OK, this is a serious fuck up on the part of the Guardian re NSA stories

[cali]

I mean what the fuck to the Guardian for using this guy Wayne Madsen as a source for..... anything.

The Guardian Revealed A Major NSA 'Scoop' Then Deleted It From Their Website

The Guardian released another shocking NSA scoop on Saturday, revealing collusion and mass harvesting of personal communications among the United States and at least six European Union countries — only to delete it from their website hours after publication.

The article, titled "Revealed: secret European deals to hand over private data to America," was written by Jamie Doward, who reported information from Wayne Madsen, a former Navy Lt. and NSA employee for 12 years.


<snip>

He went on to say that seven European countries and the U.S. have access to a fiberoptic cable network, intercepting phone calls, emails, and user logs from websites. The article describes Madsen as having "been attacked for holding controversial views on espionage issues."

That's a light way of putting it.

Some of Madsen's controversial views include the belief that President Obama is secretly a homosexual and that the Boston bombing suspects were government agents. He's also reported on a "former CIA agent" alleging the 2000 USS Cole bombing was perpetrated not by al Qaeda terrorists, but by a missile fired from an Israeli submarine.

John Schindler, a professor at the Naval War College and intelligence expert, called Madsen "batsh-- crazy, to use the technical term."

<snip>

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/The-Guardian-Revealed-A-Major-NSA-Scoop-Then-4638663.php

here's the link to the Guardian's now taken down story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/info/2013/jun/30/taken-down

[sibelian]

1. "pending an investigation", huh?

Well, well.

I wonder what that means.

[cali]

2. evidently, most of the information provided by Madsen is true and has been known for

some time. The fuck up is using a known nutcase as the source. And Madsen is a total nutcase. I can't figure why they'd do that.

Here's a link to a really good story about this. Found it after I posted the OP. It's long. Oddly, it's in Forbes, but it's well worth the read:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/30/the-absolute-joy-of-the-guardians-sting-over-prism-and-the-nsa/

[snappyturtle]

3. +1 nt

[dipsydoodle]

4. And here's the front page of the Observer

which is the Guardian's Sunday edition. That had already gone to press and was on its way out by road and rail to our newspaper shops.



Despite Madsen's background on other issues it doesn't follow that he's not correct on this one.

This is the first 4 para's of the deleted article which was on the same link as the "under investigation" in the OP :

At least six European Union countries in addition to Britain have been colluding with the US over the mass harvesting of personal communications data, according to a former contractor to America's National Security Agency, who said the public should not be "kept in the dark".

Wayne Madsen, a former US navy lieutenant who first worked for the NSA in 1985 and over the next 12 years held several sensitive positions within the agency, names Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain and Italy as having secret deals with the US.

Madsen said the countries had "formal second and third party status" under signal intelligence (Sigint) agreements that compels them to hand over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.

Under international intelligence agreements, confirmed by declassified documents, nations are categorised by the US according to their trust level. The US is first party while the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoy second party relationships. Germany and France have third party relationships.

[cali]

5. He likely is correct, but why the hell use this guy as the source?

I mean even I knew who Madsen is. He's in the Alex Jones vein of crazy.

[dipsydoodle]

6. Yes but you're US

I'd never heard of him here in the UK and I suppose maybe the Guardian hadn't either. Jones is different matter due to odd tv documentaries whatever on his rants.

btw the reference Madsen made to Germany being 3rd tier is reiterated in the Der Spiegel article elsewhere on DU.

[cali]

7. yeah, but due diligence requires checking out the background of your source.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. The Observer shouldn't go fishing for things on the internet without checking out the provenance

If you're writing an article about American intelligence, you should have some basic idea about American news in the area. Especially if they're going to put it on the front page. The thing to notice is that the story is entirely the claims of Madsen - no documents involved. The blog that Madsen talked to said "some of Madsen’s views have been – to put it mildly – controversial". All it takes is a Google search to see that is, indeed, 'mild'. Madsen is very similar to Jones, really. It's a significant editorial failure of The Observer to publish this. Even if the journalist was desperate to find some copy, an editor should have said "your only source for this is an internet blog - how trustworthy is the site, and its source, Madsen?"

[Denzil_DC]

20. "I'd never heard of him here in the UK and I suppose maybe the Guardian hadn't either."

Oh, please. It's supposed to be a newspaper. That's no excuse whatsoever, and this does nothing to improve the credibility of the claims nor the Observer/Guardian media complex itself. I'm in the UK and knew full well who he is, and my partner was gobsmacked and disgusted this morning when she saw who they were using as a source.

OTOH, the Observer was absolutely terrible during the run-up to the Iraq War, constantly scolding readers for not buying in to Bush and Blair's propaganda, for which it belatedly sort of apologized - http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/iraq/149-the-observer-owns-up-on-iraq - so like any media outlet, you have to pass whatever it publishes through your own critical screens.

[MADem]

13. Why didn't this genius make 0-4?

It wasn't hard at all to get promoted back then, that was the day of Reagan's big buildup, everyone got promoted--all you had to do was be warm, and I'm not talking about personality. For this guy to fail of selection he had to be a fuckup.

Of course, we know that now, but he's probably one of those guys that shouldn't be touting his military backgound.

[Progressive dog]

9. Aren't you attacking the messenger? Shouldn't this

be about the NSA spying on us?

Ellsberg, who hasn't worked for the government in over 40 years is Okay as a source and evidence.
This guy isn't because he's crazy, but a lot more recent.

But, I'll give you this, the sources the Guardian uses, including Snowden, would hurt their credibility.
The bias of their "reporters" might have a bit to do with it too.

[randome]

10. Shouldn't this be about 'evidence' first and foremost?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Progressive dog]

11. I would think so.

[randome]

16. Will the Guardian have much credibility left after this?

What a fizzle!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[truth2power]

18. Oh great! now we can throw the Guardian under the bus, too. How convenient! n/t

[cali]

32. yes, it will. does it put a dent in that credibility? perhaps

the NYT is still considered credible (despite DU's collective opinion) and they have Judith Miller as a millstone for all time.

[Cooley Hurd]

14. I'm pretty sure the OP is pointing out that the journalistic standards of the piece...

...are quite low, given the source they went with.

Oh, and if you're trying to equate Wayne Madsen with Edward Snowden, Snowden hasn't:
-claimed the Mossad was involved in 9/11
-claimed that the criminal prosecution of New York State governor Eliot Spitzer was partly due to the Mossad
-claimed Obama was born in Kenya
-claimed Obama was gay
-claimed the new H1N1 Swine Flu Virus was made by the US Military

[Progressive dog]

17. I agree and the Guardian went with Madsen's claims

and are the original reporters on this whole story. It calls their credibility on everything into question.

[Cooley Hurd]

19. To their credit, they pulled it very quickly.

If they'd left it up, you might have a point, but they offed it pretty quickly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Not on everything; The Observer is a different editorial team

and the reporter, Jamie Doward, does seem to produce articles just for The Observer, which publishes on Sundays - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamiedoward . It calls The Observer's editorial competence into question, and Doward's competence and/or credibility - taking stuff from a blog interview which is purely claims, without evidence, from a known nutcase and serial liar.

The difference is that Greenwald in The Guardian, and the Washington Post and Der Spiegel, actually have NSA and FISA documents that are the heart of their reporting.

[cali]

21. yes, and I'm also saying I'm disappointed in the Guardian for publishing a story

without doing a check on the source. I am in no way comparing Snowden to Madsen.

[NoMoreWarNow]

12. I tend towards the conspiracy side of things, and even I fnd Madsen to be highly unreliable

so it is silly to use him as a named source. The thing with Madsen is half the stuff he says is very believable, the other half totally far-fetched. Hard to trust anything he puts out.

[Cirque du So-What]

15. Perhaps using Madsen as a 'source'

is a proverbial 'turd in the punchbowl': part of a disinformation campaign that casts suspicion on the whole shitaree. That way, PR flacks speaking on behalf of the US government can point to articles like this and proclaim that ALL journalism related to NSA surveillance is within the realm of woo.

[frazzled]

23. If at first you don't succeed

try for a completely zany conspiracy theory. God this place is getting embarrassing.

[Cirque du So-What]

24. You got a better explanation?

I got yer zany...right here!

[frazzled]

26. Yeah, Martians descended to plant the Madsen junk

and then took off in their UFO before being detected by MI5

Or could it just be that the Guardian is so eager to cast aspersions that they're not very judicious about where they're getting their facts from. Oops.

[Cirque du So-What]

29. Fine

I consider myself duly chastised, so I'll just STFU.

[cali]

25. that's flat out ridiculous. how frickin' hard is it to find out that this guy is a total nut case?

Not at all. The Guardian failed in due diligence. simple as that. Unless you're willing to contort reality to such an extent that you believe some U.S. spy put a gun to the head of the Guardian publisher and forced him to publish this story, or blackmailed the publisher.

[Cirque du So-What]

28. Enough!

I get it already. We're living in a world where the NSA has the ability to hoover-up terabytes of everyone's communications into a seemingly bottomless tank for perusal at their leisure, yet I'm called 'ridiculous' when I make a suggestion that they're trying to poison the well with disinformation. I don't know from 'guns to heads' or blackmail, but I can do without snotty replies. I'll just STFU, alright?

[cali]

22. So why did I post this when I've been such a strong critic of the NSA and Snowden's revelations?

I like to at least try to keep it honest; first with myself and secondarily but still importantly with others. And I do think this reflects pretty damned badly on the Guardian. It's not hard to vet your sources and it appears that the Guardian was so eager to publish this story, that they suffered a complete failure on that front.

and that's pretty much why I posted this.

[graham4anything]

27. I agree with you. The entire NSA story now has indeed proven to one of utter non-importance

and while everyone focused on this latest attempt to smear the President, foisted up the nation by the BushPaulfamilyinc,

the US Supreme Court stole real rights (not the oblique nothing stolen) when the voting rights acts was overturned.

Glad you uncovered the smoking gun and maybe now real important stuff can get done, not the oblique where no rights actually were removed from anyone.

[cali]

30. I disagree with you. I think the NSA story has proven to be one of vital importance and

that's borne out by the introduction in the Senate last week of Senator Leahy's FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act, as well as by the letter by 26 Senators to Clapper.

http://www.ibtimes.com/fisa-2013-10-things-you-need-know-about-new-accountability-privacy-protection-act-1324233#

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/28/_26_senators_vs_secret_national_security_law.html

It has nothing whatsoever to do with smearing the President except on the part of the slimy repukes. Surely you don't think 25 dem Senators and Bernie Sanders are trying to smear President Obama. Are you actually accusing Senator Leahy, one of Obama's earliest supporters in the Senate, of attempting to smear the President?

I did not uncover a "smoking gun". I did post an article about piss poor journalism and lousy editorial oversight.

the only thing we agree on here is that the SCOTUS overturning the VRA was both a travesty and a tragedy.

That's it. That is the limit to what we agree on.

I honestly think you represent partisanship run amok.

[graham4anything]

35. actually, if I had to hazard a fact guess- knowing the way President Obama ropes the dopes everytime

the whole goal is to get rid of all this, and allowing those that do not like him to say nasty things

but the whole thing is being led by the President himself to undo every single bad thing Bush did, without anyone realizing it

That is the irony.

Playing me for being dumb is not playing it very smart either.

You do realize, the 21 steps ahead chess is real, and I haven't been let down once.

It is the old "If you build it they will come".

And nobody plays the game better than the President.

As he has ZERO ego.

Did you know he knew he would run in early 2005 and that he would win in early 2005.

IT's the long range game plan, the prize there, and if he takes some hits here, it is all part of the plan.
Because there is no ego (unlike say a Nader).

So spin it anyway one wants, give him zero credit, 100% credit, it is all playing out as it should

(but I did not say this).

When the dust settles in Jan. 2017, it will be clear sailing from there.
Glad I myself am on board that train.

(btw, I am not going to mention it, but everyone throws around 60s this and 70s that.
One major interesting thing hasn't come up on this board, that is of utmost importance in this whole thing.
It is the game winner.
I am surprised no one said it. It is why I know 100%, the President is rope-a-doping his critics like he does everytime.
When I see someone else write it, I will say, BINGO. That is the actual key to everything.
Let's all enjoy the ride it's finesse, like an Arthur Ashe tennis match. The best. Then and now.)

[randome]

38. Oh, I'm sure Obama has an ego same as everyone else does.

But he doesn't let it dictate his decisions and that's his true genius. He will stay calm no matter what. I admire that about him.

And I don't think he needs to play some elaborate 'rope-a-dope'. Simply by staying calm, his opponents more often than not self-destruct.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[cali]

39. I wish you'd try writing coherently

You didn't answer my questions. please do: Do you think Senator Leahy is trying to smear the President in any way? What about the 25 other Senators, are they trying to smear the President.

And in no way am I "playing you for dumb". Your word salad in not an indication that you are dumb and I've never suggested that it is. It may be an indication of some other thing, but who am I to know? Whatever it is, because of it, your posts are frequently frustrating.

[graham4anything]

44. I did answer your question. and that's the end of my participation in this thread.nt

[HardTimes99]

41. Technical Note: I believe at least 3-4 of the Gang of 26 are Republicans. I seem

to recall having seen Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) as one of the signers. Can't remember the other 3 off-hand.

[cali]

42. thanks for correcting me. I goofed. and I'm glad it's bipartisan.

[HardTimes99]

43. Me too. Were I Mr. Clapper, I'd be seriously considering finding a new

place of employment or "spending more time with my family."

[cali]

47. end of your participation or not, I'm not going to let that claim stand

you certainly did NOT answer my questions and EVERYONE who reads this thread can see that you did not.

I asked if you believed that Senator Leahy and 25 other Senators were intent on smearing President Obama. It's a simple yes or no question. I asked it because you explicitly claimed that anyone criticizing the NSA programs was doing so to smear the President.

[cali]

53. oops. posted to wrong person.

[HardTimes99]

54. I'm confused! Perhaps you intended this reply for

someone else?

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Three points

1.- Wayne who? Most people even in the US will have that reaction. Most people outside political blogs, even inside them do not read Common Dreams...

2.- I know this is gonna sound crazy, but all those folks going on and on that the gub'mint is coming are turning to be not that paranoid, but rather right. Ok, not uncle Vince, they are still not listening to his thoughts using teeth

3.- Wayne is out there at times, but god I enjoyed his write up of John Paul 2 calling Bush the Lesser the Anti-Christ. I don't know about you, but of all his extensive, at times on the paranoid side work, that struck a funny. (And in Catholic dogma possible since it is not just one)

Of course, there is a question that applies here, is Wayne madden paranoid, or right? Perhaps both?

[maddezmom]

33. Wayne Madsen is a fucking nutjob

And a birther who also thinks Obama is gay.

[Whisp]

45. You're being partisan.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. He's paranoid, but also greedy

He makes up shit to get people to subscribe to his website. He has claimed:
the US Navy jammed radio frequencies to screw up the response to Hurricane Katrina
Obama's birth certificate was forged
Obama is gay
An ex-lover of Obama was killed
The Israelis attacked the USS Cole
Mossad was behind the 9/11 attacks
The Boston bombers were government agents

and more.

[cali]

37. He's batshit crazy. Obama is gay. Obama murdered some guy on Chicago. Obama

was born in Kenya. 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Obama was put into office by the CIA. Obama supports Islamic terrorism. The Boston bombers were government agents. The U.SS. Cole attack was done by the Israelis. and on and on.

Madsen is a far right wingnut racist, anti-semitic piece of filth. and that nullifies anything he writes or says.



http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?38840-Obama-s-Gay-Past-Being-Hidden-By-Killing-Ex-Lovers
http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/wayne-madsen/the-manufacturing-of-a-president/paperback/product-21034700.html
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1534953/pg1

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. I last read him in 2008 or so

And in passing.

[wandy]

46. Do you mean this Wayne Madsen ?..............

Start at 7:30 in

For more insightful reporting by Wayne Madsen try here....
http://rense.com/


The NSA is a serious problem and we will need serious well thought out effort to convince our elected officials that the NSA should be restricted.
Let us not allow the RW loonies to cloud our thinking.

[SidDithers]

49. Yup. The very same one...nt

Sid

[wandy]

51. Let us not allow the RW loonies to cloud our thinking. nt

[SidDithers]

48. Here's a pastebin of the original article...

http://newswithtags.com/Europe/pastebin-revealed-secret-european-deals-to-hand-over-private-data-to-america----germany#.UdBZx8u9KSN

In the revised version, now up at the Guardian, Madsen is nowhere to be found.

Sid

[FourScore]

50. LET THE MIS-INFORMATION BEGIN!!! Bring out "The Madsen"! n/t

[cali]

52. say what? care to elaborate. as it stands, your post makes little sense.

[FourScore]

55. do you understand how mis-information works in the press?

You take a guy like Madsen, quote him, put it out there...Then the debate becomes about how crazy this guy is. It makes the debate more like a conspiracy theory...something "reasonable" people wouldn't argue with.

Do you honestly believe nobody at the Guardian did their due diligence on Madsen?

Of course, it was then taken down.

[cali]

56. look, it's easy to check the background of a source

particularly when you use that person as a major source for a big story.

Of course they screwed up. this guy isn't just controversial as The Guardian originally claimed, he's Alex Jones batshit crazy.

[FourScore]

57. I'm not sure why you are arguing with me -- I am agreeing with you.

I just think Madsen is frequently used as a tool for misinformation. You may not agree with THAT, but on all other counts, we agree.