I do not think traitors should get pardons. I don't think all whistle-blowers should regardless, but needs to be taken on a case by case basis.
Mike Pompeo thinks Snowden should be imprisoned or worse, executed. I worry about anyone having that view on this case and getting a top position in the intelligence community. Think of what that message says about his upcoming tenure. It's scary. During the Obama administration itself we've seen too much crack down on things like this. Trump will see it be worse, pointed out by taking on Pompeo.
When you're doing wrong, take your blows and clean up your act. We were and still are on a questionable, if not bad path regarding surveillance of Americans.
We needed to hear what Snowden had to say.
End of story.
Pompeo's claims of Snowden being a liar are such that you tend to look at he who makes the claim and realize... he's the one lying. On that count, I've listened to Snowden and what he says has made sense. It fits what I know, not just about him but about intel, security, America, how things work and how they should work. He has said things I've tried to say or get people to understand for many years. I consider if I had been in his position, would I be the one now sitting in Russia? I've been lucky enough to have some interactions with people in the security, intelligence, and government who are privy to these things. I've heard things that would make your hair curl, going back to 2000. And what I hear from Snowden makes perfect sense.
We owe him. We do not owe our government on this one, whom we pay to do what, do surveillance on US? No. We need protection to be sure, we need to be safe on our home turf. But! This situation isn't fixable with police and intelligence actions. This is a longer term situation that requires a global effort, a generational effort. We may die on our home lands, I may die at the hands of an immigrant terrorist. But we cannot bend to the winds of religious and international idiocy, religious lunacy. We will have to take the time to fix this long term. but we cannot fix it today, or tomorrow. We smiled while people suffered around the world and it's come back to bite us. Yes, many of us were ignorant. But we are not now, or we have no reason to be now. Farmers in Afghanistan need jobs, or they grow opium and produce heroin. They need help. And we give them war. People in Syria need help but we give them international politics. We have gotten fat and lazy in America while some of the world suffers. And they are mad. Read your world history, not history taught in schools but what really happened, what America really helped to happen, all because of money, oil, greed, stability, perceived evils, and real evils. Sometimes you do what is right and you suffer later for it. That's life. I raised my own kids to know that.
Yes I do believe that on the way out, Obama, who we owe a great debt to, regardless of his being human, making mistake like the rest of us, regardless of the constant deluge of the disingenuous, biased, sometimes racist and so often ignorant claims by the right to the contrary. Considering how let down we were on several issues and I understand many of those not having been resolved (Cannabis legalization being one), Obama should pardon Snowden.
If we could see Pres. Nixon pardoned to protect the office of President, to protect America, then we should certainly see Snowden pardoned.
Especially with Trump being president elect, soon to be president, already our intellectual Grand Guignol level of world wide embarrassment.
Most especially because of that.
Showing posts with label Edward Snowden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Edward Snowden. Show all posts
Friday, December 23, 2016
Monday, October 19, 2015
Snowden's Credibility Issues
The Daily Banter put out a piece by Bob Cesca, in June 24, 2014 titled: Snowden’s Credibility Problem Worsens as Whistleblowing Email Story Blows Up. I mention this because I saw it posted on my Facebook today.
Cesca is pushing the notion that Snowden didn't try established channels to voice his concerns and instead simply released them to journalists and the world.
This is all fine and dandy. Except for a couple of things.
Did Snowden actually use email to complain about illegal activities to management? Or hard copy, or voice? Did the email response he did get to his question as released to the public, mean something to him we're not seeing that Snowden did see in that reply?
The article posts this within it:
"Today’s release is incomplete, and does not include my correspondence with the Signals Intelligence Directorate’s Office of Compliance, which believed that a classified executive order could take precedence over an act of Congress, contradicting what was just published. It also did not include concerns about how indefensible collection activities—such as breaking into the back-haul communications of major US internet companies—are sometimes concealed under EO 12333 to avoid Congressional reporting requirements and regulations. […]
I did raise such concerns both verbally and in writing, and on multiple, continuing occasions — as I have always said, and as NSA has always denied."
He asks why Snowden didn't release those emails along with other things being released to vindicate himself, that he should have thought that out ahead of time and so on. Reasonable questions. But then things like this don't always go smoothly, all the answers aren't always given or freely available and that doesn't simply mean there is something fishy going on. Getting this kind of thing to the public is a very messy, complicated thing.
Do you really think, even if Snowden had properly complained to management in any format that anything would really have changed? In something so big, so endemic within the agency? Something they obviously valued so highly?
Consider this. Should this EVER happen in America? Would or could this ever happen in China, or Russia? Or North Korea? Maybe this, or other such breaches really haven't been that bad for the people of America? Maybe in fact we need them from time to time. It's as if the Founding Fathers themselves had considered such things in setting up free speech and a free press.
"In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the public. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." - Hugo L. Black (1971). New York Times Co. v. United States. Supreme Court of the United States. pp. 403 U.S. 713, at p. 717.
Why would someone with a brain who had knowledge of the agency's inner functionings, even really consider that they could evoke change of this type from the inside, without the need to publicly release information?
It really makes Cesca's article seem pretty naive. Just a journalist's need for a hook to write an article about regardless how useless its commentary may be. But hey, we all gotta make a living. And journalists get paid for writing, not necessarily writing what's useful but engaging the public so they can continue to seem relevant and useful in making money for their organization.
I've seen things in a mere corporation that needed to change before. I said in the beginning of a new proposed project (more than once on more than one project) that it was a bad idea. But no one would listen. Though many would nod their heads silently, also knowing what I said was true but not wanting to stick their heads up to be wacked.
And so it came to be, all because those at the top had a vested interest.
It was going to happen, it did happen. In one case, there was a personal financial interest for the guy at the top and he never got called out on it. Even after he abandoned the company leaving a sinking ship where he created the hole all the money was pouring out of. Eventually the hole was plugged, the ship didn't sink although people now openly will say what a nightmare his reign was.
Years later in this case, after millions of dollars wasted, change did finally happen. Only after he left. But no at first one would listen. It was a waste of time and effort and it left you looking the fool. In speaking out, even after being proven correct, it still could leave you looking untrustworthy in certain career fields.
Like, intelligence. A field which has always been a kind of oxymoron. Between those in the field with the know and those in management with their "know"; so much, so many times, the wrong things are done even though the ones lower down knew very well and wanted things to be different. They could only sit and shake their head in frustration. Such is the bureaucracy and dynamics in government and intelligence.
I'm really not sure Snowden's attempt to tell anyone would have been a smart thing to do.
It would have been the proper thing to do, to be sure, though that has little to do in intelligence with reality. A field of shadows to most people, and one that runs with a grossly different and unspoken set of rules than the rest of us. A field where asking doesn't always get done what needs to be done, where doing what is right and asking permission later, apologizing later if need be, does get the right thing done. Though you'd better be right, do the right thing, make the right people look...right. And if you don't, people can die. You, can die.
I think discussion on it this who thing, whether Snowden spoke out ahead of time or not, as if it could have made any difference at all, is really now a moot point.
It may very well always have been.
And then last Friday, October 16, 2015 there is this....
Edward Snowden: Clinton made 'false claim' about whistleblower protection
This is all fine and dandy. Except for a couple of things.
Did Snowden actually use email to complain about illegal activities to management? Or hard copy, or voice? Did the email response he did get to his question as released to the public, mean something to him we're not seeing that Snowden did see in that reply?
The article posts this within it:
"Today’s release is incomplete, and does not include my correspondence with the Signals Intelligence Directorate’s Office of Compliance, which believed that a classified executive order could take precedence over an act of Congress, contradicting what was just published. It also did not include concerns about how indefensible collection activities—such as breaking into the back-haul communications of major US internet companies—are sometimes concealed under EO 12333 to avoid Congressional reporting requirements and regulations. […]
I did raise such concerns both verbally and in writing, and on multiple, continuing occasions — as I have always said, and as NSA has always denied."
He asks why Snowden didn't release those emails along with other things being released to vindicate himself, that he should have thought that out ahead of time and so on. Reasonable questions. But then things like this don't always go smoothly, all the answers aren't always given or freely available and that doesn't simply mean there is something fishy going on. Getting this kind of thing to the public is a very messy, complicated thing.
Do you really think, even if Snowden had properly complained to management in any format that anything would really have changed? In something so big, so endemic within the agency? Something they obviously valued so highly?
Consider this. Should this EVER happen in America? Would or could this ever happen in China, or Russia? Or North Korea? Maybe this, or other such breaches really haven't been that bad for the people of America? Maybe in fact we need them from time to time. It's as if the Founding Fathers themselves had considered such things in setting up free speech and a free press.
"In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the public. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." - Hugo L. Black (1971). New York Times Co. v. United States. Supreme Court of the United States. pp. 403 U.S. 713, at p. 717.
Why would someone with a brain who had knowledge of the agency's inner functionings, even really consider that they could evoke change of this type from the inside, without the need to publicly release information?
It really makes Cesca's article seem pretty naive. Just a journalist's need for a hook to write an article about regardless how useless its commentary may be. But hey, we all gotta make a living. And journalists get paid for writing, not necessarily writing what's useful but engaging the public so they can continue to seem relevant and useful in making money for their organization.
I've seen things in a mere corporation that needed to change before. I said in the beginning of a new proposed project (more than once on more than one project) that it was a bad idea. But no one would listen. Though many would nod their heads silently, also knowing what I said was true but not wanting to stick their heads up to be wacked.
And so it came to be, all because those at the top had a vested interest.
It was going to happen, it did happen. In one case, there was a personal financial interest for the guy at the top and he never got called out on it. Even after he abandoned the company leaving a sinking ship where he created the hole all the money was pouring out of. Eventually the hole was plugged, the ship didn't sink although people now openly will say what a nightmare his reign was.
Years later in this case, after millions of dollars wasted, change did finally happen. Only after he left. But no at first one would listen. It was a waste of time and effort and it left you looking the fool. In speaking out, even after being proven correct, it still could leave you looking untrustworthy in certain career fields.
Like, intelligence. A field which has always been a kind of oxymoron. Between those in the field with the know and those in management with their "know"; so much, so many times, the wrong things are done even though the ones lower down knew very well and wanted things to be different. They could only sit and shake their head in frustration. Such is the bureaucracy and dynamics in government and intelligence.
I'm really not sure Snowden's attempt to tell anyone would have been a smart thing to do.
It would have been the proper thing to do, to be sure, though that has little to do in intelligence with reality. A field of shadows to most people, and one that runs with a grossly different and unspoken set of rules than the rest of us. A field where asking doesn't always get done what needs to be done, where doing what is right and asking permission later, apologizing later if need be, does get the right thing done. Though you'd better be right, do the right thing, make the right people look...right. And if you don't, people can die. You, can die.
I think discussion on it this who thing, whether Snowden spoke out ahead of time or not, as if it could have made any difference at all, is really now a moot point.
It may very well always have been.
And then last Friday, October 16, 2015 there is this....
Edward Snowden: Clinton made 'false claim' about whistleblower protection
Monday, June 2, 2014
Security State? Edward Snowden's Burn Notice Interview with MSNBC
I do not know enough (and neither do you) of Edward Snowden's background to feel 100% on this but from my understanding of covert ops, and of many of the things he was talking about in last Friday's MSNBC interview with him, I saw nothing that felt patently incorrect.
However, I'm going to more or less blow off concerns about him because his situation has distracted us from reality and what is actually important. There will be more of his type down the road, that is now the nature of the beast that is modern intel acquisition. We'd better get our act together. If nothing else Snowden has pointed out some major issues, including not just what our intelligence people are doing but also a vast orientation in our government toward cheaper and quantifiable, being better than more expensive and qualitative (traditional spycraft) intel.
Get past how you may think he looks like a snotty twerp who turned on his pledge to secrecy, our government and America. Get past that. Listen to what he says, objectively. Then realize that you probably don't know enough to judge him merely by his perceived actions, his demeanor and situation. Look beyond that because much of what he is saying overall, is important to us as civilian citizens of the United States of America.
Snowden knows that when he left and took those docs, when he spoke to journalists. He contacted Glenn Greewald of The Guardian (see his book on this, No Place To Hide - Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State"), via a rather cryptic email requesting him to install encryption software for his email. But Greenwald blew him off because so many times this kind of thing turns out to be nothing. Considering he is one of the busiest journalists in the world, he gets a lot of that type of thing.
Snowden then contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras in Germany. She wasn't sure about all this either so she contacted, but she had encryption so Snowden went forward with her. But she wasn't so sure about this shady character either, so she contacted journalist Barton Gellman of The Washington Post. She met him at a Greenwhich Village restaurant in New York City. When they got there, they moved to elsewhere. Better safe than sorry.
Poitras asked Gellman to vet Snowden and he agreed. Snowden called Gellman, "Brass Banner" and himself, "Verax" which means "Truth Teller" in Latin. In the end, Snowden requested a meet in Hong Kong. but Gellman decided against going after Snowden said their lives may be in danger from American covert agencies. So odd as life can be sometimes, Gellman suggested Greenwald instead who took over for him and flew to Hong Kong with Poitras to meet Snowden.
In doing all this, Snowden burned himself, his career, and he will never work in intelligence again. Perhaps he can find a teaching job somewhere. I just hope it's for an American school and not a foreign one, especially not for one of our enemies (and I use that term lightly and include North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China, among others). Let's not force him into that, because we are now forcing him into a Zugzwang set of moves and if we're not, we're surely trying ("We" being our government who speaks for us).
That being said, do you know what "burn notices" are in the intelligence field? Wikipedia: "A burn notice is an official statement issued by an intelligence agency to other agencies. It states that an asset or intelligence source is unreliable for one or more reasons, often fabrication. This is essentially a directive for the recipient to disregard or "burn" all information derived from that individual or group."
At times "burning" someone includes discrediting them, or worse, as in the TV show mentioned below. Sometimes, far worse, which are few and far between. Consider that for a moment, then reflect on our government saying what Snowden claims as proof, is non-existent, that he is a "low level analyst". Is he? He claims not and we may never know for sure.
There was recently a TV show called, "Burn Notice" that ran for seven seasons. At first it was quite good, even the "Farm", the CIA training facility used episodes to show to it's trainees. Later and especially in its last season, it had gone downhill pretty badly. They probably should have ended at season five.
But that was entertainment. This, is reality.
They keep saying Snowden should return to "face the music" (for more on this type of thing see Daniel Ellsberg's comments, "Pentagon Papers Whistleblower: Snowden Won't Get a Fair Trial"), a rather stupid thing to even ask and a shallow and obvious attempt to obfuscate and further denigrate him. If he did the wrong thing, considering his gone already, let him go, who cares, we don't need him.
If he did the right thing, then the government is going to want to persecute him, hide him, and lock him away, though they may be forced to parade him around a bit, I'm pretty sure they will pull national security issues and scurry him away with all possible aplomb. They fear to an almost paranoid degree, being found out that what he says may be true. They fear for their future plans, on the track that they have been on now for over a decade, all of which have their roots back in the 80s.
I couldn't help but think that in the interview, Snowden could have been me at twenty-nine saying very similar things, or my son if he had gone into this kind of work. But would we have had the wherewithal to speak out and do what Snowden did? Considering his family background (his grandfather was at the FBI, his father a veteran), it adds at least some veracity to his words.
Snowden claimed in 2004 he joined the US Army under the 18X special forces recruitment program where he admittedly washed out when he broke both his legs. He also said he was in foreign countries working undercover. I don't see why that would be such a hard thing to believe. After all it's not claiming to be a superspy or anything, just a guy undercover. Cops do that. Big deal.
He said may things I agreed 100% with. The government, and his own statements regarding his bone fides, in those not matching up, is really not so surprising. You have to consider the field he is in regardless of what level he was at. This would be par for the course and he knows it and we should, too. I don't have (in some ways) any issue in believing him against our government and I tend to err on the side of the government, whenever I can. Typically, business as usual is the order of the day, so, that's kind of a double edged sword in a situation like this.
Believe it or not, the government is actually pretty good about being stand up on issues like freedom of information and being honest about things; individuals and administrations, notwithstanding (Dick Cheney and Bush Jr. and that administration for instance). Typically they are surprisingly honest about things; when pushed. Until, you step into issues of covert ops and then they feel an absolute interest in honesty; but also absolutely no need to be honest, no compunction whatsoever to alter things in order to support their contentions, against all others.
At this point, until I see a crack in his mirror, I tend to believe much of what he's saying. On the other hand, if he was trained as a spy as he claims, this could all, as he indicated, be exercising a part of his training to deceive.
See, this is how the covert ops paradigm works. It's basic trade (spy) craft and it will drive some people crazy who are unfamiliar with it. It makes civilians feel distrustful almost instantly; but this is a shadow world where you have to "see" what's going on only by seeing what lies match with what, what truths with what verified intel; or by what is simply not there. As in "seeing" a black hole, only because of what is missing around it in the sky. It's a fascinating area and it gets easier as you delve deeper into it.
To those who would say his answers were shallow and thin, you have to consider that is simply the nature of his situation. He is walking a thin line with broken glass glued to it. He has to be circumspect. He also doesn't, so he says, want to spill the beans on too much as that wasn't his purpose in all this, but rather to let us know what's going on. Many of the arguments against him simply aren't supported by either his situation or his actions.
This area is a world of misinformation and disinformation, distraction and misdirection. Even at times when the government is being completely honest with us, it can be lying to us; and it knows it. That's how it works. I can tell you an absolute truth, and yet, in my delivery, you will believe the opposite.
The government claims his submitted complaints to those above him do not exist. It is almost impossible now a days to thoroughly hide a "paper trail" like that as it's digitized, stored, backed up, possibly with redundant backups, and so on.
An independent analysis and pulling of emails, backups and so on would very likely eventually come up with something; if not just someone else stepping up and speaking up on his behalf. Though I wouldn't hold my breath over that one, as it would most likely take someone who has retired, or left the community and in no fear of losing their retirement or severance, if not simply concerns about repercussions.
The fact of the matter is that many of his words fit. But do they fit too perfectly? Or are they simply purely accurate and the government is being disingenuous. Ask yourself, much as he was saying, does what he says fit (it does). Has our government been doing questionable things, and for a length of time; hiding their activities beyond what they should be (they have)? Is it easier now to trust our government who have been doing questionable things for how long? Or a guy who has done some good and little harm from what we can gather, just as he claims; a guy who has shared with us stuff we really, seriously, need to know?
The journalist he turned his documents over to claims his next release of information will blow the previous ones out of the water. So time will tell. But as Snowden claimed, he only took what he thought was needed and reasonable and passed those along with the stipulation of doing no grievous harm in releasing future information. That is now out of his hands. As for his not taking this into Russia with him, his argument there holds water Of course he could be lying, he could have a bank account with money from Putin. He could be making deals with extraterrestrials, too. He could be doing anything. But we need to deal with what we can see and extrapolate and what he said, simply makes sense. He was safer not bringing all that with him. Question is, what did he do?
His comments about our becoming a Security State were 100% on the mark.
Who do we know has lied to us more at this point? Snowden? Or our government? Okay, the trouble with that train of thought is, no matter how much Snowden is lying to us, there is simply no way he can surpass how much our Government has been lying to us, and that, is a matter of record. But you get my point, yes?
Sometimes what seems to be, simply is. Sometimes Occams Razor fits and points to the truth right off, and through the entire situation. The problem now is that the government will continue over the top, if they have already been, to make him look bad.
The question is, will they go smooth and slick, or outright discredit him? They will either do nothing, do something, or do a lot of something. It's very possible that who he really is will be pointed out shortly by the government, merely in how bad they make him look. That is, if they pile a lot of crap on him, will it be obvious to the public that it's a "snow job"? Yes, of course, I had to say it. Okay, maybe I didn't, but that is how the government works, you see? Trigger words, offhanded comments of defamation, and so on. You can be distracted by the comment through the words used. Pay attention.
Of course, this also has a lot to do with how incompetent the government will be in response. For years now they have been amazingly incompetent in intelligence matters though they do seem to be getting better, but because of and at the expense of, national confidence and constitutional freedoms. Over the years they've lost most of their experts in this field. SIGINT has trumped HUMINT now for decades and I do disagree with Snowden in that one thing, in a way.
He said that they get far better intel through SIGINT now than HUMINT. Well that actually may be, but it's sad. Because HUMINT is far superior in specifics, in nuances. Much like it's better to use a born national to translate foreign intel, than a foreign born and educated translator. We have failed on these things since the 80s in thinking that SIGINT was the cheaper, better way to go.
Acquiring the communications of Americans has been going on for a long time now. These infractions to our national freedom began walking that fine line, even before 9/11. There was "ThinThread" which encrypted American's private communications, seemed to work well. But then after 9/11, they followed a new program. They would remove the encryption, by Executive Order.
There was a siphoning off from the communications pipe traversing the Pacific Ocean that brings in overseas calls to southern California. A certain No Such Agency entered a certain TelCo building and set up a secret room taping into and piping those calls, splitting them to another building of theirs, located elsewhere, where they could store and access all those calls, including American's calls. Some of the TelCo employees not in the know, noticed something odd in that building, figuring out what was happening. Though I'd assume most of you never heard about that.
We need to keep close scrutiny on these things. Even to the point of being a wee bit paranoid at times, because sometimes they are out to get you and sometimes, it's not the enemy. I think people in our government who have applied these measures, had the best of intentions. Maybe that isn't an excuse. But even if it is, there comes a time when it isn't. See, there is a statute of limitations after an attack, in fear and appropriate responses to the point of a new status quo. It has to be limited. Because as we learn and time passes, what used to be undoable, can become doable.
If we don't force ourselves to find that, what does that say about who we will, or have, become?
Isn't that important too, considering who we are in the world and history as Ameicans?
HUMINT requires time and humans in weird places making calls that aren't quantifiable and we do like quantification now. Qualitative intel requires clever thought and we've dumbed ourselves down because of promoting and replacing experienced field operatives to be in charge with bureaucrats. Not to mention how many times in recent decades we've been asleep at the wheel because we simply did not have local field operatives previously embedded on the scene with working relationship with local nationals.
Like in going against the Chinese years ago. We simply looked different and had a harder time fitting into Chinese maters. This was true as well as the Middle East, which is also very tribal and closed off. In Iraq years ago we pulled our case officers because we thought we could use Saddam Hussein instead. That turned out well, right?
We've made some inroads now in both though, as we finally realized that Chinese Americans and Middle Eastern Americans (both as well as foreign nationals) can do a better job than the good old white boys. But we mistakenly continue to think that "push button" intel is better. True, it has its place and it is incredibly valuable. But there is nothing like personnel on the streets to ferret out what's going on, which has other valuable uses beyond purely gathering intel. There is something to be said for having relationships and winning hearts and minds.
Intelligence is a grey and shadowy area that requires a lot of on the spot judgment calls, trusting operatives in the field and the micro-mangers back in the offices not micro-managing and actually knowing something; like trade craft. Replacing those old school professionals with others, using orgs like the CIA for Military ops and the Military for Intel Ops, has really skewed things.
We live in a new world today and in a field where nothing is as it seems, much of what can be seen is hidden in a vast array of data we have to filter and get to the proper agencies. When sometimes, the same can be done in a conversation in the space of a few minutes. If you have the right relationships already in place, with the right people, by the right people.
Whether we like it or not the only way to get a handle on this is through people like Snowden. What's interesting is that we're not seeing so many defectors anymore, we're seeing people standing up for our country and and opening the books they are sworn to protect; opening them to, US.
The question is, why? The further question is, are we going to play whack-a-mole with those who are trying to help us, against our own people; our servants who see themselves in some cases, as our masters? Even if, only to "serve" as they see fit, while we lose more and more of what our country once was?
Why is this even happening? Why are our Intel agencies so into acquiring everything they can, even if it's wrong? I think they probably have the best of intentions. Consider that they found out about the 9/11 attack on a small TV, from CNN. They rightly never want that to happen again. But that shouldn't give them carte blanche on all communications, everywhere, now. Should it? Let me answer that for you in case you make the wrong decision there.
No!
Here's the bottom line.
Snowden is now misdirection for us, pure and simple. The important question is, how easy do we want to make our Intelligence community's job? It's all a balance between pure freedom and pure security state. How cheaply do we want them doing it? Because that's really what all this boils down to. Intel isn't easy, or cheap, it's expensive, it takes brains, it takes trained individuals and it's messy. No one wants to allow that anymore.
No one wants to consider risk, better to take freedoms and decrease risk to as close to zero as possible. Yes, I'd like zero risk, but not at the expensive of the country I grew up in, disappearing and being only a faint phantom of what it once ways. I don't want us to turn into another America of 1950s paranoia.
Should we return to despising Germans, or Japanese, or to despise anyone who praises Allah or Mohammed? Anyone who isn't us and disagrees with us? Even if, they try to attack us? Because killing all out enemies isn't the answer. Turning them into our friends is.
We've gotten cheap and lazy and we've been on this course since at least the Berlin wall going down. Europe has thought that we've been lazy and deluding ourselves for decades about terrorism, mostly because we thought the Atlantic Ocean and our "big island" mentality was our saving grace. Well, it's finally happened to us. Now it's our turn to join the older kids in the pool. And it's... scary.
We woke up and it scared us. We retaliated after 9/11 in Iraq in a knee jerk response. America was hurt and pissed off and the Bush administration finally had their reason to invade another country, for oil, but not openly. They took that and ran with it, pushing our fears to the top, taking what they could, making their jobs as easy as they could possibly be, at whatever cost to the nation; to the citizenry. And now it's time to pull back.
We need to buck it up and start being Americans again. Remember John Wayne? That tough guy demeanor has a lot of bad baggage with it, like hiding emotions when you should share, being sexist and ignoring some important things at times. But it's a film hero. Let's skip over the John Wayne anti-communist film, "Big Jim McClain" (1952), for instance.
Still, "big Duke" had some good things about his demeanor. Like being kick ass, not being cheap or afraid of every little thing. And not relying always on the easiest things possible, at the expense of American's lives. And holding Americans in high esteem, and our Republic. Now if only Republicans would realize that too, right? But, I digress....
If we want to allow ELINT, Electronic Intel, to be the tip of our national sword, fine. But we need some limits for Reason's sake and Americans need to be the wall maintaining what our nation stands for Yes, the bad guys may be hiding amongst us, but hey, guess what? What does that start real quick to sound like, again. The Red Menace, right? "A commie behind every bush"? (pun not intended)
Let's face it, there isn't a terrorist behind every rock and cranny. Yes, they are out there. But let's maintain an even strain here, kids. Let's at least try to be the "right stuff". Let's stand up for ourselves and start pushing back.
Snowden, regardless of what he's done or how you think about him, has started the ball rolling. Are you going to let it slide back down now to where it was to start with?
We need to stop trading security for freedom. That is really, the final consideration.
However, I'm going to more or less blow off concerns about him because his situation has distracted us from reality and what is actually important. There will be more of his type down the road, that is now the nature of the beast that is modern intel acquisition. We'd better get our act together. If nothing else Snowden has pointed out some major issues, including not just what our intelligence people are doing but also a vast orientation in our government toward cheaper and quantifiable, being better than more expensive and qualitative (traditional spycraft) intel.
Get past how you may think he looks like a snotty twerp who turned on his pledge to secrecy, our government and America. Get past that. Listen to what he says, objectively. Then realize that you probably don't know enough to judge him merely by his perceived actions, his demeanor and situation. Look beyond that because much of what he is saying overall, is important to us as civilian citizens of the United States of America.
Snowden knows that when he left and took those docs, when he spoke to journalists. He contacted Glenn Greewald of The Guardian (see his book on this, No Place To Hide - Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State"), via a rather cryptic email requesting him to install encryption software for his email. But Greenwald blew him off because so many times this kind of thing turns out to be nothing. Considering he is one of the busiest journalists in the world, he gets a lot of that type of thing.
Snowden then contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras in Germany. She wasn't sure about all this either so she contacted, but she had encryption so Snowden went forward with her. But she wasn't so sure about this shady character either, so she contacted journalist Barton Gellman of The Washington Post. She met him at a Greenwhich Village restaurant in New York City. When they got there, they moved to elsewhere. Better safe than sorry.
Poitras asked Gellman to vet Snowden and he agreed. Snowden called Gellman, "Brass Banner" and himself, "Verax" which means "Truth Teller" in Latin. In the end, Snowden requested a meet in Hong Kong. but Gellman decided against going after Snowden said their lives may be in danger from American covert agencies. So odd as life can be sometimes, Gellman suggested Greenwald instead who took over for him and flew to Hong Kong with Poitras to meet Snowden.
In doing all this, Snowden burned himself, his career, and he will never work in intelligence again. Perhaps he can find a teaching job somewhere. I just hope it's for an American school and not a foreign one, especially not for one of our enemies (and I use that term lightly and include North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China, among others). Let's not force him into that, because we are now forcing him into a Zugzwang set of moves and if we're not, we're surely trying ("We" being our government who speaks for us).
That being said, do you know what "burn notices" are in the intelligence field? Wikipedia: "A burn notice is an official statement issued by an intelligence agency to other agencies. It states that an asset or intelligence source is unreliable for one or more reasons, often fabrication. This is essentially a directive for the recipient to disregard or "burn" all information derived from that individual or group."
At times "burning" someone includes discrediting them, or worse, as in the TV show mentioned below. Sometimes, far worse, which are few and far between. Consider that for a moment, then reflect on our government saying what Snowden claims as proof, is non-existent, that he is a "low level analyst". Is he? He claims not and we may never know for sure.
There was recently a TV show called, "Burn Notice" that ran for seven seasons. At first it was quite good, even the "Farm", the CIA training facility used episodes to show to it's trainees. Later and especially in its last season, it had gone downhill pretty badly. They probably should have ended at season five.
But that was entertainment. This, is reality.
They keep saying Snowden should return to "face the music" (for more on this type of thing see Daniel Ellsberg's comments, "Pentagon Papers Whistleblower: Snowden Won't Get a Fair Trial"), a rather stupid thing to even ask and a shallow and obvious attempt to obfuscate and further denigrate him. If he did the wrong thing, considering his gone already, let him go, who cares, we don't need him.
If he did the right thing, then the government is going to want to persecute him, hide him, and lock him away, though they may be forced to parade him around a bit, I'm pretty sure they will pull national security issues and scurry him away with all possible aplomb. They fear to an almost paranoid degree, being found out that what he says may be true. They fear for their future plans, on the track that they have been on now for over a decade, all of which have their roots back in the 80s.
I couldn't help but think that in the interview, Snowden could have been me at twenty-nine saying very similar things, or my son if he had gone into this kind of work. But would we have had the wherewithal to speak out and do what Snowden did? Considering his family background (his grandfather was at the FBI, his father a veteran), it adds at least some veracity to his words.
Snowden claimed in 2004 he joined the US Army under the 18X special forces recruitment program where he admittedly washed out when he broke both his legs. He also said he was in foreign countries working undercover. I don't see why that would be such a hard thing to believe. After all it's not claiming to be a superspy or anything, just a guy undercover. Cops do that. Big deal.
He said may things I agreed 100% with. The government, and his own statements regarding his bone fides, in those not matching up, is really not so surprising. You have to consider the field he is in regardless of what level he was at. This would be par for the course and he knows it and we should, too. I don't have (in some ways) any issue in believing him against our government and I tend to err on the side of the government, whenever I can. Typically, business as usual is the order of the day, so, that's kind of a double edged sword in a situation like this.
Believe it or not, the government is actually pretty good about being stand up on issues like freedom of information and being honest about things; individuals and administrations, notwithstanding (Dick Cheney and Bush Jr. and that administration for instance). Typically they are surprisingly honest about things; when pushed. Until, you step into issues of covert ops and then they feel an absolute interest in honesty; but also absolutely no need to be honest, no compunction whatsoever to alter things in order to support their contentions, against all others.
At this point, until I see a crack in his mirror, I tend to believe much of what he's saying. On the other hand, if he was trained as a spy as he claims, this could all, as he indicated, be exercising a part of his training to deceive.
See, this is how the covert ops paradigm works. It's basic trade (spy) craft and it will drive some people crazy who are unfamiliar with it. It makes civilians feel distrustful almost instantly; but this is a shadow world where you have to "see" what's going on only by seeing what lies match with what, what truths with what verified intel; or by what is simply not there. As in "seeing" a black hole, only because of what is missing around it in the sky. It's a fascinating area and it gets easier as you delve deeper into it.
To those who would say his answers were shallow and thin, you have to consider that is simply the nature of his situation. He is walking a thin line with broken glass glued to it. He has to be circumspect. He also doesn't, so he says, want to spill the beans on too much as that wasn't his purpose in all this, but rather to let us know what's going on. Many of the arguments against him simply aren't supported by either his situation or his actions.
This area is a world of misinformation and disinformation, distraction and misdirection. Even at times when the government is being completely honest with us, it can be lying to us; and it knows it. That's how it works. I can tell you an absolute truth, and yet, in my delivery, you will believe the opposite.
The government claims his submitted complaints to those above him do not exist. It is almost impossible now a days to thoroughly hide a "paper trail" like that as it's digitized, stored, backed up, possibly with redundant backups, and so on.
An independent analysis and pulling of emails, backups and so on would very likely eventually come up with something; if not just someone else stepping up and speaking up on his behalf. Though I wouldn't hold my breath over that one, as it would most likely take someone who has retired, or left the community and in no fear of losing their retirement or severance, if not simply concerns about repercussions.
The fact of the matter is that many of his words fit. But do they fit too perfectly? Or are they simply purely accurate and the government is being disingenuous. Ask yourself, much as he was saying, does what he says fit (it does). Has our government been doing questionable things, and for a length of time; hiding their activities beyond what they should be (they have)? Is it easier now to trust our government who have been doing questionable things for how long? Or a guy who has done some good and little harm from what we can gather, just as he claims; a guy who has shared with us stuff we really, seriously, need to know?
The journalist he turned his documents over to claims his next release of information will blow the previous ones out of the water. So time will tell. But as Snowden claimed, he only took what he thought was needed and reasonable and passed those along with the stipulation of doing no grievous harm in releasing future information. That is now out of his hands. As for his not taking this into Russia with him, his argument there holds water Of course he could be lying, he could have a bank account with money from Putin. He could be making deals with extraterrestrials, too. He could be doing anything. But we need to deal with what we can see and extrapolate and what he said, simply makes sense. He was safer not bringing all that with him. Question is, what did he do?
His comments about our becoming a Security State were 100% on the mark.
Who do we know has lied to us more at this point? Snowden? Or our government? Okay, the trouble with that train of thought is, no matter how much Snowden is lying to us, there is simply no way he can surpass how much our Government has been lying to us, and that, is a matter of record. But you get my point, yes?
Sometimes what seems to be, simply is. Sometimes Occams Razor fits and points to the truth right off, and through the entire situation. The problem now is that the government will continue over the top, if they have already been, to make him look bad.
The question is, will they go smooth and slick, or outright discredit him? They will either do nothing, do something, or do a lot of something. It's very possible that who he really is will be pointed out shortly by the government, merely in how bad they make him look. That is, if they pile a lot of crap on him, will it be obvious to the public that it's a "snow job"? Yes, of course, I had to say it. Okay, maybe I didn't, but that is how the government works, you see? Trigger words, offhanded comments of defamation, and so on. You can be distracted by the comment through the words used. Pay attention.
Of course, this also has a lot to do with how incompetent the government will be in response. For years now they have been amazingly incompetent in intelligence matters though they do seem to be getting better, but because of and at the expense of, national confidence and constitutional freedoms. Over the years they've lost most of their experts in this field. SIGINT has trumped HUMINT now for decades and I do disagree with Snowden in that one thing, in a way.
He said that they get far better intel through SIGINT now than HUMINT. Well that actually may be, but it's sad. Because HUMINT is far superior in specifics, in nuances. Much like it's better to use a born national to translate foreign intel, than a foreign born and educated translator. We have failed on these things since the 80s in thinking that SIGINT was the cheaper, better way to go.
Acquiring the communications of Americans has been going on for a long time now. These infractions to our national freedom began walking that fine line, even before 9/11. There was "ThinThread" which encrypted American's private communications, seemed to work well. But then after 9/11, they followed a new program. They would remove the encryption, by Executive Order.
There was a siphoning off from the communications pipe traversing the Pacific Ocean that brings in overseas calls to southern California. A certain No Such Agency entered a certain TelCo building and set up a secret room taping into and piping those calls, splitting them to another building of theirs, located elsewhere, where they could store and access all those calls, including American's calls. Some of the TelCo employees not in the know, noticed something odd in that building, figuring out what was happening. Though I'd assume most of you never heard about that.
We need to keep close scrutiny on these things. Even to the point of being a wee bit paranoid at times, because sometimes they are out to get you and sometimes, it's not the enemy. I think people in our government who have applied these measures, had the best of intentions. Maybe that isn't an excuse. But even if it is, there comes a time when it isn't. See, there is a statute of limitations after an attack, in fear and appropriate responses to the point of a new status quo. It has to be limited. Because as we learn and time passes, what used to be undoable, can become doable.
If we don't force ourselves to find that, what does that say about who we will, or have, become?
Isn't that important too, considering who we are in the world and history as Ameicans?
HUMINT requires time and humans in weird places making calls that aren't quantifiable and we do like quantification now. Qualitative intel requires clever thought and we've dumbed ourselves down because of promoting and replacing experienced field operatives to be in charge with bureaucrats. Not to mention how many times in recent decades we've been asleep at the wheel because we simply did not have local field operatives previously embedded on the scene with working relationship with local nationals.
Like in going against the Chinese years ago. We simply looked different and had a harder time fitting into Chinese maters. This was true as well as the Middle East, which is also very tribal and closed off. In Iraq years ago we pulled our case officers because we thought we could use Saddam Hussein instead. That turned out well, right?
We've made some inroads now in both though, as we finally realized that Chinese Americans and Middle Eastern Americans (both as well as foreign nationals) can do a better job than the good old white boys. But we mistakenly continue to think that "push button" intel is better. True, it has its place and it is incredibly valuable. But there is nothing like personnel on the streets to ferret out what's going on, which has other valuable uses beyond purely gathering intel. There is something to be said for having relationships and winning hearts and minds.
Intelligence is a grey and shadowy area that requires a lot of on the spot judgment calls, trusting operatives in the field and the micro-mangers back in the offices not micro-managing and actually knowing something; like trade craft. Replacing those old school professionals with others, using orgs like the CIA for Military ops and the Military for Intel Ops, has really skewed things.
We live in a new world today and in a field where nothing is as it seems, much of what can be seen is hidden in a vast array of data we have to filter and get to the proper agencies. When sometimes, the same can be done in a conversation in the space of a few minutes. If you have the right relationships already in place, with the right people, by the right people.
Whether we like it or not the only way to get a handle on this is through people like Snowden. What's interesting is that we're not seeing so many defectors anymore, we're seeing people standing up for our country and and opening the books they are sworn to protect; opening them to, US.
The question is, why? The further question is, are we going to play whack-a-mole with those who are trying to help us, against our own people; our servants who see themselves in some cases, as our masters? Even if, only to "serve" as they see fit, while we lose more and more of what our country once was?
Why is this even happening? Why are our Intel agencies so into acquiring everything they can, even if it's wrong? I think they probably have the best of intentions. Consider that they found out about the 9/11 attack on a small TV, from CNN. They rightly never want that to happen again. But that shouldn't give them carte blanche on all communications, everywhere, now. Should it? Let me answer that for you in case you make the wrong decision there.
No!
Here's the bottom line.
Snowden is now misdirection for us, pure and simple. The important question is, how easy do we want to make our Intelligence community's job? It's all a balance between pure freedom and pure security state. How cheaply do we want them doing it? Because that's really what all this boils down to. Intel isn't easy, or cheap, it's expensive, it takes brains, it takes trained individuals and it's messy. No one wants to allow that anymore.
No one wants to consider risk, better to take freedoms and decrease risk to as close to zero as possible. Yes, I'd like zero risk, but not at the expensive of the country I grew up in, disappearing and being only a faint phantom of what it once ways. I don't want us to turn into another America of 1950s paranoia.
Should we return to despising Germans, or Japanese, or to despise anyone who praises Allah or Mohammed? Anyone who isn't us and disagrees with us? Even if, they try to attack us? Because killing all out enemies isn't the answer. Turning them into our friends is.
We've gotten cheap and lazy and we've been on this course since at least the Berlin wall going down. Europe has thought that we've been lazy and deluding ourselves for decades about terrorism, mostly because we thought the Atlantic Ocean and our "big island" mentality was our saving grace. Well, it's finally happened to us. Now it's our turn to join the older kids in the pool. And it's... scary.
We woke up and it scared us. We retaliated after 9/11 in Iraq in a knee jerk response. America was hurt and pissed off and the Bush administration finally had their reason to invade another country, for oil, but not openly. They took that and ran with it, pushing our fears to the top, taking what they could, making their jobs as easy as they could possibly be, at whatever cost to the nation; to the citizenry. And now it's time to pull back.
We need to buck it up and start being Americans again. Remember John Wayne? That tough guy demeanor has a lot of bad baggage with it, like hiding emotions when you should share, being sexist and ignoring some important things at times. But it's a film hero. Let's skip over the John Wayne anti-communist film, "Big Jim McClain" (1952), for instance.
Still, "big Duke" had some good things about his demeanor. Like being kick ass, not being cheap or afraid of every little thing. And not relying always on the easiest things possible, at the expense of American's lives. And holding Americans in high esteem, and our Republic. Now if only Republicans would realize that too, right? But, I digress....
If we want to allow ELINT, Electronic Intel, to be the tip of our national sword, fine. But we need some limits for Reason's sake and Americans need to be the wall maintaining what our nation stands for Yes, the bad guys may be hiding amongst us, but hey, guess what? What does that start real quick to sound like, again. The Red Menace, right? "A commie behind every bush"? (pun not intended)
Let's face it, there isn't a terrorist behind every rock and cranny. Yes, they are out there. But let's maintain an even strain here, kids. Let's at least try to be the "right stuff". Let's stand up for ourselves and start pushing back.
Snowden, regardless of what he's done or how you think about him, has started the ball rolling. Are you going to let it slide back down now to where it was to start with?
We need to stop trading security for freedom. That is really, the final consideration.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Edward Snowden
I happened to catch this guy on the radio yesterday and even paid for the pdf to read it all. I found what he had to say, compelling, to say the least. I'm not into conspiracy theories, I like to deal in fact, if and when you can divine what that might be. And with government recently, it's been getting harder and harder to tell what is going on.
Not to mention, our enemies have been getting harder to know of, deal with and stop from causing us grief. Albeit, as times we may have asked for the grief we have gotten. Even though it may have been something we did long ago. Not to mention, we may now be getting blamed (honestly, as we always have and somewhat rightfully so, but less so today, perhaps) for things corporations have done. Corporations have morphed far beyond our understanding or control. The puny controls we had in place to keep them in their place have been superseded long ago. They have grown so big and multinational that they are now, at least to some degree, controlling our government.
I do think our government means well, mostly I think people in government mean well, with a side of greed and lack of empathy many times, but I also think they need to be kept under control (as our Founding Father made it abundantly clear, time and time again). Much like like a pit bull trained to kill, needs to be kept under control. You just don't let it run free. It's not unlike a loaded gun, if you don't pay attention at ALL times as to what its up to, well, you are responsible for what happens.
Years ago when I first spoke out against terrorists and their kind, it was a concern regarding being targeted. Faint though that may be. Not that I think I'm anybody important or greatly noticed. One just never knows about these things, right? Ones to whom a finger might be pointed and great attention paid to. After all the ones to raise their head or be noticeable in the wrong ways, tend to be the ones who get beat down. It's nearly the law of sociology. I just never thought that one day my concern about being watched, monitored, or abused, might come from my own country. The freedoms are becoming thin, and the potentials for abuse, more pronounced.
Sadly, our government much of the time isn't. Responsible, that is. It hides its actions, misdirects attention and out right lies to its owners. Not all the time to be sure, it's not as bad as some conspiracy theorists would have us believe. Still today, at this time, things are pretty bad and we do need to reign things in. Our security industry is out of control, in size if nothing else. We need protection, but we need competent diplomacy over that of security and secrets to make us safe. Leaning on security techniques over diplomacy is always dangerous, and lazy.
Some of the things that look the worst in government are simply a multiplicity of processes going in unforeseen directions, being mismanaged, and you can add in some greed and self-serving interests (like the extreme and not so extreme, conservatives out there).
Anyway, this guy had some very interesting things to say about Edward Snowden, things we haven't heard in the media, or on the news and I highly suggest listening to what he has to say. Who is this guy and what does he have to say? Here is the lead in from the program:
RAY McGOVERN - Whistleblowers
University Temple United Methodist Church, Seattle, WA 17 October 2013
"Ray McGovern is a 27-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency. He helped form Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence. Sam Adams was McGovern’s colleague at the CIA. McGovern and several other former intelligence officials went to Russia in October to honor Edward Snowden with the Sam Adams Award. Ray McGovern also works for Tell the Word, a ministry of the inner-city Washington D.C. Church of the Saviour."
Now I expected this to be utter nonsense. I have a background in military and studied the cold war, while it was happening. I'm hard to fool. But after a few minutes of listening to this guy, some of my undecided opinions on Snowden, started to coalesce, and were not what I had expected them to be. It's worth a few bucks to hear what this guy had to say. I could quote it here but it would be best in his own words. He rambles a bit, but bear with him, and hear what he has to say.
We all need to start rethinking things and getting the powers that be back under OUR control. Not that they ever were completely, but this is ridiculous, how things have gotten. Be well.
Not to mention, our enemies have been getting harder to know of, deal with and stop from causing us grief. Albeit, as times we may have asked for the grief we have gotten. Even though it may have been something we did long ago. Not to mention, we may now be getting blamed (honestly, as we always have and somewhat rightfully so, but less so today, perhaps) for things corporations have done. Corporations have morphed far beyond our understanding or control. The puny controls we had in place to keep them in their place have been superseded long ago. They have grown so big and multinational that they are now, at least to some degree, controlling our government.
I do think our government means well, mostly I think people in government mean well, with a side of greed and lack of empathy many times, but I also think they need to be kept under control (as our Founding Father made it abundantly clear, time and time again). Much like like a pit bull trained to kill, needs to be kept under control. You just don't let it run free. It's not unlike a loaded gun, if you don't pay attention at ALL times as to what its up to, well, you are responsible for what happens.
Years ago when I first spoke out against terrorists and their kind, it was a concern regarding being targeted. Faint though that may be. Not that I think I'm anybody important or greatly noticed. One just never knows about these things, right? Ones to whom a finger might be pointed and great attention paid to. After all the ones to raise their head or be noticeable in the wrong ways, tend to be the ones who get beat down. It's nearly the law of sociology. I just never thought that one day my concern about being watched, monitored, or abused, might come from my own country. The freedoms are becoming thin, and the potentials for abuse, more pronounced.
Sadly, our government much of the time isn't. Responsible, that is. It hides its actions, misdirects attention and out right lies to its owners. Not all the time to be sure, it's not as bad as some conspiracy theorists would have us believe. Still today, at this time, things are pretty bad and we do need to reign things in. Our security industry is out of control, in size if nothing else. We need protection, but we need competent diplomacy over that of security and secrets to make us safe. Leaning on security techniques over diplomacy is always dangerous, and lazy.
Some of the things that look the worst in government are simply a multiplicity of processes going in unforeseen directions, being mismanaged, and you can add in some greed and self-serving interests (like the extreme and not so extreme, conservatives out there).
Anyway, this guy had some very interesting things to say about Edward Snowden, things we haven't heard in the media, or on the news and I highly suggest listening to what he has to say. Who is this guy and what does he have to say? Here is the lead in from the program:
RAY McGOVERN - Whistleblowers
University Temple United Methodist Church, Seattle, WA 17 October 2013
"Ray McGovern is a 27-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency. He helped form Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence. Sam Adams was McGovern’s colleague at the CIA. McGovern and several other former intelligence officials went to Russia in October to honor Edward Snowden with the Sam Adams Award. Ray McGovern also works for Tell the Word, a ministry of the inner-city Washington D.C. Church of the Saviour."
Now I expected this to be utter nonsense. I have a background in military and studied the cold war, while it was happening. I'm hard to fool. But after a few minutes of listening to this guy, some of my undecided opinions on Snowden, started to coalesce, and were not what I had expected them to be. It's worth a few bucks to hear what this guy had to say. I could quote it here but it would be best in his own words. He rambles a bit, but bear with him, and hear what he has to say.
We all need to start rethinking things and getting the powers that be back under OUR control. Not that they ever were completely, but this is ridiculous, how things have gotten. Be well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)