Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Vinnie From Indy

(10,820 posts)
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 02:11 PM Jun 2013

Greenwald's Latest - He is counter punching to great effect! [View all]

On PRISM, partisanship and propaganda

I did, though, want to note a few points, and particularly highlight what Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez said after Congress on Wednesday was given a classified briefing by NSA officials on the agency's previously secret surveillance activities:


"What we learned in there is significantly more than what is out in the media today. . . . I can't speak to what we learned in there, and I don't know if there are other leaks, if there's more information somewhere, if somebody else is going to step up, but I will tell you that I believe it's the tip of the iceberg . . . . I think it's just broader than most people even realize, and I think that's, in one way, what astounded most of us, too."

The Congresswoman is absolutely right: what we have reported thus far is merely "the tip of the iceberg" of what the NSA is doing in spying on Americans and the world. She's also right that when it comes to NSA spying, "there is significantly more than what is out in the media today", and that's exactly what we're working to rectify.

But just consider what she's saying: as a member of Congress, she had no idea how invasive and vast the NSA's surveillance activities are. Sen. Jon Tester, who is a member of the Homeland Security Committee, said the same thing, telling MSNBC about the disclosures that "I don't see how that compromises the security of this country whatsoever" and adding: "quite frankly, it helps people like me become aware of a situation that I wasn't aware of before because I don't sit on that Intelligence Committee."

How can anyone think that it's remotely healthy in a democracy to have the NSA building a massive spying apparatus about which even members of Congress, including Senators on the Homeland Security Committee, are totally ignorant and find "astounding" when they learn of them? How can anyone claim with a straight face that there is robust oversight when even members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are so constrained in their ability to act that they are reduced to issuing vague, impotent warnings to the public about what they call radical "secret law" enabling domestic spying that would "stun" Americans to learn about it, but are barred to disclose what it is they're so alarmed by? Put another way, how can anyone contest the value and justifiability of the stories that we were able to publish as a result of Edward Snowden's whistleblowing: stories that informed the American public - including even the US Congress - about these incredibly consequential programs? What kind of person would think that it would be preferable to remain in the dark - totally ignorant - about them?
***********************************************
Greenwald is not afraid to go after many alleged liberal voices in the media either. He calls them out for their duplicity on these issues.

More at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism

163 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Let's see if he can counter-punch his way out of prosecution. MjolnirTime Jun 2013 #1
I guess it be more efficient if we just start nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #3
Now careful timdog44 Jun 2013 #12
Well, this is the reigning attitude. nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #16
I have always enjoyed your posts. Been meaning to say that for a while. Figured now was good. DRoseDARs Jun 2013 #124
Glad it did. nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #125
and many here would cheer that on villager Jun 2013 #35
Yup nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #63
I know what you mean villager Jun 2013 #151
Agree, at least we see who the Authoritarians are Katashi_itto Jun 2013 #154
He won't be prosecuted. cali Jun 2013 #4
I tend to agree. It will never see a courtroom. 99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #92
Sometimes it's hard to get a point out of one sentence but let me try. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #8
Read a few more of this guys posts it is all there HangOnKids Jun 2013 #48
1st Amendment Hydra Jun 2013 #9
Can't we really just boil down the Bill of Rights to this? BlueStreak Jun 2013 #32
Not true. caseymoz Jun 2013 #155
Austerity! LondonReign2 Jun 2013 #33
Nah, we can just do a little modification. dairydog91 Jun 2013 #110
Yeah, the hell with all that "free press" stuff... ljm2002 Jun 2013 #13
Wow... How Un-American Are You ??? WillyT Jun 2013 #15
So, you are in favor of a reporter being criminally prosecuted? I thought SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #20
fascist much? n/t RainDog Jun 2013 #27
Thank you. Opinions such as this are the Shield and Sword of our Party. n/t jtuck004 Jun 2013 #65
You misspelled "persecution". n/t backscatter712 Jun 2013 #118
ThunderDerp WilliamPitt Jun 2013 #130
Beyond ThunderDerp n/t Aerows Jun 2013 #134
There will be no prosecution of Greenwald. Jackpine Radical Jun 2013 #153
So Sanchez likely didn't go to the previous intelligence briefings and she learned something. randome Jun 2013 #2
You are all over the map on this. On one hand you try to assure us that the NSA rhett o rick Jun 2013 #10
The two intelligence subcommittes are kept fully informed. randome Jun 2013 #23
You cant have it both ways. You cant mock Congress with a statement like: rhett o rick Jun 2013 #28
The worst thing is this. Fuddnik Jun 2013 #36
You bring up a great point. We have no idea how much or how little influence the rhett o rick Jun 2013 #42
Congress as represented by the two intelligence subcommittees. randome Jun 2013 #38
I believe they are very limited as to what they can tell Congress. Secrecy and all that, you know. n rhett o rick Jun 2013 #44
You may be right. I'm not sure if there is a better solution. randome Jun 2013 #54
Damn, you got me in a corner. I dont have a better idea. This is going to get very sticky with rhett o rick Jun 2013 #59
You're really dense about this, aren't you Hydra Jun 2013 #40
They're not allowed to talk to me and you about it. randome Jun 2013 #50
So again Hydra Jun 2013 #58
Except that FISC has decided to release that secret ruling. OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #72
Oh, you mean this? Hydra Jun 2013 #91
Shoulda said "would not object to release". OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #94
Yup, and at that point we're screwed Hydra Jun 2013 #99
"Fully informed"....... LOL bvar22 Jun 2013 #43
That was a public, televised hearing. randome Jun 2013 #52
He lied. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2013 #68
He LIED to a Senator and to America. bvar22 Jun 2013 #81
Lies are to cover up something more serious than lying. HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #96
If you don't have the first clue about WHAT they are "covering up", bvar22 Jun 2013 #113
Your examples are exactly why I think the lies are an attempt to cover up something bigger. HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #114
Oops! My bad. bvar22 Jun 2013 #162
hey mr or mrs body language, me again Monkie Jun 2013 #101
Nope, didn't lie AceWheeler Jun 2013 #157
Nope! He outright LIED, bvar22 Jun 2013 #163
Exactly. timdog44 Jun 2013 #17
Guess his post about ProSense Jun 2013 #5
HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Jun 2013 #6
Very courageous with the truth Catherina Jun 2013 #7
Such a tease. OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #77
They loved him when he was going after Bush. And that's why they hate him now, he points out the sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #11
I definitely didn't love Greenwald when he said in his book he agreed with going to war in Iraq stevenleser Jun 2013 #21
That makes no sense. That 2006 book was about the Bush admin and it included scathing criticism. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #34
I think so, yes. He's overcompensating for initially missing it on Iraq. stevenleser Jun 2013 #39
So, 3 books and millions of words against the Bush Admin are because he is overcompensating. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #73
Oh snap! Vinnie From Indy Jun 2013 #105
Why, thank you! Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #106
:-) DeSwiss Jun 2013 #140
!! bobduca Jun 2013 #156
I loved him even more for that. Someone who sincerely cared enough about his country to admit to sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #60
The problem here is that timdog44 Jun 2013 #87
Wrong, so completely wrong I do not know where to start. Hillary Clinton knew about the real sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #139
Even though I know you timdog44 Jun 2013 #145
That was a really lovely post, timdog. I made an OP about this and I'll reproduce it below. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #158
Thank you for that. timdog44 Jun 2013 #159
He supported a narrower ruling. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #160
I can follow the logic he employs. timdog44 Jun 2013 #161
I didn't like him when he agreed with the CITIZENS UNITED ruling. MADem Jun 2013 #80
And another reason timdog44 Jun 2013 #88
He's always sucked because he's always been willing to lie for a story. MjolnirTime Jun 2013 #26
Sorry he isn't your BFF anymore HangOnKids Jun 2013 #49
Never caught him in a lie and I've been reading him since he started. He has made mistakes sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #53
Do you have some backing, or does this get filed under "Internet Man Makes Baseless Claim"? DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #74
That cracked me up Aerows Jun 2013 #135
Well said. Sadly there are Democrats that yield to the comforting call of authoritarianism and the rhett o rick Jun 2013 #47
They can't be reasoned out of a belief Maedhros Jun 2013 #95
Sometimes reality is tough to swallow. You cant force it. Whistle-blowers shake up those rhett o rick Jun 2013 #97
for the 80th time, Bush did more treestar Jun 2013 #61
So, what? He's not in office anymore and there is still massive surveillance... Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #112
He's ProSense Jun 2013 #64
Well, I agree that neither of them are the story, despite all the efforts to make them the story. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #69
Good question: marions ghost Jun 2013 #14
I wonder timdog44 Jun 2013 #22
Don't know much about you timdog44 marions ghost Jun 2013 #30
You make me cry. I am an emotional man just like my Dad was. timdog44 Jun 2013 #71
LOL, I'd be better as a speechwriter marions ghost Jun 2013 #104
Sound like I better set up an exploratory timdog44 Jun 2013 #116
I'll tell you exactly what they do. Fuddnik Jun 2013 #55
That is the timdog44 Jun 2013 #78
Spot on. It's obscene, but it is the truth. Laelth Jun 2013 #100
I have a cerebrally challenged Congressman. (I call him Rain Man). Fuddnik Jun 2013 #147
And that timdog44 Jun 2013 #152
It would be nice to know if she'd taken advantage of the 19 previous briefings pnwmom Jun 2013 #18
Christopher Boyce said that Snowden is doomed. Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #19
There are two separate issues for me. pnwmom Jun 2013 #24
I am getting confused. One one hand people are claiming that the spy programs only compile rhett o rick Jun 2013 #51
If you are confused (which I doubt) it's because there's more than one thing going on. pnwmom Jun 2013 #56
PRISM targets anything it wants--foreign or domestic marions ghost Jun 2013 #82
Where does it say that this information is collected in the US without a warrant? pnwmom Jun 2013 #103
You might want to do more research nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #111
The Verizon matter is NOT the same as PRISM. You keep mixing them up. pnwmom Jun 2013 #120
And that makes it better... nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #121
If you're not confused, then you are just wrong. pnwmom Jun 2013 #122
And section 215 is the verizon production order nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #123
One of the comments on that Vanity Fair article says this: marions ghost Jun 2013 #126
Tier one is how echellon also worked nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #133
Excellent article marions ghost Jun 2013 #128
Yeah, they really don't nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #129
That's the impression I'm getting... marions ghost Jun 2013 #136
It could be politics nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #137
yeah marions ghost Jun 2013 #138
Greenwald lives in Brazil and works for a UK paper azurnoir Jun 2013 #25
Maybe not. They have refused requests for extradition before. They Cleita Jun 2013 #29
What are we charging this journalist with again? LondonReign2 Jun 2013 #37
How about being a piss-poor journalist? randome Jun 2013 #41
Well, that might work. If you are an idiot LondonReign2 Jun 2013 #45
Oh you're just mad because he dared to upset your reality bubble. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #98
at this point nothing but there has been speculation azurnoir Jun 2013 #62
Probably nothing. OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #84
That is interesting LondonReign2 Jun 2013 #115
they seem desperate enough to declare war on Brazil carolinayellowdog Jun 2013 #119
Greenwald works for the Guardian US which in incorporated in the US and has offices in NY City. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #108
K&R woo me with science Jun 2013 #31
How much is it that those in Congress really did not know about it all CanonRay Jun 2013 #46
Well, we could ask 2000 John Conyers nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #86
Excellent article. I bookmarked that. Catherina Jun 2013 #89
What "massive spying apparatus" treestar Jun 2013 #57
This one KurtNYC Jun 2013 #66
that's just a building treestar Jun 2013 #102
Look up the definition of "massive". Fuddnik Jun 2013 #67
Bloomberg article: Myrina Jun 2013 #75
You know, the largest one in the history of the planet, that Obama has expanded. That one. DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #76
What rock are you living under? nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #85
Yottabytes of data sounds massive to anyone not cheering creeping facism. HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #93
We have descended to the absurd. bvar22 Jun 2013 #109
du rec. xchrom Jun 2013 #70
Update to Greenwald's latest cites NYT article on Yahoo challenge to PRISM ProSense Jun 2013 #79
It's my understanding ... Texano78704 Jun 2013 #83
I'm impressed by the way that he promotes his own "heroism" MrScorpio Jun 2013 #90
Sweet baby Jeebus! Vinnie From Indy Jun 2013 #107
You know, I'm not faulting him for his efforts to expose how the government is wrong here MrScorpio Jun 2013 #117
Please, please, tell me you're on twitter... loop204 Jun 2013 #127
Yep, I'm on Twitter alright MrScorpio Jun 2013 #131
Thank you... n/t loop204 Jun 2013 #132
This is better handled by Financial Writers. KoKo Jun 2013 #148
You can't 'un-rotten' an apple. - K&R n/t DeSwiss Jun 2013 #141
k&r avaistheone1 Jun 2013 #142
I don't know who kicked this... ReRe Jun 2013 #143
. blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #144
Tip of the iceburg davidpdx Jun 2013 #146
And remember both WaPo and Guardian have had staff vett the info. KoKo Jun 2013 #149
I think you may mean "affect" nt gulliver Jun 2013 #150
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Greenwald's Latest - He i...