"Incompetence" has been used as the justification for broadened power so many times at this point it would be surprising if they aren't feigning it from time to time.

And as we know, "Incompetence" never gets fixed. All that happens are changes made in a manner only proves Incompetence is someone else's fault. I am sure changes made will have nothing to do with the real issue.

Manufactured consent precedes the Snowden leaks by perhaps a century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book)#Manufact...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

I both agree-ish but also, I relish less the conspiratorial grade thinking as the internet commentator M.O. after years of QAnon & other similar malarkey.

The "malarkey" provides easy cover for real, and much more boring, usurpation of human rights by governments.

Foreign countries learned the same thing decades ago. The best placed spy is sometimes no match for the U.S. media, especially in this day of must-get-clicks. Like when Tim Weiner wrote an article for the NYT exposing a CIA asset because he could, and in doing so got the man killed. Weiner has said he feels zero remorse for it because he was doing his job. Many journalists appear to feel the same way: It doesn't matter the harm the reporting causes, because that's their job.

Main thing they learned is to control both sides of the narrative.

Make the “wrong side” look like flat-earther types through coordinated information poisoning. That’s the true advancement in PsyOps in the last 10 years.

Laundering intelligence through the media unfortunately isn’t new, also pretty wild seeing them use the media to hunt people down. They really want the PATRIOT Act 2.0. Whistleblowers are bad now.

I have to say, this is the aspect that almost shocks me the most. The leaker himself doesn't seem like the most sympathetic character, and it might be very well be that he was some rightwing gun nut who shares this for entirely questionable motives.

And yes, I'd also condemn publishing detailed military positions or names of sources.

Nevertheless, I think it's unsettling how quickly media, politicians and the public are to treat any kind of leaking as a grave crime. From what I understood, the documents contained evidence of illegal activity by us agencies - spying on allies, and possibly misleading the public about casualty numbers (that seems questionable though). Yet everyone is condemning the leaker for exposing this stuff instead if demanding an investigation.

Looks like the US press really learned their lessons from the Snowdon leaks - and it weren't the ones he intended.

You can see it in the naming conventions as well - he is called "leaker" now, not "whistleblower" - or, if any media has to, it's "self-described whistleblower".

> spying on allies, and possibly misleading the public about casualty numbers

Are either of these things illegal? Because what the leaker did absolutely _is_ illegal.

Good question. Not on a national level, I'm sure, though I'd have thought there were international treaties or UN rules about this.

> spying on allies

That is one of the exact purposes those agencies exist for in almost every country of the world.

> possibly misleading the public about casualty numbers

The numbers given in the documents are consistent with the numbers publicly stated by the US military.

> demanding an investigation

For what? I don't see how he is a whistleblower when he hasn't exposed any illegal activity. It's pretty clear from what he friends said that he was doing this solely to impress his friends, which is pretty clearly illegal.