barely left his room, had lined the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping, and put a red hood over his head and computer when entering his password to prevent hidden cameras from getting the information. The U.S. government, he told the Guardian, was building a massive spying machine that would destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

Such a strongly paranoid worldview, according to van Allen, is typical of a whistleblowers personality.

Hes using some really emotionally charged language, van Allen says. He figures if the government is left unchecked it is going to exponentially abuse peoples rights until we reach the point of turnkey tyranny. Thats some extreme thinking. However, Jordan says such actions are normal behavior for former CIA employees. He probably resented the fact that they knew things about his life.

According to the June 6 interview, Snowden said that prior to fleeing to Hong Kong, he told his NSA bosses that he needed medical treatment for epilepsy. Instead, he packed his bags and told his girlfriend he was going to be away for a few weeks. Then, on May 20, he flew to Hong Kong, where the Guardian interviewed him in a hotel "just up the road" from the U.S. Consulate.

I laughed when he said the CIA has a post just up the road, says van Allen. I thought that, well, that narrows down the hotels youre in. The whole thing to me appears reckless. He was with the military, the CIA, and was involved in security work. He should be way better in covering his tracks.

Snowden told the Guardian that he in fact wanted to avoid the media spotlight. "I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me, he told the paper. I want it to be about what the U.S. government is doing."

Van Allen disagrees. He wants people to notice him, he said. The fact this guy allowed himself to be named leads to a notoriety aspect of his personality.

Jordan also sees selfish motives in Snowdens decision to reveal his identity. I think hes scared, she says. Its a last-ditch effort. The interviews were so we wouldnt think of him as a crackpot when hes brought up on the charges. It is his last speech before the gallows A lot of these government agents, they think theyre Jason Bourne. I think hes young and naive and seduced to the Julian Assange-WikiLeaks concept that he can be a hero. Its a miscalculation on his part.

Snowdens desire to go to Iceland, where he said he is hoping to seek asylum from the American government that has already begun an investigation, could also be a miscalculation.

I hope he Googles the median temperature in Iceland in January, says van Allen. Hes certainly not realistic. Its not exactly the chosen career choice of many people. What is he going to do is Iceland? Its like saying I want to go to Winnipeg for the rest of his life.

Here is the original post:
The Mind of Leaker Edward Snowden: An Armchair Analysis

Homepage – Cryptocurrency Army

The world of cryptocurrencies is a quickly growing and expanding place. The value of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin have been going through the roof. The reality is that cryptocurrencies are becoming ever more important, valuable, and widely accepted as legitimate forms of money. With this great value comes a very real chance for people to make a serious income. Yes, the trading of Bitcoins, Ethereum, and other such cryptocurrencies is becoming much more common and profitable too. Just like with other forms of trading, Bitcoin and Crypto trading has a lot of merit in terms of its profit potential. That being said, there are also lots of threats out there that arise from this popularity of cryptocurrencies. This is why we here at the Cryptocurrency Army have come into existence, to help you fight off these threats and stay safe.

Source:huffingtonpost

The sad reality is that there are countless cryptocurrency scams out there looking to take advantage of you. Just like with other scams and scammers, crypto-scams looks to expose beginners and people with limited knowledge. These criminals promise huge profits and awesome returns if you just give them some money. Whether it is a trading scam, a scam application, or an HYIP scam, there are plenty out there looking to bite a chunk out of you. These people are fraudsters, criminals, and scammers of epic proportions looking to make your life miserable with a ridiculous array of crypto-scams. Here at the Cryptocurrency Army our main goal is to keep you safe from scams, let you know about the legitimate trading applications out there, and to teach you everything there is to know about cryptocurrencies.

Here at the Cryptocurrency Army our mission is to keep you safe from scammers, criminals, and fraudulent peoples of all sorts. Were here to evaluate trading programs, investment opportunities, and to review anything and everything to do with cryptocurrencies. Whether Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, or any other form of digital currency, our goal is to ensure that your money is right where it should be, in your own pocket and not in the hands of scammers. To learn about cryptocurrencies, check out our section titled Cryptocurrency Explained and for info about the latest crypto-scams, visit our section titled Scam Report.

Email Us:cryptocurrencyarmy@gmail.com

Link:
Homepage - Cryptocurrency Army

Cryptocurrency – Simple English Wikipedia, the free …

A cryptocurrency is a medium of exchange, that is designed to work like a currency. Usually, cryptocurrencies use features found in strong cryptography, such as digital signatures to secure financial transactions, control the creation of additional units, and verify the transfer of assets.[1][2][3] The first of them were created to be independent of a government-issued currency.

Cryptocurrencies use decentralized control[4] as opposed to centralized electronic money and central banking systems.[5] The decentralized control of each cryptocurrency works through distributed ledger technology, typically a blockchain [6], that serves as a public financial transaction database.[7][8]Bitcoin, first released as open-source software in 2009, is generally considered the first decentralized cryptocurrency.[9] Since then, over 4,000 altcoin (alternative coin) variants of bitcoin have been created.

In many cases, cryptocurrencies cannot be converted to real currencies; it is only possible to convert them to other cryptocurrencies, or to use them to buy things. Some cryptocurrencies can be converted to real currrencies: They usually have a high volatility, and using them carries a high risk.[10] They are also a target for so-called Pump-and-Dump-Attacks.[11] They act like a big distributed economic system: As they are not issued or controlled by central banks, their value is difficult to influence: For this reason, they cannot really take the place of a stable currency.[12]

Cryptocurrencies are prone to speculation, which makes buliding a system of more or less stable exchange rates very difficult.[13] Another problem is the inequality of distribution: Many cryptocurrencires are held by only few people. As an example: about 1.000 people hold half of the total amount of bitcoins in the world. This means that if any of these persons starts using their cryptocurrency, this has an effect on the exchange rate. It also means that these people have a great influence on the value of the currency, and are able to change its value easily.[14] The currency itself only documents ownership changes. Exchange rates of cryptocurrencies are established outside the system. Exchange rates are issued by brokers and traders; their indication is no guarantee that the currency is traded at the value proposed. In itself, the unit of cryptocurrency has no value.

In contrast to cyptocurrencies, real currencies are issued and controlled by central banks. Certain econnomic phenomena such as inflation or deflation may change the value (and exchange rate) of a currency. The people who own units of the currency have no direct influence on its value.

According to Jan Lansky, a cryptocurrency is a system that meets six conditions:[15]

In March 2018, the word "cryptocurrency" was added to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.[16]

See more here:
Cryptocurrency - Simple English Wikipedia, the free ...