I’m up with insomnia. Happens every so often.
So here’s a thought-
Most of the recent revelations’ good AND bad regarding our government’s covert activities’ legal or not, good or bad, have come to us via “impure vessels.”
Bradley Manning isn’t anyone’s idea of a good Soldier. This other guy has some issues too, or so it seems. * The conduits through which these men choose to act are themselves less than ideal. Julian Assange is a con man who strung his most lucrative source along for months and then left him high and dry, not even willing to make good on his half-assed pledge to donate money for PART of Manning’s defense fund. Greenwald is a prickly sanctimonious blow-hard frequently more dedicated to self-promotion than the accuracy of his work.
In other words, they are imperfect vessels. And while it is right to look at their specific claims with a healthy dose of skepticism, let’s not lose sight of the fact that these men have brought up subjects that we should be discussing. This shit is important, as my dad would say.
A lot of important things we take for granted came about because of imperfect vessels. I’m pretty sure no one would give up the right to be informed of the charges against them, and their rights at arrest, even though Miranda was a violent psychopath. I doubt Clarence Gideon would make many short lists for dinner invitations, but I’m damn glad for the protections that came from his case.
So let’s have those discussions, and not in Mitt Romney’s quiet rooms out in the open, loudly and honestly, the way Americans are supposed to do. Manning, by his own admission, should be in jail. So should this other guy, probably. But like Gideon and Miranda, the rest of us do owe them a debt of sorts, and we would do well to remember that.
* I’m on my tablet here at 5:00 AM, so I’m not going to hunt down details. They’re available in previous threads. Go knock yourselves out.
Thlayli
Assange’s “I’m so badass the US government wants to kill me” schtick would be funny if he wasn’t using it to duck rape charges.
Baud
Seems like we’ve been discussing it a lot. The problem is that we’ve already gotten to the point of going round and round with the same talking points. Absent new facts that will help move the discussion forward, we probably will be stuck here for a little while.
NotMax
And the point attempted is what, exactly?
Daniel Ellsberg was seeing a psychiatrist.
Again, so what?
There are no perfect vessels.
Dissect the message, not the messenger.
Louis
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
Anne Laurie
Smart analogies, Sooner. Thanks for adding something new to the discussion.
WereBear
If we combine these incidents with the President’s speech on “let’s reboot the War on Terror” we could get somewhere.
The Internet is a far better place to discuss it, in any case. Looks at Brooks! Look at Meet the Press! Look at anything on the usual airwaves!
We won’t get anything useful out of there for a while yet.
bjacques
‘Twas ever thus. Well-adjusted people rarely make (or precipitate) history, found empires, open up new areas of culture, etc.
Also, too, rights are often gained or defended on behalf of someone you don’t like. If they have rights, so do you.
Chyron HR
@NotMax:
“These men have brought up subjects that we should be discussing,” or if you prefer, “dissect the message, not the messenger.”
Oh, but he BLASPHEMED against the patron saints of Pure Progressiveness! Burn him, he’s a witch!
Soonergrunt
@Anne Laurie: thanks!
lakeview
Seldom talked about in the Snowden case is the fact that all the info that Greenwald has released is already known, there is nothing new here. If you have ever read James Bamford’s books or articles, this is not new or reveling of new info about what the NSA is doing on domestic info gathering. There is something about this that stinks, really stinks, from the source, to the reporter, and the leaked info itself that does not ring true. Old and known info, nothing on the enginering of how its done (which I find wierd coming from an IT guy), and the escape to the PRC that already has a NSA listing post in China since 1973 at Lop Nor in the northwest, so the tactics and capabiliies of what the NSA can do is already known to them. I could go on about the things about this that make my bullshit meter peg in the red, but enough to say I want to see what Greenwald is going to release next and see if there in any there there.
Linda Featheringill
It’s a good thing that these conversations are happening. But sometimes I doubt the shock and outrage. Didn’t these people see Enemy of the State?
4tehlulz
>Greenwald is a prickly sanctimonious blow-hard frequently more dedicated to self-promotion than the accuracy of his work.
That seems more like a critical defect than an mere imperfection to me.
Soonergrunt
@lakeview: I think that’s important to remember. I also think that GG knows that, and is playing the whole “lookie here what I just found” schtick for his own reasons.
Bob h
“prickly, sanctimonious blowhard”.
I’m glad you said that, because I can’t stand Glenn Greenwald.
Every so often you get a glimpse of why conservatives hate us so much, and Greenwald is one such example.
the Conster
It’s not possible to have a serious discussion any more, anywhere than online in blogs. Our media and politicians are useless, because the discussion is always about the politics and not the policies – another thing we can thank the GWB years for, and anyway, the time for discussing the policies was when everyone was running around with their heads up their asses when the Patriot Act was passed. What did everyone think was going to happen? It was so obvious we’d end up here, and now that we’re here, I still don’t know who’s been damaged, except everyone’s illusory sense of privacy. If Greenwald shed some actual light on that, I wouldn’t impute his motives like he’s so fond of doing to everyone else. As far as Snowden, I just think I feel sorry for him, especially if he thinks Greenwald is his friend. Greenwald is not his friend.
cvstoner
Nobody’s perfect :-)
Rex Everything
Impure vessels. Very true.
Let’s also remember that the career politicians, so many of whom have mastered the art of coming across as unprickly non-con men, free of nasty “issues” and unconcerned with self-promotion, are actually the very worst of the bunch. Even Democrats. If you can believe it.
But what Soonergrunt says remains true. Not only today; it’s always been true. What GG writes about every day is more important than whether he’s an asshole; the contents of any given Assange post are more important than his personal failings. And even pols do nontrivial things now and then.
Everyone is able to grasp, e.g., that John Lennon made worthwhile music even while he was a woman-beating creep. This is if anything a purer application of the same principle.
Lavocat
There are only imperfect vessels.
Go look in the mirror for further confirmation of same.
Betty Cracker
I have my doubts about our ability to have an open, honest debate about any topic anymore. As you rightly point out, it’s possible to believe any number of things — that GG is a self-aggrandizing prick, that Snowden is a narcissistic Paultroon, that the wingnuts who are leaping up and down about “NSA-gate” are craven hypocrites — and still be concerned about the surveillance state.
But mostly people seem to be staking out tribal positions as if the never-ending horse race were the important issue. I blame Politico.
Schlemizel
Show me a perfect vessel & I’ll be moved. All vessels are imperfect
The problem is we can’t have any kind of honest debate in this country any more. The field is too crowded with liars and con-men interested in power and money. They lead armies of paranoids, bed-wetters, racists, troglodytes and just plain loonies. Left, right, center these armies drowned out any reasonable debate based on facts or designed to improve our condition. The trick is to figure out who benefits from this chaos, they are the real enemy
AnonPhenom
Yes, yes, yes, we slightly higher information voters/citizens have long suspected and ‘known’ of the existence of the security states various programs to ‘keep us safe’ from the terrorists (and drugs, and each other and whatever)
We now have confirmation.
Public hearings anyone?
Federal Public Advocate?
An affirmative Right to Privacy Amendment? (limiting what both government and corporations can do with individuals personal information)
Etc…
Narcissus
Until we do something about the Patriot Act we’re just rearranging the furniture. PRISM, whatever the hell it is, is just the latest iteration of a long line of these same damn efforts. They all stem from the Patriot Act. PRISM is just the current form of Total Information Awareness. Even if you do raise enough of a stink to scrap PRISM, Total Information Awareness will just pop up somewhere else, called something else, later on down the road and we’ll do this same song and dance again just as we’ve done it before, all the while the Oligarchic project to dismantle our public sphere proceeds apace — doesn’t it strike you as convenient that this issue, this festering wound of the last decade just happens to be another nail in the coffin of our functioning government? So what do we do about Patriot Act?
And don’t just say “vote for my candidates*”, because our legislature might as well have ceased to exist. It’s no wonder this debate keeps devolving into pro and anti Obama arguments considering the nature of our government is now contingent on the character of the man in the Oval Office.
*Elizabeth Warren won’t save us.
Omnes Omnibus
@NotMax:The point is rather this, I would think:
Todd
Test on FYWP
Omnes Omnibus
@Lavocat: The mirror crack’d from side to side.
Todd
Glenn Greenwald completely embraced Gluteus Maximus Matthew Hale.
When Hale was sued civilly by the victims of his white supremac!st shooter, he had this to say:
This from the guy who unethically recorded witnesses.
>
And when given messages to carry by Hale to the outside world, he has a memory that goes a little coy.
And of course, Glenn Greenwald thinks Matthew Hale is wrongly imprisoned by Prosecutor Fitzgerald.
“Mr. Greenwald, who said he believed that Mr. Hale was wrongly imprisoned, said he did not recall the exact message Ms. Hutcheson relayed to him, or the person it was intended for, but that he had declined to deliver it. He called the message “a caricature of what a coded message would be.””
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03…..;position=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211
Todd
Glenn Greenwald completely embraced Gluteus Maximus Matthew Hale.
When Hale was sued civilly by the victims of his white supremacist shooter, he had this to say:
This from the guy who unethically recorded witnesses.
“The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel’s conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;” and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating “a lawyer shall not … use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person.””ANDERSON v. HALE 159 F.Supp.2d 1116 ”
…
“A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants’ counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use.” Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001),”
And when given messages to carry by Hale to the outside world, he has a memory that goes a little coy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211
Joseph Nobles
Greenwald is another Grover Norquist. They both pick a Themopylaic issue, choose an absolutist position, and lock shields for the duration. Plus, both excel at trash talking.
Kay
But no one would remember them at all if they hadn’t made new law. They aren’t judged on their personalities or moral failings because what they accomplished eclipsed that. That takes time. That’s the measure we use, “does it stick, does it change something for the better?” and that seems like a fair measure to me.
Todd
@Rex Everything:
Further, Greenwald said, “I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me.”
He’s more than just an asshole; he’s a conservative Paulite, loaded with quiet antisemitism and race hatred.
raven
@Todd: Isn’t he Jewish?
Joseph Nobles
@Narcissus: Actually, I think the Boundless Informant program is the reboot of the Total Information Awareness program. That’s where all the coordination of the various streams of data is accomplished. PRISM is about getting realtime “wiretaps” for electronic communication, pursuant to formal request/warrant, as I understand it.
the Conster
@Todd:
I am an imperfect vessel. Glenn Greenwald is a huge douchecanoe.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Schlemizel:
This is why the imperfections in the messengers are important. We have to eliminate the liars and the con-men before we can trust the message. We have to eliminate the paranoids who are relaying the messages from the voices in their heads.
I don’t ask for perfect vessels. I just ask that the vessels not be sieves.
El Tiburon
Going down the Greenwaldian tunnel of perspective here, could it not be argued that Bradley Manning is indeed THE definition of a ‘good soldier’? Perhaps if the ranks were filled with Bradley Mannings there would have been no My Lai Massacre or Abu Ghraib? Or, is the ‘ideal of a good soldier’ just a mindless robot who obeys order even if it involves slaughtering innocent civilians and unimagineable torture?
Or is he not the “good soldier” because of his sexuality or what? Is he a bit too effiminate? He not a rough and tough grizzled old marine type who gets drunks and gets into good old timey fights and screws prostitutes?
Let’s pretend it was Pat Tillman who provided this information to Wikileaks? Would the information then have more value? Would we all have a different opinion then of its contents?
Manning should be in jail? Moreso than Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld? How about Aaron Schwartz? Should he have gone to jail? And why do we even care about someone so mentally unstable as an Aaron Schwartz and what he had to say? He killed himself for christsakes.
Why should Manning be in jail?
Imagine this: I walk into the local convenient store to rob it. It is empty but in the back I notice a gang of bad guys raping the young cash register girl. My conscience kicks in and I use my gun to shoot the bad guys and chase them off thereby saving the young girl. Am I a criminal or a hero?
President Obama has proven that laws and the application of those laws are obviously arbitrary and capricous. Yet Manning should go to jail? Maybe.
They say that over a million people have top clearance for classified material. That means that a million people may have seen the same information that Manning and Snowden have seen – and have done nothing. Perhaps they should all go to jail.
hildebrand
First, a bit of a nit to pick with your analogy – Miranda and Gideon just happened to be the one’s in whose names vital components of our rights have been decided – they themselves did not go out with the intention of bringing about a change in the way our system of justice works. Assange, Snowden, and Manning all made a particular decision to force the issue knowing that they would drive the discussion. I really think these are two significantly different categories.
With that distinction, the very fact that they are very flawed vessels (yes, we are all flawed or impure vessels, but does that mean that we have to use the shattered ones as exemplars – some flaws are worse than others, no?) makes this so difficult. (I don’t actually count Greenwald in this – he hasn’t risked a thing. Which is why Snowden had best not hope for too much help.) If you are going to get out in front of this issue, perhaps even become the face of the issue, than it would help to make certain that the person is at least marginally sympathetic, and perhaps even has an ounce or two of integrity. Saints don’t exist, but scraping close to the bottom half of the barrel does not need to be the only alternative.
Older_Wiser
What I want to know is, why do ordinary people think they’re so important that the govt spies on them? We certainly haven’t gotten to that point yet.
I’m thinking the internet itself contributes to some people’s sense of “importance” (don’t most well-read bloggers want to be on TV, for instance, or “break through” to another medium?).
Greenwald isn’t a journalist; he’s a self-absorbed narcissistic prick and he found a mate in Snowden. Even though too many “journalists” get away with editorializing these days, also. Reporting hearsay, even with poorly designed “powerpoint” presentations, doesn’t make it authentic.
Being suspicious of what your govt is doing can be a good thing and lead to change (isn’t that what a democracy is for? Get busy and off your backside and make change happen). Being a posturing asshole on the internet or on TV is just being a posturing asshole.
Courage, my butt.
El Tiburon
@Thlayli:
Some people will never ever ever ever get it.
Soonergrunt
@Lavocat: you’ll never hear or read me say otherwise.
El Tiburon
@lakeview:
Translated: we knew these facts alreaedy, but greenwald, so it’s not true. What? That’s contradictory statement? Then Greenwald.
debbie
@NotMax:
No, I think both matter. I think these imperfect vessels (as well as most people, period) share an inability to see that a larger picture is at work. Who cares what the cost may be so long as my crusade is the center of attention? Why is it that more and more people seem to think that rules are for other people?
Cassidy
Hell, I’ll say it: Bullshit. The messenger matters. It matters because when you have an agenda, no one gives a fuck what you’re trying to say. “Oh no, GG is writing another anti-Obama piece…”. And yes, we’re now talking about the national security apparatus because of Snowden, who’s story is falling apart due to some [allegedly] self-promoting embellishments. Ernesto Miranda didn’t bring us a message of civil liberties, he was a violent criminal and rapist who had lawyers with some creative thinking. Miranda wasn’t an “imperfect vessel”.
The problem isn’t simple triblism. When a self-serving individual with an agenda, such as GG, says something, you can’t have a conversation without asking what his angle is. He’s not a good person. He lathces onto topics and obsesses like M_C because there is something in it for him. I’d be fine with that, there’s nothing wrong with being a selfish prick, but don’t pretend like you’re doing it for the good of others or on some fucking crusade. There are a lot of good people out there doing good things for others and it cikens me that some delusional shitheads with daddy issues think he belongs in that category.
So yeah, the messenger does matter and this mesenger deserves every ounce of scorn and his mendacious followers running around damp and humming Bonny Tyler should be shunned.
Southern Beale
My take on this, FWIW. The issue is so much bigger than, “ZOMG big bad gummint listening to my phone calls!”
Our discourse is so stupid. I guess is feature, not bug.
Todd
@raven:
In about the same vein as Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas are black.
Kay
@debbie:
I’m not completely comfortable with it, because that’s what “credibility” is, it’s trust built over time based on actions. I think people who have credibility earned it. No one “gave” it to them.
El Tiburon
@Soonergrunt:
Really? So now we are in the world of pure, rank speculation. Since you are speculatin’, what are those reasons?
And if as you and Lakeview claim this is old hat and yesterday’s news, then why is it such a big fucking deal? Is Greenwald THE only prominent pundit-type who thinks so?
Is Daniel Ellsberg a hack for saying this leak was the “most important in US history?” Or is Ellsberg simply a doddering old fool and Greenwald sycophant? If this is truly no big deal and not news, then why is it such a Big Deal and Big News? Ohhh, because Greenwald is such a pompous narcissist and MSM regular that he can single handidly push the news agenda?
Soonergrunt
@Cassidy: as I said, “while it is right to look at their claims with a healthy dose of skepticism…” That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t consider these issues that are (or should be) important to all of us to get right.
Cassidy
No.
Not really. You don’t seem to understand the circumstances surrounding these kinds of incidents.
Has nothing to do with it.
Nope. Still a criminal. Still a traitor.
You people keep bringing this kind of example up. it’s not either/ or. Lots of people deserve to be in jail. Not all of them go. Such is life. That doesn’t absolve Manning for the responsibility of his actions.
Problem solved. Problem staying solved.
Because he committed crimes.
This is stupid. For one, if you didn’t rob anything and only thought about it, then it’s not a crime.
What you want to be a crime vs. what is actually a crime are two different things. You want people to be tried as war criminals, but that doesn’t matter. How you feel is not the same as reality.
That’s not how it works. I’d explain it, but I don’t think you’re interested in anything that doesn’t fit your narrative.
Emma
My problem with the whole thing is that until now I was under the delusion that liberals who commented about the Conservatives’ daddy issues didn’t have any of their own. But there’s a bunch who have latched onto this thing, not on the merits, but because they have to defend Greenwald to their death, no matter what. We joke about the Republicans always looking for a daddy-hero who would make it all better but many of us seem to have the same need. There are people in these threads whose job seems to be to attack whoever expresses any doubts ON THE SUBSTANCE.
The issue is important but the personalities are drowning it. Unfortunate, but not unusual. People who are drowning in information do a form of triage and part of it is “who’s the messenger?” Maybe one of the front pagers would want to discuss the security state without either defending or attacking Greenwald. Neutralize the topic and BAN THE IDIOTS who want to bring personalities into it, we could have a discussion. Otherwise…. the dog will keep trying to catch its tail.
Cassidy
@Soonergrunt: The problem we run into is that we can’t have an honest discussion ebcause we’re too busyt sifting through these people’s bullshit. Just do the right fucking thing and be honest and see what happens.
Older_Wiser
@El Tiburon: The problem w/your analogy is that the law is in place for what the NSA is doing. And I’m not so sure you wouldn’t face charges if you shot those perps in your scenario.
If we want to change the law, that is what we should do–work within its parameters and change it, not commit unlawful deeds and then publicize and bloviate about it.
Greenwald is a lawyer and what he may have done to encourage Snowden is surely grounds for disbarment. He boasts he’s been working with him since Feb–longer than Snowden was employed by Booz Allen, so there’s that, along with the work both are doing with a documentary film maker.
El Tiburon
@Todd:
Greenwald and the ACLU. Always representing whitey .
kwAwk
I’m struck that Glenn Glenwald made his bones as a left wing blogging quasi hero attacking the Bush administration over civil liberties. But now that he’s attacking Obama with tye same ferocity over th same ok issues he’s suddenly now a sanctimonious asshole.
Not sure if this is different at other blogs, but it has got me wondering if you fo lks have started to develop a soft spot in your heart for Dubya too?
Frankensteinbeck
Okay, I think you have a point here. We should be discussing how the patriot act sucks, and what is the acceptable limit of government information gathering. We should be discussing whether or not the war in Afghanistan was worth the carnage any war causes. We should be discussing the AUMF and whether it’s causing more harm than good. Misrepresented descriptions of old systems, edited combat footage, and lies about how due process works have kinda sorta brought these issues into the public sphere, where they were being flat out ignored before. That might be worth it.
Cassidy
Let’s parse this some more. So you’re cool with pointing a gun in her face? You’re okay with traumatizing a young girl for a few bucks? You don’t mind giving someone PTSD, but “your conscience” kicks in because someone else beat you to it? And instead of securing them and holding them prisoner, calling the cops and sitting tight, you start blasting, showering this poor girl on the floor who’s just been sexually assaulted, violated, and probably beaten with blood, maybe brains, and other fluids? And now you wonder if you’d be the hero because you went Charlie Bronson?
What kind of fucked up fantasies do you have?
El Tiburon
@Todd:
Do you know anything about these people Greenwald is referring to? Is it possible they are indeed odious and repugnant?
Emma
@El Tiburon: And this is the perfect example. It wasn’t that he was representing the man; everyone deserves representation, even the worst among us. But when a lawyers viciously attacks the victims’ families the way Greenwald did, I reserve the right to look at everything he does through the prism of distrust. Period.
El Tiburon
@raven:
Yes. But the kind of self-hating Jew who takes a rational, sane approach to the US relationship to Israel.
Frankensteinbeck
@Cassidy:
One of the most difficult to grasp and important issues of our time. Thank you.
El Tiburon
@Todd:
A more racist and ignorant statement on Balloon Juice I don’t believe I have ever read.
Please, go on. Tell us how Greenwald really isn’t Jewish. And please, tell us how Sowell and Thomas really aren’t the right kind of black. And I’m dying to hear about Tiger Woods, Whoopi Goldberg. Oh, but Hallie Berry, she’s the right kind of black- amirite or amirite?
What is the Good Jew in your book. And I must assume you are goy.
magurakurin
I never knew John Lennon beat his wife. How about that?
Personally, I think the Patriot Act should be greatly curtailed, but I think there is a whole calculus that those in charge factor in that most of us maybe don’t. On a number of threads it was pointed out how driving and gun deaths are statistically a much greater threat than terrorism. And for the most part, that is true. After all the steady drumbeat of funerals for auto crashes and gunshots marches on day after day, year after year, but terrorism, not so much. But those incidents are pretty much capped on how bad they can ever get. Even the best of the best gun crazy isn’t going to take out more than say 100 people. Now, terrorism has shown us a jackpot of 3000 but that really isn’t the big progressive jackpot that the slot machine of death promises. I think the folks at the NSA and in the Congress and the Whitehouse always have in the back of their mind the scenario in which someone gets a nuke. Hell, John Kerry tried to alert us to the danger of the loose nukes in Russia, but he was mostly ignored…flip flopping wind surfer. But the reality is that there is that outside longshot chance that it could happen. And god forbid if it should. And the people with access to the real intelligence about the world know just how high the vig is on that longshot.
Maybe it is over the top paranoia on the part of the intelligence community, and surely some of it is just the normal boondoogle budget chasing that goes on in the military/intelligence industrial complex. But it still is something to consider. It changes the math quite a lot if a nuke was denoted in a major city. It would take a long long time for auto accidents to catch up to that. How much privacy should be sacrificed? that’s hard to say without seeing what the real odds are on such a morbid payout.
El Tiburon
@Older_Wiser:
Not to put my cliche hat on here, so you think the Boston Tea Party was the wrong move? Rosa Parks – she should not have sat in that seat? Daniel Ellsberg should not have leaked the Pentagon Papers?
So, according to you, we should all be Good Little Americans and do what we are told. Hey! Don’t videotape that policeman beating the shit out of the kid -it’s against the law!
Maybe check your screen name there and do some deep reflection.
MomSense
First, an assessment of the sources is a critical part of evaluating intelligence. Chalabi said a lot of things that the Bush administration wanted to be true as did Curveball. Don’t you think that vetting these sources would have made the information they provided suspect?
As for Miranda and Gideon–they were not the messengers. Their lawyers were the messengers and if they had conducted themselves in an unethical fashion we would not have Miranda rights or public defenders.
It is a lovely sentiment, Sooner but I don’t think it applies to this situation.
Cassidy
@El Tiburon: Ahhh, to live in a child’s world of hyperbole. Good times.
Cacti
@magurakurin:
Was also terrible to his eldest son Julian.
Great musical talent who also happened to be a bastard in his personal life.
El Tiburon
@Emma:
Generally, I don’t disagree with you in theory. But, next to being in Congress, sometimes being a lawyer is a slimy proposition.
Let me ask you: What is your opinon of Congressman Robert Byrd? Once a proud member of the KKK – then a US Senator who was given a 100% approval rating by the NAACP? Does he get your same dose of skepticism?
Do you look at every single purveyor of knowledge the same way you look at Greenwald? What about John Cole? He was a fascist Republican who admitted to killing seven hookers (maybe that was Craig James) but do you always put your skepticism hat on when reading something Cole writes?
magurakurin
@El Tiburon:
hmmm, with a couple of tweaks that looks like the basic premise of Taxi Driver.
Travis Bickle was definitely nutzo.
magurakurin
@Cacti:
yeah, I just saw that as well. I read a little bit about ole John Lennon after I saw that first comment about the wife beating. He was kind of a dick. I never really liked him or the Beatles all that much anyway.
How about Jagger and Richards, did they beat women? Cause I really dig Exile on Main Street. I hope they didn’t.
Older_Wiser
@El Tiburon: That’s not what I’m saying. And again, your analogies are a bit flawed.
I protested the Vietnam War, and yes, was arrested in Lafayette Park–but I did it by passive resistance, in a peaceful manner, having taken my lessons from Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr, and yes, Rosa Parks. My own kids were old enough to march with me on a number of occasions–I resist and refuse to do a lot of things, but people have to make a choice about what principals they’re upholding when they commit “illegal” acts. And when a law is unjust, change it–the courts are full of cases that prove this point.
We have to be careful in comparing publicity-seekers to those seeking equality and justice.
Rex Everything
@Todd: So, who are “the people behind the lawsuit”? Not the people on whose behalf the lawsuit was filed, but the people actually filing it? You’ve been implying that GG called two murdered teens “odious and repugnant,” which is quite a stretch.
Which do you think resulted in more harm to more actual people — Obama blocking Plan B access for teens for 1 1/2 years to appease the right in a blatant, and ultimately pointless, political maneuver, or GG tape recording a couple witnesses “unethically”?
Trakker
Maybe we are all “impure vessels” if you look hard enough. Not a saint among us. We all have agendas, buttons waiting to be pushed, blind spots in our philosophies of life. Soonergrunt writes:
You could say the same about the people BJers love to hate: Sullivan, Greenwald, etc., etc. Why do so many here scorn anyone who isn’t pure enough? Sorry, it’s my pet peeve, it’s as though the rest of us can’t possibly be smart enough to recognize a blogger’s imperfections when we see something important and true in their writings.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Trakker: You make a somewhat good point, but I have never found anything very important and true in Sullivan’s writings.
Rex Everything
@Todd:
Thanks, Mr Dershowitz. Now tell me more about that lawyer whose ethics are for shit…
Ryan C
@Older_Wiser:
Nobody thinks the government is personally spying on them. Look up the Wikipedia page on data mining.
And before you say “how can they look after all of us?” think about Facebook. How do they know who your friends are? How does Google suggest ads to every user? Yes, the technology exists to do this population wide.
And before you give me the “if you have nothing to hide” business, I want all your tax records and nude photos posted here on the blog immediately. Unless, of course, you have something to hide…
Cassidy
@Trakker: So you read every McMegan article, or Erickson or Douthat or Shrum or Fischer or brooks or Bozell or…., witha grain of salt right? Every day is a fresh moment wher they might have something insightful to say?
It’s simple. When you make a career out of writing long, prolific essays that amount to nothing more than a pile of shit with more factual errors than a Colin Powell presentation to the UN, there comes a point where even bothering to read or listen to one of these assholes is a waste of time. Greenwald fits into that category.
Rex Everything
@Trakker:
Dude, I mean that’s exactly it, and to the rest of you: come on! You should know this. You should know that saying “GG is a huge douche-canoe” is exactly the same as saying “Al Gore is fat.”
(It shouldn’t be, but sadly is, necessary to point out that I’m not “rushing to GG’s defense”; i.e. I’m not denying that he’s a douche-canoe. Or ,for that matter, that Al Gore is fat.)
someguy
If anybody wants to change what’s going on it’s going to take working with other impure vessels, maybe including… gasp… libertoids and conservatards.
The nation is full of people who really care deeply about civil liberties… when the other party’s president is running the surveillance state. The people who care about civil liberties all the time are a bit rarer and they tend to cut across party lines.
In other words, get used to the idea of cheearing for a bill restraining domestic surveillance, co-sponsored by Wyden, Udall, Rand Paul and Tom Coburn, and to the idea of seeing Ed Markey and Darrel Issa pushing one in the House.
That is *the only* way any of this will change. Otherwise, the ideological purity brigades will be deployed by the people from both parties, who think like Lindsey Graham.
Oh yeah, and those tech billionaires that sponsor the hell out of the progressive movement? We have to figure out a way to beat them too. They built the damn surveillance state, and profit mightily from it.
Emma
@El Tiburon: Actually, Robert Byrd being the Republican’s Nya-Nya-Nya of choice, I have done a great deal of thinking about him.
Robert Byrd admitted his guilt and worked very hard to distance himself from the dickhead he was in his youth. This is from Wikipedia:
In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also: “Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don’t get that albatross around your neck. Once you’ve made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena.”[21] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he “was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions.”[22] Byrd also said, in 2005, “I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times … and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened.”[11]
This is a man I can trust to think things through because he has thought something very personal through very publicly.
On the other hand Greenwald is talking about the survivors of a shooting spree who were suing someone who encouraged the shooter. Instead of saying: I can understand how bad they feel and how they see this situation but free speech is free speech” he vilified them.
See the difference?
Rex Everything
@Cassidy:
OH COME ON. If GG were simply another McMegan, you idiots would actually have something besides “he supported the Iraq war” and “he defended the free speech of someone who said repugnant things.” You’d be shouting it from the damn rooftops.
But obviously, you got nothing. Ergo “asshole,” “douche canoe,” and (the latest, that sine qua non of barrel-scraping) “self-hating Jew.”
Emma
@El Tiburon: And to the second part of your question. Hell yes! I was nicknamed Little Miss Why at the age of 2 and never outgrew it. I think I became a librarian because I wanted to learn how to research EVERYTHING for myself.
different-church-lady
A) My concern is not whether the vessels are pure. My concern is whether the vessels have enough structural integrity to hold any water at all.
B) There are two different arguments going on all the time. The first is about the veracity of the information being presented. The second is whether we should admire those who present it. I can look at Bradley Manning’s actions and I can look at him as a person, and come up with two different evaluations. It’s when we have to navigate the “Leaker/Whistleblower X is a hero/villian” matrix that things get really stupid with “purity”.
EZSmirkzz
Good point Sooner, but perhaps from the comments we can discern that people would rather talk about people rather than issues. What were the flaws of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams and Madison? The very thing that seems to be despised here is the very attributes that made those men great. But we do not discuss their personality and personal flaws, and what we should be discussing is their legacy and work, and how we are throwing all of that away to appear on the internet as some sort of wit.
Rex Everything
@different-church-lady:
But we don’t have to navigate that. Who gives a shit about that? It’s a sideshow.
different-church-lady
@Trakker:
But sometimes the “imperfections” are so large they inhibit our ability to properly evaluate the importance and truth of the writing.
This is being framed up as “GG and Snowden are telling us the truth and you’re just attacking the messenger.” Well, I still don’t know who’s telling me the truth. All I know is one of the two guys telling me this stuff to me has lied to me before. That, in and of itself, does not make the latest information false, but it does make me take a very serious pause before I join that person’s parade.
different-church-lady
@Rex Everything:
A whooooooooole lot of people. Maybe not me and you, but you don’t even have to leave this blog to find examples.
liberal
Let me guess…a “good soldier” is someone who participates in an illegal war of aggression, is an accomplice to the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in a faraway land, and then cops the excuse “just following orders,” even though that’s manifestly irrelevant to the moral question.
different-church-lady
@Todd:
Racism is a core First Amendment activity. OK then, Glenn.
liberal
@El Tiburon:
The key problem is that people will use the excuse that jus ad bellum is irrelevant to considerations of jus in bello. Of course, they’re wrong, but that’s how they justify “just obeying orders.”
My way of putting it: you’re either a moral agent, or you’re a paid thug.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Emma:
Maybe the situation could be viewed as Sooner sees it if Miranda and Gideon had supporters with daddy issues like GG, Manning and Assange have.
Impure vessels? We all are that, to a person. GG is the SS Titanic Douchecanoe. I hope he sinks.
Hoodie
@Cassidy: That last thing is the one that bothers me about the Snowden story. What I recall from my days working for a DoD contractor, sometimes on black jobs, there is a metric ton of people with “secret” security clearances. That basically means you’re a US citizen with no outstanding warrants for child porn, and gets you access to next to nothing. Even “top secret” clearances are tightly constrained by need to know, and they watch those people like fucking hawks. Everything is compartmentalized. How does this low level contractor 3 months on the job walk out of an NSA facility with thousands of docs? Back in the day, you had to have a secure briefcase handcuffed to your fucking wrist and the security people went through it whenever you left the building. You had to a damn good reason to leave with anything more than your boxer shorts. In Hawaii? Super secret shit would be at Meade, which is a fortress. Watched O’Donnell’s interview with GG last night, and McDonnell got close to this by asking, if the NSA is able to know what everyone is saying, how did you manage to work with this guy inside NSA for several months? Glenn goes into this seemingly plausible explanation as to how Snowden required all sorts of encryption and other means before he would talk to GG. Yet this fucker claims he could read the president’s email, which is the most encrypted shit on the planet. Either our security is total shit, or someone’s telling stories. Pegs the bullshit meter for me. My guess is GG knows nothing about these things and thus is a prime patsy for being punked, especially given his proclivity for sensational claims.
Rex Everything
@different-church-lady: No, I know, I know, but my point (and Soonergrunt’s point, and Taibbi’s point, etc) is that people shouldn’t be distracted by that. We should make an active effort NOT to be distracted by that.
And again I say COME ON, this time to you, DCL:
Trying to capitalize on an infelicitous choice of words is beneath you. You know what he meant.
liberal
@Older_Wiser:
As an absolute principle, to be followed 100% of the time, that is surely false.
hildebrand
I think a few too many are trying to find a way around the fact that the people forwarding the issue of civil liberties are unsympathetic. This does impact the way that we view their ideas. Sorry, I know that we should all endeavor to try to see only the issue, but we really don’t compartmentalize that well.
I also know that those who want to stand in the public square and develop an important argument had better recognize that it is not only the issue that will be debated, and that a great many do think that who you are affects what you say. Now, you can rail against that reality, or you can recognize that you will not be able to change that reality, and figure out how to work within that reality.
Lastly, I still think that using Gideon and MIranda as analogies doesn’t work – others used them to make a larger, important case; their character was irrelevant because their individual lives were essentially irrelevant to the cause. In the cases of Assange, Snowden, and Manning, they are driving the issue, thus their character becomes far more relevant.
Cassidy
@liberal: This will be way off topic, but it’s way more complicated than that, and that’s part of the problem with this conversation as a whole. The GG apologists and purity libs want to boil everything down to some sort of absolute, just like their RW counterparts, but people aren’t absolute. We’re walking bags of chemicals and emotions that can change at an alarming rate. Then, you add into that feelings of camraderie, loyalty, anger, betrayl, fatigue, training, mental and emotional conditioning…
This absolutist thinking, this notion that moral decisions are so clear and easy is a sign, to me, of someone who has never had to make a hard decision.
Cassidy
@Hoodie: I think his whole backstory is horseshit. I’ve met this guy, they just have different names and faces. They’re all the same secret ninja black ops CIA Delta Force Navy SEAL killers.
liberal
@Hoodie:
For better or worse, I doubt that’s an exclusive or.
LAC
@El Tiburon: Going down the Greenwaldian tunnel of perspective here, could it not be argued that Bradley Manning is indeed THE definition of a ‘good soldier’? Perhaps if the ranks were filled with Bradley Mannings there would have been no My Lai Massacre or Abu Ghraib? Or, is the ‘ideal of a good soldier’ just a mindless robot who obeys order even if it involves slaughtering innocent civilians and unimagineable torture?
Or is he not the “good soldier” because of his sexuality or what? Is he a bit too effiminate? He not a rough and tough grizzled old marine type who gets drunks and gets into good old timey fights and screws prostitutes?
******************************
Nice job – do you also go around on Veteran’s day spitting at them too? This is why people think that Greenwald acolytes are such smug assholes.
Soonergrunt
@MomSense: No example is perfect.
different-church-lady
@Rex Everything:
True, but that would take effort. And effort is very much against the core values of the internet.
Yes, I know what he meant. And I was trying to highlight the fact that the very thing meant was specious bullshit.
Because what he meant was, “The First Amendment is so absolute and important that we must defend horrible people who encourage violent racism.” I look at that, and instead of thinking he’s got a point, I think hey, if he’s right, then the first amendment damn well needs some tinkering.
liberal
@Cassidy:
No, actually, it is pretty clear: the only valid excuse for participating in a war of aggression is lack of information or coercion. Since we don’t have a conscript army, the second clearly doesn’t apply. As for lack of information, I can completely see it in the case of e.g. our criminal attack on Vietnam—I’ve read the actual press coverage—but for an attack as recent at 2003? For a country where the most recent plausible true threat (aside from Soviet ballistic missiles) was 1945, with no nearby geopolitical enemies of any strength? Nope.
Of course, if you want to come up with excuses for murder, that’s your perogative; it’s not like you’re not in good company.
Cassidy
And for you people who keep bring up Assange as some sort of hero, and not the coward he really is, none of you motherfuckers ever talk about the people who have been killed because of the release of those documents. Never. Not one fucking word. Hypocrites and simpletons. Go drink some fucking bleach.
Cassidy
@liberal: Ahh, you’re one of those. Again, moral absolutism is a sign of simple thinking and not really worth much consideration.
Rex Everything
@Cassidy:
I agree with all of this except the first 6 words. Surely the “purity test” is coming from those who demand that the messenger not be an asshole? We GG apologists aren’t the ones claiming his assholery invalidates his arguments.
different-church-lady
@Rex Everything: See what I mean?
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Cassidy: “Go drink some fucking bleach.”
With a hydrochloric acid chaser.
Rex Everything
@different-church-lady:
Say WHAT? If this is how you feel, you’ve got a problem with way more people than Greenwald. (You do know about the ACLU’s defense of Klan parades and all that, right?)
Emma
@Rex Everything: No, you’re the ones claiming that anybody who questions the substance of his story is an Obamabot or a conservative or a sleazebag or a traitor to the 4th amendment.
Rex Everything
@Emma: Sorry, but I missed the part where any of GG’s critics discussed “the substance of his story” in any way whatsoever.
different-church-lady
@Rex Everything: I do know about them and I am not happy about such.
Greenwald is not the only person I have this problem with. He is merely the one who (a) has the most currency and (b) has a unique aptitude for getting under everyone’s skin.
FlipYrWhig
Not that my view is original, but I would still say that I’m more concerned about what information is being collected on whom, and subject to what scrutiny and by whom, than that Glenn Greenwald is a dick. But where Glenn Greenwald’s dickishness has an effect is that I’m not sure he’s being accurate, or critically analyzing the claims of his source, when it comes to that key question. On the other hand, I don’t know if Barton Gellman is a dick, and he’s written a lot of the same stuff, factually I mean, just with less bravado.
Cassidy
@Rex Everything: I don’t care if you’re an asshole; I’m an asshole. I want credibility. I want someone I believe I can trust to be honest and not tell half-truths because of an agenda. If people have to wonder what your angle is, just like a con man, then you’ve fucked up.
Soonergrunt
@Rex Everything: “We GG apologists aren’t the ones saying his assholery invalidates his arguments.”
You aren’t. But there are quite a few of you who would have his occasional correctness invalidate the fact that he is in fact, an asshole.
One can be a prickly sanctimonious blow-hard frequently more dedicated to self-promotion than the accuracy of his work, and still be able to tell time correctly–even if it’s only twice a day.
And for the rest of you, I always thought this about him, even when GWB was President–or more accurately, I became certain that he had always been a prickly sanctimonious blow-hard frequently more dedicated to self-promotion than the accuracy of his work, when he didn’t stop being that in 2009.
Emma
@Rex Everything: Then you haven’t been reading closely enough before opinionating. I myself posted several questions yesterday in one of the threads.
El Tiburon
@Emma:
My point is this: at one time Robert Byrd had a way of acting and thinking. It was a long time ago.
Glenn Greenwald has said and done some things, that by his own admission, he regrets to some extent or his positions have changed. To wit: there is a very early blog post he wrote regarding workers coming here from Mexico. it is rather shocking in its content – more apt to come from RedState. But he acknowledged it came from a time of ignorance on many topics.
Now, to this issue of Hale, I know nothing of the case or his actions. Was Greenwald an unethical attorney saying and doing unsavory things? I have no way of knowing. This Hale case seems to indicate some wrong-doing of some sort.
But I know this: ever since I’ve been reading Greenwald back in the Unclaimed Territory days, he has been a fierce, liberal advocate of civil liberties and staunchly against the expansion of government power and a relentless critic of the media. And he has relentlessly attacked those on BOTH sides.
So, if you want to marginalize Greenwald because of some past actions, hey, Greenwald would argue it is your right to do so.
But if you let these judgements then marginalize the content of his writings, then you are a fool.
different-church-lady
@Soonergrunt:
That misses the point. Being an asshole, in and of itself, is of no importance.
That hit the point: GG doesn’t want you to merely have information, he wants to control what you think the information means. It’s the difference between knowledge and framework. G’s supporters tend to look at the first to the exclusion of the second. His detractors tend to do the opposite.
I tend to think, “Hey, dude, the size and gilt on that frame is making it really hard for me to see the painting for what it is.”
Emma
@El Tiburon: We will agree to disagree on Mr. Greenwald, shall we? And thanks for the unnecessary insult there at the end when I was treating you seriously and respectfully. You have only cemented my opinion of GG’s defenders.
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
Yes, and the unfortunate incident cited here is rather a good example of the limits and pitfalls of that very ferocity and advocacy, no?
El Tiburon
@Emma:
Ok, myself and the NSA will be watching you. Every post by John Cole I expect you to chime and say, “Yeah, but remember when Cole killed those seven hookers and thought the Iraq War was tits!”
You’re gonna do that, right? right?
Emma
@El Tiburon: Another data point, GG Defender. Thanks.
You’re not interested in the issue. You’re interested in scoring points on those that disagree with you. Just like your hero.
4tehlulz
Is $122,000 close enough to $200k, or is it a lie?
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
Why should she when that’s Corner Stone’s job?
El Tiburon
@LAC:
Yep, because asking hypothetical and hyperbolic questions to challenge Soonergrunt’s assertion on what makes a good soldier = spitting on soldiers.
You are too clever.
different-church-lady
@Emma:
[pulls out ref’s whistle]
[thinks for a moment]
[pockets whistle, lets ’em play]
El Tiburon
@Emma:
Wading through 30-40 comments of pure asshattery from assclowns to find the one or two comments that touch on the substance doesn’t invalidate the point that the GG Haters rarely if ever discuss the content. They are too busy masturbating to the frenzied hate for the guy.
LAC
@Cassidy: Beautifully put!
Cassidy
@El Tiburon:
It got a lot easier when I figured out just to scroll past any comment coming from you.
LAC
@El Tiburon: We couldn’t keep up with the level of ejaculate you are spewing out at the mention of his name.
Clean up in aisle two!!!
El Tiburon
@Emma:
Ms. Emma – don’t judge me as an asshole because I’m not a GG Hater. You should judge me on my entire body of work, and, then you will surely come to the conclusion that I am an asshole.
But, I must ask, how did I insult you? I simply said IF you marginalize THEN you must be a fool. Do you marginalize Greenwald’s content because he might have done something unethical as an attorney?
If you answer yes, THEN you are indeed a fool. And a hypocrite to be sure. If you DON’T marginalize, then you are not a fool.
Rex Everything
@Cassidy: Again, Cassidy, I agree with nearly all that you wrote. But I disagree with just enough to put us completely at odds.
Maybe the shortest way to state it is by zeroing in on this:
You’re missing something, and it’s a big thing.
The whole point of con men is that people DON’T “wonder what [their] angle is.” People trust them almost immediately, and don’t see their angle until it’s too late. Con men are geniuses at making people trust them. They don’t come across like assholes. They aren’t strident, or prickly, or douchy, or disagreeable. That’s their whole advantage. That’s the essence of the con (“con” = confidence = they win your confidence). No con man would ever come off like Bradley Manning, the very definition of awkward insecurity; he’s far too unattractive. And no decent con man would come off like GG, with his weaselly manner and sanctimonious wordiness and famous stridency.
Any con man who’s gained prominence is sure to be smooth and likeable. You’d be inclined to experience him as trustworthy. He sounds frank when he speaks, and his words rarely strike the wrong note. If he’s a writer, you can bet he’ll have style, unlike Greenwald but very much like Steven Landsburg or C.S. Lewis. If he’s a speaker, his words will seem to ring true, almost regardless of what they are.
The thing is there are good writers and good speakers who aren’t con men. And the only way to tell them apart is to make an actual effort to ignore the superficial, to ignore whether someone’s manner and vibe is disagreeable to you (or extremely agreeable) and focus on what they actually say (and on the content of that rather than the style). And I see very little of that — I see almost none of it whatsoever — when a GG post is discussed around here. And I see it least of all from the anti-GG side.
Cassidy
@El Tiburon:
It’s entirely and deliberately dishonest. You have the credibility of your hero. Good job.
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
Well, you’ve got her there: she’s masturbating to GG for all the wrong reasons.
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
what incident specifically are you referring to? I’ve been discussing the Snowden affair and this Hale affair.
El Tiburon
@Emma:
Ok, why don’t you tell me what the issue is.
Is the issue the content of the NSA leak documents?
Or is the issue that Greenwald may have done something unethical as an attorney once many years ago and therefore he has no credibility?
Because if it’s the latter, then, unless you are a hypocrite, I would expect you to challenge everyone against their past deeds.
And frankly, I only see you applying that microscope to Glenn Greenwald.
Emma
@El Tiburon: Nice parsing, especially when combined with your earlier statement about not bothering to wade through comments to find the substance. In a blog.
I think I have you pegged. You’re one of those people in whom the joy of battle is all. I bet you were a member of a debating society at some point.
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon: Specifically, referring to the people suing Hale as “odious and repugnant”, and further claiming that racist speech is a “core” part of the first amendment.
Would you not consider those statements “unfortunate?”
Cassidy
@Rex Everything: I see your point about “con man” and I agree with that, so maybe likening GG to a con man is inaccurate. To go further, it’s inaccurate because he doesn’t have the charisma and social skills, maybe?
For me, GG is like the Paul’s, you always have to wodner what their agenda is. For instance, Rand Paul has mentioned filing a lawsuit against the gov’t over all this. I have a better idea: be fucking Senator and write some legislation! Oh, but the lawsuit gets more publicity and sexier news coverage going into a POTUS run; you always have to wonder about the motivation.
GG doesn’t care about civil rights, or more importantly, he doesn’t care about your’s and my civil rights. I don’t trust him to be on my side. When this becomes an electoral battle, and it will, GG is going to do what’s comfortable for him, not right for all of us. So I don’t need an ally like him. He doesn’t help and his…either ignorance or mandaciousness…makes it harder. He has an agenda and he’s not credible.
lakeview
@El Tiburon: @El Tiburon: Really dont understand what your trying to say so Ill just take a stab at what I think you mean.
Does it matter that this is new to Greenwald, yes it does. It means he did no study on the subject and it looks like he just took what Snowden said as gospel, thats bad journalism. Is this a big deal, YES it sure is but so are a lot of other things that the NSA is doing now and in the past. i guess what Im trying to say is that there is a rerun of things that SHOULD be known with a bright bow on the box.
PS Are you really surprised by the collective freakout in DC by pols who want to get in front of the cameras for that sweet sweet airtime?
lakeview
@El Tiburon: @El Tiburon: Really dont understand what your trying to say so Ill just take a stab at what I think you mean.
Does it matter that this is new to Greenwald, yes it does. It means he did no study on the subject and it looks like he just took what Snowden said as gospel, thats bad journalism. Is this a big deal, YES it sure is but so are a lot of other things that the NSA is doing now and in the past. i guess what Im trying to say is that there is a rerun of things that SHOULD be known with a bright bow on the box.
PS Are you really surprised by the collective freakout in DC by pols who want to get in front of the cameras for that sweet sweet airtime?
lakeview
@El Tiburon: @El Tiburon: Really dont understand what your trying to say so Ill just take a stab at what I think you mean.
Does it matter that this is new to Greenwald, yes it does. It means he did no study on the subject and it looks like he just took what Snowden said as gospel, thats bad journalism. Is this a big deal, YES it sure is but so are a lot of other things that the NSA is doing now and in the past. i guess what Im trying to say is that there is a rerun of things that SHOULD be known with a bright bow on the box.
PS Are you really surprised by the collective freakout in DC by pols who want to get in front of the cameras for that sweet sweet airtime?
lakeview
@El Tiburon: @El Tiburon: Really dont understand what your trying to say so Ill just take a stab at what I think you mean.
Does it matter that this is new to Greenwald, yes it does. It means he did no study on the subject and it looks like he just took what Snowden said as gospel, thats bad journalism. Is this a big deal, YES it sure is but so are a lot of other things that the NSA is doing now and in the past. i guess what Im trying to say is that there is a rerun of things that SHOULD be known with a bright bow on the box.
PS Are you really surprised by the collective freakout in DC by pols who want to get in front of the cameras for that sweet sweet airtime?
Rex Everything
@Soonergrunt:
Not really. I just think that the times when he’s right about something that matters, it’s more important than whether he’s an asshole.
(And if someone else thought that invalidated his being an asshole — again, who really cares? Why is it so terribly important?)
Bruce S
If a Power Point deck that could somehow be copied off of a “secure” NSA network actually holds “national security secrets”, the NSA is totally fucked and we need to start over. My biggest problem in this latest revelation of “secrets” is trying to figure out if there’s anything I didn’t know before. I don’t think so. It’s being ginned up on both sides – a symbiosis of journalists and bureaucrats each invested in their self-importance and the alleged significance of the data in question.
It’s important to remember, since Daniel Ellsberg is often invoked in this context, that what Ellsberg revealed was a historical study of the Vietnam War that had actually been put together by private contractors for the previous administration. It had a long shelf-life by the time it was published and it didn’t contain anything that should have been “secret” about the war in military terms. The classification system was being used to avert embarrassment, not protect the country. To some extent – given how stale most of these “new” revelations by Greenwald, et. al. are – I think that while there’s far less here than in the Pentagon Papers, it’s another example of stuff being stamped “secret” that isn’t truly a matter of national security, but more as as a matter of habit, convenience or bureacratic vanity. This is suggested by the fact that this document obviously was secured at the most minimal level.
different-church-lady
@Cassidy:
More akin to the emotionally manipulative spouse who uses angry bullshit to get what they want.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Rex Everything:
Distraction. The one who needs to be credible is GG’s source. GG’s problems are confirmation bias and utter ignorance on the subject at hand. Oh, and enough arrogance to think that his ignorance doesn’t matter.
The source, especially since the interview surfaced, has been springing credibility leaks at a phenomenal rate. Unlike Jack Sparrow, GG won’t even be able to ride this boat to the dock before the upper yard is underwater.
Emma
@El Tiburon: No. The issue (for me, other people’s mileage may vary) that there are some issues with the story. Some details provided will check out some will not. I am waiting until I have a whole picture.
On the SUBSTANCE of the matter, part of the question is the insistence from certain quarters that this is ‘OHMYGAWDTHEMOSTHEINOUSTHINGEVERANDITHADNEVERHAPPENEDBEFOREINTHEHISTORYOFAMERICA! Sorry, folks. The security state is been around for a while. If we are going to push back, then this what needs to happen:
(1) acknowledgment that the linked world has created some issues regarding what privacy is and how it can be protected
(2) a legal definition of privacy that interprets the 4th amendment for this new world
(3) strong laws that codify it and tightens the rules on how collected data is used, stored, and deleted.
That’s where I’m at, issue wise.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@different-church-lady: “That hit the point: GG doesn’t want you to merely have information, he wants to control what you think the information means.”
GG’s motto: I report, I decide
Rex Everything
@different-church-lady:
I’m saddened to hear this. [insert the obligatory arguments about defending the free speech of the worst among us…] I know this stuff is a cliche, but it’s important. You should think twice.
LAC
@El Tiburon: You are correct on the last point.
See, that is the problem with Greenwald fanboys – they engage in hypotheticals and hyperbole. Me? I like facts and information. Like, is there an actual example of abuses of this system? Or is it just Greenwald doing his shtick? And why did Greenwald brush off concerns about privacy with the private sector on O’Donnell’s show? And why is the timeline with Snowden and Greenwald so hinky?. So much so, that Greenwald took down his Twitter feed about when he was first in touch with Snowden?
You know, things that make you wonder about this “imperfect (sob) vessel”
Odie Hugh Manatee
Snowden learned to take off but he wasn’t interested in learning to land.
Rex Everything
@Emma: I read most of the threads yesterday but didn’t wade into the fray. I don’t remember you posting anything all that substantial. Weren’t you the one saying the law shouldn’t have carte blanche or some wacky thing like that?
Emma
@Rex Everything: Jesus. Everyone is worthy of defense. The problem arises from the lawyer overstepping his bounds and verbally attacking the survivors/plaintiffs. And, in spite of my earlier discussion with El Tiburon, he’s never apologized for that, much less making amends to those he injured.
Emma
@Rex Everything: Go do your own research, sweet pea. Or read the comment slightly above yours. I will admit I don’t remember which thread. But it was the one where people were trashing out the concept of privacy.
Bruce S
@lakeview:
“Is this a big deal, YES it sure”
It may be “big” but it’s been discussed for years. And, for all intents and purposes, the politics and public opinion mean that this situation, which we already knew about, will continue. Except for a few process issues, there’s no Big Deal in Greenwald’s disclosure. I think it’s worth more consideration by both the public and Congress, so my hair isn’t on fire over Evil Glenn who is prone to hyperbole and once had a very disgusting client as do most lawyers, including the ACLU. But in practical political terms, this is an opportunity for posturing and a measure of hypocrisy among our politicians. Also, all forms of “gambling in Casablanca”, including reams of ill-informed blog comments. (Probably some of the latter, even, by me.)
Rex Everything
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism: Time will tell. Anyway, what you’re asserting is of course entirely valid & relevant. But it’s seperate from the question of “GG’s assholery vs the substance of his posts.”
Rex Everything
@Emma: I read all the comments slightly above mine. I don’t mean to seem stupid, but I couldn’t locate the one where anyone discussed “the substance of GG’s story.”
Rex Everything
@different-church-lady:
Yeah, but … this kind of just makes me roll my eyes. For some hypothetical Glenn Greenwald fan who reads NOTHING BUT Glenn Greenwald, your concern might be important. But I don’t think there’s anyone like that. The internet just isn’t like that; people don’t use it that way (except Objectivists). Everyone reads a ton of stuff; everyone hits a ton of sites. Certainly no one on Balloon Juice is in danger of getting only GG’s take on things with no corrective.
And btw, I’m of the opinion that he doesn’t distort things on purpose; he honestly expresses what he thinks is the significance of every subject … The fact that he’s obsessive is part of what makes him useful.
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
I ask the question again: were the people ‘odious and repugnant?’ Furthermore, when representing clients, I have seen very good attorneys whom I admire and respect to many ‘odious and repugnant’ things. But, speaking generally, I would probably rather my attorney not use such terms unless very applicable.
As far as racist comments being core to the First Amendment, I do not find that unfortunate. It is unfortunate that too many people are racists and use racist terms. But it is protected to be sure.
So, maybe Greenwald’s comments and actions were unfortunate. Perhaps even unethical.
BUT, does it change the content of his current writings?
Again, I don’t care about Glenn Greenwald as a person. He may be the biggest DBag in the world and if I ever had a beer with him it may end up poured on his head.
But, he is one of the few who takes on the topics of the expanded national security state and abuses of our government that we have.
Is he too pure? Who knows and who cares.
We have a very good peer review system and more well-respected bloggers/pundits/journalists (including the proprietor of this blog and Digby as just two examples) agree with his conclusions rather than disagree. That has to mean something.
El Tiburon
@Rex Everything:
To folks like Emma, smearing Greenwald IS the substance.
Mnemosyne
@El Tiburon:
The issue is the content of the NSA leak documents and the fact that they don’t say what Greenwald claims they say.
I’m not sure if Greenwald got punk’d because he overestimated his own grasp of technology or if he’s outright lying, but the documents don’t say what he claims they do.
This is why you keep trying to turn the issue back to what people think of Greenwald’s character — because his “big scoop” has fallen apart at the seams.
ETA: Here’s the Tech Crunch story detailing how Greenwald got it wrong. Which, again, is why you’re desperately trying to change the subject to Greenwald’s character. He got the story wrong.
Bruce S
There’s something smarmy about the vehemence with which Greenwald gets raked over the coals for his past sins. It’s cheap and, mostly, irrelevant to the issue at hand. I am pretty much on the opposite side of the broad issue from Greenwald. But cheap attacks on his character raise more questions about the analytical competence and integrity of the folks I tend to agree with in broad strokes than they do about Greenwald.
I’m not a follower of Greenwald’s work, except when it gets linked to elsewhere for whatever reason, but I first became aware of him when he began raising some very legitimate issues regarding the Bush administration. I was, as a partisan Democrat, admittedly more open to his concerns then than I have been to some of his attacks – much of which gets hyperbolic at best – on the Obama administration. Although I think his generic suspicion of government power is a useful contribution whoever is in power, even when it strikes me as hysterical or simply wrongheaded. For example, I fully support President Obama’s use of drone attacks – but I would hate for this to be something that just gets cheered on “America, Fuck Yeah!” anymore than any aspect of warfare, which I see as “necessary evil” in certain cases. So Greenwald isn’t an enemy of The American Way – but one individual, admittedly lacking in charm and probably full of himself, among the always essential faction of dissidents over obviously problematic, complicated and generally “ugly” policy areas. If the best we can do is pick something out of these folks past to call their judgment into question – especially when like Greenwald they’ve been consistent, even obsessive, regarding the issue at hand – it implies that one doesn’t have a very coherent case about the issue.
Bill Maher, of all people, did a better job of calling the nature of Greenwald’s “bombshell” into question simply by reading a seven-year old story from USA Today – which without knowing the date sounded exactly like it was from this past week – than most of the commentators, professional and otherwise, have who I have been aware of.
Anyway, the upshot of this ramble is that y’all pushing the ad hominem stuff are doing Greenwald a big favor by looking cheap and smarmy in the form of your attacks. IMHO he needs all the help he can get…because most of the country outside of cable news, the Beltway and the self-important bureaucrats are yawning over this.
Rex Everything
@Mnemosyne: Again, time will tell, but Ed Bott and the Little Green Footballs guy have been desperate since last week to claim the story is unravelling, and it really seems like their claim keeps unravelling.
Mnemosyne
@Rex Everything:
Ed Bott and LGF have presented evidence that Greenwald’s claims don’t hold up, and I linked to that evidence above. Please present your evidence to the contrary. Note that, since it’s Greenwald’s expertise in technology that’s being brought into question, his assertions that it’s all totally true but he can’t show us his proof does not count as evidence.
El Tiburon
@Rex Everything:
LGF just posted that Greenwald blocked him from Twitter. But yes, Charles Johnson has his mind made up.
Alex Parene has a nice post up over at Salon on this and a nice litter twitter exchange with Chris Hayes and Digby.
And then there is the Al Franken component. I’m a big Al Franken fan, and although a reliable liberal, I do believe that he has become part of the Senate institution and therefore not as likely to criticize.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Rex Everything:
That’s where we disagree. The fact that he’s obsessive means that I can’t trust the substance underlying what he writes about. If he told me the sky is blue, I’d have to go to the window and check.
The fact that he’s obsessive means that he’ll swallow utter bilge if it meshes with his confirmation bias. That doesn’t make him credible. At all.
El Tiburon
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism:
So, let me get this straight: If Glenn Greenwald reports something that you know to be 100% factually accurate, that it came from Glenn Greenwald, you would still not believe it?
And this is not a problem for you?
Bruce S
@Mnemosyne:
I agree that this looks like it’s being seriously overblown. That’s an excellent point which seems to elude most of the professional talkers. Make that case and make it clear and I applaud you, if only because it confirms what I sense. But if it gets mixed up with ad hominem attacks on Greenwald’s past sins, which is happening here with a lot of folks, it doesn’t seem like a strong, coherent case. It’s weakened by a lot of other background noise and the sense that there are agenda’s in play, rather than clarity and analysis related to the issue.
There are lots of journalists and would-be journalists who are total jerks or who have done some flawed work in the past. For example, if Al Sharpton – who I happen to like a whole lot in his current incarnation – attacks some dipshit GOP asshole for whatever, I really don’t want to hear about the Tawana Brawley case, where he obviously made some serious mistakes in judgement longer than he should have, despite whatever good intentions drew him in from the first. If you bring that up to counter something Rev. Al said on his show yesterday, your point is moot with me.
I think a lot of people have the same reaction to Greenwald, because he gained some serious credibility when he broke with the Bush administration over the war and the first round of the post-9/11 civil liberties debate when Bush-Cheney were in charge. It’s foolish to try to tear Greenwald down rather than simply challenge his interpretation or point out any shift from careful analysis to hyperbole or inconsistencies.
(I’m not accusing you of anything, because I can’t remember what individuals have said, but there’s a lot of stuff that happens that comes off as extremely childish whenever anything Greenwald has said or done is at issue. I’ve been called out in extreme and insane ways by some of these folks myself. There are some real loons and toxic personalities here who fancy themselves faithful supporters of President Obama. I doubt that he’d be impressed.)
LAC
@El Tiburon: Wait, has Greenwald done that?
Rex Everything
@Mnemosyne:
Actually you’re wrong about that. What you linked to above is a critique of the journalism of the Washington Post. It’s not “evidence that Greenwald’s claims don’t hold up.” Not at all.
And honestly, as to the proposal of an evidence war, I’m far too lazy for that — at least right now. As I said, time will tell.
I’m outta here for now; it’s been good, dcl.
El Tiburon
appropo quote from Digby:
Rex Everything
@Bruce S: Before I go, I would just like to say that this post is kickass.
Mnemosyne
@Rex Everything:
Yes, it will. And I’m sure you’ll be back here to tell us in the face of that evidence that Greenwald was totally right because shut up, that’s why.
Rex Everything
@El Tiburon: Thanks for that.
I really like this quote, also from Digby: “Whistle-blowers often have unusual personalities. It takes one to do this sort of thing. It’s interesting, but not central.”
Cassidy
@El Tiburon: Still singing Bonnie Tyler, I see.
El Tiburon
The above quote was not from Digby, but from D. Atkins.
Rex Everything
@Mnemosyne: OK, DCL, you can write this down, paste it into whatever, &c. If this case really does unravel, I will, in a timely fashion, totally eat crow right out on the Balloon Juice commentary, admit I was wrong, and admit that my lord and master Glenn Greenwald was wrong.
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
Uhh… what was that last bit again?
different-church-lady
@Rex Everything: Myself, I’ve no interest in whether your future diet involves servings of Corvus brachyrhynchos. Are you just asking me to hold the stake or something?
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
??
Should Greenwald expose what Different Church-lady sees as wrong-doing?
Obviously Repbulicans, conservatives and some Democrats have no problem with wide-spread government surveillance of US citizens. But most liberals/progressives/and some Republicans do have a problem with it.
What side are you on?
LAC
@Bruce S: Gee, I thought credibility was important too. We trust people through their actions, in the past and the present. And when they make mistakes, and they admit they do and learn from them, we can regain trust in that person. I have never seen or read one moment of anything like that from Greenwald (or his followers). I have read things from him that are full of arrogance, that are self righteous and pompous – even in the face of facts that do not support his claims. He is one of those people that talks at you, not to you in the true nature of a bully. I do not know about his motivations, but I have never believed that they were on behalf of the american people. The contempt he has for people is always in his writing.
Nied
I think a better analogy than Miranda or Gideon is that Deep Throat was involved in all kinds of operations that were almost as bad if not worse than Watergate, and the only reason he ever came forward is that he was mad about being passed over for a promotion. You don’t see people defending Watergate because the info came from a COINTELPRO vet do you?
LAC
@El Tiburon: About Al Franken – really? So now he’s a bad guy too because…?
BArry
@Bob h: “Every so often you get a glimpse of why conservatives hate us so much, and Greenwald is one such example.”
In which case morally pure liberals would not be hated by conservatives, and that’s not the case.
BArry
@Bruce S: ” My biggest problem in this latest revelation of “secrets” is trying to figure out if there’s anything I didn’t know before.”
There’s been at least one court case where SCOTUS basically said ‘you can’t prove something exists, and the government won’t admit it, so STFU’.
Half of this is finding at least some evidence that something’s happening.
El Tiburon
@LAC:
Really?
You read this: And then there is the Al Franken component. I’m a big Al Franken fan, and although a reliable liberal, I do believe that he has become part of the Senate institution and therefore not as likely to criticize.
And you deduce that I now think he is a ‘bad guy’? Did I say he was wrong or anything like that?
It is certainly true that many who enter Congress become part of the institution and their perspective may alter after a time.
Al Franken may be 100% correct and Greenwald 100% wrong. Or mabye the truth is in the middle.
I respect them both immensely. In a cage match, I would hope they would each break each others legs.
Thlayli
@El Tiburon:
Whereas if Greenwald said the sky was orange, you would be in here shouting: “WILL YOU DAMN OBOTS STOP SAYING IT’S BLUE?”
BArry
@Odie Hugh Manatee: (quoting an article)
“But here’s an interesting wrinkle: Baum says Snowden took no “cyber-related courses” at this college. Nor did he take any classes in the college’s NSA-certified “Information Systems Security” program, which focuses on safeguarding computer data and networks, though he went on to work in a related field for the government and in the private sector. It’s unclear whether Snowden studied computing elsewhere.”
So a contractor was scooping up whomever they could get a security clearance for, and probably billing the government as if the person was a highly trained and experienced expert?
different-church-lady
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Not necessarily in that order.
@Emma:
Point of order: not everyone is worthy of defense. It’s that our principles sometimes call for defense of those who are not worthy of it. However, our principles do not call for the enthusiastic celebration of the same.
@Rex Everything:
It takes a lot of different people to make a train wreck, true. But c’mon, we know that GG has his Orc Army that mobilizes the moment the RSS alarm goes off (which is what my gag about posting the word “BATLIGHT” in every thread that mentions him is about). Not everyone who defends him is part of that army, true. But it’s not so much that they only read him, it’s that they emulate him in that they try to overwhelm the debate with “GG did this, this, this, and not this, and this, and therefore everything he says is AIRTIGHT!!” (And his detractors, on the other hand, act as though one little hole crashes the whole balloon.)
@El Tiburon:
Protected, yes. But is it core?
@El Tiburon:
You cannot be serious.
OMG, you’re serious, aren’t you?
TG Chicago
I get the “prickly sanctimonious blow-hard” part, but can you give examples of the self-promotion part? Or inaccuracies?
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
I always thought the thing journalists were striving for was objective truth. Silly me.
I keep seeing this question come up, and I keep thinking, “This was a very popular question 11 and a half years ago, but the people asking it were very different from the people asking it today.”
Or maybe they’re not so different after all, they’re just inverted.
The Other Chuck
@El Tiburon:
And given his relationship with things like, oh, actual facts, which involves legwork like corroborating sources, he does so completely by accident. I agree with everything GG has to say about the rise of the security state, but I still keep it clear in my mind that he is a polemicist first and foremost. If GG is a journalist, Aaron Sorkin is a documentarian.
Bruce S
@BArry:
But I had read revelations about exactly this type of Big Data mining by NSA years ago. The issue then was FISA oversight, as I recall it, which (rubberstamp) it now apparently has.
Bruce S
@The Other Chuck:
I think you’re exactly right that Greenwald is a polemicist more than a journalist. But he’s not really masqueraded as anything other than a sharp critic. I keep trying to find the smoking gun in this latest brouhaha that something is being revealed that I didn’t already know about. Don’t see it. Other than that a lot of what is considered “top secret” is a joke and that the more “secrets” the government attempts to classify, the fewer of them will actually remain operationally secret.
LAC
@El Tiburon: well, for such a big fan, you seem rather dismissive of his statements – he is in the Senate and has gone native and not likely to criticize, right? Maybe he just might have more insight into the workings of this system and of these reports. Again, is it really about “facts” with you or vindicating the Boy from Ipanema?
Bruce S
@LAC:
Credibiity is important. But the objective fact is that Glenn Greenwald has a degree of credibility among people concerned with civil liberties that you’re not going to quash with some of the attempts to dismiss him as an “Obama-hating racist” or “the only guy in this story who actually has wiretapped anybody” and the rest of it.
I don’t think I’ve written a single one of my (overlong, tedious) comments on this without noting that Greenwald comes off to me as hyperbolic and obsessive. I think that’s a fair opinion. But I don’t consider it character assassination, or total dismissal because of some past sin. It’s my perspective on the guy and you can make of it what you will, and I state it more as context for where I’m coming from than any credible final verdict on Greenwald’s latest “revelations.” Like it or not, ad hominem against Greenwald isn’t going to fly in this debate because most normal people who veer liberal and have at least a passing knowledge of who’s who on the internet, know of Greenwald as a guy they probably agreed with when he first showed up as a former Iraq war supporter raising questions about the Bush administration’s activities. His perch at the Guardian – which is highly respected buy most liberals – also separates him from simply being outed as a clown, like an Alex Jones or Glenn Bec, Waving ones arms, trying to link him to Rand Paul’s showboating on drones or whatever isn’t going to make this story go away.
What will put the story in context and perhaps allay some fears about the implications of the marriage of government w/ Big Data when the folks in charge aren’t reprehensible Cheney or Nixon types – which is a reasonable area for significant concerns – is putting the story in context and examining Greenwald’s claims against the actual evidence. That’s worth pursuing. What he did as a lawyer years ago, or suspicions about how close he is to the Pauls – who as stopped clocks are themselves right on occasion – is useless claptrap.
I would say that specific episodes of Greenwald having drawn maximalist conclusions from minimal evidence are fair game that might actually buy you something. But even my own fairly mild negative opinion of Greenwald as being kind of cranky, obsessive and “consistent” in a way that betrays an inability to embrace my own pragmatic approach to politics doesn’t have any bearing on the facts of this particular episode for anyone who is intelligent and prone to thinking for themselves.
Greenwald may, if he’s still writing in ten years, come to be seen like a lot of us view Bob Woodward – a guy who once did something useful who has degenerated totally into a self-serving hack. But he’s not there yet – and even as far as a hack like Woodward is concerned, just attacking him for being a hack isn’t the best way of debunking some stupid shit he says on Sunday Blather.
KmCO
@Cassidy: Okay–I will apply what you’re saying to you, then. I don’t have much of a dog in this fight, but I can’t help but notice that, over the course of a few threads concerning the topic of Greenwald, Snowden, et. al., you have been most passionate and, indeed, almost seething. Nothing wrong with having a strong opinion on the matter, of course, but you appear to have a personal animus against Greenwald in particular. Your comments also show a lack of nuanced argumentation and a cartoonish view of people: “good guys” and “bad guys” shows up frequently. What soongergrunt is saying makes perfect sense and is accurate: people are neither good nor bad all of the time, and even people who have character flaws and have done horrible things can contribute to the discussion and occasionally even make accurate insights. You, Cassidy, seem to reject this nuanced, mature position and descend into a cartoonish, childish argument style. Or maybe it’s just your style, and you don’t actually think like that. Either way, your contributions to this discussion are about as suspect in my eyes and you regard Greenwald et. al.’s to be.
El Tiburon
@LAC:
No, not dismissive but more being realistic. Do you disagree with the assertion that many go to Congress wanting to Change the World to get sort of sucked in by the process then succumbing to that process?
He may have more insight. Or, he may choose to believe what is presented to him. I have no idea. I clearly stated he may be 100% correct, didn’t I?
Again, it is not too far out of bounds to be aware that when a Senator takes the government line that it may require futher scrutiny.
El Tiburon
@The Other Chuck:
I don’t know whether or not Greenwald considers himself a journalist.
But what does a journalist make? What code of ethics do journalists subscribe to that Greenwald does not?
Cassidy
@KmCO:
Why don’t you try reading anything I’ve actually written instead of looking foolish. Just for you, and I’ll make it simple, in this thread alone, I’ve spoken of the moral ambiguity of warfare and professional soldiering and the idiocy of moral absolutism, whereas the people you are trying to defend (and failing I might add) have been using words like “good”, “evil”, etc. It helps if you read the whole thread instead of one comment. Just sayin’.
As for other threads, I’ve called Snowden’s backstory into question ebcause it raises many red flags that people from the military community notice when a person fabricates a background.
I don’t like Greenwald. I don’t like dishonest, selfish scumbags. If you need a hero, that’s cool (I guess), but I don’t. Move along, now.
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
Yes, you are being silly if you think the world’s best journalist can provide anything purely objective.
Two people witness the same event, odds are they will represent it in some different fashion.
Difference is the GG Haters think Greenwald has an agenda against Obama. I believe Greenwald has an agenda against those who are in Power and Abuse that Power. Regardless of party affiliation. If this is the purity that repels so many then fine. I side with Greenwald on exposing this abuse whether a democrat or repuclican is in power. And maybe moreso with a democrat in power.
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
Serious about what? That folks like John Cole and Digby tend to agree with Greenwald more than disagree?
Or that it should matter?
If it’s the latter, then yes, what makes the blogosphere so unique and powerful when compared and contrasted to traditional corporate media is the intrinsic peer-review system in place.
We all know any topic of note posted on the blogoshphere will be picked up and dissected by other influential bloggers. Any inconsistencies and fallacies will be pointed out. It is all out there for everyone to see. So, unlike the right-wing, we hold our folks feet to the fire.
Cassidy
@KmCO: Oh and Kim, if you read further down the thread, you’ll find that I’ve clearly stated that I gives a fuck about Greenwald’s personality. It’s his lack of credibility as an honest agent of information that bothers me. But that’s further down the thread you didn’t read. Maybe the cartoons distracted you.
Bruce S
@El Tiburon:
Also, even the best Senators – Bernie Sanders included – will on occasion either take a position or avoid taking a position based on the politics. They wouldn’t be Senators if they weren’t capable of that kind of maneuvering. Just as President Obama wouldn’t be President if he “went Bulworth” – the thought of which obviously appeals to him in certain frustrating moments. It doesn’t make them bad people – they’ve just mastered a certain game which they’ve chosen to play – and every one of them does it to some extent. In this instance, I actually don’t think Franken is doing this, since he’s one of those liberals like Rachel Maddow who is not knee-jerk “left” on every matter of defense strategy, but mostly very thoughtful “moderate.”
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon: OK, you’re just slaying me with this “blogsphere as an agent of veracity” stuff. I mean even my desk is laughing now from all the tickling it’s getting from my forehead.
Mnemosyne
@Rex Everything:
And to set the parameters: the case unraveling means that it turns out that the “revelations” that Snowden gave Greenwald are of legal programs involving FISA warrants rather than the illegal and wholesale spying without a warrant that Greenwald claimed is happening.
If the NSA is overstepping its bounds and illegally obtaining information, then that’s an important thing for us all to know. I’m just skeptical that Snowden and/or Greenwald have the goods.
kc
And while it is right to look at their specific claims with a healthy dose of skepticism, let’s not lose sight of the fact that these men have brought up subjects that we should be discussing
It appears that the majority of the commenters would rather discuss what a dickhead Greenwald is.
I look forward to them all shutting the fuck up when it’s a Republican president and majority Congress running surveillance on us all. Because it will be LEGAL.
Emma
@El Tiburon: Wow. All your claims to being an asshole were really true. Who knew?
I don’t give a good rip if Greenwald lives or dies. Really. He’s not the star of my Universe as he is yours. I am pointing out that the story has more question marks than a true or false exam and that I will wait to see what happens. I also point out that I don’t like the way Greenwald gets into everyone’s faces when he thinks he’s being dissed. Especially when he did it to plaintiffs in a case in which was a defense attorney.
Emma
@Rex Everything: I pointed out –maybe not directly by using the phrase “the substance of Glenn’s story” — that the security state has been with us for a lot longer than it is implied in all the stories surfacing now. I also spelled out what I think will need to be done.
Substantive by blog standards, I think.
Ted & Hellen
Fuck you, authoritarian, military fetishist douche.
Soonergrunt
@kc: “I look forward to them all shutting the fuck up when it’s a Republican president and majority Congress running surveillance on us all. Because it will be LEGAL.”
Which will change neither of the facts that it’s legal, nor that Greenwald is a dickhead.
For some people, I suppose that he will become “OUR dickhead” once again.
Kip the Wonder Rat
@hildebrand: Actually, Gideon pretty much DID go out and change the law himself. From Wikipedia: “Gideon, then in jail, studied the American legal system and came to the conclusion that Judge McCrary had violated his constitutional right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, applicable to the State of Florida through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He then wrote to an FBI office in Florida and next to the Florida Supreme Court, but was denied help. Then in January 1962, he mailed a five-page petition to the Supreme Court of the United States asking the nine justices to consider his complaint.”
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
What? What total bullshit. And you know I don’t mean the blogosphere as a whole but those blogs/sites/etc that have come to be known as respected for not dealing in bullshit.
To wit: when someone like Andrew Sullivan or Politico or Bobo write an article, you know the front pagers here and elsewhere are going to dismantle their arguments. So, Sully can’t get away with his bullshit.
I can’t even believe I’m having this conversation.
El Tiburon
@Bruce S:
Well, I never intimated anything different re: Al Franken. I understand what you are saying.
Ergo, when he comes out and says, “Nothing to see here” I take that now with a grain of salt. Would Air America Al say the same thing? Don’t know.
So, that’s my point. Using a Senator, even one as respected on left as Al Franken to use as an argument against this NSA Leak, well, I withhold judgement for the time being.
Kathleen
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism: Or tools with hidden agendas. Which is what I suspect.
Rex Everything
@different-church-lady: Dude you were the one who brought up how shitty it would be for me to do the opposite! I’m just trying to be responsible here.
Omnes Omnibus
@different-church-lady: I’m a French model.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Bruce S:
Parts of it are being overblown, and those are the parts that illustrate the past two administrations’ similarities in their uses of the security apparatus. But Greenwald magnifies the similarities at the expense of the differences- chiefly, that the current administration hasn’t, like its predecessor, circumvented the legal process of obtaining warrants.
If Greenwald was a painter rather than a writer, he’d be compared to Jacques-Louis David. Right now we’d be talking about Greenwald’s painting of Bush and Obama embracing in front of the NSA headquarters while Feinstein and Cheney beamed in the background. The thrust of the message would be clear- these two parties are one in the same. If challenged with the point that Obama got warrants where Bush didn’t, Greenwald would point to the seemingly insignificant piece of paper sticking out of Obama’s pocket.
Past actions matter when they reveal a pattern. When you look at the body of David’s work, you don’t have to approach them knowing that he was an active revolutionary to divine, through viewing his work, that he was in fact an active revolutionary. All you need to bring with you to the gallery is a general knowledge of the French Revolution. Similarly, you don’t have to know previously that Greenwald is a libertarian. When you read through the body of his work, you know that he’s a libertarian.
But if you know what libertarianism is, if you are aware of his past sins, you know where Greenwald is headed with this. He doesn’t think much of government at all. Like Norquist, he wouldn’t mind seeing it drowned in a bathtub. The body of his work screams out that no government official can be good (‘See- both sides do it!’) because government is, by definition, not good. Humankind has walked down the ungoverned path in the past, and the results weren’t good. Greenwald wants us on that path, and he isn’t afraid to use hype to get us on our way. He has demonstrated this time and again.
different-church-lady
@Rex Everything:
I’m thinking either mis-interpertation or mis-attribution here.
I mean, hell, two weeks from now I probably won’t even be able to still associate your handle with your comments. With the exception of the most vociferous voices here I can’t keep track of who’s who for very long.
Rex Everything
@different-church-lady: Shit, sorry, had you confused with Mnemosyne.
Sorry to you too, Mnemosyne; now I understand why you responded to that…
Soonergrunt
@Omnes Omnibus: You win the internets today.
Keith G
I find a sad humor in the line of comments above that essentially say:
“Sooner, how dare you tell me that ad hominem attacks against GG and the rest are not rational. That their actions are now leading to discussions that we should have had years ago does not interest me. Those guys have said and done things that push against my comfort zone, so I am compelled to go after them personally.”
Rex Everything
@Mnemosyne: No, no. I don’t agree to that. Greenwald’s “story” is that surveillance is far more extensive, and a far greater number of citizens are being monitored, than we’ve been told. If the gov’t has a legal rationale for that in its back pocket, so much the worse. I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t.
The case would “fall apart” if it turns out the NSA has not in fact been publicly lying to Congress about its activities and capabilities.
Mnemosyne
@Rex Everything:
Greenwald’s claim was that the spying was being done without a warrant. If it turns out that the information from Google et al was being provided only in response to a proper warrant, are you going to claim that a warrant is just a “legal rationale” that the government pulled out of its ass?
Then I think you already have to eat crow, because the only ones claiming that the NSA didn’t tell them what they were up to are Republicans who have, shall we say, a vested interest in claiming that they’re shocked, shocked to discover that there’s spying going on here.
If you honestly think that Eric Cantor is telling the truth when he claims he was ignorant of the spying, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Even Fox News was pushing back on his claims.
Rex Everything
@Mnemosyne:
??
Greenwald:
I disagree that “GG’s claim was that spying was being done without a warrant.”
Mnemosyne
@Rex Everything:
As I understand it, under current law collecting data on “millions or hundreds of millions of Americans” without a warrant would be illegal.
I think you’re searching for a distinction without a difference here.
Rex Everything
@Mnemosyne: Not at all. Every time one of these Greenwald things comes up, you & your side start reassuring everyone that “no laws have been broken” till you’re blue in the face, as if that’s anyone’s primary concern. We know the Patriot Act and AUMF provide a rubber stamp for all kinds shitty gov’t behavior; we know that when the Executive claims expanded powers he is claiming them by statute, not just by will. Etc, etc, down to the present case. This is not what’s in dispute. It almost never is.
Mnemosyne
@Rex Everything:
Wow, you were able to move those goalposts without even having to catch your breath. Good job.
Just out of curiosity, is there any revelation that would lead you to think that Greenwald got the story wrong, or are you just going to continue to claim new (and mysteriously smaller) “revelations” until we’re down to, “OMG, the government is allowed to tap your phone if they get a warrant from a judge!”
Rex Everything
@Mnemosyne: Oh yeah, right. You know I haven’t moved any goalposts. Again: this was never about the legality of the surveillance.
As I said before: GG’s case would “fall apart” if it turns out the NSA has not in fact been publicly lying to Congress about its activities and capabilities.