In other words, Wikileaks is straight-up making shit up now? I don't think you'd have to look too hard to find grounds for accusing them of having a clear editorial bias, but outright fabrication?
So, I say it's fake because they silently edited things that might alert people to its legitimacy, and because they didn't offer any proof that it is really from him.
Others think it's real because it is on Wikileaks.
I see both sides of the argument, but I'm staying on my side for now.
While it's not exactly evidence that they haven't fabricated this statement, I think the damage that would do to the organization and its reputation, were it to come out, is a pretty compelling reason to think it's not a fake.
The risk-adjusted return on making a fake Snowden statement just doesn't pass the sniff test for me.
The most likely scenario I see at this point is that the piece itself was mostly driven by WikiLeaks and Snowden gave approval to put his name to it. Perhaps he helped with some of the main points but it doesn't sound like him and it certainly didn't look like his writing. The 'political speechwriter' theory sounds the most reasonable to me at this point.
I'm not sure that going from "I love my country and want the people to know what the government is doing" to "FUCK THE US AND FUCK YOU OBAMA" (paraphrased!) is really the wisest course though. But what do I know?
Why assume the entire organization is involved; it could be one person.
Suppose (for argument's sake) that Snowden were depressed or had got cold feet, and was uncommunicative or otherwise climbing down from his previous position; a supporter who thought he was simply undergoing a crisis of confidence might decide to draft a statement 'in the spirit of his actions.'
I'm not saying that this has happened here, but such things are not unprecedented. You don't need to believe that the entire organization is engaged in a deception, or even that the (imaginary) author of such a statement would consider it deceptive, but rather reflective of a 'deeper truth'.
