Re: Attacks on Snowden, Greenwald. How the fuck do people like that sleep at night?

[20score]

Last edited Sat Oct 25, 2014, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)

The authoritarian, 'war on reality' mind has always eluded and disgusted me. There are mountains of evidence proving the NSA is over-stepping its authority, the Constitution and in the process, making this a much less free country. But just like the climate change deniers and creationists before you, you attack the messenger because you have no real case. It's all been laid out thousands of times before. You and your ilk were wrong then, and you're wrong now. I'm not going to restate the obvious. The documents are everywhere. Their own documents! (But here's a link, anyway. A few thousand pages refuting your bullshit positions.)

https://www.aclu.org/nsa-documents-search


Does this make those who attack Snowden and Greenwald while ignoring the real story bad people? Fuck yes it does, and it makes me ill.

I used to like to write long and thoughtful arguments on this and other subjects, (and still do, most of the time) but today I just don't have the patience. I admit to this failing. Although I usually consider myself calm, every once in awhile injustice, stupidity or the powerful and their minions trying to destroy good people so they can continue their crimes - that almost universally hurt those they are sworn to protect - just brings out in me a need to rant.

[Thinkingabout]

1. I am glad you brought this up, I don't have a problem sleeping at night since I am not guilty

Of lying to get in a position of stealing files and revealing information which should only be shared with those authorized to receive the information. I don't loose sleep because I don't have warrants for my arrest for espionage.

[UTUSN]

11. Excellent, you speak for me!1 Thanks!1 n/t

[QuestionAlways]

79. To properly evaluate Ed Snowden

You must imagine Ted Cruz is President, or George Bush or Richard Nixon. How comfortable would you be with the NSA programs? To me Snowden is a hero.

[UTUSN]

82. As I replied the same in the other thread, & I respect your opinion without name-calling. n/t

[LawDeeDah]

83. I believe all the kvetching from Snowden and Waldo

about the NSA and Authoritarianism, transpired mostly in the Bush years and prior. Where were their voices then? Libertarians are cozier with Republicans than Democrats, that's where they been.

[JDPriestly]

199. I've been here the entire time. I do not want to live in Soviet Russia or NAZI Germany.

I do not want NSA surveillance. I am not a Libertarian. Read my posts below and you will understand how and why the NSA surveillance violates our Constitution and how the Constitution limits the government's right to secrecy with regard to its violations of our rights to privacy.

[LawDeeDah]

207. I'm not too fond of surveillance either, neither government nor corporate surveillance.

I can hold that opinion and still think Snowden, and especially Greenwald are not quite the heroes they want everyone to believe they are. Fabricators. The London airport fiasco with Greenwald's husband proved how much of a fabricator Greenwald is in how he used his fan club to manipulate them with false stories about that event.

[LiberalLovinLug]

216. You lost me

When you use terms like "are not quite the heroes they want everyone to believe they are". You use a projected assumption of hubris and a desire for adulation as their reasoning for doing what they did; Snowden for releasing the information, and Greenwald for printing it. No bother that Snowden has said he does NOT want to be looked upon as some kind of hero. Did Ellsberg, or Manning, or for that matter other brave whistleblowers do what they did for the hero-worship? You could extend that to anyone going out of their way to help someone else they see is in trouble. In that moment of decision, are they thinking they will get in the paper and be hailed as heros? If you honestly believe that there is no such thing as anybody doing anything because they were compelled to by their conscience then I pity someone who lives with that. A serious form of cultural nihilism.

They have become celebrities, infamous ones, as a byproduct in this age of celebrity. The Kardashians are an example of a carefully created celebrity for financial gain. Can't you see the difference?

[markpkessinger]

276. Wonderful post!

Snowden's decision to identify himself as the source of Poitras's and Greenwald's reporting was one that he knew would come at great personal cost -- at a minimum, forcing him to leave behind what he himself has said was a very comfortable, nice life in Hawaii, leaving behind family and friends for an unknown period of time, and that could possibly end up in his being sent to prison for a very long time. To suggest someone would make that kind of sacrifice, merely because he sought "adulation" reflects a very deep and sad cynicism by the person making such a suggestion.

[woo me with science]

306. Well said.

[MrMickeysMom]

307. Well put...

This has nothing to do with who is or isn't supposed to become a "hero", so I'm not sure how that poster gathered their assumption this was ever the case.

What IS the case is the liberty of waking up each day and being monitored, or told what to be afraid of, all the while with a complete erasure of what the United States should be doing on behalf of their citizens. Domestic surveillance and perpetual war based on lies with torture in our names is not the way I plan to continue going throw life. If I have to become a civilian who is disobedient to remind TPTB of this fact, then I at least haven't forgotten how to think. I wonder about nearly everyone else, meanwhile.

[treestar]

115. I'd be fine with them, as we did in fact survive that period

For the most part, I don't think even Bush was really for real trying to create a dictatorship.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

144. It was far far worse under Bush

...until it was fixed by the House in 2008.

However, this basic understanding never seems to make it into the extremist's heads. It's one thing to say "still not good enough", it's quite another to try to equate signal-intelligence programs with fascism.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[JDPriestly]

202. The NSA is violating our constitutional rights. Read my posts on this thread.

I explain it quite well. The NSA and our government including our Congress and courts and executive are specifically prohibited by the Constitution from violating our innate right to privacy and to association. The NSA program limits our right of free association (First Amendment. Remember?)

The nonchalance with which Americans are now ceding the right to privacy will be paid for by our children and grandchildren.

It is very sad that Americans do not feel the increasingly hot water they are sitting in. The surveillance state will strangle our freedom like a python strangles its prey.

When I was a little girl, the woman who lived across the street from my grandmother sat at her window for hours during the day -- curtains drawn all except for a crack. The woman was spying on the world (unfortunately for my grandmother who was right across the street). She thought that no one could see her peering eyes through the crack, but of course, everyone could. She would have been a joke except that she was a terrible gossip and made up stories. People laughed at her. Today we would say that she was paranoid and mentally ill. That was small town America. A very nosy woman in small town America. The NSA is on the same level. Rather than get warrants as the Constitution requires, warrants based on probable cause and stating with specificity the items and places to be searched and seized, they have opened a sneaky crack in the curtain so that they can spy on, report on, and through their gossip control their neighbors and fellow countrymen.

That is shameful. It is paranoid.

Targeted policing is a different matter. Subpoenas and warrants are not hard to get. You just have to explain why you want them. When you get a subpoena or a warrant, there is a legal record, a paper trail that helps insure that you are obtaining the items and the information for a useful, legitimate reason.

The government does not publish the warrants or subpoenas before executing them. The government does not need this broad, overly broad surveillance program. It does not need to be snooping around secretly. It is doing it for nefarious reasons. If its reasons for looking at our phone bills and personal internet communications were valid and in the national interest, it would not be obtaining them in secret. It would use the constitutional methods. It would abide by the Constitution.

The NSA programs stink of corruption and illegality.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

279. How on earth do you imagine that signal intelligence violates anyone's right to free association?

I mean sure, I get the argument involved with privacy, even though I don't agree that it applies. However, the NSA doesn't keep anyone from associating from anyone else. Seriously.

Insofar as the "Targeted policing" you defend, what do you imagine a cop using radar on all the cars passing down the road is? He's using "surveillance" over large numbers of people, many of whom are completely innocent. Almost directly akin to looking at metadata, since he's also not listening in on people's conversations they're holding in their cars (though that technology exists).

People who dislike the NSA's activities in this regard would be a lot more persuasive if they: A) Didn't try to equate it to mass murder, and B) Recognized that spying on foreign governments and agents has always been the case.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[JDPriestly]

23. "information which should only e shared with those authorized to receive the information?"

The Constitution authorizes us to know if the government that is supposed to be of us, by us and for us is searching and seizing what belongs to us, information we use a password to obtain, without a warrant.

The Republican courts are refusing to enforce the Constitution although remarks in recent decisions gave me hope that they may decide that enforcing the Constitution is worthwhile.

I am proud that I stand up for the sacred rights in our Constitution, and I am thankful that people like Greenwald and Snowden had the courage to stand up for them too.

Are you a lawyer?

[Thinkingabout]

35. Could you quote the Constitution where everything is to be shared?

Remember even the census information is sealed for about 75 years. Do you think there may be some conflict with your post?

[LawDeeDah]

81. I am awaiting a response to your reply, but there will be none.

Because there is no rational response to that. My gawd, we should all have access to all secret records, otherwise it's Authoritarian Statesville. Geerzus. save us from this Greenwaldian lunacy.

[JDPriestly]

190. Please see my post 186.

The government has the right to keep secrets, but not the right to keep the secret that it is violating our constitutional rights.

In our country, the Constitution and our laws and treaties are the supreme authority. The NSA is subject to the constraints the Constitution places on all of our government. The NSA cannot just do what it will, violate our individual rights to privacy which are protected in a number of the provisions of our Bill of Rights.

Remember. The Bill of Rights does not GRANT us rights. It prohibits the government from STEALING or TAKING our innate rights, the rights that we are born with. We are born with a right to privacy. The Bill of Rights limits the legal authority of the government to violate the right to privacy that we are born with.

The surveillance programs to the extent that they violate the rights of law-abiding Americans violate our innate, constitutionally protected rights to privacy in our communications and associations with others. Remember that often forgotten little phrase in the First Amendment about 'FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION"? That part of the First Amendment has not gotten much attention until now. But when the government studies and analyzes your communications, the lists of those who e-mail you, those you call on the phone, it is violating your right to freedom of association.

There is so much wrong with the NSA's surveillance programs that I cannot discuss it all in one or even dozens of posts. It is a very, very sick program.

It is the equivalent, if you put it in terms of the society at the time of the American Revolution of placing a guard at every intersection of every country road across America so that the guard can take notes on which roads Americans take to visit friends and relatives. It is the equivalent of watching every inn to see who sits at whose table to talk politics, love, business or family issues.

This program poses a great danger to the fabric of our democracy. I think that people don't get it because they haven't really read much history or law. This is a dangerous program. We need to stop it now. And we need to make it impossible for foreign nations to eavesdrop on us too. We need the technology for that, and we need it soon. And if it means that our corporations cannot find out as much about us, well, too bad.

[Luminous Animal]

106. The government has no right to privacy. Citizens do. The fourth estate bears the burden of

exposing government secrets. The constitution protects citizens secrets. It does not protect government secrets.

[treestar]

118. No, ti doesn't but we let it keep secrets to save us form the Soviets, etc.

Geez, you people seem to indicate we have no right to exist at all. No we are not saying it's the government's privacy. It's that we are hiding the information from foreigners. Geez!!!!!!!

I bet you'd be fine with say Germany doing that. Or Russia or Venezuela or any other country. National security and the right to exist and all.

[Thor_MN]

153. "save us form the Soviets"...

Cold War thinking, maybe some Whiteout could fix that spelling error.

[JDPriestly]

206. If these programs only collected information that was vital to our national security,

no one would complain. But the fact is that these programs are constituted so as to collect a vast range of information.

Most recently, we learn that the NSA has been collecting information on, if I understood correctly, 70% of the electronic communications in Vienna, Austria. I used to live in Austria. I know the Austrian people. I assure you their communications for the most part have nothing to do with our national security interests. The NSA can limit and target its information gathering better than that. No one objects to information gathering for national security purposes. But the broad programs of the NSA collect all kinds of other information such as commercial information that serves no national security purpose or should not.

Who is meeting whom at the Stammtisch tonight in old Vienna is of no interest to the American government. So why are they collecting it?

[Thinkingabout]

122. So the givernment doesn't have a right to privacy, that being said we will publish

Your social security number and similar information after all the government doesn't have a right to with hold this information.

[LawDeeDah]

194. medical records as well, and if there are any criminal records, that should be made public as well.

[JDPriestly]

196. My social securitty number has nothing to do with a theoretical right of prvacy of the

government (WHICH DOES NOT EXIST -- READ THE CONSTITUTION). It has to do with protecting MY AND YOUR right to privacy. You and I hand out our Social Security numbers repeatedly. They belong to us. They do not belong to the government. The restraint on the government's ability to publicize our Social Security numbers is due to the underlying fact that those numbers belong to us, not to the government.

Sorry about the caps. I am so shocked at how little is understood on this, and it is by no means, just you. I am just horrified. This hurts me and makes me feel like crying. Americans neither understand nor appreciate the freedom we are assured under our Constitution. I wonder how this brainwashing has taken place. It is tragic. It will be the end of our representative democracy. How tragic that people can relinquish their innate rights so flippantly.

[Thinkingabout]

197. I was replying to post #106 who claims the government does not have a right to privacy.

If the poster is right then let's give up SS# and income tax returns.

[JDPriestly]

245. Again. Your SS# and income tax returns are not private to protect the right to privacy of the

government. They are private in order to protect YOUR privacy. The government is not allowed to publish them. If someone sues you and wants your tax return, they have to request the permission of the court to obtain that information. That information is private and confidential to protect YOU not the government. The government has no privacy interest in your Social Security number or your tax return. Please. Think about it just a minute. You will understand. Your tax return, for example, contains the information that is private to you and that YOU submit to the government. It is you who is interested in keeping that information private. Same with your Social Security number.

[Thinkingabout]

250. Again my reply was to someone who thinks everything in the "government" should be available

And not kept private, my point was to say if everything in the government should be available to the public how was the poster going to feel about private information going out to the public. I actually understand why lots of information is private and why it should remain private and employees working in sensitive areas of information is not supposed to share the information except in the operation of the needs of the department. I actually understand why I acquired statements from those I represented to the fact I could gather the information. I also know how keep information I may have access and only share that information to others authorized to receive the information. I also understand when the words phone call data collection and what the information contains. There have been thousands who has access to sensitive information but did not steal files and run to the streets with the information.

[treestar]

260. That was a good point, and I notice you will not get an honest response

Why shouldn't we get all data on other citizens that the government has? It's not transparent otherwise. At least, to those for whom the government can't have secrets, not even on our behalf as a nation.

[scarletwoman]

285. It's NOT a "good point", it's an utterly moronic point!

What part of "citizens' right to privacy" do you two not get?

The government does NOT have the right to violate the privacy of its citizens. Citizens DO have a right to know how the government is spending their tax money, and a right to know the policies and programs that our tax money is funding.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Social Security numbers and tax returns. We already KNOW there is a Social Security Administration, we already KNOW there is an IRS. Those policies and programs are already not secrets!

To make Social Security numbers and tax returns public would be violating the privacy of CITIZENS.

[treestar]

293. So from your second paragraph, we have the right to know

what the government is spending on others, such as Medicare and Social Security, welfare and other programs. don't we have a right to oversee the IRS, etc? If the government has to be transparent, it cannot keep any secrets from us, then that includes what it is spending on other people.

[woo me with science]

205. +100000

[Recursion]

152. Umm... the Constitution explicitly grants Congress a right to secrecy in its procedings

Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 3:

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy

[Luminous Animal]

154. That is not a right as in, you know. Bill of Rights.

[Recursion]

166. Why not?

What makes article I section 5 different from amendment 1?

[msanthrope]

251. Okay.....what the fuck? Are you honestly...honestly.....claiming that rights

enumerated in the Constitution are not rights because they aren't in the Bill of Rights?

Seriously......did I just misread your post? Or are you honestly and seriously claiming that the only rights we have are in the Bill of Rights?

[JDPriestly]

198. "iats proceedings." Not our proceedings. The Bill of Rights limits the government's ability

to violate our constitutional rights such as our right to privacy (which is protected in a number of provisions of the Bill of Rights) and then to keep those violations secret.

The Bill of Rights preface states that "Congress shall pass no laws" that violate our individual rights. The Congress does NOT have the right to keep its violation of our right to privacy secret. It does not have the authority to pass laws that violate our rights to privacy. For example, it does not have the right to pass a law that would impede our right to freedom of association. And that is what the NSA programs do. They violate our rights to freedom of association. When the government collects data on the your electronic communications, your electronic associations, it is impeding your freedom to communicate, i.e., associate.

The right of the House to keep its records on its proceedings secret does not give it the right to keep its records on proceedings in which it plots to violate our constitutional rights secret.

Similarly, the Fourth Amendment gives the government the right to violate our rights to privacy based upon probably cause and specific information regarding the items and places to be searched and seized. That specific provision in our Bill of Rights LIMITS the government's ability to search and seize our information, our writings, our correspondence, our phone calls. That is a LIMITATION, not an INVITATION.

No. The government does not have the right to be secretive as to its violations of the limitations placed on it by the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

[Recursion]

253. Sure it does

The right of the House to keep its records on its proceedings secret does not give it the right to keep its records on proceedings in which it plots to violate our constitutional rights secret.

Sure it does. The language is really clear. If "in their judgment" it requires secrecy, they are allowed to keep it secret.

Do you have a version that I'm missing where it says "in their judgment unless they are doing Really Bad Things"? Maybe my copy is a misprint?

[marym625]

200. and Section 9

Last edited Sun Oct 26, 2014, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

limits powers of Congress and no ex post facto law shall be passed

Which means that even with unpublished journals they cannot infringe on 4th Amendment right.

[Recursion]

255. Wait... that's two different things

No ex post facto means they can't look at something legal I've already done, declare it illegal, and then punish me for what I did when it was illegal.

Also I'm still not even clear that the 4th amendment applies since this isn't criminal surveillance. The government would have a hard time getting anything from the NSA into a courtroom, but I'm not sure the amendment grants standing to demand surveillance stop rather than limit how it can be used.

[JDPriestly]

186. That the census information is sealed backs up my claim that we have a right to privacy.

When the government violates our right to privacy for no good reason, we have a right to know that they are violating it.

The right to privacy is fundamental and prevails over the government's right to obtain information about us.

The Constitution repeatedly protects our right to privacy and our right to be free from government investigation, trial and punishment.

The government may keep secrets. No one questions that.

But the government may not keep the secret that it is violating our constitutional rights. The surveillance violates our constitutional right to privacy and to be innocent until proven guilty. It violates our right to a free press. It violates our right to freedom of association. It violates our right to freedom of religion. It violates are right to personal freedom. It violates our right to just compensation for property that our government wishes to take from us. (Our writings, our conversations are also our property, not that of the government.)

The government may not keep secrets that violate our constitutional rights of which privacy is one. I repeat the government can keep secrets but not the secret that it is violating our constitutional rights.

When the government violates our rights and then keeps that violation a secret, we call that corruption. That is in itself a violation of the intention of the Constitution.

Our government, as it is, is mired in collusion and corruption.

I know that it is difficult to understand that our government could do something that is fundamentally criminal. But obtaining our private information without a warrant is a violation of our rights that suggests criminal conduct.

Why does the government want all that information?

Does it?

Or is the entire scheme just a way for some corrupt companies that can sell this equipment to our government to make money?

Beyond the fact that the surveillance violates the Constitution, we have to ask ourselves why in the world the government collects data on our phone and internet communications when most of them are of utterly no interest to anyone outside our families and close friends.

This program is a scam. It costs a lot of money. Think of how many people are employed cataloging and running the information they collect through giant computers. Think of the expense. If we spent that money on really good day care and education for our children, we might be able to save a little money that we now spend on our prisons. Neglected, abused, uneducated, bored children become drug addicts and criminals.

There are so many reasons to end this surveillance program.

I wrote this last night and plan to post it as the header for a new thread. I don't know whether you saw it.

I would like to mention that the NSA surveillance poses a serious danger to freedom of the press. We have seen with the Risen story that our free press -- or what remains of our free press -- is under attack.

The Risen case concerns an alleged breach of the secrecy concerning some past CIA action.

But the freedom of the press does not protect just our right to know about what our federal government and agencies like the CIA and our military may have done.

Freedom of the press also protects our right to know what state and local governments including our police forces do.

The NSA programs that Snowden disclosed permit the NSA and thus our government to know the sources of news stories at all levels. In the wrong hands, the NSA information could thwart citizen efforts to enforce the laws that permit us to have clean government, any clean government. The NSA programs, the all-encompassing knowledge about who talks to whom that the NSA programs provide to our government could and probably do shield the corruption of power at all levels of our government.

How could that happen? The NSA spying apparatus would make it dangerous for whistleblowers to come forward and to talk to the press. Just the existence of the NSA programs and the NSA's overly broad authority to collect data on the communications of everyone in the world inhibits the collection of news about corruption and crime on the part of the powerful, those in and out of government.

So, that is the way that the NSA programs violate freedom of the press. They inhibit the ability of the press to collect information from witnesses to wrongdoing. They protect corruption among other things. The excuses for the NSA's violations of our rights sound noble, terrorism, drug crimes, but they are simply a power grab. Pure and simple, the NSA wants and gets power over the lives of our political representatives, over contacts with the press and over us.

Thank you for asking your question and for reading my posts on this issue. I have lived in several European countries and used to travel in Eastern Europe during the Communist era. My life experience moves me to oppose this surveillance program. I have seen first-hand how easily surveillance harms societies. I do not want to see my country go the route of East Germany or Poland, for example.

[Thinkingabout]

192. Since Bush publically reported the phone data was being collected from providers some time back

then we know the data is being collected, we have been informed, so the condition of not knowing is a void argument. You have said you have read the order to Verizon so you know warrants has been issued. Again the argument the Fourth Amendment has not been followed is void. If you disagree with the Constitution then you will need to go about changing it.

As far as collecting phone records, it is a means to determine where calls are occurring and then warrants can be obtained to gather the information through wire tapping.

[JDPriestly]

244. The Constitution prohibits the government from invading our privacy in this way.;

You have a right to privacy as to your personal papers and effects. Based on what I know about past Supreme Court decisions, you should have a right to privacy regarding things if you make an effort to keep the information private. Thus, it seems to me that if you use a password to protect your e-mail account or your telephone information from prying eyes or thieves, then you have shown the intention of a privacy interest in that information and the government needs a subpoena or a warrant that is specific enough to get a court order to see that information.

I can understand that the police sometimes need to acquire pen registers in the context of a specific investigation. That was the Maryland case decided in the late 1970s. In the general discussion in a recent Supreme Court decision, the Court questioned, however, whether that rule would apply to the general collection of information from large numbers of pen registers. There is in fact no reasonable suspicion upon which to base a review of my personal phone records or e-mail and health care (yes, my health records are on the internet) or pension funds or bank accounts. Not the slightest basis for reasonable suspicion other than that someone might not like my political opinions. (But if that is the basis for gathering my pen register, then a lot of people are in trouble just like me.)

I am particularly troubled by the fact that your pen register reveals perfectly legal activities in which you engage. You call your lawyer. Your pen register shows that. Yet you are, by tradition and under the Constitution ( a mix) entitled to confidentiality in your contacts and communications with a lawyer. Companies whether sole proprietorships or large corporations have the right to protect trade secrets. The customer list may be considered to be a trade secret if the company makes an effort to keep it private. The vendors from which a company buys ingredients or supplies for its products might also be subject to the privacy rules that prohibit the government from obtaining information about them without a warrant. Then there are the health records. If you have an abortion, that is between you and your doctor, not between you and the government. Yet your pen register may reveal your contacts and even dates of care at an abortion clinic.

The pen register case involved a specific suspect in a specific case. I truly believe that if the current broad sucking in of pen registers and processing of them by massive computers will not pass the test with the Supreme Court.

Of course I could be wrong. Why? Because among the pen records sucked up by our NSA are those of Supreme Court justices most likely. I'm sure that the Supreme Court justices would like to have their privacy protected as would we all.

If the surveillance is really to prevent terrorism and to trace those who fund terrorist groups, how did the funders of ISIS slip through the radar? Why don't we hear more about warrants for the arrest of those who do fund terrorist groups?

I am not totally convinced that the object of the surveillance is to prevent or catch terrorists. It will take stronger evidence than I have learned of thus far to convince me of that.

[marym625]

226. Article 1 Section 9

backs you up

no ex post facto law shall be passed

[polichick]

177. Thank you.

[Luminous Animal]

99. Cool. Then privacy does not matter to you. Give e your passwords.

[Thinkingabout]

164. Since you may want to know everything the government has, let's publish Social Security

numbers, lets release everyone's IRS information, hey there will not be any secrets, everyone will know everything.

[treestar]

297. They are a result of private enterprise

And we are talking about the government doing things to keep this country defended, in existence, not attacked, etc.

and if the government should keep nothing private, then it should publish all tax returns.

[AgingAmerican]

111. Cuz the US government illegally spying on us

...is none of our business!

[treestar]

114. I wonder how a person who is an American, known to be a stealer of classified information

can sleep that well in Russia.

[Logical]

133. LOL, wow, a NSA fan! nt

[George II]

162. My position exactly.....

.....those two clowns would NOT be "attacked" if they weren't gutless cowards living elsewhere.

If they were living here they would be getting much less criticism.

[daleanime]

163. They would never be heard from again....

but they would get less criticism.

[George II]

165. Daniel Ellsberg is still alive and kicking!

[daleanime]

189. If he did that today.....

he would be in the cell next to Manning.

[George II]

191. Manning is the dupe in this whole escapade....

....doing hard time maybe for life while the orchestrators are living the high life abroad.

Truly sad.

[daleanime]

193. The dupe is us.....

because this is being allowed to continue.

[rhett o rick]

168. I am not surprised that you sleep good at night believing that the powerful NSA/CIA Security

State is taking good care of you. Will to give them your complete trust. And I am not surprised at your reactions when someone tries to tell you otherwise. Some say that not knowing is bliss and I it seems you seek the bliss.

Those that shun government transparency and attack whistle-blowers do so to protect their comfortable denial bubbles.

[JDPriestly]

188. If the surveillance in and of itself is not enough, please note this:

Teresa Shea used to be the National Security Agency’s director of signals intelligence, plus the wife of an executive in the business of selling things to agencies like hers, plus the host of a home-based signals intelligence business, plus the owner, via yet another business, of a six-seat airplane and resort-town condo.

. . . .
Roston, who has been diligently documenting Shea’s family businesses, revealed last month that the director’s husband was vice president at a signals intelligence contractor that appeared to be working for, or bidding to work for, the NSA. The same husband was also linked to a signals intelligence-related company registered at the couple’s home. Then last week Roston showed that Shea herself had evidently incorporated an obscure business in her name that nonetheless owned its own airplane and condominium in Hilton Head. All of this came while Shea was serving at the highest levels in one of the most significant divisions within the NSA.

, , , ,

Shea is not the only high-ranking current or former NSA official coming under scrutiny for their financial dealings. Former agency director Keith Alexander was engaged in commodity trading linked to countries such as Russia and China — countries upon which the NSA spied heavily — while he was working at the agency.

As documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have shown, the NSA was keenly interested in economic espionage. One would hope that the people entrusted with gathering such information would adhere to some basic standards of ethical conduct in their own financial dealings.



https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/24/nsa-official-implicated-potential-conflicts-interest-resigns/

[Bigmack]

2. Thank you 20score!

TOTALLY agree with you. Thanks for the post. Ms Bigmack

[20score]

4. You're very welcome!

[suede1]

3. Oh hell yes! K&R!

[UTUSN]

5. Ah, the return of the "authoritarian" name calling at those who dare to differ.

And to be clear (for myself), my pique is aimed at GREENWALD and SNOWDEN personally for their self-aggrandizement, totally irrespective of the NSA transgressions.

I recall being attacked by a GREENWALD fan BEFORE there was any SNOWDEN. At the time I had never heard of GREENWALD, had zero idea of who he was, what his politics were, not to mention what his sexuality was. He was involved in one of his feuds or something and I stepped into judging that his opponent was correct, for which I was lambasted and name-called "homophobic." I don't remember what the topic was but it had nothing to do with his sexuality. His vociferous defender back then had no trouble ignoring the topic of the disagreement and focusing solely on his sexuality.

My long held conviction is that the Democratic coalition is made of up groups that sometimes are at odds but none of the constituent groups is immune from criticism.

Being Democratic and Liberal means freedom of thought and being name-called for daring to have an opinion is the antithesis.

[20score]

8. au·thor·i·tar·i·an

adjective
adjective: authoritarian

1.
favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

That is what's being done by those I'm addressing. Truth is an iron-clad defense.

[UTUSN]

12. This particular chariot race has ruts so deep it is unusable. And I predict

that what will follow will be other posts that have no relation to what they purport to Reply to.

[NanceGreggs]

24. And you are ...

... "favouring or enforcing strict obedience" to your opinion, at the expense of those who hold a differing view.

Questioning the integrity of Greenwald/Snowden, or the veracity of their often contradictory statements, is what truth-seekers tend to do. What you are advocating is complete acceptance of everything both men have said and done, the strict proof of their assertions to be dismissed as irrelevant - or, in your mind, to be perceived as an "attack" on two people whose version of things is to be taken as "the truth" without further inquiry or discussion.

"Does this make those who attack Snowden and Greenwald while ignoring the real story bad people? Fuck yes it does, and it makes me ill."

Your assumption that people who don't find Greenwald/Snowden completely credible are "ignoring the real story" is beyond ridiculous. There have been numerous posters here who have repeatedly expressed their concerns - at times, their outrage - at the NSA's conduct, despite the fact that they question Greenwald/Snowden's version of events, in whole or in part.

What is particularly striking is the fact that many GG/Snowden adherents are the first to label Obama supporters as mindless cheerleaders, idol worshippers, victims of "cult of personality" thinking; people who will blindly accept what they are told without hesitation. And yet they fail to see this behaviour in themselves.

[sheshe2]

33. You got in a paragraph Nance

What is particularly striking is the fact that many GG/Snowden adherents are the first to label Obama supporters as mindless cheerleaders, idol worshippers, victims of "cult of personality" thinking; people who will blindly accept what they are told without hesitation. And yet they fail to see this behaviour in themselves.

thank you

[juxtaposed]

72. maybe b/c we have mirrors and don't see it?

[Cha]

116. Then ya got your eyes closed.

[juxtaposed]

125. i'm sorry, but no I do not...

[20score]

34. I am adherent to reality. I have never discredited actual debate.

Your assumptions about me are incorrect on, well, almost every level.

I have yet to see anyone - that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but it does mean it's uncommon at best - where someone admits the voracity of the indisputable evidence of the spying, then go on to give a an objective critique of the messenger. If it's happened, fine. It's still irreverent. If you have evidence disproving the NSA spying. You know, actual proof; please bring it on. I don't give a shit about the TMZ-like portion of the story.

Here are a few thousand documents proving my point. Disprove one or two and I'll happily change my tune. Until then, the character assassinations will continue to disgust me. And yes, they should be beneath most.

https://www.aclu.org/nsa-documents-search

Good luck.

On edit: I have personally never made those attacks on Obama supporters. I am an Obama supporter, but I believe strongly in criticizing whoever is wrong. No matter the party. If more people did what Obama asked of him and forced him to do the right thing, our country and party would be far stronger than they are at this point.

[GoneFishin]

46. Funny how sheshe drew a straight line between Snowden critics and Obama supporters

where you made no such assertion.

But since sheshe opened that door, I do wonder how many of the Snowden assassins would be cheering him on instead if Junior was still in office.

[NanceGreggs]

66. I made no "assumptions".

I merely quoted what you yourself said.

While calling others "authoritarians", you have demonstrated your own insistence that GG/Snowden should be accepted as one hundred percent credible and truthful, without hesitation or further inquiry.

A look in the mirror might enlighten you as to the true meaning of the word.

[20score]

68. This is what you said, you even used the words, "Your assumption."

"Your assumption that people who don't find Greenwald/Snowden completely credible are "ignoring the real story" is beyond ridiculous. There have been numerous posters here who have repeatedly expressed their concerns - at times, their outrage - at the NSA's conduct, despite the fact that they question Greenwald/Snowden's version of events, in whole or in part."

I'm not the one in need of reflection. Whatever, I'm done having my meaning twisted. Prove there's no spying or it's legal, or move on.


I admit to being very upset with a lot of the Democratic Party right now. Like in most important things, when the wrong thing is done for the wrong reasons, bad results are the norm.

I respect you, but in this subject, you're on the wrong side. I'm done.

Have a great day.

[LiberalLovinLug]

220. There is no debate on the credibility

"While calling others "authoritarians", you have demonstrated your own insistence that GG/Snowden should be accepted as one hundred percent credible and truthful, without hesitation or further inquiry."

This does not make sense. Its not as if Snowden and Greenwald got together and wrote out fake documents. Unless you are actually debating the authenticity of the released documents themselves. Not even Obama or Clapper have denied the authenticity.

Again, Snowden only released information of what was actually happening. It is a ridiculous argument to base your antagonism towards them on the credibility of Snowdens source or the truth in what it reveals. Its up to you if you want to dismiss the actual documents as irrelevant (ie. we already knew all that), but to dismiss what they revealed as not truthful or credible is simply nonsensical.

[NanceGreggs]

229. There has never been a debate as to the authenticity of the stolen documents.

However, the spin that GG/Snowden attached to those documents is, in many cases, not credible.
They have also both contradicted their own stories at times.

I think it highly relevant when someone declares that they are revealing something heretofore unknown, when those things were known by anyone paying attention.

The GG/Snowden dog-and-pony show has always been more smoke-and-mirrors than actual fact. They often conflated what the NSA actually does with what it "could do", an obvious attempt to
mislead their audience into believing that the potential for wrongdoing was something that was in fact occurring.

Did people not know that the NSA was gathering and storing vast amounts of information? Those paying attention knew that long before they'd ever heard of Snowden.

[LiberalLovinLug]

236. You cannot be that naive Nance

There is a vast difference between a minority of diligent political junkies, like those in here, knowing it, and it being admitted to on a national scale. Clapper at first lied to congress that any such mass surveillance program was in existence. Now you and I may have called bullshit on that, but too many people either will believe that lie, or more than likely will have the opinion that they may or may not be spying on them, and so if they don't know for certain then they are not going to worry about it, there is no use.

For decades there was a suspicion that the tobacco industry was not being honest when it released their own "scientific papers" showing tobacco was very low risk. It wasn't until Jeffrey Wigand went public to provide the proof that they were lying that real debate and change could occur.

It was solely because of Snowden's revelations and Greenwald having the courage to print them that Clapper had to go back to Congress and admit he lied and in fact the NSA did have a mass surveillance program on American citizens. And it was only then that a national debate was started on the right balance between individual privacy vs. State security. A debate still going on and one that was long overdue. What both of these men risked to do was very very important and beneficial to the progressive advancement of transparency and citizens rights in a democratic society.

And denigrating GG and ES actions to a "dog-and-pony show" or "smoke-and-mirrors" act is hyperbole at its finest and does nothing to contribute to the conversation.

[druidity33]

92. "complete acceptance of everything both men have said and done"

As far as i'm concerned what either of them have "said or done" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what they revealed (are revealing). For the life of me i can't understand why anyone would give two shits what kind of people they are. The important stuff is what they are bringing to light! You know, sunshine is good!

[NanceGreggs]

140. What they have "brought to light" ...

... is a combination of what was already known, along with a myriad of assertions they have never come close to proving, with a large helping of their "interpretation" of documents and the facts.

When the messengers' credibility is questionable, one would be wise not to unhesitatingly swallow the message whole.

[druidity33]

150. That's actually bullshit Nance and you know it.

Yeah, so everyone knew the government was breaking multiple laws while spying on US citizens?

Right...

Unfortunately, every single critique i've read of Greenwald is questionable. Glenn is really rather good at sourcing his articles and refuting the obfuscation that comes his way.When your message strains credulity, it is also unwise to swallow it whole.

[hootinholler]

151. One subtle difference about your assertion

I don't think that "what was already known" was indeed known, but merely suspected. What was brought to light was evidence supporting the suspicions.

The interpretations (scary quotes omitted) have been pretty much found to be valid and have stood up over time.

[rhett o rick]

167. What I find interesting from those that support the Security State is the justification

"It was already known." That which is claimed now to have been "already known" was denied by the NSA supporters every step of the way until it was admitted to by the Security State and then it automatically becomes "already known". And even if it was "already known" does that make it ok if it violates the Constitution.

And the rationalization that there are a myriad of assertions that have never been proven, doesn't mean they aren't true. Those chosen to investigate the possible wrong doings of the ever powerful Security State work for the same Security State.

We have learned a lot from the revelation of Snowden.

Seems to me that those that are against transparency and hate whistle-blowers want to protect their carefully built denial bubbles. To some the pretense of security is more important than freedom.

[LondonReign2]

176. Unbelievable that they still trot out the "already known" bullshit

while simultaneously saying Snowden needs to be in jail for revealing everything.

Logic: not their friend.

[NanceGreggs]

210. Where has anyone said ...

... that Snowden should be jailed for "revealing everything", or revealing anything?

Snowden is facing charges for stealing documents he had no right to.

Logic: If someone steals a million dollars, whether they spend some of it, all of it, or don't spend it at all, they're still guilty of theft.

[LiberalLovinLug]

218. You actually equate someone stealing a million $ to whistleblowing information?

What personal benefit does this do Snowden? And don't give me...he wants to be famous and somehow make a fortune. He is living in a small apartment in a country he does not want to be in and is in constant danger and will be for the rest of his life until he is captured and then he will join Manning in prison. Have you really convinced yourself that this is a desirable situation for him personally?

You seem to demonize the act of "theft" itself as if there is no room for context. Theft can be a bank robber who steals a million dollars all the way to a North Korean prisoner who "steals" a few grains of rice that has fallen on the ground and is beaten because of it.

Ellsberg was a thief. Manning was a thief. Jeffrey Wigand was a thief who tattled on the tobacco industry. Mark Felt was a thief with his information about Watergate. Where one chooses to draw the line at civil disobedience for the greater good is up to every one of us. It is hypocritical of you to simply throw out the word "thief" or theft as the black and white determinant to decide a persons character with no room for context.

[NanceGreggs]

234. Jesus Hussein Christ.

I used an analogy, not an equating of two things. And I did so in response to your statement that people want to see Snowden jailed for "revealing" things.

Snowden has been charged for stealing documents he had no right to take. Even if he had stolen them and never shared them with a living soul, he would still have STOLEN sensitive documents that he had no right to take, which is a punishable offense.

Get it now?

[LiberalLovinLug]

239. Yes I got the gist first time

Stealing is wrong and should be punished unmercifully.

"revealing" (information the government wants hidden because it reveals the public has been lied to)

=

"stealing" (best analogy is a thief that runs off with a million dollars)

thus

Snowden should be punished unmercifully, and called all kinds of derogatory names in the process.

[NanceGreggs]

241. Can you point out where I said ...

... or even implied that "stealing should be punished unmercifully", or that Snowden should be "punished unmercifully", or that he should be "called derogatory names"?

Given that you are obviously determined to have a discussion with yourself about things I didn't say, I see no point in my participation in the conversation. Why not just post what I didn't say, and then reply to it yourself - no need for me to even be involved.

[LiberalLovinLug]

248. I did admit I was portraying the "gist" of what I gleaned from your reponses.

so no you did not say the word "unmercifully" but you obviously implied he should be punished. He done did wrong no? If he gave himself up a long prison sentence awaits him. And yes, you and others in the anti Snowden crowd have called him many derogatory names. You just wrote GG and ES were involved a "dog-and-pony-show". I've seen other posts where you have not been very kind to him in your profile of him.

I'm a little disappointed that you Nance have to resort to semantic Red Herrings to deflect and avoid some of my points I made in my responses.

IMO you are on the wrong side of history on this topic, but growing up in a fundamentalist Christian household, I will always be grateful to you for your scathingly brilliant pieces on the hypocrisy of GW Bush's "born again" administration and the way the GOP piggybacks on that sect while behaving most unChristianlike. So thanks for that. On this topic we will have to agree to disagree. I just wonder how accommodating you would be to the NSA and your defense of governments to be able to lie about the extent they collect their own citizens activity on personal communications, and the vitriol towards the person that revealed those lies..if it were the new tea bagger Republicans in the White House.

[NanceGreggs]

256. I thank you for the kind words ...

... re my pieces on the hypocrisy of the "unChristian" behaviour displayed by the born-agains, and those who hold themselves out as followers of Christ's example.

As for the "gist" of what I've said, you've missed it entirely. I didn't even mention punishment, no less the severity thereof, that Snowden might deserve. I believe he has been the victim of his own ego and sense of self-importance. I also believe that he has been, to a great extent, used as a patsy by Greenwald. Glenn has made money from a book on the Snowden affair, the movie rights, and used his association with Snowden to leverage a job with The Intercept - and I think we both know he was probably offered a substantial amount to leave his Guardian position in order to make the change. In the meantime, Snowden is the one sitting in Russia, his fate uncertain.

Stating that I said Snowden deserves to be punished unmercifully is not a mater of semantics. It was a complete falsehood; I never came close to saying anything even remotely like that.

As for the "dog and pony show", that's what this has been from the start, orchestrated by GG. He promised startling revelations, a "fireworks display" of information, the "naming of names" - and he has lived up to none of it. He is as self-serving as they come; a con-artist who has spared no effort in making money for himself and garnering the attention he craves.

As for the "derogatory remarks" about Snowden, let's remember we're posting on a website where Obama has been called a "piece of shit used car salesman", and much, much worse. So any pleas from anyone here to tone down the derogatory remarks about Snowden/GG are downright laughable.

I must take strong exception to talking about my "defense of governments to be able to lie about the extent they collect their own citizens activity on personal communications". Again, I never "defended" any such thing. And that's been the problem throughout the Snowden discussion - people accusing those who don't find Snowden credible as "defending" the NSA, or any and all of its activities. We do not live in a black-and-white world, and this is not an either/or situation. Just because one dismisses Snowden's version of things does not mean they are accepting of over-reach by the NSA, nor "defending" it in any way.

DU used to be a lot better than this; people used to recognize the shades of gray that exist in such matters, and did not take the ridiculous stance that not taking one position automatically means one is taking the exact opposite position. For many, many people, not believing Snowden's assertions (many of which have never been proven to this day) does not constitute a defense of domestic spying, or anything of the kind.

[LiberalLovinLug]

283. I respect your opinion

I admit I am guilty of conflation of all those in here that have a problem with Snowden/Greenwald and spew all manner of wild accusations and insults. I just get so angry at those that say such stupid things like "Snowden is a traitor" or "Greenwald is an asshole". It reminds me of a typical baseless "gut feeling" type RW smear that Colbert is a genius at satirizing.

Even to say, without knowing him personally, that Snowden is "victim of his own ego and sense of self-importance" seems to be conjecture. Maybe he does have a big ego, I don't know. From what I've seen in interviews of him, like his TED Talk appearance in Vancouver he seems quite mild mannered and has decried any type of hero worship. But on the other hand maybe it takes a big ego and a belief that what you are revealing IS very important to the world, otherwise why do it? At the end of the day, does it really matter what kind of personality flaws a whistleblower has?

I also don't quite understand your problem with GG making a living with this story. Or even upscaling his position and profile in the industry. He is a journalist, a Pulitzer Prize winning one. And he is paying a big social price for his success as he is derided both from the right and some on the left so its not like its an easy path. I'm sure Snowden is fully aware of GG rise to fame through his revelations. I'm not sure that that is a big concern for him. Also to me, and I'd imagine to Snowden, the extent of success GG has is reflective of how many people are paying attention to this important story.

Whether GG brags about revelations that he hasn't delivered on doesn't bother me I guess. He may have a brash, even arrogant personality, but to me, like with Snowden, that is not important. And also we don't know that he will not be revealing more damning information in the future. There may be reasons that he hasn't that we don't know about (ie. threats to his safety or legality issues) But what he has already done, working with Snowden, to me is quite enough to sustain, if not my admiration, then my acceptance. I don't need him to do any more, but as a journalist not afraid to ruffle feathers, I will welcome and anticipate any new revealing stories he writes.

I realize that people, even (or especially perhaps), those left of center, won't always agree on the issues. And I appologize for anything I wrote in anger (including this post). I hope to see you participate on DU more in the future. cheers.

[NanceGreggs]

290. Thank you for your reply.

The way I see it ...

I don't care how much or how little Greenwald earns. What I do find more than troubling is the fact that he used his possession of stolen sensitive US documents as a means to his own ends. Let's not pretend that his purpose was not best served by dolling out bits and pieces of information - always promising that he had plenty of explosive information as yet unpublished - in order to be the "go-to guy" when it came to selling those particular wares. In so doing, he tantalized readers into buying his book, based on their anticipation of what would be revealed therein. Readers hoping for "fireworks" - zero. Money in GG's pocket for books sales - ca'ching, ca'ching.

When Pierre Omidyar launched The Intercept - Omidyar bringing more than pocket change to the table - what better "catch" could there be than the man who was, allegedly, still sitting on yet-to-be-revealed information that would draw the immediate attention of the world to a new on-line publication? Let's be honest. Had GG, in furtherance of Snowden's purported goal to let the American people know the extent to which they were being "spied on", revealed everything he had of any real import, would The Intercept - or anyone else - have been willing to put up big bucks for someone who had already blown their wad?

Surely Omidyar thought he was buying the milk along with the cow - i.e. the "as yet undisclosed fireworks" along with the "journalist" who had virtual control of the promised display. Would GG have been as desirable a cow if he had already been milked dry? Of course not. By continuing to promise "there's more yet to come", GG made himself into a commodity worth paying the big bucks for.

Has there been "more to come"? No. Have their been any "fireworks displays" as promised? No. And if you think GG actually has anything more to peddle and hasn't tried to sell it already - well, I don't think you are that naive.

These are just a few of the reasons I find Greenwald's ethics to be lacking, and his word for anything untrustworthy as a direct result thereof.

When I read Snowden's pitiful diatribe about guys at the NSA ogling pics of hot chicks they'd illegally accessed, I knew it was game over. When you're down to that kind of totally unproven (and unprovable) accusation, after holding yourself out as the altruistic the citizenry has a right to know they're being spied on! hero, you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say.

To excuse GG's behaviour as merely "the man is just trying to make a living" is to ignore how he is earning that living. And he has been earning it by using his access to stolen US documents as bait to raise his "worth" as a journalist, with promises of explosive revelations that never actually materialize.

BTW, GG did not win a Pulitzer; The Washington Post and The Guardian did. And before you say it was really GG's win, keep in mind that the award committee could have named Greenwald individually, if they'd chosen to. They didn't.

As for "I just get so angry at those that say such stupid things like "Snowden is a traitor" or "Greenwald is an asshole", let's not forget we're posting on a site where calling the President a "piece of shit used car salesman" - and worse - is totally acceptable. If the Democratic President is open to being labelled as such on a Democratic website, I don't see that either GG or Snowden deserve more courtesy than the office of the Presidency, or the man who holds that office.

[hfojvt]

195. the actual fact that many people, if not most people

have no friggin idea what they have supposedly "brought to light" means they have not brought anything to light except to players of inside baseball.

Supposedly I have lost a whole bunch of freedom under this Obama/NSA tyranny, but oddly enough I do not notice any loss of freedom at all. It's almost like somebody put an impenetrable cage 20,000 parsecs away from the earth, and now we are all trapped. Trapped, I tell ya.

[treestar]

294. Great for foreign countries, too

And you can bet they don't reveal everything they know about national security.

Gee are the Russians being totally transparent about everything they know about Eddie? Do they let him know everything they do, or the Russian people?

Eddie and you are saying we have no right to national security.

[Scootaloo]

124. I don't particularly give a fuck about Snowden or Greenwald

They didn't tell me anything new, they just provided some extra confirmation.

But the depth of rage, hate, the sheer heaving, rib-cracking screaming coming from their opponents? This does not come from a rational place. These are not men and women who have a problem with documents being exposed. These are men and women who have a problem with documents begin exposed while a Democrat is in office. They have invested themselves so deeply in their mindless, dittohead party-worship, that they take any slight, real or imagined, against the party head, as some deep wound against their person.

Except that what Snowwald did isn't even a "slight," it's a release of previously hidden facts.

And in every case. in every single case of these laryngeal prolapsed howling buffoons, not a fucking one of them has anything to say about the data released. No, it's exclusively attacks against Snowden and Greenwald's persons, or Snowden's girlfriend, or the persons of anyone ho says anything in support of these people. It's lunatic and unhinged.

[NanceGreggs]

138. I think you're thinking of ...

... the GG/Snowden fans - whose depth of rage, hate, the sheer heaving, rib-cracking screaming always abounds on threads where anyone questions the credibility of the "messengers", or the veracity of their information.

As is plainly evident on any DU threads that dare raise any such discussion, the GG/Snowden worshippers have invested themselves so deeply in their mindless, dittohead worship, that they take any slight, real or imagined, against the idols as some deep wound against their person.

And I agree, it is "lunatic and unhinged" - and the OP we're both posting in response to is a perfect case in point.

[Scootaloo]

139. Nope, I'm not

Just the other day there was a "two-minute-hate" thread by a poster who swore up and down, back and forth, that Greenwald said something awful... which was never, actually said. Not just that poster, but the usual gaggle of breathless, raging dittoheads who work themselves into an apoplectic lather at the very mention of the name "Greenwald." The offense they claimed simply did not exist, yet they had convinced themselves that it did, and were possibly literally shitting themselves in outrage at this imagined slight, and tearing and biting at the other posters who, being sane and rational beings, kept pointing out that uh, no, he said nothing of the sort.

I know of what and of whom I speak, so please, don't try to correct me of what I'm thinking of.

[NanceGreggs]

141. Hmmm ...

Reminds me of the posters last week who insisted that Obama and/or his White House came up with the name "Homeland Generation" - despite being told repeatedly, with supporting links, that the term was coined in 2005, and has been in use for almost a decade.

Or the posters who were infuriated that Obama had arbitrarily renamed May 1st as "Loyalty Day" a few years ago. It was actually designated as "Loyalty Day" during the Eisenhower administration, and every president since has used the name in their statements recognizing the holiday.

Those threads were full of the usual gaggle of breathless, raging dittoheads who work themselves into an apoplectic lather at the very mention of the name "Obama"

Again, I find it amusing that the GG/Snowden adherents do not recognize themselves when they behave in precisely the same way they accuse Obama supporters of behaving.

[LondonReign2]

179. Wow-- a "I know you are but what am I" argument?

Brilliant!

[NanceGreggs]

215. Actually, it's more of a ...

... reminder that one might want to consider the glass house they're living in before throwing stones.

[Enthusiast]

156. Yeah? Well you seem to forget that Snowden still works as a hairdresser.

Wake up!

[grasswire]

267. scootalo?

I'm beginning to think that this rage, hate, screaming have nothing to do with Obama for the most hardline Greenwald/Snowden haters. Obama hate (ODS) is simply being used by them as a fig leaf. The real fight, for them, is protection of the surveillance state. Very insidious and cynical, if so.

[Scootaloo]

268. Oh, it's got all sorts of stuff in there

It's like the search history of the computer at a public library, it's a random, jumbled, and probably pretty unpleasant mess, and each one is probably unique.

so I approach it from face value, that their outrage against snowden/Greenwald hinges around obama somehow.

[treestar]

296. What is irrational is the claim the US has no right to national security

these are not used for criminal prosecutions. They are not secrets from us, but for us. Revealing all would reveal all to other countries, terrorists, etc. The irrationality is pretending that is a bad thing and skipping over that issue. Please at least come out and say you hate this country so much you want it destroyed and realize that if it had to reveal all it knows about foreign agents, spies, people plotting against it, that would make it harder and that's what you want.

That's rage, etc.

[Cha]

128. Everyone is suppose to suck up whatever version G-S comes up with.. just like they do.. OR..

we shouldn't be able to "sleep at night".. Rofl

"The Edward Snowden Documentary Accidentally Exposes His Lies"

"Snowden’s leaks aren’t primarily aimed at returning transparency or triggering a public debate; they are about creating his preferred policy outcomes, outcomes that usually involve a weaker state. This becomes even more apparent as Greenwald explains how he intends not only to release information about government programs, but present it in as “brutal” and alarmist a light as possible. The leaks were aimed not just to inform, but to frighten."

"..The implication is that Snowden has been targeted and persecuted by the government because he is a dissenter. This is false. Snowden is a dissenter, but he is also a law-breaker. And the latter is the reason he has been targeted. There are a host of journalists, pundits, and commentators who share Snowden’s views, and they are all dissenters. But as far as I know, journalist Conor Friedersdorf and anchor Piers Morgan do not fear arrest."

They're always trying to make Ed out to be a big whiny victim hiding over there in Russia behind Putin's shield.. whining about the USA and other countries but not a damn thing about the Dic Putin.. guess Ed's not stupid.

"But what comes after is a tale of narcissism and cowardice. Egged on by Greenwald and Guardian journalist Ewen MacAskill, who constantly ask him when he will “go public,” and a WikiLeaks community eager to hold him up as a banner of resistance, Snowden develops a world-historical view of himself and a twisted understanding of what constitutes bravery. Suddenly, and without explanation, keeping Snowden out of the reach of the American government becomes an issue of paramount importance. “Fuck the skulking!” declares Snowden, while Greenwald urges him to “feel the power” of their bold stand against oppression. Shortly thereafter, Snowden practices hiding under a green umbrella and sneaks onto a flight for Russia."

"The movie also unmasks Snowden as a liar desperate to return to Americans’ good graces." Good.. because that's what he is.

"Snowden is clearly trying to rehabilitate his image as a patriot. But Snowden is not a patriot, and he might be better off simply trying to get his story straight."

Janey http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025714352

[nashville_brook]

160. a weaker state? i was taught the Constitution is what made us strong.

[JDPriestly]

247. What don't you find credible aobut Greenwald/Snowden?

Snowden produced court orders and other documents proving how extreme the NSA surveillance is and that it encroaches and nearly obliterates a number of our rights.

Greenwald reported on Snowden's documents.

Have you read Greenwald's book, No Place to Hide?

Nance I respect you as a writer, but I don't know much about your background in law and human rights. A good starting place is to read Greenwald's book and also the ACLU website on the NSA surveillance.

Again, what don't you find credible about Greenwald/Snowden?

What do you mean. I'm asking respectfully and I look forward to your response. Thanks.

[NanceGreggs]

264. You don't have to point out that ...

... you are asking respectfully - being respectful of others is something you have demonstrated time and again. So not an issue.

Without going back through the entire chronology of the Snowden saga, which now spans eighteen months, it would be impossible to cite details, times and dates, appropriate links, etc. So I hope you will forgive me for being unwilling to go back over more than a year of information in order to be as precise as I could be.

From the beginning, Snowden alleged things that he has never offered any proof of. He (with Greenwald's able assistance) has often conflated what the NSA "could do" with what they "are" doing in a deliberate attempt to confuse and mislead. The "great revelations" included things that were already known by those who pay attention to such things - and yet Snowden/GG persisted in touting them as things not previously known.

When Snowden was revealed as The True Hooha, his own words showed him to be lacking in any empathy for his fellow citizens. He dismissed even those who collected their Social Security benefits - which they bought and paid for - as lazy parasites. These remarks rendered his stated reason for stealing sensitive gov't documents - an altruistic desire to inform his fellow citizens of wrongdoing in their midst - not credible. One doesn't "sacrifice everything", as his adherents would have it, for the sake of people he obviously detests.

Snowden has changed his story on numerous occasions - or Greenwald has changed the story on his behalf.

My take? Greenwald saw Snowden as an "easy mark", someone he could manipulate for his own purposes - those purposes being book sales, movie rights sales, and an ongoing source of revenue. I suspect that Snowden was told he would wind up in a sunny clime somewhere in SA, raking in the moolah that could be generated by writing his own books, giving interviews to newspapers and magazines for year to come. As things turned out, Snowden is sitting in Russia, his ultimate fate unknown, while GG rakes in the bucks.

When one believes they are in possession of documents or information that should be revealed for the "public good", one does not parcel out that information in carefully-timed increments that mean more-bang-for-the-buck in terms of "selling" such information piecemeal. One does not
present such information in terms of promised "fireworks displays" - a phrase more suitably used to describe upcoming tidbits about the latest Kardashian escapade, as opposed to revelations of widespread illegal activities by a US gov't agency.

The Snowden/GG stance, as first presented by both, was focused on alleged domestic spying. And yet they immediately focused on the NSA's spying on foreign entities - which is actually the purpose of the NSA, whether one approves of it or not.

Snowden insisted that he had vetted all documents he released to foreign news outlets, to ensure that individuals would not be at risk. And yet der Speigel declined to publish certain documents provided by Snowden on the basis that on their face, said documents contained information that would identify certain individuals, and put them at risk. So much for Snowden's "vetting" of documents he saw fit to share; so much for his ability to even understand what said documents could unleash in terms of the safety of others.

I actually feel sorry for Snowden. Do I think he is guilty of stealing sensitive gov't documents without true regard for the consequences their revelation might cause? Yes. Do I think his political leanings biased his perception of things, which in turn impacted his judgment AND his motives? Yes. Do I believe he did what he did because he was made to believe that it would lead to fame and its close counterpart, money? Yes.

While I would not excuse Snowden's actions in any way, I believe that Greenwald is the overwhelmingly guilty party here - if one can speak of guilt in terms of degrees. Snowden's crime may be his theft of gov't documents; his fatal flaw, however, was trusting a flim-flam man like Greenwald.

Respectfully, this is my opinion - and my response. I hope it answers your question.

[JDPriestly]

265. My view is that the constitutional violations about which Snowden provided the evidence

are so dangerous to our country, our "free" press, our right to freedom of religion, assembly, fair trials and just about everything that makes our country great, our veru social fabric. that I really don't care about much else.

In addition to that, I think the fact that they target those who communicate with people in other countries including one of my family members who calls old grade-school and other chums in a country that is for no possible reason other than economic espionage being targeted makes me think that what the NSA is really about is political control -- intimidating people.l

It's so wrong that anything that Snowden did doesn't really bother me at all.

I lived in the area around Vienna but not in Vienna for some years. That is an area that according to Democracy Now is being targeted because it allegedly has so many spies. Real spies probably do not communicate through telephone or e-mail, especially not in Europe. It would be too obvious for them.

Remember the crazy mistake the US made when it forced the landing of Evo Morales official plane in Austria?

If the surveillance was really aimed at catching spies or terrorists, they would have known that Snowden was not on that plane. And then there is ISIS. How could they miss the financial supporters of ISIS if they are looking for the financial resources of ISIS?

As for the relationship be3tween Snowden and Greenwald, that becomes very clear in Greenwald's book, and the speculation you repeat which I have read before is not supported by Greenwald's telling of how he met, ignored and finally got to know Snowden. Laura Poitras helped Snowden finally get Greenwald's attention.

Greenwald's book is well written and I strongly recommend reading it. I also strongly recommend watching Greenwald's Ted talk on privacy.

The fact is that the NSA needs a warrant based on probable cause that identifies specifically what it wants to search and seize before it searches and seizes communications records of someone like my relative who has family and friends overseas.

I think the NSA is covering up the embarrassing mistakes that they and the government in general make. If the NSA is not blackmailing people yet with the information they glean from their sucking up communications data, it is just a matter of time.

I met too many disgruntled people from Eastern Europe when I lived in Austria to think that the kind of surveillance the NSA is doing will end well. It is a boondoggle that will not serve the stated purpose but rather be used as a means to intimidate and therefore control what you and I think and write.

The state of our press in the US is already bad enough -- almost as subservient to the political interests of the oligarchs as the RT is for Russia. With the NSA observing communications data, it will soon be impossibly dangerous for whistleblowers to communicate freely with the press.

There is nothing wrong with spying on foreign nations to obtain information needed for national security. But the way the NSA is going about it is not very smart.

[NanceGreggs]

266. There is no point in trying to reach ...

... those who have already become adept at spewing talking points in lieu of facts.

"As for the relationship between Snowden and Greenwald, that becomes very clear in Greenwald's book, and the speculation you repeat which I have read before is not supported by Greenwald's telling of how he met ...". In other words, Greenwald's version of events should be taken as Gospel, and anything "not supported by Greenwald's telling of events" is to be dismissed out-of-hand.

That's just unspeakably sad.

[JDPriestly]

269. If you read the book, you will understand.

A film about Snowden will soon be released. It may tell the story in a form that people will really understand. Snowden initiated the contact with Greenwald. There is no doubt about it. Snowden also initiated contact with Laura Poitras. Snowden left the country and took documentation for his claims with him including a lot of NSA documents because he knew what had happened to previous whistleblowers, how they had been harassed and threatened with imprisonment.


Best to get the facts rather than to speculate about what happened. Best to read the book. Snowden has not denied the facts as recounted by Greenwald. I know it is comfortable to believe what one wants to believe, but facts are facts. There is no evidence that Greenwald, Poitras and Snowden are lying. But there is al ot of propaganda and a lot of wishful thinking that the NSA programs are OK and that Greenwald and Snowden are somehow not OK.

Sorry, but if you read Greenwald's book and still think that Greenwald set Snowden up, then please let me know what your evidence supporting that theory is.

The NSA program is an insidious danger to our constitutional government. It simply is. That is the reality.

[NanceGreggs]

278. Sorry for sayin' so ...

... but your reply sounds like a Fundie telling me to just read the Bible, and all will be revealed to me.

What you're essentially saying is that if Greenwald writes something, that makes it a fact. It doesn't. You're also saying that GG's book matches up with GG's version of events - again, that doesn't prove the truthfulness of GG's version of anything.

I never said GG "set Snowden up" - I said I believe he manipulated Snowden for his own personal gain.

[JDPriestly]

277. Laura Poitras explains how Snowden contacted her and how Greenwald got involved in the

Snowden story here:

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/23/citizenfour_inside_story_of_nsa_leaker

Facts are facts. I'm sure Poitras' film will change a lot of people's minds. And I hope that if you don't want to read Greenwald's book, you will see the film.

We do not get to choose our facts. That is an unfortunate condition of our existence. We can choose to live in a fantasy world, but sooner or later the truth imposes itself on our fantasy. That is my opinion.

[Luminous Animal]

281. The movie changed Harvey Weinstein's mind. He no longer thinks that Snowden is a

Last edited Mon Oct 27, 2014, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

traitor.

I'm seeing the movie this evening. Woo hop!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/harvey-weinstein-edward-snowdens-citizenfour-744007

[JDPriestly]

282. Wow!

Citizenfour grossed $125,172 from five cinemas in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington D.C. for a screen average of $25,034, the best showing for any documentary since Waiting for Superman in 2010 ($34,758).

. . . .

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth ranks No. 1 among political documentaries in terms of best opening theater average, not accounting for inflation. The movie, debuting in May 2006, grossed $281,330 from four theaters for an average of $70,332.

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 ranks No. 2 ($27,558), followed by Moore's Bowling for Columbine ($26,134). Citizenfour ranks No. 4, not accounting for inflation.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/harvey-weinstein-edward-snowdens-citizenfour-744007

Citizen4 is going to change a lot of minds. It's going to be a movie that everybody sees.

Greenwald's book was shocking enough.

[Luminous Animal]

289. Just got home from seeing the movie. It is a perfect compliment to the book.

Just a really fantastic piece of work.

FYI Sundance Doc is showing her movie My Country, My Country for free online until Novemeber 24. You don't have to be a member to watch it and I highly recommend it. She is a great filmmaker.

http://www.docclub.com/my-country-my-country/documentary/238/?utm_campaign=freemovie&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=ppc&utm_term=snowdenmycountryNFWC&utm_content=directads

[woo me with science]

316. Excellent!

[MrMickeysMom]

308. Curious… I guess your evidence of…

the "many" who strike you this way?

"What is particularly striking is the fact that many GG/Snowden adherents are the first to label Obama supporters as mindless cheerleaders, idol worshippers, victims of "cult of personality" thinking; people who will blindly accept what they are told without hesitation. And yet they fail to see this behaviour in themselves."

[NanceGreggs]

310. It's evidence easily discerned.

I look at the user names who describe Obama supporters that way, and then I see their same user names behaving that way when it comes to anything about GG/Snowden.

It's very, very easy to do.

[MrMickeysMom]

313. So, it's a correlation, then

Cause, that would be quite easy to do.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. anarchist aye?

see my sig line...

[woo me with science]

126. +100000 Of course you are correct that the word, "authoritarian" is accurate here,

and necessary. Mass surveillance by governments of their own citizens is authoritarian by definition. So are propaganda and smear campaigns on behalf of it.

Authoritarians have been trying to reclassify that inconvenient descriptor as an epithet for some time now:

'YOU....YOU CALLED ME A DOG!!!!11!!1'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3171893

I've seen this tactic in several posts lately ... Authoritarians don't like being called what they are, and since they can't yet prohibit words and restrict others to an approved Newspeak Dictionary, they settle for flailing at and attempting to discredit the individual words they dislike.

...When someone uses an accurate word to describe what you are doing or advocating, just put the word in quotation marks, add some exclamation points, and try to neutralize it by pretending it's an epithet instead of an accurate descriptor. We have all seen it here 1,000 times. A person's politics are described as Third Way, and he or she rears up in indignation, expressing shock at the "namecalling."

Well, no. "Third Way" means something. It is not an epithet, but rather descriptive shorthand for a clear and specific set of political values and policies. You can see what "Third Way" means by going to the Third Way website, where the goals and policies - liberal on the social issues unimportant to the One Percent but corporate and authoritarian on virtually everything else - are clearly delineated.

Those who embrace the policies don't want to admit it, so they try to make the term an epithet...something to be banned by a jury so that it can't be accurately applied to them on the forums. And now we are hearing the same sort of defensive attempts to discredit the word when authoritarianism is called "authoritarianism."

Of course "authoritarian" means something. Brazen defense of a government's spying on its own citizens is indisputably authoritarian.

I always picture an indignant poodle rearing up in outrage and exclaiming, "What?! You called me a DOG?!"

Orwell was right. Defending against authoritarianism *requires* defending language, because authoritarians will try to twist, discredit, or take away the words that are necessary for us to describe what is being done to us.

[20score]

129. I have a some favorite posters on DU. Manny, Willy T, Duppers, Suich, Will Pit to name a few.

You, are definitely on that that list!

Thanks!

(I know I've left off a few dozen great writers, thinkers and general all around good people. Sorry, not intentional.)

[scarletwoman]

137. That is a wonderful, excellent post!

I'm sorry I missed it when you first wrote it - I would have heartily thanked you then and there. I think at that point in time I had become so disgusted by the attacks being mounted by the properly named athoritarians that I simply stopped reading any threads in which they were spewing their venom at Snowden and/or Greenwald.

[Enthusiast]

158. +1 an entire shit load.

[marym625]

169. Oh woo

I have to agree with 20score again. Definitely on my list. I love everything you write.

[CrawlingChaos]

225. + infinity. Outstanding post!

[L0oniX]

243. Nailed it!

[99Forever]

9. If the shoe fits...

[UTUSN]

14. Nyet, nao, it don't fit. Will go elsewhere for more range in sizes. Thanks!1 n/t

[Cha]

25. That sounds dead on from what I've seen of some of the greenwald fans.. Can't debate his fuckups so

they accuse us of being "homophobic".. happened just the other day. I won't try to embarrass anyone and provide a link .. but I could find it.

Oh and then there was that whole.. If we use the initials "GG" we're being homophobic when it turned out the accuser had used the very same shortening of his name in an old post. What's that? Hypocrisy? Attacking people for no damn good reason at all?

Greenwald doesn't allow for any other kind of "thought" and he's a real nasty piece of work when called on his bullshit.. it's his way or he lashes out and calls those who don't bow to him.. wait for it.. "Authoritarians&quot among other things).

[joshcryer]

32. The "GG = homophobic" thing was just a hateful smear.

It was very hurtful at the time.

[Thinkingabout]

42. Does the same apply to JFK, LBJ, GWB, EW, HRC, FDR, MLK, and so on.

Sounds like it is whining over nothing.

[joshcryer]

49. People pointed that out.

Here's the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024992409

The idea was that "GG" is too close to "GiGi" or something and it meant if you used it you meant to say "GiGi." I think it was just meant to be hurtful to other DUers.

Same with this current thread. Anything but absolute support for Greenwald or Snowden means you shouldn't be able to sleep at night, etc.

[Thinkingabout]

53. I guess whomever named him shpuld be crying crocodile tears of shame.

[zeemike]

56. Why should we debate Greenwald's "fuck ups"

Can and should we debate Obama's fuck ups?...or are you saying he never fucks up?

Greenwald does not make policy and frankly I don't give a shit if he "fucks up" (which is a subjective judgment) in the opinion of some anonymous poster on a board.

As much as some people want it to be, this is not about Snowden or Greenwald, it is about the state of our security state, and that is the most important thing there is.
If you allow the PTB to shit all over the constitution and treat us like it was 1984 it is all over for our democracy.

If Greenwald is a narcissist gold digger or not it will make absolutely no difference to the facts of our situation

[nashville_brook]

171. ^^this.

[JDPriestly]

27. Do you like the fact that the government is collecting personal information from people's e-mail

lists? How do you interpret the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution? What do you think it protects? Why do you suppose the police, prosecutors and other parties to a law suit get subpoenas and warrants to obtain information like your electronic records? You do know that warrants and subpoenas are required by the Constitution and by law.

Do you think the NSA is above the law and the Constitution?

Please explain.

[Thinkingabout]

48. i like the fact that Snowden collected data and decided tp share this with the world.

I trust the NSA much more than Snowden and his operations, they apparently do not give a damn about privacy. And yes, Snowden thinks he is above the law.

[UTUSN]

75. Since you civilly asked me to explain, I will.

I am a Generalist. Frankly, rehearsing "Constitutional" scholarship is way out of my world view, since I regard the Constitution as something that, not only provided means for improving it, but which really has much room for improvement. We've all played "If I were king of the world..." and made lists of what we would do to make things perfect so we don't have to do that here.

Where I'm coming from, Part I, is that, perhaps from my basic (very basic) Liberal Arts education of "1984" and such I settled into a moderately paranoid expectation of modern society, assuming over the past few decades that there are cameras everywhere, that credit and debit cards and cell phones and cash registers and internet Cookies and advertisers are tracking every single thing we do, such that the SNOWDEN-GREENWALD "revelations" were not even a ripple to me.

Where I'm coming from, Part II, is that Worldly Sophisticated Nations have been spying on one another, including on their allies and their own populations, forever. Think, "Israel spying on CLINTON-LEWINSKY." So again, SNOWDEN-GREENWALD "revelations" are *zip* to me.

Where I'm coming from, Part III, is what Poster #1 said, about breaking the law and then absconding. I grew up with our parental generation telling us that "loose lips sink ships." And in my four years in the military, I was rock hard in believing that I took an oath, silly me. I am more cynical now, but Whistle-blowing does not mean to me absconding, and of all places to the arms of Pooty-Poot PU-TEEN.

Where I'm coming from, Part IV, which is in this entire SNOWDEN-GREENWALD saga for me, is that I don't idol-worship other humans (FDR-Eleanor are as close as I get). And I pride myself on my Bullshit Detector. And in the entire saga, FOR ME, it has ALWAYS been about my Bullshit Detector going off on them, for their self-aggrandizement, their showboating, their putting their own personal interests FIRST. It has ALWAYS, *for me* been ABOUT THEM. This post is as close as I have ever come throughout this saga of discussing "NSA". All my other posts have been about THEM and on reacting to the "authoritarian" name-calling.

We've really DONE this discussion before, ad nauseam. I suppose that if somebody continues the personal attacks I will be rankled enough to respond, but I really see no point to it.

[JDPriestly]

89. What is your legal training? Have you ever studied constitutional law?

Because it is the job of lawyers to protect the legal rights of citizens. Greenwald is a journalist and a lawyer. I suspect that a lot of lawyers -- the good ones -- the ones you would want representing you if you were charged with a crime or suffered an abuse of your legal rights -- agree with Greenwald and Snowden.

The American revolution was fought by men who knew what it was to have an overbearing governmetn abuse their basic rights. They included the Fourth Amendment in part so that if the right to privacy and/or other rights of Americans were abused by a government, there would be a record. That record would permit and permits the person whose rights are violated, the person incarcerated or killed by police or government in violation of the Constitution and for insufficient reason to have recourse and to be able to discover who caused him harm.

The NSA's spying on foreigners is on surer legal footing, but the appropriate thing for them to do is to get a warrant just in case their spying on foreigners leads them to spy on Americans.

The NSA now is probably acting on good faith. But in the wrong hands, and it is very easy for a government to get into the hands of desperate, embarrassed people who promise the moon, can't deliver and then look for scapegoats and who become oppressive dictators, the information they have gathered could be extremely dangerous to any of us, more likely you than me because I am older than you.

If you were in the military, you, of all people, should courageously and carefully protect the network of rights that make us a free people. That network was constructed by people who had seen the excesses of despotic government. Few Americans have. The nonchalance about the violations of the Fourth Amendment that the NSA is perpetrating make me suspect that Americans will find out sooner rather than later why the Bill of Rights exists.

At my age, I have little to fear. But if you were in your early twenties in 1984 . . . . you should defend the Bill of Rights. It is the most precious gift our nation has.

[UTUSN]

93. I answered sincerely and completely-FOR-ME. I don't need lectures-sermons-patronizing

about me, my military service, my life or anything else. It was my mistake to take your first question seriously.

********QUOTE*****

[font size=5]The Gestalt Prayer[/font]

I do my thing and you do your thing.
[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine[/FONT].
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.

(Fritz Perls, "Gestalt Therapy Verbatim", 1969)

*********QUOTE********

[riderinthestorm]

105. Will you go see the movie?

After all that diatribe I'd guess you'd be willing to see Snowden's documentary and be neutral about it?

[UTUSN]

108. I don't see why you're injecting yourself tangentally. I don't have reason to believe that

you or very many here know what I think about much of anything, but to answer your question, I made up my mind about SNOWDEN-GREENWALD at the beginning of the saga, and besides that explained myself (above), and have posted in a couple of other threads about the movie that, nyet, I am not interested in seeing the movie, and there is *no* reason for me to be "neutral" about it.

Will you be "neutral" about using loaded language like "diatribe"?!1 Haha, buh-bye!1 (Really, *please* don't continue this!1 Thanks!1)

[JDPriestly]

112. Do your thing and I will do mine.

And my thing is to support those who protect all of our constitutional rights. One day, depending on how greatly we allow our government to encroach on our constitutional rights, you will be grateful to those who alerted you to the danger to you that the NSA spying programs entail.

Gestalt therapy is for personal healing. It has nothing to do with government invasion of our rights.

[UTUSN]

113. My quoting a pop-poster from the '70s was not about "therapy" it was about your and my

having nothing to discuss. But as far as "therapy" goes, one of the basic concepts is not to deliver "counseling" that is not asked-for. Now, can we do the you-your-way/me-mine thing, 'K?!1

[treestar]

119. Because they are not

The government has plenty of detail about people - if you know anything about the IRS or social security bureau or any government program whatsoever. Nobody cares. Our government is not to be feared.

[Hissyspit]

232. Self-aggrandizement is the biggest thing you're worried about?

[shenmue]

6. I have a giant teddy bear

I listen to a little music, I read and then I drift off.

[MineralMan]

7. Usually on my left side.

When I sleep on my back, my wife complains that I snore.

[JDPriestly]

30. Do you think that the authors of the Fourth Amendment would sleep well at nightt if they

knew the scheme the NSA had concocted to avoid getting warrants when they want to search and seize your personal information?

Please note that the police have to get a warrant to search your safe deposit box.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/police-warrant-and-court-order-to-search-safe-depo-447771.html

It is not difficult to get a warrant. You have to have probable cause. It says so in the Constitution. Fourth Amendment.

The NSA is violating the Constitution when it simply scoops up your private information without a warrant. It is as simple as that.

Getting a warrant, I repeat is not that difficult, but it puts a judge between you and someone who might try to obtain your private information for some purpose that could harm or prejudice you.

The Fourth Amendment was put in our Constitution for a reason. It should be respected.

I am very grateful to Greenwald and Snowden for pointing out the violation of our rights by our government. Most of us don't need to protect our information.

But at one time I had on my computer a list of names of people active in a political organization. I was entrusted with the list by the organization. It was a Democratic Party affiliated organization. The government did not have the right to collect my e-mails or information about my e-mails. Think of the potential for harm to our political system when a government, perhaps a Republican administration can sneakily collect the lists of names of activists in the Democratic or some other party. What the NSA is doing is absolutely a violation of the Constitution.

[Thinkingabout]

51. If it was true the NSA did not acquire the information without a warrant they just may

Be upset. I think they would be upset at those claiming NSA did not obtain warrants when in fact the warrants was obtained and false information is claimed.

[JDPriestly]

123. Have you read the Fourth Amendment?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendmen

John Hancock's signature was, as you probably know, the largest, most prominent signature on the Declaration of Independence. The British had boarded one of John Hancock's ships with a general warrant that was not specific as to the place to be searched and the items to be seized.

In fact, it was common practice prior to the American Revolution that the British, attempting to enforce oppressive laws and taxes, boarded ships, searched shops and generally invaded the privacy of the colonists. The colonists, of course, were furious.

John Adams was a witness to the trial involving the general warrants that were used to board John Hancock's ship. When John Hancock wrote the bill of rights that was adopted by Massachusetts, he included a provision very similar to our Fourth Amendment that required a specific warrant based on probable cause and a specific description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Madison appears to have adopted pretty much the provision that John Adams included in the Massachusetts bill of rights.

When I read the first court order authorizing the collection of Verizon's information, I was shocked to the bone. There was no specificity with regard to whose information was to be searched. Thus there could not have been any discussion of probable cause. The "warrants" were more akin to the general warrants that the American revolutionaries so strongly objected to than to any warrants complying with the Fourth Amendment.

But that is still not the whole story. The Fifth Amendment protects our natural right to confront our accusers. The warrant procedure guarantees that the accused person (could be you tomorrow) has the ability and the right to determine who the accuser is. The NSA's procedural short-cut combined with its secrecy deprives the accused of knowing what the origin of a charge against him or her is and just how evidence against him or her was obtained. That is yet another violation of the Constitution.

And that is just the beginning. We also get into problems of violations of the separation of powers if and when NSA intentionally or inadvertently obtains records of members of the judiciary or the legislatures.

The NSA program to the extent that it is secretive, that the warrants and the orders of the FISA court are overbroad (that is they demand too broad a spectrum of information and data) and that the orders and warrants are not based on probably cause or on specific information as to what is to be searched or seized is obviously unconstitutional and illegal.

Snowden's questions about the legality of the program focused on the legitimacy of its legal basis. Apparently that was at the time the program started, an executive order issued by Ronald Reagan. On what authority does a president issue an executive order that contradicts and violates the Constiution? NONE. There is no such authority.

The NSA program is dangerous and bad. If it had not involved wiretapping on American soil, it probably would not have become and issue. But it did. The entire program is sick. It is the dream of a dictatorship.

The East German STASI would have dreamed of such a thing.

[Thinkingabout]

135. Why would you think I have not read the Fourth Amendment? I know about the warrants

included in the Fourth Amendment. Apparently if you read the warrant to Verizon to collect data then you must be aware a warrant has been issued to Verizon, this conforms to the Fourth Amendment, so what is the problem?

Snowden apparently does not get concerned when he violated the espionage act so why does he get concerned about legal issues after stealing. Where was Snowden's warrant, it is pips like Snowden I do not want to have my information. People like Snowden who thinks he has the right to hack anywhere is dangerous and bad.

[RufusTFirefly]

183. Er, ah, probable cause?

Or do you discount that particular clause of the amendment you seem to know so well?

[Thinkingabout]

185. Wow, have you been missing the news reports for about the last 15 years?

Probable cause might have something to do with our nation attacked by terrorist groups, yep, that would be a good probable cause, to track phone calls and other forms of communications to different parts of the world, yep, just might be able to see who is talking to who. Look, these guys who are going to FISA to ask for these warrants did not emerge yesterday from behind a rock, even I can understand the Fourth Amendment but we can not leave out the words we may not like and think the Fourth Amendment has been violated, it would have brought action surely before 10 years has passed. Yes there was violations, the Bush Administration made some stupid moves, this ceased in 2008, but it does not stop the probable cause which is still occurring today.

[RufusTFirefly]

187. Good you've read the Fourth Amendment. A pity that you don't understand it.

Have a nice day!

[TheKentuckian]

208. Probable cause is individual not a holistic rationale. You are making a mockery of the whole concept

[Thinkingabout]

209. Where did you determine what is individual and holistic rationale? Did not see that in

the Fourth Amendment. Since SC has ruled corporations has freedom of speech, might want to think about the Constitution. BTW, phone call records belongs to the providers, normally a corporation, not an individual.

[TheKentuckian]

212. I suppose I struggle with your definition of probable cause to such an extent

that I can not even see how it could ever be operative as a protection.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

There is no general probable cause because to have such a thing requires a train of thought that asserts there is good reason to believe the population is likely to be committing a specific, articulatable crime at all times which is clearly nonsense.

Somebody somewhere receiving stolen property is not a rationale for shocking everyone's closet.

Under what I discern your logic to be there could be no probable cause because it would ever and always exist in every possible moment in time for every possible person. It would never turn off.

What is it to see? Logic absolutely dictates individual probable cause because there would be none otherwise.

[Thinkingabout]

214. Here you go:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Notice it states person or property, phone call records are property of the providers.

[TheKentuckian]

231. There still is none by what I consider to be a twisted interpretation in the first place.

What specific crime do you think the providers were likely to be involved in and on what basis do you think each provider was doing so?

It is beyond absurd to defend this shit to me. To run with just any tangent no matter how precarious or how large a leap to undo your own privacy along with that of your fellow citizens.

[Thinkingabout]

235. Perhaps it is not the crimes committed by the provider, many times

In an investigation of a crime the phone call records are gathered, don't think it is the one in which the warrant is issued is the subject of investigation. A vehicle could be subject to an warrant in performing an investigation. Search warrants are issued to gather evidence in a crime to homes, etc.

I don't have to defend the Fourth Amendment, I would think it has been used for a couple hundred years, it hasn't been declared unconstitutional as yet and I don't see where it would benefit us to have it declared unconstitutional, you would not have this safeguard to halt any search and don't think you want to go there. Why would you think there would be any mention of a warrant in the Fourth Amendment?

[TheKentuckian]

246. What opposition to obtaining warrants do you think I expressed?

You are the one arguing to expand probable cause into the point of nonexistence, making warrants mere symbolism to satisfy ritual rather than having any particular meaning or articulitable, specific, and individual reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

As a citizen, it is indeed your duty to defend the 4th amendment and it is certainly right for you to cease attacking it and attempting to dilute it into irrelevance, at a bare minimum.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. they are all dead so I am pretty sure sleep is a non-issue for them...

[treestar]

298. They would be fine with it as

1. they knew there would have to be some sort of national security and
2. The SCOTUS OK'd it. They would read that opinion.
3. Our rights are being protected, not violated.

[JDPriestly]

302. The Supreme Court did not ok this massive spying on the American people.

William Binney created a program that does what the NSA is doing. He explains it here.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/god-is-not-a-magician-pope-says-christians-should-believe-in-evolution-and-big-bang/

He is appalled by what the NSA and other intelligence agencies here and perhaps abroad are doing with it as am I.

I used to work for the phone company back when our phone connections were going electronic or about to go electronic. I could not work in the electronics area because I am color-blind. In fact I learned that I am color-blind when I was tested to work in the electronics.

Anyway, when I first started there, I was given a tour of the telephone technical division. It was in a basement, a huge basement full of wires that connect everyone to everyone else. Every phone call jumps across the maze of those wires. A record is kept every time a wire connects a phone (or computer) to another phone (or computer).

The Maryland case that the Supreme Court approved back in the late 1970s allowed the police to collect phone records that would help solve a specific case. They were permitted to collect those phone records on the theory that the records were in the hands of a third party. In my view, even if communications that are not encrypted or that do not require a password in order to access them are arguably in the hands of the phone company, communications that I obtain only by using a password of my creation should not be accessible under that case to the police or authorities because I have not entrusted those records to a third party but have instead chosen to limit access to them to myself. I don't think that password records like medical or financial records are in the hands of the phone or telecom companies. The NSA and authorities should get a warrant and serve it on my doctor or bank if they want those records. I do not understand how the NSA can expand the Maryland case to justify their acquiring my records without a warrant when I have demonstrated my intention to keep them to myself by requiring a password for access to them.

At the time of that decision, the kind of massively intrusive program that the NSA and possibly other agencies in the US is carrying out was only in the dreams of a few Frankensteinian bureaucrats and paranoids in our government.

Binney explains that he created a program that could collect and analyze vast amounts of information -- information in the form that the telephone companies and the internet companies now provide it. Information that is essentially a record of every electronic connection, every communication or electronic consumption that occurs. The NSA can then combine those electronic records with the public history of your life. And what do they then have? Every embarrassing, true or false bit of gossip, innuendo, mistake, every angry moment, every moment of vulnerable love or passion, every struggle, every victory, every failure, every strength, every weakness. They can have you. If they want you.

That is not what the vision of our Forefathers was. That is not freedom. That is being owned. That is your life, your every dream, your every secret, being known to someone who doesn't care a whit about you.

When you agree to what is the NSA is now doing, you are agreeing to the loss of individual personality. You become merely a set of numbers. Your date of marriage, your college grades, that DUI way back when, the date you took out a loan on your car or your house, your address(es), your date of divorce, the dates of the births of your children, the time of the night when you called a lover or a doctor or your pastor or your psychiatrist or lawyer -- all numbers that are the sum of your life.

The minute I heard about Facebook, I saw the danger sign. The electronic wiring in the basement of the telephone company where I worked cane right back into my mind.

And you must understand that I know what goes through those wires and how much can be learned from that data for two reasons. First, my great-aunt used to be "central" in a small town in the Midwest. She was the person who manually connected telephone wires -re=electronic and digital phones. She knew all the gossip because she could listen in and had to listen in to know who was calling whom, and sometimes, in fact, often, just what they were saying. And then, the second is that when I worked for the phone company, I was occasionally involved in checking on a fraudulent use of telephone equipment. That was not my main responsibility, but sometimes I was involved in checking something out. So I know how the records can be used.

It is one thing to request specific telephone bills from the telephone service provider on a specific phone because there is reasonable suspicion or even probable cause to obtain that information in the course of an investigation of a crime. It is quite another to collect that information at impulse or will on anyone you wish to collect it on in the US including lawyers, psychiatrists, doctors, corporations, scientists, politicians, judges, teachers, or just somebody you think is dating your ex. There is a huge difference.

The information that can be obtained and what can be learned from that information if spun through the gigantic computers of the NSA -- what falsehoods as well as truths that can be learned or guessed, what assumptions can be reached -- is mind boggling.

Nobody would want this program to exist if they knew how it will work in the end. It is a Frankensteinian creation. It will be a nightmare worse that tne atomic bomb. Combined with killer drone capacity, this program could be used to create the ultimate whip, near-total mind control, ultimate negative reinforcement. That may sound extreme, but it is not as extreme as you might think. Stalin, Hitler and the STASI would have put it to their uses. We do not know how it might ultimately be used here.

If you could have stopped the creation of the atomic bomb, if it could have been outlawed internationally somehow, would you have done it? This NSA program (and there may be others similar to it in the hands of other countries) is on the social level like the atomic bomb on the material one in that it has the capacity to destroy modern communication as well as lives.

And it could destroy the internet and our modern communications systems. Eventually, people are likely to decide to opt out or at least be very careful about what they do and say if what they do and say can be observed by or transmitted electronically to political or other powerful authorities.

Electronic media should be free and for all to enjoy and learn from. That's why I oppose the NSA surveillance programs that enable surveillance without a warrant. The warrant is the paper trail that allows you to go to court and find out who is observing and for what purpose.

[woo me with science]

10. Good question. I have asked this, too.

Every rising authoritarian government has made use of people like this to justify what they do. Some may wake up along the way and regret their participation in the unconscionable. Others will never grow a conscience.

It takes a particular brand of moral vacancy to do that type of work.

[newfie11]

13. +1

Seems like more and more are never growing a conscious.

[L0oniX]

85. How do you like their reaction to the new Iphone?

I mean I am in shock at the complacency of people. The gov is saying we don't have a right to have an Iphone that they can't get into. WTF ...We've gone off the deep end. We mutha fucking do have a right to hide anything we want from those mutha fucking assholes. People should be outraged but they've been cross bred with lemmings and stupid sheep.

[ozone_man]

240. I'm glad you put words to how I feel about iphones.

And, what a great thread! Authoritarians suck!

[woo me with science]

254. [phone]

I have stared at this post for a day now agreeing with it and trying to come up with words that agree *enough.*

Yeah, it's the brazenness. It's OUR OWN GOVERNMENT standing up there smiling and having the gall to wave the flag while asserting what is antidemocratic and authoritarian and contrary to every value that we were taught this country was founded on. No, you don't have a right to A KEY TO MY HOUSE OR ACCESS TO MY PHONE.

I never thought I would see my country sink so easily to this level of criminal perversion. I keep imagining trying to describe where we are right now to a relative who died 20 years ago, and it's like trying to describe a dystopian novel. And then I keep thinking how the Germans must have felt in the late 30's.

It's an education for sure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025559056(thanks, whatchamacallit)


AND PROPAGANDIZED BY VERMIN.

[Rex]

15. Good dog whistle!

[reddread]

44. what has taken me so long to put you on the ignore list?

[Rex]

100. LOL!

Pathetic that you have to tell me. okay bye bye!

[Maedhros]

327. It does encourage others to ignore you as well.

That is a useful function.

[DeSwiss]

149. You?!

[Rex]

280. Confused that one is, yes.

I can never understand the need to tell someone you are going to ignore them. I can guarantee I would have probably never noticed, but good thing I know now...important to know these things...

[whistler162]

16. You would have to ask Snowden or Greenwald

how they sleep at night.

[JDPriestly]

28. I'm sure they sleep well knowing they are protecting our constiutional rights.

How do you interpret the Fourth Amendment please tell?

[nashville_brook]

175. dang -- glad i've been missing some of this.

blech.

[joshcryer]

18. I don't believe in personality cults.

[RufusTFirefly]

22. Ironic, given your sig line.

[joshcryer]

29. Yeah, not sure I am worshiping Huey Long there.

But it does damn sure seem like any criticism of Greenwald or Snowden means you're a horrible person.

[baldguy]

38. Ironic in that authoritarians thrive on personality cults.

Really can't exist without 'em.

[joshcryer]

45. It's why you can be a "whistleblower in Russia."

Or a self-admitted rapist in the Ecuadorian embassy. Or a tax evading Klan defender.

Personality cults mean being absolved of any and all criticism because if you criticize you are automatically in support of the opposite thing.

It's like people can't hold two opinions about two different subjects. I mean, I can say I'm against NSA overreach and spying, but also, as a completely different opinion, say I am against trickling out information that helps me make a case against the NSA.

[baldguy]

58. Authoritarians also only view the world in black & white. No shades of grey.

They can't see that the real world isn't black & white. It's comprised entirely of of shades of grey, and colors too, and shades of colors on top of that. It doesn't fit into their simple, thoughtless binary worldview.

[RufusTFirefly]

19. My country, right or wrong, Dude!

Cognitive dissonance is a beautiful thing!

[L0oniX]

76. My mother ...drunk or sober.

[GliderGuider]

20. Complete agreement from this corner! nt

[Thespian2]

21. K & R

I have learned that when you write thoughtful pieces that are factual and, therefore, truthful; you will be attacked by people who live in the alternate universe. In addition, the 50% of the population who have little information won't know what you are writing about.

[KingCharlemagne]

121. I've noted that most people -- I'd like to think I'm excluded but cannot say so absolutely -- come

Last edited Sun Oct 26, 2014, 01:39 AM - Edit history (1)

to the internet to confirm their pre-existing biases. Case in point: no one will ever convince me that Iraq had WMDs for the decade before Bush launched Operation Shocking and Awful. No matter how 'thoughtful,' 'factual,' or well-written the piece is, I simply will not listen to it. I will attack the person writing said piece as a 'liar' and worse. Why? Because I only wish to read material that confirms my existing belief base.

Greenwald actually was a supporter of Bush until he saw the light, at which point he became a vociferous critic of Bush. Many of those who now attack Greenwald, I'm guessing, had very little negative to say about him while he was criticizing Bush. That's when I came to like Greenwald. Now I don't follow every utterance of his religiously, but it seems to me he has stayed unswerving in his criticisms now that President Obama holds power. Don't we value consistency as a virtue any longer? Well, if you come to the internet to find President Obama unfailingly praised, your confirmation bias may lead you to attack Greenwald even if, as I noted, he made very similar criticisms of Bush from, IIRC, about 2004-09.

[Thespian2]

132. Thoughtful and accurate

[SidDithers]

249. "Operation Shocking and Awful"...

well now, that's an interesting phrase to do a google site search on.



Sid

[randome]

26. Lately, I'm reading The Stone Diaries and some Alan Moore Swamp Thing comics.

It helps put the day in perspective.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[SidDithers]

31. ...

Sid

[baldguy]

36. It doesn't bother you in the least that Bush's creation ISIS is using Snowden's leaks

To avoid US intel gathering, target their opposition & murder innocent civilians?

How do you sleep at night?

[Historic NY]

39. Nah they don't care...

[20score]

41. Prove it.

[baldguy]

54. ISIS teaches how to avoid NSA snooping in a Tweet

http://thechangewithin.net/2014/10/20/isis-teaches-how-to-avoid-nsa-snooping-in-a-tweet/

And just where did they get that knowledge?

'Isis' are using Snowden leaks to evade US intelligence': Former NSA boss warns terror group are exploiting massive breach of security

From Greenwald and Snowden. Simple facts, my friend.

[LawDeeDah]

88. Snowden and Greenwald, freakin traitors.

[Historic NY]

258. Snowey gave away the secrets...

http://hackread.com/isis-manual-nsa-twitter-online-safty/

[Marr]

65. It's actually funny to see someone pooh-pooh the authoritarian label, then

spin right around and suggest the government must be able to spy on us all for our own protection-- and anyone who exposes such is helping the bad guys.

Thanks for the laugh.

[baldguy]

78. No worse than having worshipful posts praising Greenwald & Snowden demanding 100% agreement

and compliance with their lies, distortions & attacks on Democrats - then crying when they're exposed as authoritarian cultists themselves.

[Marr]

86. Yeah, that would be equally mock-worthy.

Last edited Sat Oct 25, 2014, 11:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Of course, I've only seen your comedy act-- not the one you're describing.

[baldguy]

87. Apparently, you didn't read the OP

Or any of the author's replies in this thread.

Stalin would be jealous.

[Marr]

127. Look who's talking about people not reading posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5713415

Did you just not actually read the initial post, and accept the OP's claim about what the cited article said, or do you have two different standards; one for people with whom you want to agree, and another for everyone else?

[zeemike]

37. Pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

The personal attack against the messenger is normally a right wing thing, but we have them too.
Authoritarians can be any political persuasion...from Hitler to Stalin, and all points inbetween...some people must follow authority's no matter what.
There is security in conformity.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. AMEN!!!!!!

[Cryptoad]

43. Rumor control has it,,,,

that Comrade Snowden is sleeping like a baby in his new beach House in Kiev !

[WillyT]

47. Yep... They'd Sell Us Out For 30 Pieces Of Silver

[baldguy]

64. How much did Greenwald earn from his books exposing US national secrets?

The books ISIS is using to kill people now?

Just **WHO** is Judas in this scenario? According to you, its the guys who supported Bush after 9/11, who support Ron Paul now, and who's paycheck requires that they attack & bring down Obama & the Democrats.

[RufusTFirefly]

50. Whatever works. The goal is to keep the focus on the personalities...

... and avoid the inconvenient truths of torture, drones, and unchecked, blatantly un-Constitutional surveillance.

Those and other indelible stains on this country's once proud reputation can't be reasonably defended. So they don't.

It's as simple as that.

[KittyWampus]

57. DU'ers throwing around the insult "authoritarians" are the most likely to insist on 100% groupthink

Such blatant hypocrisy. No self awareness.

[20score]

63. This bs has been address several times in this thread.

Seek and ye shall find.

Why don't you prove there's no illegal spying.

Give that a go.

[KittyWampus]

77. You want me to prove a negative? LOLZ.

[20score]

80. How about disprove a positive.

Can you do that?

[treestar]

120. there's a certain bullying nature about it

I see right wingers do it. They claim control of the debate. We are to defer to them. If the OP says there is illegal spying, he doesn't have to prove it. You have to prove it wrong. Look how rudely you are told what you have to do. There are other such posts on this subject.

[woo me with science]

130. Right on cue.

YOU CALLED ME A DOG!!!1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5716195

How predictable the talking points in defense of mass surveillance are...

[stonecutter357]

184. mass surveillance

[woo me with science]

201. And here you are behaving this way, right on cue as well.

ROFL smileys and guffawing at abuse of power, particularly ironic after treestar's little lecture above. How embarrassing for the smear machine, but it's the level of engagement we have learned to expect.

Post by Luminous Animal:

Automated Mass Surveillance is Unconstitutional, EFF Explains in Jewel v. NSA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025716826#post11

Today EFF filed our latest brief in Jewel v. NSA, our longstanding case on behalf of AT&T customers aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans’ communications. The brief specifically argues that the Fourth Amendment is violated when the government taps into the Internet backbone at places like the AT&T facility on Folsom Street in San Francisco.

As it happens, the filing coincides with the theatrical release of Laura Poitras’ new documentary, Citizenfour. The Jewel complaint was filed in 2008, and there’s a scene early in the film that shows the long road that case has taken. In footage shot in 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears argument in Jewel, and an attorney from the Department of Justice tries to convince a skeptical court that it should simply decide not to decide the case, leaving it to the other branches of government.

But the court did not agree to step aside. EFF prevailed on the issue, and the case continued, albeit very slowly. Now, years later, Poitras’ film underscores just how much the conversation around mass surveillance has changed. Americans are overwhelmingly concerned with government monitoring of their communications, and we hope to (finally) have a constitutional ruling in Jewel soon. (And another in Smith v. Obama, and still another in First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA.)

Even so, the government continues to try to avoid a decision that any of its various means of mass surveillance is unconstitutional. The current procedural context is this: in July, EFF filed a partial motion for summary judgment requesting that the court rely on uncontested evidence that the NSA taps into the Internet backbone and collects and searches ordinary Americans’ communication to rule that the government is violating the Fourth Amendment. The technology at issue, which the government calls “upstream,” is illustrated here.

Under this surveillance, the government makes a full copy of everything that travels through key Internet backbone locations, like AT&T’s peering links. The government says that it then does some rudimentary filtering and searches through the filtered copies, looking for specific “selectors,” like email addresses.

The government filed its opposition to our motion in September. In our reply, we note that the government is effectively trying to sidestep the Fourth Amendment for everything that travels over the Internet. We explain:


There's more here:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/automated-mass-surveillance-unconstitutional-eff-explains-jewel-v-nsa

[stonecutter357]

270. the US spies and stuff.

[jazzimov]

59. I don't know how people like

Snowden and Greenwald sleep at night, either.

[stupidicus]

60. their attacks are usually baseless or vacuous

lacking any rebuttal value, and are largely motivated by tribal/cult-like impulses intended to protect their own egos as much as that of the dear leader they are almost always directly or indirectly defending with their attacks on them.

I'd say their motives differ little from the recent rightwinger latching onto the NYT story about wmds, which was almost a certainty considering that as recently as 2012 the polls showed that 63% of repubs believed we found wmds in Iraq -- nobody wants to think that they voted for someone who'd do such a thing.

Many, myself included, have long made the same case you are here -- that the BS about the messengers in this case, as well as all of us imaginary BHO-haters, etc, etc, etc, is nothing more than a distraction and subject change to delay or avoid having to defend the indefensible. We'll see many more years of this should HC take the helm next as well.

Imo the only "reality-based" voters these days are those of us that resigned ourselves to the lesser of two evils choice. While it doesn't reduce the sense of outrage much when things like the NSA revelations occur, it eliminates a major impediment to the level of objectivity required to have a handle on "reality" that an ego or cult-blinders can and certainly do provide. They establish their guilt of this simply by the way the actual NSA issues take a back seat to their outrage over those messengers, in terms of the level of outrage they express over those revelations, and the disproportionate amount -- considering the relative importance of those two guys -- of time and text they spend bashing those two to the almost total exclusion in most cases, of bashing what it is they have revealed about the NSA.

I'd call that the consent to or complicity in the NSA problem, as silence often is.

good post

[GoneFishin]

70. You really nail it with this one sentence. : "They establish their guilt of this simply by

"They establish their guilt of this simply by the way the actual NSA issues take a back seat to their outrage over those messengers, in terms of the level of outrage they express over those revelations, and the disproportionate amount ..."

[stupidicus]

242. thanks

as I see it, given that "motives" seems to be something they harp on time and again in their defamations efforts, their own should be explored and explained.

[nashville_brook]

61. hell to the yeah.

[iamthebandfanman]

62. i care about 'the story'

but don't care much for either of them as people... personally...
both are are hypocrites..
and snowden has put false assertions in his articles before (remember when he claimed a couple random PC parts were his smashed laptop.. even tho that was impossible given the parts shown?)..

glad that the domestic things were exposed, but feel differently about their need to expose foreign spy operations.

wonder what that makes me (beyond someone who is capable of thinking for myself and lacking a need to pick a team to root for every time there is a disagreement) :p

[DisgustipatedinCA]

172. No, I don't remember Snowden showing us his smashed laptop.

I'd like to read more about this.

[GoneFishin]

67. You are completely correct. The wrongs that they exposed outweigh any transgressions

they may have committed many times over. It takes a very special personality to whine that because they broke some rules in the process that the information they revealed is less accurate, relevant, important, new, etc ... whatever.

The ever-shifting complaints are proof that there is no actual complaint of merit, but instead there is an ideological rift caused by the mere fact that a nobody like Snowden would dare try to hold accountable a higher authority like the government.

[Duppers]

69. Big Recommend !

And a kick.

[20score]

71. Duppers! I've missed you!

[Duppers]

98. Missed you too, my friend!

I'm still recovering from ....whatever.

However, as long as the nsa knows, I know I'll be safe.

Thanks again for the thread! Some folks just cannot think long-term, all the while thinking we're missing the point.

[marym625]

73. K&R!!

Have nothing to add. You've said it all.

[pa28]

74. Some people can rationalize anything.

You can bet those same posters would be all over it if the Snowden/Greenwald revelations had surfaced during Bush's administration.

[baldguy]

84. Greenwald was full of praises for the Bush regime.

And Snowden joined the army specifically to fight in Bush's wars.

And now that there's black guy in the White House with a (D) after his name, they spend their time attacking the US.

[20score]

91. I've been reading Greenward for almost a decade, and that's just not true. Completely wrong!

You may be able to find one or two outliers, but I've read dozens of articles against his war, the torture and the spying during Bush's term. It wasn't until Obama was caught spying that certain people turned against Greenwald.

As for Snowden, millions of young people turned against Bush, the war and spying when they figured out the lies.

Try again. Or don't, I'm tiring or the same BS, over and over.

[baldguy]

95. If you're tired of seeing BS, stop posting it.

[20score]

96. Try a little harder to come up with something the neighborhood six year could old to come up with.

Then I'll debate you.

You know, thinking. You've heard of it, now try it.

[pa28]

94. Got it. No rationalizing going on here.

[baldguy]

97. See post #91 for rationalizing.

Greenwald the Bush cheerleader, and Snowden the Arbusto-jugend.

[elias49]

101. So you're saying Snowden and Greenwald are racist, too?

This is how little farts turn into big piles of shit.

[baldguy]

102. No. Only happens that they didn't start screaming until the Pres got a little darker.

Just sayin'

[elias49]

103. So, "Yes".

Just sayin that's what the words mean.

[20score]

104. And you're fucking wrong. Prove it. I can link to dozens of articles proving you wrong.

Try proving yourself right.

[20score]

107. 2006 book: How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok

2007 book by Greenwald: A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency

Dozens of articles about how bad Bush was, the war was, the Bush economy was. Man, read something before you talk.

I'm done with your ignorance and childish insults. You're not knowledgable enough to bother with until i get an apology and you read a lot more.

[Luminous Animal]

110. Pat Tillman joined the army to fight Bush's wars. He criticized it from the inside.

Last edited Sun Oct 26, 2014, 07:24 AM - Edit history (1)

If he had lived and continued to criticize, would you characterize him as a racist?

[Douglas Carpenter]

134. Smearmaster Glenn Greenwald's smear campaign against George W. Bush

AS they say - haters are going to hate and smearers are going to smear. Glenn Greenwald did not begin his smear career with President Obama - he was doing it way back before Obama came to the White House. It seems that he thinks that just because someone is in powerful position - that they are supposed to be criticized - Imagine that!~!


2008 Bill Moyer interview with Glenn Greenwald about the George W. Bush legacy He was smearing Bush when our country was at war. Imagine that!!

http://billmoyers.com/content/glenn-greenwald-on-the-george-w-bush-administration-and-the-rule-of-law/

He also wrote three books about the George W. Bush Administration all smear jobs attacking the Bush Administration; The New York Times-bestsellers How Would A Patriot Act? (2006) and Tragic Legacy (2007), and his 2008 release, Great American Hypocrites.

[baldguy]

145. That's what he was saying in 2008, with Obama on his way to the WH.

What was he saying in 2002? In his own words:

I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks.

and

During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president’s ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president’s approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance.

and more

Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/glenn-greenwald-decries-the-spying-he-helped-enable-when-he-supported-bush/

What a piece of work Greenwald is.

(And thanks to Cha for finding this gem.)

[Douglas Carpenter]

146. oh sure, he defended Bush in the beginnng - just like the entire Democratic Party leadership

and just like the entire Democratic Party leadership he backed Bush over and over again on the War with Iraq. And then he turned on him and started smearing and sliming him - just like the entire Democratic Party leadership. All he cared about was running down Bush and attacking his record. Obviously he hates America just like liberals.

[baldguy]

238. Can't change the fact that both Greenwald & Snowden supported Bush and his wars.

And yes, most of the Dems - including those who should have known better - supported them too.

But do you know who didn't? Do you know who, unlike both Greenwald & Snowden WAS VERY OUTSPOKEN in his opposition to Bush's wars?

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

I'm sure you recognize who it is.

So what we have here is Greenwald & Snowden supporting the creation of Bush's apaulling quagmire critcizing someone who has had it right from the very beginning. And now, Greenwald & Snowden want to ignore the results of their guys clusterfuck which again: they supported in favor of more attacks on the guy who is actually confronting the results.

It's exactly like an arsonist complaining about the way the firefighters are going about extinguishing the fire he's set.

[Douglas Carpenter]

271. Just like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton -except he admitted he was wrong -They have not to this day

He was so convinced he was wrong about Bush and the war - he wrote three books about it. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have not even to this day issued even a mild single paragraph mea culpa.

[baldguy]

272. But, of course we're not talking about Kerry and Clinton.

Nonetheless:

"Kerry says Bush broke promises, set wrong course in Iraq" - Sept 2004
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-08-kerry_x.htm

"Kerry Regrets nothing more that his 2002 vote for Iraq War" - Oct 17, 2006
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/John_Kerry_War_+_Peace.htm

"I was wrong about Iraq" - John Kerry @ Take Back America 2008
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/kerry-i-was-wrong-iraq

"Kerry: Iraq invasion was a huge mistake" - Geo News interview July 2014
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/07/01/369409/kerry-iraq-war-was-a-huge-mistake/

"Hillary Clinton on Iraq vote: ‘I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.’" - June 2014
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hillary-clinton-on-iraq-vote-i-still-got-it-wrong-plain-and-simple/

"It was a mistake to trust Bush on his judgment to wage war" - Hillary Clinton Jun 2007
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm#Iraq_War

And even though Obama was right in 2002, and 2008, and 2012, it really doesn't matter what any of them say, no matter how much you & Greenwald & Snowden hate them and the Democrats.

What matters is that Greenwald & Snowden were sucked into believing Bush's lies, and now they are attacking anyone who even suggests repairing the mess they left behind. They are worse than despicable.

[Douglas Carpenter]

273. I don't hate them and the Democrats - stop your idiotic nonsense -

You have absolutely no basis whatsoever to say that. In fact I supported Kerry and Obama and support my Democratic Congressman. Please apologize -

I do have to admit in the face of evidence that Kerry and Hillary who like Snowden and Greenwald who were initially taken in by Bush's lies also joined Snowden and Greenwald in recognizing the error they had made. I hope they also come to recognize the dangerousness of a massive intelligence complex. Al Gore, Gary Hart and President Carter have come to recognize it - Of course everyone here on DU would be cheering on Snowden and Greenwald if a Republican was in office and everyone knows.

[baldguy]

274. If you're advocating against the Democratic Party & the sitting Democratic President

And instead support Libertarians like Greenwald & Snowden, then you are not in fact a supporter of Democrats and Democratic issues. Period.

The fact is that anyone who agrees with Ron Paul - as Greenwald does - or has contributed to Rand Paul's campaigns - as Snowden has done - has NO BUSINESS EVER claiming to support individual civil rights. Libertarians are nothing more than anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. And in their world you would be the slave. A liberal would recognize that.

And no, the people who saw through Greenwald's hypocrisy from ~2004 on were not cheering him on then and are not now. We knew he was a know-nothing blowhard doing nothing but tooting his own horn, and warned people away. The only ones taken in by hiss antics are the same people promoting him now - people who wear liberalism like a fashion statement.

[Douglas Carpenter]

275. I didn't realize that supporting the Democratic Party required brain-dead robotic thinking

This is as sound an argument as "liberals hate America" because they criticize foreign policy.

If you are going to insist on this degree of partisan purity - putting personalities over principle and country - and demanding support for every dotting of the "i and crossing of the "t" - you're going to chase away about 90% of the party. I don't think that's a good strategy.

It is pretty bad when defending liberal western democracy is now considered hating the Democrats and the President.

[baldguy]

284. No, you seem to think "supporting the Democratic Party" consists entirely of

Parroting RW talking points.

Ignoring the disaster Bush left

Blaming Obama for anything & everything that Bush did

Insisting that Greenwald's purity trumps the opinions of the people who've actually been elected - it's certainly more obtuse & vindictive. Then again, you're defending one guy who hates America enough that he's exiled himself to Brazil, and another who's exiled himself to Russia. Good thing they're not liberals, otherwise your argument might have some pertinence.

[Douglas Carpenter]

288. you're the one promoting right-wing talking points- you just don't have a clue how us liberals think

defending our basic rights under the Constitution against an ever growing surveillance state is the one point where all liberals and all supporters of our democratic system of government stand shoulder to shoulder in absolute agreement - What was wrong under the Bush Administration is wrong no matter what Administration is in power. Those of you who don't respect our democratic way of life have no place in the Democratic Party or the progressive movement.

[baldguy]

292. I'm the one supporting the sitting Democratic President of the United States.

Who Congress, the courts & the American people agree with on this subject. You're the one supporting guys who promote Rand Paul's talking points, and who really had no problem with what the govt was doing until there was a black guy in the White House. You're also trying to undermine support for the Democrats one week before a national election.

Greenwald & Snowden are not liberals. Stop pretending they are.

[Douglas Carpenter]

295. I'm supporting the sitting President of the United States too - that doesn't mean I have to endorse

a slavish personality cult that betrays the democratic principles of constitutional government

[baldguy]

299. Ya, right. Thou doth protest too much, methinks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025705288#post19

Or as NanceGreggs says so much more eloquantly upthread:

What is particularly striking is the fact that many GG/Snowden adherents are the first to label Obama supporters as mindless cheerleaders, idol worshippers, victims of "cult of personality" thinking; people who will blindly accept what they are told without hesitation. And yet they fail to see this behaviour in themselves.

[Douglas Carpenter]

300. that's what you personality cultist don't understand. Loyalty to our country and our democratic way

of life is bigger than ANY ideology and ANY politician no matter how good it makes one feel to believe in a savior. I would like to believe that Democrats operate on a higher moral and intellectual plain than the Republicans - but the personality cultist make us look just as stupid and ignorant and any of the wingnuts. You only drive people away from the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. By putting personality worship ahead of principle and reason you deny the American people an alternative with your children of the corn approach to politics.

[baldguy]

301. "... the personality cultist make **US** look just as stupid and ignorant and any of the wingnuts."

Thank you for not including the real Democrats who support the Democratic party in your confession.

[Hissyspit]

233. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've all read that. But how convenient

you failed to mention in your post he BECAME one of the most voracious attackers of Bush/Cheney policy.

Completely dishonest.

[baldguy]

237. Greenwald & Snowden are the ones who are completely dishonest.

The criticism of them is completely accurate.

[Puzzledtraveller]

90. It's very easy to understand.

As a avid player of RPG's and MMORPGS's "charisma" is a valuable stat to have in abundance. It increases your power of persuasion, allows you to influence outcomes, attitudes, decisions and actions. Personality, it goes a long way.

[Blue_Tires]

109. I'm personally a bad sleeper -- Lots of restless, mentally anguished nights

but that's due to other factors...I appreciate you asking, though -- I'd been frequently wondering if there was anyone on DU who still cared about my well-being...



I'm being totally serious here: Since when is pointing out Snow-Wald's inconsistencies/contradictions/hypocrisies/intentionally vague or duplicitous statements an "attack"? Are they above reproach and untouchable? Am I not allowed to ask questions about the parts of their stories that don't add up?? Is swallowing what Snow-Wald has been telling us without any critical thought or scrutiny really any better than taking the NSA PAO's word as the gospel?

And while I'm fine with exposing the domestic stuff, I still haven't heard the first reason from anyone to justify the over-hyped, sensationalized, "America Spies On China/Iran, etc." stories, which have been 50% of the total leaks so far...

[RobertEarl]

117. With their head in the sand?

Like they go through life everyday.

Don't these people know a small group of secretive individuals with vast amounts of power will never be nice to us?

[Maedhros]

131. I put those posters on ignore,

and the intelligibility of DU improved drastically.

[Corruption Inc]

136. They start by staring at kitty cat pictures!

Then, they talk about how everything is "the white man's" fault.
Then, they throw 20 other progressives under the bus.
Then, they recite GOP agitprop over and over and over, day after day after day.

It's so boring they can help but fall asleep!

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

143. "Then, they talk about how everything is 'the white man's' fault."

Your explanation for that remark would be, well, totally fascinating, were you to have the guts or gumption to explain it. Anything more you'd like to put forward on that subject?

[Ykcutnek]

142. Soundly.

They're like the Kardashians of the political activist world.

They're old news, most people are sick of them, but a new blog post and news article pops up every single time they open their mouths.

And most people just roll their eyes, make a snide comment or two, and go on about their day without giving it much more thought.

[stonecutter357]

147. the us spies and stuff.

[DeSwiss]

148. Ignorance or lack of a conscience helps.

- And I appreciate this post because it allowed to me to get rid of three more of the very (expletive depleted) you've described here.

They kept trying to tell us. Ike. Then JFK. And Senators Frank Church and Daniel Inouye. Then the revelations seemed to just stop. Maybe they were in control now? It all sounds so absurd, doesn't it? No one wants to even consider it. And if you repeat it, you're just another crazy Conspiracy Theorist. Rinse and wash, repeat. Perfect.

That's the beauty of ''The Lie's'' structural design. It's a self-correcting system of oversight integrity which relies principally upon its victims to protect its existence through their own ignorance and incredulity. And FEAR. And along with the use of ridicule and smears against those able to see things more objectively and realistically, they've been able to maintain a consistent hard outer shell made almost entirely of incredulous, unknowing, willfully ignorant -- sad and pathetic people.

TPTB understand that in our society, being accused of being stupid is the one thing an truly ignorant person hates to be accused of the most. This is why ridicule works so effectively. Intelligent people know that they know so little and are constantly searching to learn more.

Today, ignorance and all things banal are paraded before us as virtues. This is what we're up against......

K&R

[Duppers]

180. Same here. nt

[whereisjustice]

155. when people claim they have nothing to lose, what they really mean is they have nothing

worth protecting. Not even their children, or grand children.

I've never seen such treasonous talk from Democrats about the sanctity and purity of the Government's right, no, correct that, the Government's obligation to collect, analyze and retain the communications, purchase history medical history, internet activity of its citizens.

And the reason these security concern apologists are so comfortable asserting this, in spite of the history of lies and deception of over defense, intelligence and police agencies over the our history? Because our Democratic National Committee supports the practice in a stupid goddamn political posture to look tough on terror.

Democrats and Republicans are locked arm in arm, destroying centuries of protections from search and seizure designed to protect Americans from the tyranny and injustice of Government corruption.

The Government will use this data to seek out and punish those reporting corruption and illegal activity by Government officials.

They will use this data it interfere in investigations against powerful people.

They will will use this data to manipulate the public into war.

They will use this data interfere in the stock market.

They will will use this data to track and harass protesters and shut down dissent.

It isn't a matter of "if", it is the certainty of "when".

For every Snowden there are 100 more J. Edgar Hoovers, Ted Cruz's, Sean Hannity's, Rush Limbaugh's, Joseph McCarthy's in waiting, convinced that gays, lesbians, women, minorities, environmentalists, peace activists, liberals are destroying America. And they must be watched.

Our police state is representative of the continuous decline of the Democratic Party. Disgusting. Don't sit here and bitch and moan about a lack of interest in voting and then post shit like "I don't mind the Government tracking me and my family because we don't do anything wrong".

[nashville_brook]

170. [phone]

[G_j]

174. nailed it...nt

[woo me with science]

204. +100000

[Mister Nightowl]

157. AMEN!

[Helen Borg]

159. Well said

[SidDithers]

161. A whole fucking thread of Chris Crocker...

too funny.



Sid

[BeyondGeography]

203. I was tempted to start a "SnowWald skeptics post your sleeping strategies here" thread

last night. But it would have interfered with my sleep.

[Number23]

230. And the same folks that are always super quiet when there is (relative) unity here

are jumping up and down like kangaroos in this thread. This thread is nothing but a bunch of ill informed opinion and personal attacks posted as fact.

And it really IS funny. It's hysterical the depths that some here will go to to act as though they represent some sort of majority. The rec count proves they're not even a majority on this web site despite the incessant high fives and attaboys (not to mention the hidden posts).

[SidDithers]

257. Yup. Must be getting close to election time...

the FUDers are out in full force.



Sid

[rhett o rick]

173. Authoritarian* followers sleep good at night.

They like to believe that their leaders are honest, trustworthy, and need no accountability.

They hate those that try to upset their carefully crafted bubbles of denial. They hate whistle-blowers, investigative journalists, protestors (OWS) and government transparency. They use ad hominem attacks on those that ask for transparency, rationalizing that we don't need transparency in government. They have blind faith in their leaders.

Some will rationalize that we might have needed transparency during the Bush admin but we don't now with Pres Obama. They not seem to understand that the very powerful NSA/CIA Security State that was given carte blanche control and an unlimited budget under the Bush admin is the exact same organization today. We have no reason to trust them. We need to have oversight.


*Authoritarian - adj. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority (NSA/CIA), as against individual freedom.

The term "authoritarian" is not pejorative.

[polichick]

178. True. Their leaders are honest. Their priests don't rape children...

Their fantasy works for them and allows a very good night's sleep.

[rhett o rick]

181. You got it. Sadly they must not be completely convinced because they have to

try so desperately to convince others that ignorance is bliss.

[JoeyT]

182. Most of them defended torture and slept well at night.

After that, not much is going to grate on the conscience.

[OnyxCollie]

211. Authoritarianism is not bound by party ID. nt

[sabrina 1]

213. The good news is that those who attack messengers, when they perceive the

message reflects badly on THEIR team, are now in the minority. Polls show that the majority of the American people support the messenger, Snowden eg.

What is so despicable about those who attack the messenger is that we KNOW, because we have now seen it play out on both sides, that those messenger attackers would support the SAME MESSAGE if THEIR team were out of office, and HAVE.

So the answer to 'how do they sleep at night', they have no conscience, well, have subjugated their normal human reaction to massive corruption and anti-Constitutional actions, bordering on treason, to their team's best interests, probably for some believing that THEIR team, while engaging in things they are uneasy about, will NEVER abuse their power!!!

To call that delusional is to be kind. Even the FFs warned against trusting, EVEN THEMSELVES, aware of human frailty.

But they are imo, responsible, these team loyalists, for the state of affairs we find ourselves in, on both sides. It is THEY who give legitimacy to the illegitimate, on both sides, making it extremely hard for those who want to retain this democracy to actually do so.

I feel more anger towards them now, than the actual perps, who could not get away with their crimes without those enablers.

[20score]

217. Thanks Sabrina! Well said! Complete cognitive dissonance on their part. And they anger

me to no end. The same thought processes as the Bush team, but much more embarrassing. I expected more and was obviously wrong to do so.

All throughout this thread they proved themselves unable to think clearly, or even recognize what they're doing. "But Greenwald! But Snowden!" Who cares, they were never the story, and that's my point.

[sabrina 1]

219. They are enablers, and at this point, I have nothing but contempt for anyone who

enables disaster for this country, not out of ignorance, but out of opportunism, the worst possible excuse for doing so. The ignorant can become informed, but there is no hope for those who ARE informed but choose their team over their country and fellow citizens. No more tolerance for them, their apologetics and excuses for what they know is wrong, or said they did when Bush was in charge, deserve nothing but contempt.

Snowden is a hero, as is Manning and Greenwald and no amount of bought-and-paid-for talking points can or will change that.

Thank you for your comments, 20score.

[20score]

224. Proud to call you my new DU friend!

[NealK]

222. +1

Well said Sabrina.

[20score]

221. It pains me to see people who call themselves Democrats making the same

arguments that the Bushies made a few years ago. Not only the same degrading, intelligence insulting tactics, but the very same arguments.

I am very ashamed of some in my party. Taking the side of power when it's clearly in the wrong, against weaker targets trying to do the right thing. The people defending the NSA, et al, are causing lasting damage to investigative journalists, whistle-blowers, our economy, our national standing in the world, to anyone trying to weaken the hold money has over our politicians, to free expression, and the list goes on. Without privacy, there can be no real freedom.

These people and the Bushies before them who defended the spying years ago, have now firmly entrenched these programs, which will only grow in size and scope.

When the authoritarians - and that is what you people are, if you don't the term, then do the right thing - switch sides again during the next republican presidency, it will be too late.

[Andy823]

227. Interesting.

Once again you resort to calling everyone who does not agree with you "authoritarians". Then you go on to say anyone who disagrees wit you should switch sides. Isn't what you are saying an example of "authoritarian" thinking?

I don't care if you want to put these two libertarians up as some kind of hero, that's up to you, but you shouldn't stick labels on others simply because they disagree with you.

Now sense "this" thread is about Greenwald, as well as Snowden, could you perhaps tell me where all the ground breaking information is that Greenwald keeps saying he will release soon is? Can you show me a link perhaps with all the names of those the NSA was spying on might be?

[20score]

228. Yes.

https://www.aclu.org/nsa-documents-search

And as I posted earlier in the link:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an
adjective
1. favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

It's an accurate label. Tough shit if you don't like it.

[treestar]

261. No it is not

It is not the same thing as respecting the rule of law in this country, which does have a rule of law. Maybe flaws exist, but it generally follows the law, as immigrants from nations that don't will tell you.

Tough shit if you can't deal with that.

[woo me with science]

223. Those who build surveillance machines

also build propaganda machines.

At the risk of being repetitive, I think it's important to keep explicit what we are really dealing with here:

The real reason a very loud few are posting hostility toward Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden at DU (256 recs)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036592

....

Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796

Salon: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal: Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

Snowden: ‘Training Guide’ for GCHQ, NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media Online
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/

The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting posters is blatant and unnatural.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

The government figured out sockpuppet management but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454

Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741

Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351

Corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats/neoliberals sure spend a lot of time attacking the same people and defending the same policies. So much in common that they almost seem like the very same people:

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

[L0oniX]

259. ^^^THIS^^^

[JEB]

262. Excellent post and every link is worth studying.

[Karmadillo]

312. It is never a mistake to click on one of your posts. Thanks

for taking the time to put this information together.

[Mira]

263. I would like to recommend this

as many times as my foot can hit the floor before it gives out or I fall asleep

[20score]

287. You rock!

[ucrdem]

286. Kick for another sour grapes meta blowout.

Who can resist a good trainwreck?

[Major Hogwash]

291. Meanwhile, back at the farm, the Hardy Boys have discovered the murderer's bandana!!!

[ucrdem]

311. The Hardy Boys and the Trail of Tears

The CATO clan was in a panic. Election day was fast approaching and polls were starting to favor Democrats. That's when the Hardys noticed a funny smell . . .

[R.Quinn]

303. "How do they sleep at night?"

Great question. Fortunately, the NSA has video footage of that.

[Blue_Tires]

304. In case you're still wondering, I've been sleeping much better the past few nights

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)

I'll keep you updated regularly, 20score

[woo me with science]

305. Kick for conscience.

[druidity33]

309. this thread was an eye-opener... K&R,nt.

[Major Hogwash]

314. I agree.

I think this thread was created by the Illuminati to distract us from voting!!!

[Blue_Tires]

315. Still sleeping fine...Any other questions?

[Blue_Tires]

317. You might ask how Greenwald sleeps at night on his bed of $100 bills

After he sold Matt Taibbi down the river to protect his lavish little clubhouse

I already know Snowden sleeps under the armed guard of the FSB, since he's been such a generous and useful asset to the Russian government...

[Blue_Tires]

318. Daily update:

Still sleeping fine...Any other questions?

[20score]

319. Not that you would understand. But thanks for the kick.

[Blue_Tires]

320. You asked me a question, and I answered...

I do still have some unanswered questions in #109, now that you've decided to re-join the thread...

And I'm more than happy to keep this thread pinned to the top with Greenwald in the news for all the wrong reasons...

[20score]

321. Greenwald is not the story. Until those who are willfully ignorant

or otherwise incapacitated get that, I'm glad you will keep reminding people about the spying and so many other crimes connected to the scandal.

Unless you can prove you have always been supportive of ubiquitous spying, nothing you say or ask about has any meaning. You have proved yourself a dishonest broker.

[Blue_Tires]

322. Put me on ignore then, tough guy

because I promise you I won't be silent about it...

Your not being able to handle an opposing viewpoint is your problem...

And unilaterally condemning everyone who dares to throw a critical glance in St. Greenwald's direction is not going to advance the global campaign for civil liberties, no matter how much you'd wish it might...

But please continue...I'm an NSA shill; a Pentagon-funded troll...I've already been called much worse in my time on DU, so gimmie whatcha got

[20score]

323. Must have touched a nerve.

Whine on you crazy baby. I won't put you on ignore, I'll just ignore you.

[Blue_Tires]

325. I slept pretty well last night

considering I had to get up at 4:45 to work the early shift at the polls


So how has your sleep been lately? Getting a good night's rest is important!

[Blue_Tires]

324. Slept like the dead over this weekend...

How have you been sleeping lately??

[20score]

329. I know it's not right, and I feel bad about it, but at this point your

OCD is cracking me up.

I could suggest getting a friend, or going outside; but I'm sure you've heard it before.

[Blue_Tires]

330. To be specific, it's more of a bipolar-passive/aggressive thing

exacerbated by stress and self-loathing...

Glad to see it can bring some enjoyment to somebody...

[LawDeeDah]

326. Do the attacks on Taibbi from those 'journalists' keep You up at night?

How can you sleep, knowing your heroes smeared MT with that 'allegation' of sexual harassment, the incident that probably didn't happen and the staffer doesn't want to pursue - but, ya know, those futuristic comic book hero journalists just had to include that little rotten tiddy biddy because they are so transparent, and honest and wouldn't want to hide anything from anyone. How could THEY sleep at night if they didn't insinuate that bullshit as a pre-emptive strike against Taibbi?

I wonder what Pierre ordered Greenwald and the rest to write about today. Or what he edited out/in on the scripts they must hand in to him for approval.

[woo me with science]

328. Kick!

[Blue_Tires]

331. Maybe you need to ask how the fuck your boy Rand Paul sleeps at night?

Because I sure as hell don't know...

[Blue_Tires]

332. Glenn Greenwald just reprinted in full a mostly-positive review of his book on the Intercept

Did I mention that this book review is from the CIA's own internal papers?? And *I* am supposed to be the one with a guilty conscience?

[Blue_Tires]

333. Even you can't ignore this one, which ended exactly as I predicted

http://news.yahoo.com/germany-drop-probe-us-spying-merkel-report-140630619.html

[Blue_Tires]

334. Meanwhile, the Intercept has fired all of Taibbi's former hires

Greenwald gave a tongue bath to Chomsky, and after collecting two more meaningless awards, Snowden's big scoop is letting us all know we infiltrated Qaddafi's communications before taking him out...

Yup, that's real journalism and whistleblowing in the public interest...

If you like, I can get into that whole Tor debacle on twitter that the secret society of Snowdenistas find themselves in after slandering/smearing two outspoken critics and unapologetically doxxing the third...Or maybe I'll save that for a later post....

[20score]

335. You have been harassing me for over a month now.

I don't know if you're a paid douche bag (that seems the most logical) or you're just a reactionary, ideological, authoritarian, obsessive double bag, trying to convince himself of a disgusting narrative that makes no sense.

Either way, you should be embarrassed by your obvious lack of critical thinking skills and your role as a propagandist.

I spent years arguing with and debating right wingers who used the same tactics as you use. You haven't improved on their methods of lying, ad hominems and misdirection - plus an admirable ability to ignore any and all facts that contradict your worldview. But good luck with your part time job, or your never ending quest for perpetual delusion.

I'm sure this will be alerted on, but it's been over a month of your bullshit before I got personal.

[Blue_Tires]

336. Why would I ever alert?

Even when I did alert in days past, juries would let the posts stand anyway, so what's the point?

Not quite sure why you term this "harassment"; it was you who challenged any critics of Snowden/Greenwald on DU (with a pretty accusatory and inflammatory title, I might add)...If you want to say I've got a grudge or axe to grind or whatever, then fine...But because I see this as a long-term battle, and because I have every conviction that I will eventually be proven right, it's only natural that when I get a bit of ammo in the news, I come back here to fire it...I personally don't think that's "harassment", but if the admins disagree then I'll stand by their ruling...Or, if you wish to continue this in a fresh thread, I'm game...And if you've grown weary of these tête-à-têtes (and even I'll admit they are starting to be counterproductive), just say the word and I'll put you on ignore and never see you again...

No need to apologize for the insults, I realize that's just business...I've been called much worse from your side (including here on DU), and I've been threatened with worse elsewhere...Since I've already been made into an unlovable villain on a forum I'd long admired and respected, why not embrace the role fully??

[mrdmk]

337. K & R, just for a re-read...

[Blue_Tires]

338. In light of what has happened since, maybe I need to

ask how the fuck YOU sleep at night...

(Yes, I have a long memory)

EDIT: Oh, never mind! I see the OP has since defected to Jackpine Radicals! How appropriate...

[Blue_Tires]

339. Ask me how I'm sleeping now!

http://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hpsci_snowden_review_declassified.pdf

[Blue_Tires]

340. I'm sleeping fine... How are YOU sleeping?

I noticed you haven't been back since I've been proven correct on 90% of my arguments... Such a pity nobody wants to play with me anymore....