December 20, 2013 • 31 mins
What happened to Chelsea Manning? What will Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald reveal next? And how long will Julian Assange remain in London? Join Matt and Ben as they give you the latest updates on the lives of the world's most well-known whistleblowers.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs two, Ghosts and government cover ups. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to now. Hello, everybody,
Welcome to the show, and thanks for tuning in. This
is stuff they don't want you to know audio. My
(00:22):
name is Ben and my name is Matt. And today, Matt,
you and I are doing something a little bit different. Yeah,
we're gonna hook you up with a bit of an update. Yeah,
this is one of the first times we've been able
to do an update outside of our Friday blogs. Now,
we've covered whistleblowing before. Yeah, we covered it in two
thousand eleven. We made a three part series that we
(00:44):
recently released on our YouTube and test tube channels and
on iTunes, and the information contained within is from two
thousand eleven. So we kind of wanted to give an
update to a lot of the characters that we talked
about in that in those stories. Right, and this is
a situation that can happen to us when we're covering
something that's still developing or evolving. Case in points. Some
(01:07):
people may say, but guys, didn't you do an audio
episode on whistle blowing? Yes, we did. And it's already out. However,
things have happened so rapidly that we wanted to catch
everybody up on that information so that you have the
latest stuff. First question, Matt, I'll pose to you, what's
going on with Bradley excuse me, Chelsea Manning. Okay. So
(01:31):
in the show in I believe it was episode maybe
it was all three episodes, we referred to Bradley Manning
UM as the whistle blower who talked with Wiki leaks,
released some a lot of logs, the Afghanan, the Afghanistan
and the Iraq war logs and the collateral murder video
that we could Leaks published. At the time, he was
(01:53):
Bradley Manning UM. And now UM, I believe this story
broke right around sentencing when he was going to be sentenced,
that he'd like to be known as Chelsea. Uh, she
now would like to be known as Chelsea. And and this, uh,
this is a this is something that for a few
(02:17):
observers struck struck them as I don't know, suspicious or something,
because uh, Manning was held in what you could argue
as an unconstitutional situation, you know, total isolation, not allowed
depation and not allowed exercise for a time as well.
And later UM came out and you know, UH wanted
(02:40):
to complete the transition from male to female and identify
as Chelsea. So there's been a lot of speculation over
whether this is related to the leaks. Come to find
out that UM, before the leak's occurred, UH then known
as Bradley Manning, had already had some UM identified as
(03:03):
as someone with a body disorder. UM. And this is
something that can be This is something that people will
tell you does occur before somebody does make the decision
to have some sort of gender transition surgery. We do know, UM.
Do you know as well that UM at at sentencing
(03:26):
UM Bratt, despite the cries from the people on the
far left and the far right, UH, Bradley or Chelsea
Manning was neither executed on the spot nor let off
scott free with a parade. Uh. It looks like this
person is going to be in jail for a while. Yeah,
at least she was not charged with aiding in eventing
(03:49):
the enemy or or no, she was not charged with
the treason and treason, UM. Treason does have a possible
deaths vnts and UM we've got actually some interesting historical
anecdotes about people who have been convicted of treason and
then later found to be innocent or more more more
(04:13):
likely than not innocent. So, um, well we'll just to
stay quickly give an update from the two thousand eleven
videos if you're watching, if you're listening to this after
watching the videos, Um, it just should be noted this
was uh an interesting development. Then in two thousand twelve,
Bradley Manning was voted Person of the Year by The
(04:35):
Guardians web pole and there was kind of contentious because
it looked like maybe there was some weirdness going on
with a bit of hacking. But still either way, Bradley
Manning at the time, Bradley Manning now Chelsea Manning was
voted person of the Year, which is pretty crazy, um,
considering how vilified he was at the time. Yeah, and
(04:55):
there are there are a couple of things we should
You're right, there are a couple of things we should
talk about. We go on just in background context here. Uh.
The Guardian is a paper based in the United Kingdom,
widely considered to be on the left side of politics. Um,
the and and that's just that's just sort of a
bias or perception that we need to acknowledge before we
move on. And then also, um this Person of the
(05:20):
Year award at the same time as there was uh
so much vilification. I love that use that word was
supported by quite a few people and derided by quite
a few people. Most of the people who said he
shouldn't be Person of the here we're wait for it,
oh in the United States. Who's surprised about that? Because
regardless of how you look at it, whether you support
(05:42):
the idea of whistle blowing, whether you think it is
violation of you know, numerous moral standards which you know
could be argued since he was uh here, she was
working um for the government at the time, and you
know what is the nature of a patriot right is
ultimately with that argument boils down to but regardless way
(06:03):
you think, UM, huge embarrassment to the United States and
operational impediment uh in in the most under diplomatic terms possible.
Uncle Sam got caught with his pants down his his
so called private Instagram account. I guess I made public well,
and he thought that was bad, yes, and he thought
(06:24):
that was bad what the government pants out? However, Yeah,
somebody had surveillance camera set up in the bathroom in
all of the dirty places. Sure, and that man was
Mr Edwards Snowdon, who uh. Readers uh and listeners may
be either delighted or horrified to find out is still alive.
(06:46):
I don't know if he's hail and hearty. I don't
know how excited he is about his day to day life.
But he does currently live in Russia. He is looking
for employment. He continues to make waves, rather, his actions
continue to make waves because the leak's coming out about
the n ess a um even from just the time
(07:08):
the story of the reason is this week as recent
as this week perfect um. They are rocking the foundations
of a lot of assumptions made both by people in
the mainstream media and people who would be formally considered paranoid.
And and it's it's information about the entire international spine community.
(07:31):
It's not just about the US, right, it's not just
about Britain. No much in the same way that Chelsea's
Chelsea Manning's information about the war logs. You know, the
diplomatic cables were not just US centric, right, touched on
European countries dealing with it, touched on backdoor agreements and
What's what's strange about this is that in both of
(07:53):
these cases there are no I think we said this
in the earlier video or in the earlier episode. It's
not as though there are more skeletons in the closets,
just more people have keys to the closets, and it's
easier to get the word out. UM. You know, often
whenever you hear people arguing in diplomatic circles, there's a
lot of rhetoric. You know, there's a lot of buzzword
(08:15):
terminology being thrown around. UM. One of my one of
my favorite examples of this, and this might be a
little conspiratorial, but hell, that's what the shows about. UM.
You know how sometimes you'll hear, oh my gosh, a
dozen terrorists somehow broke out of a prison, you know,
in Karachi or something. It's entirely possible that they were
(08:39):
allowed to break out in some kind of quick pro
quote deal. Because politics away from the headlines can be
just as Macavellian and ugly as a physical war. The
difference is that, um, often the diplomats are you know,
bartering other people's lives rather than their own, Which is
(09:01):
to be said before I vilify them. Uh, this is
part and parcel of diplomacy. This is how the game
is supposed to be played. But the the idea that
this should all be kept secret, right, it might, it's
part of the operational integrity, right, and these kind of things. Um,
(09:22):
but it does show at the very least a disingenuous
cynical nature when we compare what governments around the world
have been telling their citizens versus what governments around the
world are doing to their citizens and to the citizens
of other states. Do his daddy says not as he does, right,
(09:43):
And we found, um, you had a great statistic just
how much of the n Essa leaks from Snowden have
been published according to one source, and darned if I
don't know exactly what it is. But they were just
discus think the amount of information that Snowdon retains in
his believe they call it his doomsday little vault that
(10:07):
he has of information insurance policy. And according to I
think it was on the Guardian, they said only about
one percent has been leaked thus far. And this is
a great point because one of one of the things
that needs to be hammered home. It's a scary number
to hear one percent, because out of that one percent,
we've seen some level terrifying stuff. We've we've found out that, uh,
(10:33):
the n s A not only has the capacity to
monitor the vast majority of the average person's communication, location
and social networks, but they also have what amounts to
no oversight with with some of this stuff. And and
(10:56):
and when I say that, when I say that, I'm
saying it carefully because as I am being objective, I'm
not bringing politics into this. It amounts to no oversight.
And that's most clearly seen in the fact that an
essay employees and contractors were able to perform searches on
like this James Bond supervillain level database on their boyfriends,
(11:17):
their girlfriends that shouldn't be happening with um, some of
this most important information. And I don't know, maybe it
was just maybe it was just one of those rare exceptions,
but UH, without knowing that, without the transparency, UH that
would be necessary to know what those searches were about. UM,
(11:40):
all we can say is that it's enormously troubling. And
we've also found out that foreign countries are all cooperating
on spine on each other and all pretending to be
just appalled when it comes to light. Um, and we're
talking about hacking people's personals cell phones like angela miracle.
(12:01):
And we're also talking about taking information provided in you know,
state level meetings and passing it into corporation saying hey,
guess what, buddy, which is technically, I'm just gonna say,
technically illegal in the United States to do if you're
a person or or you're excuse me, a person who's
not in Congress, because as we know, insider trading laws
(12:24):
do not apply to either the House or the Senate.
But you know what, it strikes me there's going to
be very soon another uh national debate on corporate personhood.
And I think it's gonna stem from some of these
allegations or some of these leaks about what corporations do.
(12:45):
So if a corporation does this can in The Daily
Show has been covering this recently. Um, how what the
heck do we do to a corporation? Is it really
if it's that much of a person we've got, I
mean that person needs to be jailed or really reprimanded,
not just not just find money. Well, yeah, well the
question is then you know, if it is a business,
(13:07):
then the business decision is at what threshold does a
fine need to be set in order to become a
prohibitive or action? You know, Um, if you and I
are making a deal, uh in a legal deal for
eight hundred million dollars, and our fine is two hundred
million dollars and no one goes to jail, then that's
(13:28):
just part of the transaction price. That's just another tax,
and that's you know, I think that's interesting and that's
a good Um, that's a good subject that we should
delve in before we go. Though, of that one percent
that's been leaked, it's very easy to think, oh, these
massive apocalyptic revelations will come to like like guess, an
apocalypse just means when things become hidden, things become apparent.
(13:50):
But the the point being, uh that it's also quite
possible that these leaks are curated by Glenn Greenwald to
make the biggest possible impact, which means that if these
all came out of a dump, then it's quite possible
that the other or even are relatively mundane things. Well,
(14:16):
I am terrified and extremely excited about what will be
released right around two thousand sixteen. Do you think we'll
be do you think we'll be in there. Uh yeah,
no way the scary. Yeah, I'm glad you said, because
this this revelation, the part about the Snowden update that
(14:37):
is frightening and and I guess exciting is a fair word. Uh.
The part about this that's just astonishing is that what
we have revealed, or what we have had revealed to
us strongly implies that one of the reasons uh, there
are fewer people in the federal level or the federal
(14:58):
apparatus uh seek to curtail this power is that the
n s A might have the ability to blackmail them. Um, well,
it would be extremely easy. They can turn the camera
on or off whenever they want without you knowing on
your cell phone. That's one of the things that we
found out they could do. I mean, and they've been
doing this well before the current administration. These are the
(15:20):
same things that Thomas Drake and Thomas tam we're fighting
UM back in the George W. Bush Yer's right. And
we know that this this practice UM expanded under the
current administration, but we do not know how. Uh, we
do not know the degree to which it expanded. We
(15:40):
just know that it did well and and is this
is it a self expanding structure. Is it is it
the thing that continues to grow? Is it being grown
by the executive branch? Or is it just one of
those things that's kind of run away. Is it a cancerpen?
You're right? Is it metastasizing? Well, the the the thing
going back to our skeleton in the closet thing. It
(16:04):
turns out that the n Essa might just have all
the keys yea to all of the closets, which means that,
um it, it could be political suicide depending on who
the person is for them to to speak out against this.
And let's note that although although a vocal majority of
(16:27):
Americans have a problem with this sort of invasion of privacy, um,
there is also a sizable faction that says, hey, this
is working, this is really stopping terrorist attacks, even though
the even though it is well established that that sometimes
the line between entrapment and a sting operation is blurring
(16:49):
and actually increasingly so. Um. But this leads us, I
I got away from the point you were making, which
goes to an excellent segue. You were talking about, Um,
the corporate Shenanigan is uncovered by these leaks. Well, so
let's let's kind of jump I don't know if it's back.
Let's jump to November, all right, we've jumped, Okay, so
(17:12):
now that we're in November. So wiki leaks released part
of the the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty TPP or TPP
and uh, it was essentially a draft version of it.
And this thing is huge, this this partnership. It's been
it's been secret for quite a while now, and it
has to do with copyright laws internationally, has to do
(17:36):
with a lot of privacy concerns internationally. I P exact
actual property exactly. Um, and Wiki leaks just dropped it.
And I'm bringing this up to kind of call back
to Julian Assange and what the heck is going on
with Julian Sange. So that was another huge post, another
huge break that they've that they've given that weekily is given.
(18:00):
And then on the day that we're recording this, can
I do you mind that I tell people it's December
nine when we're recording this. And WikiLeaks has released another
two documents which are describing the divisions between the US
and a lot of the other countries that are involved
in this and how the US is really trying to
strong arm a lot of the other countries to come
(18:21):
to their view of how copyright should function. And UH,
let's let's address this because there is an interesting thing
about the t p P that people found out. UH.
One of the biggest economies in the world it's not
a part of the t p P, and that is China.
And if you think about it, you can see how
(18:44):
that would be an obstacle to say the least, because UH,
the Chinese economy is one of the primary driving forces
in the world, are in global international economics and has
just a horrible track record with copyright I P or
anything like that. They're like thirty different Harry Potter spinoff books,
(19:07):
you know, UM in China, and they're wildly popular and
they're there. Yeah, well I'm you know, I'm pulling a
number out of my elbow, I'll say, since it's a
family show. But the the point being, now, as the
TPP negotiations are closing in UM, we have to wonder
how much would the average non UH, non corporate executive
(19:30):
or non international lawyer know about this if it hadn't
been for those leaks. The question now is do these leaks, UM,
do these serve a purpose? Do they help more than
they hurt, because there's no denying, there's no denying that
there is harm done um to definitely to their national
(19:50):
status quo right when these are leaked. And I guess
that depends on how you feel about the international status quo.
M all right, and uh, there's you know, it's tough
to be it's tough to say that leaks about military
activity don't compromise um people's lives. But the question again,
(20:10):
do they help more than they hurt? Did they hurt
more than they help in this situation? I think transparency
always helps. Yes, however, right exactly exactly, And and that's
the wonderful the debate that this creates. How how important
is our privacy? And I don't want to get too
(20:32):
much into your kind of uh your thoughts been that
you've been talking about this, but one day we're gonna
have a conversation really that it's really going to tackle
privacy in the modern day. Yeah, well yeah, if we
if we make it, Um, I'm kidding. Well, so let's
I'm gonna jump right back into back into just I'm
throwing pot shots at you guys. You never know what
(20:54):
math's gonna say. And it's it's crazy, but we're gonna
continue on wiki leaks really fast. Just to just to
note that it was a story I read in the
Washington Post on November and it was discussing how uh
the justin Justice Department concluded, not officially, uh, this is
not official, this is not a legal thing, but they
decided that they wouldn't be able to charge Julian assange um.
(21:18):
And that's only because they would if they wanted to
do that, they'd also have to prosecute journalists and news
organizations organizations in the US. However, with what we're seeing
going on in the UK with The Guardian, it seems
like we may be moving pretty soon to a future
where news organizations are going to be culpable for this
kind of stuff. Well, we may be returning to a situation.
(21:42):
But the because right because as um as a lot
of our listeners probably know to the the historical situation
has been such that the current freedom of the press
is more of an anomaly than it is um a rule.
But uh, great point. I'm so glad you in that
Washington Post story because I'll be honest with you, I
(22:03):
am not buying it. I'm not buying it even if
it's on sale. Julian Ossang is still hold up in
that embassy in London, and uh the minute that he
walks out, unless something changes, the minute he walks out,
he is in some deep Uh yeah, he's in some
(22:24):
deep situations. Uh, deeper perhaps than that sound that I
just made. That was a pretty deep sound. But also, um,
it's important for us to note that if you look
at the language that the Justice Department used in that statement,
what they essentially said was that it wasn't a priority.
And they said it in such a way that it
(22:45):
could be taken by an optimistic or gullible person to
mean that they were done trying to fight that fight.
That's not what it means. Come on, step out yet,
you want to get out of that embassy just for
a second. That's all we need, right And you know,
I I hate anecdotal comparisons. You hear them all the
(23:05):
time when somebody doesn't have facts to back up their story.
When someone says, you know, well I believe in X,
because think about if you have a boat and some fish,
and you know you're out fishing, and what would you
do with that fish? That doesn't mean anything. I really
don't know what I do with that fish, well, you
know the whole like when people fall back on some
kind of anecdote that's tailored to their cause and hypothetical.
(23:29):
That being said, this is just like in a horror
movie when someone's pounding on the door and pounding on
the door and saying they're gonna kill you, and then
they stopped and they go, Okay, I've calmed down. I'm sorry.
You should open the door. Just come out, let's talk. Julian,
come outside. Oh god, that's creepy, Ben, I've brought you
some corn nuts. Alright. I like it. I really like it. Yeah,
(23:51):
it is creepy. But and also it's not in any way, um,
anything but a funny riff because we don't know the situation.
And it's the troubling thing. Going back to your earlier
point about the transparency there, there is only transparency in
these programs because these people have committed what are legally
(24:14):
crimes too, because they they found their conscience and they
thought that there was something bigger, or there was you know,
there's a reason. There's a larger reason for me to
tell other people about this. Sure, that's what they say. Um,
but now we're in this massive situation where we have
facts that we're not supposed to come to light, and
we have different people saying different things. Um, let's see,
(24:37):
where do you want to go? Oh, we need to
talk about we need to talk and even thrown colpro
in there yet or you know disinformation or well we
have shows on that too, and I guess our time
is running a little long, Matt. Is it true? Is
it true that you can find the n essay in
your favorite online games? Some recent revelations have let us
(25:00):
know that yes, World of Warcraft and Second Life have
been infiltrated by agents, uh literal actual physical agents playing
World Warcraft. I'm guessing there there or characters running around
just listening in, just kind of walking up the other
characters in PCs. No, no, no, like player player characters.
(25:21):
Man just walking around. I don't know. I don't know
what version they're playing, which the latest one, Bernie Crusade,
who knows, But they're just sneaking around in the dungeons
going and in Second Life as well. And in Second
Life yes, well you know logically there, logically you have
to you have to admit if you were the leadership
(25:43):
you would want for the leadership of an organization that
wants to know everything. Then of course you want to
go online because that's where that's another channel where people
can meet without much super Yeah, isn't that a weird thing?
And I hadn't ever fathomed that idea or had that
idea that, well, I want to have a clandestine meeting.
I'm just gonna hop in the second life and go
into my apartment building on whatever street and talk with
(26:05):
this other person. Yeah, that's that's scary. And um, the
idea that that could happen makes me wonder if it
already has happened. Maybe who knows. Maybe it's preemptive because
that's that's federal money that you're spending to make that happen.
And that's that's both the n s A and the
g h Q. So that's UK n U S Yeah,
you g c h Q is the UK version of
(26:28):
the n s A, right, and they worked pretty closely. Um, now,
when when we close out, we've got to go to
a quotation that you have found. Yes, this is a
quotation from the Swampland blog from Time magazine. Um, it's
kind of old, but it's it's something really to think about.
Because it's again, I'm always torn on these issues because
(26:52):
I I want to believe that there are there's somebody
out there who wants to protect my country or whatever
it's for me to say country, who wants to protect humans,
right that it. I want to believe that there are
good people running the countries around the world somewhere, that
they are good people. Um. And then if you think
about what the n s A really is supposed to do,
(27:14):
is it's too supposed to protect be one of the
highest levels of protection by gaining information and controlling it. Okay,
So this is a quote from Joel Brenner, who was
the n s A Inspector General from two thousand two
to two thousand six. So he's retired. He's retired. Um,
but this is this is just a quick quote, and
I just want to hear what you think and please
(27:35):
tell us about it in the comments. What you think
about this quote. The agency, from top to bottom, leadership
to rank and file, feels that it's had no support
from the White House, even though it's been trying to
carry out publicly approved intelligence missions. So just the idea
that we've all decided that these at least our fit
(27:56):
our elected officials have decided that these are the missions
that need to be carried out. These are the people
who we vote for. They're just trying to do their jobs,
is what he's saying. And we're not getting support from
the head. Okay, so that goes back to your earlier
point with the um with asking whether or not the
(28:17):
an essay or the current intelligence gathering apparatus is a
self sustaining organism. Yeah, for lack of a better word,
exactly to me that It's exactly what I'm hearing in
my head. We're not getting support even though we are.
It's almost like the it's so weird, it feels I
don't want to say coo. It doesn't feel like a coup,
(28:38):
an adversarial relationship, it really does. And and as though
they may have more power than perhaps the executive branch does,
like they've got them by the you know, right by
the elbows, by the albums. But the the this is
this is an interesting thing because we do know that
it is fairly common for different parts of countries government
(29:05):
to have adversarial relationships with one another, you know, like
the E p A will probably have a contentious relationship
with some other agencies. But the e p A doesn't
have an ear to every single cell phone in the
entire world. Yeah, well we'll see. And uh, this is
not this is not at all something unique to the
(29:27):
United States. I think that's important to say. It doesn't
make it right, but it's not unique. Um, the n
s A is not some uh precious little snowflake. It
is a massive glacier and we're just finding out that
other countries are part of that glacier too. And now
the question is what happens in what happens in what
(29:52):
new things were going to learn from the other of
the Snowden leaks, what's going to happen to Chelsea Manning
well Julian Assange ever get out of the embassy. Um
to find those answers, we're all gonna have to stay tuned.
We hope that you enjoyed this episode. If you'd like
to talk about it more, we'd love to hear your opinion,
(30:13):
especially I want to hear from people who uh support
this idea. Yeah, I really want to hear. I want
to hear what that. I want to hear arguments for
and against. I've heard a lot of arguments against. I mean, heck,
I've made a lot of arguments against UM, but I
really want to hear the arguments for I'd like to
see some evidence that this has stopped some sort of war,
(30:35):
or that this has saved uh hundreds of thousands of lives. UM.
You know, the question here is a question that's very
difficult to answer because there's so many variables that they
don't want us to know. Or is this just the
inevitable reality of the globalized earth? Yeah? Right? Is this
(30:57):
just a step on the way uh so right to us?
Let us know what you think. You can find us
as you said, men, and then find us on YouTube
and test too. You can also send us an email directly.
We are conspiracy at Discovery dot com. From more on
this topic another unexplained phenomenon, visit test tube dot com
(31:19):
slash conspiracy stuff. You can also get in touch on
Twitter at the handle at conspiracy stuff.
From UFOs two, Ghosts and government cover ups. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to now. Hello, everybody,
Welcome to the show, and thanks for tuning in. This
is stuff they don't want you to know audio. My
(00:22):
name is Ben and my name is Matt. And today, Matt,
you and I are doing something a little bit different. Yeah,
we're gonna hook you up with a bit of an update. Yeah,
this is one of the first times we've been able
to do an update outside of our Friday blogs. Now,
we've covered whistleblowing before. Yeah, we covered it in two
thousand eleven. We made a three part series that we
(00:44):
recently released on our YouTube and test tube channels and
on iTunes, and the information contained within is from two
thousand eleven. So we kind of wanted to give an
update to a lot of the characters that we talked
about in that in those stories. Right, and this is
a situation that can happen to us when we're covering
something that's still developing or evolving. Case in points. Some
(01:07):
people may say, but guys, didn't you do an audio
episode on whistle blowing? Yes, we did. And it's already out. However,
things have happened so rapidly that we wanted to catch
everybody up on that information so that you have the
latest stuff. First question, Matt, I'll pose to you, what's
going on with Bradley excuse me, Chelsea Manning. Okay. So
(01:31):
in the show in I believe it was episode maybe
it was all three episodes, we referred to Bradley Manning
UM as the whistle blower who talked with Wiki leaks,
released some a lot of logs, the Afghanan, the Afghanistan
and the Iraq war logs and the collateral murder video
that we could Leaks published. At the time, he was
(01:53):
Bradley Manning UM. And now UM, I believe this story
broke right around sentencing when he was going to be sentenced,
that he'd like to be known as Chelsea. Uh, she
now would like to be known as Chelsea. And and this, uh,
this is a this is something that for a few
(02:17):
observers struck struck them as I don't know, suspicious or something,
because uh, Manning was held in what you could argue
as an unconstitutional situation, you know, total isolation, not allowed
depation and not allowed exercise for a time as well.
And later UM came out and you know, UH wanted
(02:40):
to complete the transition from male to female and identify
as Chelsea. So there's been a lot of speculation over
whether this is related to the leaks. Come to find
out that UM, before the leak's occurred, UH then known
as Bradley Manning, had already had some UM identified as
(03:03):
as someone with a body disorder. UM. And this is
something that can be This is something that people will
tell you does occur before somebody does make the decision
to have some sort of gender transition surgery. We do know, UM.
Do you know as well that UM at at sentencing
(03:26):
UM Bratt, despite the cries from the people on the
far left and the far right, UH, Bradley or Chelsea
Manning was neither executed on the spot nor let off
scott free with a parade. Uh. It looks like this
person is going to be in jail for a while. Yeah,
at least she was not charged with aiding in eventing
(03:49):
the enemy or or no, she was not charged with
the treason and treason, UM. Treason does have a possible
deaths vnts and UM we've got actually some interesting historical
anecdotes about people who have been convicted of treason and
then later found to be innocent or more more more
(04:13):
likely than not innocent. So, um, well we'll just to
stay quickly give an update from the two thousand eleven
videos if you're watching, if you're listening to this after
watching the videos, Um, it just should be noted this
was uh an interesting development. Then in two thousand twelve,
Bradley Manning was voted Person of the Year by The
(04:35):
Guardians web pole and there was kind of contentious because
it looked like maybe there was some weirdness going on
with a bit of hacking. But still either way, Bradley
Manning at the time, Bradley Manning now Chelsea Manning was
voted person of the Year, which is pretty crazy, um,
considering how vilified he was at the time. Yeah, and
(04:55):
there are there are a couple of things we should
You're right, there are a couple of things we should
talk about. We go on just in background context here. Uh.
The Guardian is a paper based in the United Kingdom,
widely considered to be on the left side of politics. Um,
the and and that's just that's just sort of a
bias or perception that we need to acknowledge before we
move on. And then also, um this Person of the
(05:20):
Year award at the same time as there was uh
so much vilification. I love that use that word was
supported by quite a few people and derided by quite
a few people. Most of the people who said he
shouldn't be Person of the here we're wait for it,
oh in the United States. Who's surprised about that? Because
regardless of how you look at it, whether you support
(05:42):
the idea of whistle blowing, whether you think it is
violation of you know, numerous moral standards which you know
could be argued since he was uh here, she was
working um for the government at the time, and you
know what is the nature of a patriot right is
ultimately with that argument boils down to but regardless way
(06:03):
you think, UM, huge embarrassment to the United States and
operational impediment uh in in the most under diplomatic terms possible.
Uncle Sam got caught with his pants down his his
so called private Instagram account. I guess I made public well,
and he thought that was bad, yes, and he thought
(06:24):
that was bad what the government pants out? However, Yeah,
somebody had surveillance camera set up in the bathroom in
all of the dirty places. Sure, and that man was
Mr Edwards Snowdon, who uh. Readers uh and listeners may
be either delighted or horrified to find out is still alive.
(06:46):
I don't know if he's hail and hearty. I don't
know how excited he is about his day to day life.
But he does currently live in Russia. He is looking
for employment. He continues to make waves, rather, his actions
continue to make waves because the leak's coming out about
the n ess a um even from just the time
(07:08):
the story of the reason is this week as recent
as this week perfect um. They are rocking the foundations
of a lot of assumptions made both by people in
the mainstream media and people who would be formally considered paranoid.
And and it's it's information about the entire international spine community.
(07:31):
It's not just about the US, right, it's not just
about Britain. No much in the same way that Chelsea's
Chelsea Manning's information about the war logs. You know, the
diplomatic cables were not just US centric, right, touched on
European countries dealing with it, touched on backdoor agreements and
What's what's strange about this is that in both of
(07:53):
these cases there are no I think we said this
in the earlier video or in the earlier episode. It's
not as though there are more skeletons in the closets,
just more people have keys to the closets, and it's
easier to get the word out. UM. You know, often
whenever you hear people arguing in diplomatic circles, there's a
lot of rhetoric. You know, there's a lot of buzzword
(08:15):
terminology being thrown around. UM. One of my one of
my favorite examples of this, and this might be a
little conspiratorial, but hell, that's what the shows about. UM.
You know how sometimes you'll hear, oh my gosh, a
dozen terrorists somehow broke out of a prison, you know,
in Karachi or something. It's entirely possible that they were
(08:39):
allowed to break out in some kind of quick pro
quote deal. Because politics away from the headlines can be
just as Macavellian and ugly as a physical war. The
difference is that, um, often the diplomats are you know,
bartering other people's lives rather than their own, Which is
(09:01):
to be said before I vilify them. Uh, this is
part and parcel of diplomacy. This is how the game
is supposed to be played. But the the idea that
this should all be kept secret, right, it might, it's
part of the operational integrity, right, and these kind of things. Um,
(09:22):
but it does show at the very least a disingenuous
cynical nature when we compare what governments around the world
have been telling their citizens versus what governments around the
world are doing to their citizens and to the citizens
of other states. Do his daddy says not as he does, right,
(09:43):
And we found, um, you had a great statistic just
how much of the n Essa leaks from Snowden have
been published according to one source, and darned if I
don't know exactly what it is. But they were just
discus think the amount of information that Snowdon retains in
his believe they call it his doomsday little vault that
(10:07):
he has of information insurance policy. And according to I
think it was on the Guardian, they said only about
one percent has been leaked thus far. And this is
a great point because one of one of the things
that needs to be hammered home. It's a scary number
to hear one percent, because out of that one percent,
we've seen some level terrifying stuff. We've we've found out that, uh,
(10:33):
the n s A not only has the capacity to
monitor the vast majority of the average person's communication, location
and social networks, but they also have what amounts to
no oversight with with some of this stuff. And and
(10:56):
and when I say that, when I say that, I'm
saying it carefully because as I am being objective, I'm
not bringing politics into this. It amounts to no oversight.
And that's most clearly seen in the fact that an
essay employees and contractors were able to perform searches on
like this James Bond supervillain level database on their boyfriends,
(11:17):
their girlfriends that shouldn't be happening with um, some of
this most important information. And I don't know, maybe it
was just maybe it was just one of those rare exceptions,
but UH, without knowing that, without the transparency, UH that
would be necessary to know what those searches were about. UM,
(11:40):
all we can say is that it's enormously troubling. And
we've also found out that foreign countries are all cooperating
on spine on each other and all pretending to be
just appalled when it comes to light. Um, and we're
talking about hacking people's personals cell phones like angela miracle.
(12:01):
And we're also talking about taking information provided in you know,
state level meetings and passing it into corporation saying hey,
guess what, buddy, which is technically, I'm just gonna say,
technically illegal in the United States to do if you're
a person or or you're excuse me, a person who's
not in Congress, because as we know, insider trading laws
(12:24):
do not apply to either the House or the Senate.
But you know what, it strikes me there's going to
be very soon another uh national debate on corporate personhood.
And I think it's gonna stem from some of these
allegations or some of these leaks about what corporations do.
(12:45):
So if a corporation does this can in The Daily
Show has been covering this recently. Um, how what the
heck do we do to a corporation? Is it really
if it's that much of a person we've got, I
mean that person needs to be jailed or really reprimanded,
not just not just find money. Well, yeah, well the
question is then you know, if it is a business,
(13:07):
then the business decision is at what threshold does a
fine need to be set in order to become a
prohibitive or action? You know, Um, if you and I
are making a deal, uh in a legal deal for
eight hundred million dollars, and our fine is two hundred
million dollars and no one goes to jail, then that's
(13:28):
just part of the transaction price. That's just another tax,
and that's you know, I think that's interesting and that's
a good Um, that's a good subject that we should
delve in before we go. Though, of that one percent
that's been leaked, it's very easy to think, oh, these
massive apocalyptic revelations will come to like like guess, an
apocalypse just means when things become hidden, things become apparent.
(13:50):
But the the point being, uh that it's also quite
possible that these leaks are curated by Glenn Greenwald to
make the biggest possible impact, which means that if these
all came out of a dump, then it's quite possible
that the other or even are relatively mundane things. Well,
(14:16):
I am terrified and extremely excited about what will be
released right around two thousand sixteen. Do you think we'll
be do you think we'll be in there. Uh yeah,
no way the scary. Yeah, I'm glad you said, because
this this revelation, the part about the Snowden update that
(14:37):
is frightening and and I guess exciting is a fair word. Uh.
The part about this that's just astonishing is that what
we have revealed, or what we have had revealed to
us strongly implies that one of the reasons uh, there
are fewer people in the federal level or the federal
(14:58):
apparatus uh seek to curtail this power is that the
n s A might have the ability to blackmail them. Um, well,
it would be extremely easy. They can turn the camera
on or off whenever they want without you knowing on
your cell phone. That's one of the things that we
found out they could do. I mean, and they've been
doing this well before the current administration. These are the
(15:20):
same things that Thomas Drake and Thomas tam we're fighting
UM back in the George W. Bush Yer's right. And
we know that this this practice UM expanded under the
current administration, but we do not know how. Uh, we
do not know the degree to which it expanded. We
(15:40):
just know that it did well and and is this
is it a self expanding structure. Is it is it
the thing that continues to grow? Is it being grown
by the executive branch? Or is it just one of
those things that's kind of run away. Is it a cancerpen?
You're right? Is it metastasizing? Well, the the the thing
going back to our skeleton in the closet thing. It
(16:04):
turns out that the n Essa might just have all
the keys yea to all of the closets, which means that,
um it, it could be political suicide depending on who
the person is for them to to speak out against this.
And let's note that although although a vocal majority of
(16:27):
Americans have a problem with this sort of invasion of privacy, um,
there is also a sizable faction that says, hey, this
is working, this is really stopping terrorist attacks, even though
the even though it is well established that that sometimes
the line between entrapment and a sting operation is blurring
(16:49):
and actually increasingly so. Um. But this leads us, I
I got away from the point you were making, which
goes to an excellent segue. You were talking about, Um,
the corporate Shenanigan is uncovered by these leaks. Well, so
let's let's kind of jump I don't know if it's back.
Let's jump to November, all right, we've jumped, Okay, so
(17:12):
now that we're in November. So wiki leaks released part
of the the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty TPP or TPP
and uh, it was essentially a draft version of it.
And this thing is huge, this this partnership. It's been
it's been secret for quite a while now, and it
has to do with copyright laws internationally, has to do
(17:36):
with a lot of privacy concerns internationally. I P exact
actual property exactly. Um, and Wiki leaks just dropped it.
And I'm bringing this up to kind of call back
to Julian Assange and what the heck is going on
with Julian Sange. So that was another huge post, another
huge break that they've that they've given that weekily is given.
(18:00):
And then on the day that we're recording this, can
I do you mind that I tell people it's December
nine when we're recording this. And WikiLeaks has released another
two documents which are describing the divisions between the US
and a lot of the other countries that are involved
in this and how the US is really trying to
strong arm a lot of the other countries to come
(18:21):
to their view of how copyright should function. And UH,
let's let's address this because there is an interesting thing
about the t p P that people found out. UH.
One of the biggest economies in the world it's not
a part of the t p P, and that is China.
And if you think about it, you can see how
(18:44):
that would be an obstacle to say the least, because UH,
the Chinese economy is one of the primary driving forces
in the world, are in global international economics and has
just a horrible track record with copyright I P or
anything like that. They're like thirty different Harry Potter spinoff books,
(19:07):
you know, UM in China, and they're wildly popular and
they're there. Yeah, well I'm you know, I'm pulling a
number out of my elbow, I'll say, since it's a
family show. But the the point being, now, as the
TPP negotiations are closing in UM, we have to wonder
how much would the average non UH, non corporate executive
(19:30):
or non international lawyer know about this if it hadn't
been for those leaks. The question now is do these leaks, UM,
do these serve a purpose? Do they help more than
they hurt, because there's no denying, there's no denying that
there is harm done um to definitely to their national
(19:50):
status quo right when these are leaked. And I guess
that depends on how you feel about the international status quo.
M all right, and uh, there's you know, it's tough
to be it's tough to say that leaks about military
activity don't compromise um people's lives. But the question again,
(20:10):
do they help more than they hurt? Did they hurt
more than they help in this situation? I think transparency
always helps. Yes, however, right exactly exactly, And and that's
the wonderful the debate that this creates. How how important
is our privacy? And I don't want to get too
(20:32):
much into your kind of uh your thoughts been that
you've been talking about this, but one day we're gonna
have a conversation really that it's really going to tackle
privacy in the modern day. Yeah, well yeah, if we
if we make it, Um, I'm kidding. Well, so let's
I'm gonna jump right back into back into just I'm
throwing pot shots at you guys. You never know what
(20:54):
math's gonna say. And it's it's crazy, but we're gonna
continue on wiki leaks really fast. Just to just to
note that it was a story I read in the
Washington Post on November and it was discussing how uh
the justin Justice Department concluded, not officially, uh, this is
not official, this is not a legal thing, but they
decided that they wouldn't be able to charge Julian assange um.
(21:18):
And that's only because they would if they wanted to
do that, they'd also have to prosecute journalists and news
organizations organizations in the US. However, with what we're seeing
going on in the UK with The Guardian, it seems
like we may be moving pretty soon to a future
where news organizations are going to be culpable for this
kind of stuff. Well, we may be returning to a situation.
(21:42):
But the because right because as um as a lot
of our listeners probably know to the the historical situation
has been such that the current freedom of the press
is more of an anomaly than it is um a rule.
But uh, great point. I'm so glad you in that
Washington Post story because I'll be honest with you, I
(22:03):
am not buying it. I'm not buying it even if
it's on sale. Julian Ossang is still hold up in
that embassy in London, and uh the minute that he
walks out, unless something changes, the minute he walks out,
he is in some deep Uh yeah, he's in some
(22:24):
deep situations. Uh, deeper perhaps than that sound that I
just made. That was a pretty deep sound. But also, um,
it's important for us to note that if you look
at the language that the Justice Department used in that statement,
what they essentially said was that it wasn't a priority.
And they said it in such a way that it
(22:45):
could be taken by an optimistic or gullible person to
mean that they were done trying to fight that fight.
That's not what it means. Come on, step out yet,
you want to get out of that embassy just for
a second. That's all we need, right And you know,
I I hate anecdotal comparisons. You hear them all the
(23:05):
time when somebody doesn't have facts to back up their story.
When someone says, you know, well I believe in X,
because think about if you have a boat and some fish,
and you know you're out fishing, and what would you
do with that fish? That doesn't mean anything. I really
don't know what I do with that fish, well, you
know the whole like when people fall back on some
kind of anecdote that's tailored to their cause and hypothetical.
(23:29):
That being said, this is just like in a horror
movie when someone's pounding on the door and pounding on
the door and saying they're gonna kill you, and then
they stopped and they go, Okay, I've calmed down. I'm sorry.
You should open the door. Just come out, let's talk. Julian,
come outside. Oh god, that's creepy, Ben, I've brought you
some corn nuts. Alright. I like it. I really like it. Yeah,
(23:51):
it is creepy. But and also it's not in any way, um,
anything but a funny riff because we don't know the situation.
And it's the troubling thing. Going back to your earlier
point about the transparency there, there is only transparency in
these programs because these people have committed what are legally
(24:14):
crimes too, because they they found their conscience and they
thought that there was something bigger, or there was you know,
there's a reason. There's a larger reason for me to
tell other people about this. Sure, that's what they say. Um,
but now we're in this massive situation where we have
facts that we're not supposed to come to light, and
we have different people saying different things. Um, let's see,
(24:37):
where do you want to go? Oh, we need to
talk about we need to talk and even thrown colpro
in there yet or you know disinformation or well we
have shows on that too, and I guess our time
is running a little long, Matt. Is it true? Is
it true that you can find the n essay in
your favorite online games? Some recent revelations have let us
(25:00):
know that yes, World of Warcraft and Second Life have
been infiltrated by agents, uh literal actual physical agents playing
World Warcraft. I'm guessing there there or characters running around
just listening in, just kind of walking up the other
characters in PCs. No, no, no, like player player characters.
(25:21):
Man just walking around. I don't know. I don't know
what version they're playing, which the latest one, Bernie Crusade,
who knows, But they're just sneaking around in the dungeons
going and in Second Life as well. And in Second
Life yes, well you know logically there, logically you have
to you have to admit if you were the leadership
(25:43):
you would want for the leadership of an organization that
wants to know everything. Then of course you want to
go online because that's where that's another channel where people
can meet without much super Yeah, isn't that a weird thing?
And I hadn't ever fathomed that idea or had that
idea that, well, I want to have a clandestine meeting.
I'm just gonna hop in the second life and go
into my apartment building on whatever street and talk with
(26:05):
this other person. Yeah, that's that's scary. And um, the
idea that that could happen makes me wonder if it
already has happened. Maybe who knows. Maybe it's preemptive because
that's that's federal money that you're spending to make that happen.
And that's that's both the n s A and the
g h Q. So that's UK n U S Yeah,
you g c h Q is the UK version of
(26:28):
the n s A, right, and they worked pretty closely. Um, now,
when when we close out, we've got to go to
a quotation that you have found. Yes, this is a
quotation from the Swampland blog from Time magazine. Um, it's
kind of old, but it's it's something really to think about.
Because it's again, I'm always torn on these issues because
(26:52):
I I want to believe that there are there's somebody
out there who wants to protect my country or whatever
it's for me to say country, who wants to protect humans,
right that it. I want to believe that there are
good people running the countries around the world somewhere, that
they are good people. Um. And then if you think
about what the n s A really is supposed to do,
(27:14):
is it's too supposed to protect be one of the
highest levels of protection by gaining information and controlling it. Okay,
So this is a quote from Joel Brenner, who was
the n s A Inspector General from two thousand two
to two thousand six. So he's retired. He's retired. Um,
but this is this is just a quick quote, and
I just want to hear what you think and please
(27:35):
tell us about it in the comments. What you think
about this quote. The agency, from top to bottom, leadership
to rank and file, feels that it's had no support
from the White House, even though it's been trying to
carry out publicly approved intelligence missions. So just the idea
that we've all decided that these at least our fit
(27:56):
our elected officials have decided that these are the missions
that need to be carried out. These are the people
who we vote for. They're just trying to do their jobs,
is what he's saying. And we're not getting support from
the head. Okay, so that goes back to your earlier
point with the um with asking whether or not the
(28:17):
an essay or the current intelligence gathering apparatus is a
self sustaining organism. Yeah, for lack of a better word,
exactly to me that It's exactly what I'm hearing in
my head. We're not getting support even though we are.
It's almost like the it's so weird, it feels I
don't want to say coo. It doesn't feel like a coup,
(28:38):
an adversarial relationship, it really does. And and as though
they may have more power than perhaps the executive branch does,
like they've got them by the you know, right by
the elbows, by the albums. But the the this is
this is an interesting thing because we do know that
it is fairly common for different parts of countries government
(29:05):
to have adversarial relationships with one another, you know, like
the E p A will probably have a contentious relationship
with some other agencies. But the e p A doesn't
have an ear to every single cell phone in the
entire world. Yeah, well we'll see. And uh, this is
not this is not at all something unique to the
(29:27):
United States. I think that's important to say. It doesn't
make it right, but it's not unique. Um, the n
s A is not some uh precious little snowflake. It
is a massive glacier and we're just finding out that
other countries are part of that glacier too. And now
the question is what happens in what happens in what
(29:52):
new things were going to learn from the other of
the Snowden leaks, what's going to happen to Chelsea Manning
well Julian Assange ever get out of the embassy. Um
to find those answers, we're all gonna have to stay tuned.
We hope that you enjoyed this episode. If you'd like
to talk about it more, we'd love to hear your opinion,
(30:13):
especially I want to hear from people who uh support
this idea. Yeah, I really want to hear. I want
to hear what that. I want to hear arguments for
and against. I've heard a lot of arguments against. I mean, heck,
I've made a lot of arguments against UM, but I
really want to hear the arguments for I'd like to
see some evidence that this has stopped some sort of war,
(30:35):
or that this has saved uh hundreds of thousands of lives. UM.
You know, the question here is a question that's very
difficult to answer because there's so many variables that they
don't want us to know. Or is this just the
inevitable reality of the globalized earth? Yeah? Right? Is this
(30:57):
just a step on the way uh so right to us?
Let us know what you think. You can find us
as you said, men, and then find us on YouTube
and test too. You can also send us an email directly.
We are conspiracy at Discovery dot com. From more on
this topic another unexplained phenomenon, visit test tube dot com
(31:19):
slash conspiracy stuff. You can also get in touch on
Twitter at the handle at conspiracy stuff.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.