Greenwald is accusing President Obama of making "false" claims, but hasn't backed up his claims

[ProSense]

Here: Glenn Greenwald: As Obama Makes "False" Surveillance Claims, Snowden Risks Life to Spark NSA Debate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023041294

Five Questions Edward Snowden Didn't Answer

By Mathew Ingram

<...>

Why he chose to go to Hong Kong: Asked by Greenwald why he chose Hong Kong as a place to hide, Snowden said that the U.S. government had “destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason”—but he didn’t really answer the question. There have been conspiracy theories about alleged collusion with the Chinese government (which Snowden denied later in the discussion) and also some theories about the upside of choosing Hong Kong.


Whether he made copies of the documents: Greenwald also asked if Snowden had made any copies of the NSA documents he provided to the Guardian—and if so, whether he gave them to a number of different people for safekeeping, or stored them somewhere else, so they would be available if something happened to him. Snowden didn’t answer the question.

What exactly “direct access” means: Circa editor-in-chief and former Reuters social-media editor Anthony De Rosa asked Snowden to define what “direct access” means—a term that is used in the NSA documents describing the Prism program and something that technology companies such as Google (GOOG), Facebook (FB), and Yahoo! (YHOO) have repeatedly denied they provide. Snowden would say only that “more detail on how direct NSA’s accesses are is coming.”

Whether agents can listen to phone calls: De Rosa also asked if NSA agents could listen to the content of domestic phone calls without a warrant—as opposed to simply collecting and filtering the “metadata” around those calls, such as the location and length of time they take to complete. There have been allegations that the NSA is able to listen to specific phone calls without a warrant, but Snowden didn’t say whether this is true.

- more -

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-18/five-questions-edward-snowden-didnt-answer

Snowden basically admits the "direct access" claim was bullshit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032903

Edward Snowden Says More Info About "Direct Access" Is In the Works
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023033916

Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023012813

[Junkdrawer]

1. "Whether he made copies of the documents" ???? That's a joke, right?

"Yeah, I made copies and gave them to X, Y and Z. Do you need coordinates, or will street addresses suffice?"

[ProSense]

2. So you're rejecting that question as a "joke"?

Are the other questions a "joke" too?

[baldguy]

4. All we have as proof that Snowden made copies is his word.

And the only proof that we have that the documents are evidence of crimes is his word as well.

And so far, Snowden's word is worth shit. Every one of his claims that is able to be verified has been proven to be false.

[reformist2]

30. Umm, the NSA hasn't backed up their claims, either.

[JDPriestly]

35. Greenwald attached a copy of one of the extremely general,

all-encompassing court orders to his first article in the Guardian.

[baldguy]

39. That's one out of the million he claims to have.

[flamingdem]

45. +1

[BenzoDia]

3. What I want to know is where are the abuses he's claiming.

[Cha]

5. Leaker Snowden Job.. Such an evasive, disgusting, freaking whiner..

thanks for the OP, ProSense

[Corruption Inc]

6. What's with the daily repeated character assassinations of different people?

The only person who would do such a thing would be a paid propaganda agent who is targeting lower education level readers, which would not be the people who read DU. Character assassination is a poorly received technique as it doesn't provide any information pertaining to the issue(s) involved.

Please explain why you engage is this behavior as 100s of people have asked you to and you have yet to respond to any of them.

[snooper2]

10. not bad

I give you a 6.3 out of 10

[DesMoinesDem]

17. You answered your own question.

The only person who would do such a thing would be a paid propaganda agent

[arcane1]

24. Isn't it character assassination to call someone a paid propaganda agent?

[riqster]

7. The possibility of crime does not = crime

Fuck what he could do, what DID he do?

[ProSense]

8. Here's the thing

"The possibility of crime does not = crime"

...If Greenwald's goal is to "to spark NSA debate" about the potential for abuse, why is he trying to create the impression that the President has abused his authority by pushing bogus claims that have been debunked? Also, what's with the bizarre focus on spying on other countries? Surely Greenwald isn't surprised by this.

[randome]

9. He found out Snowden snowed him and he's trying to salvage what he can from it.

He's at the Denial stage.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[99Forever]

11. Frankly...

... coming from this OP, I know it's nothing but pure, unadulterated, 100% propaganda.

[babylonsister]

18. Funny,

but that's what my r/w 'friends' say when I provide links to them that I think are valid news sources. Which source that was provided in the OP do you consider 100% propaganda?

[99Forever]

21. Ya mean the links back to the OP's own previous posts?

In a word:

Absolutely.

[babylonsister]

23. No, the articles highlighted from

The Nation, Businessweek, etc. I know I would probably never have read them, so I appreciate the info.

[emulatorloo]

41. I just hate it when people post links to supporting materials

Better to just post fact-free hyperbolic rants. That is how we do it at DU.

[Rex]

12. He is just doing so to drive you crazy.

Don't give in to his jedi powers!

[ProSense]

15. Speaking of

"He is just doing so to drive you crazy."

..."crazy":

Glenn Greenwald Justifies Snowden’s Fear He Will Be Killed: U.S. ‘Targeted’ Americans In The Past
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035095

Yikes!

[Rex]

19. Ya that bit right there is like watching Plan 9 from Outerspace.

I've agreed with Greenwald on many things...but he is waaaaaay of the reservation on this one or as I like to say sometimes, 'all over the road with this one'.

If the U.S. wanted him or them both dead...guess what Lucy...they would be 6 feet under or sinking to the bottom of the ocean right about now.

The fact that Snowden went to the Chinese, sinks all his credibility with me. Also, I already knew the government is spying on the citizens...knew that over 10 years ago. I wonder how many people would freak out by learning that there were wiretaps BEFORE there was an NSA?

[Enrique]

13. i knew you guys wouldn't like that

that little "cross-dressing red riding hood"* calling Obama a liar! Well, I never!

*this is what the Washington Post's Richard Cohen called him in his contribution to the smear campaign.

[ProSense]

14. WTF? n/t

[Rex]

20. How did you come up with the cross dressing red riding hood stuff?

What does it mean?

[okaawhatever]

25. I'll interject here. Greenwald said Snowden wears a red cape when he's on his computer so that

people can't see what he's typing. While I was researching some statements he made that sounded like quotes, I found that the phrase he used "turnkey tyranny" came from a book called "The Cap of Liberty" written around 1860. The cap of liberty is referring to the red hooded cape (cap as it was called at the time) given to slaves when they were freed. Supposedly the tradition goes back to Roman times but has other references in history. He also uses the expression "Architecture of Oppression" which is both a book about the Nazi SS using slave labor to construct buildings in Germany, and a death metal band.

[Rex]

26. I actually read it wrong, I thought it was saying Obama was

a cross dressing, etc.. very informative and explains the red cape part, TY!

[arcane1]

27. "wears a red cape when he's on his computer"??

Why not close the blinds or something?

[okaawhatever]

28. Because there isn't a book about freedom from oppression involving blinds? nt

[arcane1]

46. Where does he wear this red cape, where people can look over his shoulder?

This is news to me.

[okaawhatever]

47. It was mentioned in the very first Greenwald articles. He referred to the cape and pillows lined up

against the door so people couldn't hear. I don't know exactly where he wears it, but I doubt it's Starbucks.

[arcane1]

48. He wore a red cape at home, where no one could see him?

[okaawhatever]

50. here is the paragraph from the article with a link. Note that he was taking these precautions

before he was ever identified. This is the first article published about him, so apparently his fear of being spied on predated the story.

He is deeply worried about being spied on. He lines the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping. He puts a large red hood over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

[Blue_Roses]

49. lol

[Cali_Democrat]

22. "that little cross-dressing red riding hood"

Wait....wuh?

[Enrique]

29. updated my post with the reference

sorry for the confusion!

[Cali_Democrat]

32. Thank you for the clarification, Enrique.

[Life Long Dem]

16. That's all he needs to say to keep the Teabaggers happy

Tea Party on NSA Snooping: We Told You Not to Trust Big Government!

But almost as outrageous to many Tea Partiers as the NSA snooping itself has been the lack of outrage by Republican leaders.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/13/tea-party-on-nsa-snooping-we-told-you-not-to-trust-big-government.html

[Eddie Haskell]

31. He doesn't have to, the government did it for him.

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers

[ProSense]

33. Huh?

"He doesn't have to, the government did it for him."

He most certainly has to back up his claims. That document has nothing to do with Greenwald's claims.

[JDPriestly]

34. Greewald's point as I understand it is that for the many, many

Americans who have family and friends overseas, phone calls and e-mails are under surveillance.

We qualify in that enormous group.

So, we cannot speak freely.

We are fortunately not yet at the point of no return. We have not reached the point at which our government is weak and takes its frustrations out on dissident voices like many who post on DU or the many Tea Baggers.

But if history is our guide, as long as this program is in place and provides a means through which a government unable to deal with the problems our nation faces wants to find scapegoats, this program will be used to identify and prepare those scapegoats for, and I am using this word figuratively, not necessarily literally although it could become the literal reality, the "slaughter."

The word slaughter seems overwrought to us, but think of the millions that people like Stalin and Franco and Pinochet, etc. killed and punished for no reason other than that they did not support the official party line.

This is the ultimate slippery slope. This is unacceptable.

Stop spying on Americans.

And private businesses should not be allowed to spy on us without our permission either.

[Jarla]

36. It's helpful to read the whole transcript

Which can be found here

Question from Ewan Macaskill:
Why did you just not fly direct to Iceland if that is your preferred country for asylum?

Answer:
Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration.



Question from Glenn Greenwald:
How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?

Answer:
All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped. (So, yes, he did make copies.)



Question from Anthony De Rosa:
Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means.

Answer:
...in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time.

(In other words, the various intelligence agencies have large collections of raw, unfiltered data. Legally, an analyst can only search for certain information in these databases. But an analyst with that level of access to a database also has the ability to search for information about you or me, regardless of whether or not its legal.)



But you're correct, he didn't respond to the question about analysts listening to phone calls.

[ProSense]

37. Actually,

"It's helpful to read the whole transcript"

...I read it.

Snowden basically admits the "direct access" claim was bullshit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032903

[ljm2002]

38. Obama said...

..."If you are an American person, the NSA cannot listen to your calls without first obtaining a warrant", or words to that effect (I cannot find the transcript, but the above is an accurate paraphrase, and he did use the term "American person" without qualification).

Greenwald pointed out that, if you are an American person talking to a foreign national, this is patently untrue.

So he did back up his assertion that Obama lied.

Now you might believe that Obama meant purely domestic calls when he said "If you are an American person...". But that is not what he said. His statement was direct and used simple language, and Greenwald pointed out how the statement is not true.

[ProSense]

40. That is nonsense.

Obama said...

..."If you are an American person, the NSA cannot listen to your calls without first obtaining a warrant", or words to that effect (I cannot find the transcript, but the above is an accurate paraphrase, and he did use the term "American person" without qualification).

Greenwald pointed out that, if you are an American person talking to a foreign national, this is patently untrue.

So he did back up his assertion that Obama lied.

Now you might believe that Obama meant purely domestic calls when he said "If you are an American person...". But that is not what he said. His statement was direct and used simple language, and Greenwald pointed out how the statement is not true.

The person targeted is not American, and the President also said:

"It can only be narrowly related to counter-terrorism, weapons proliferation, cyber hacking or attacks"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023039098

Like I said, Greenwald's goal appears to be using baseless claims to create the impression that the President is lying.

[ljm2002]

43. "The person targeted is not American"...

...yes I get that, at least if the rules in place are followed.

However, that does not alter the fact that President Obama clearly said "If you are an American person". He did not further qualify that to say something like "If you are an American person talking to another American domestically". He stopped at "If you are an American person".

Now sure, you can say that Greenwald is nit picking here. I don't think so, but I see how one could make that argument. BUT if you are going to insist people don't nit pick before calling others liars, then one would want to be consistent in that. For example, people have been calling Greenwald a liar over his story about the NSA's slides that claimed "direct access" to company servers. Even though Greenwald clearly stated this was a claim made by the NSA in their slides and that some of the companies say otherwise. That did not stop a huge onslaught of commentators here and elsewhere calling him a liar.

Sorry, your argument does not hold water.

[slipslidingaway]

52. Feingold said the same thing back in 2008 ...

video at link and worth the five minutes IMHO.

Sen. Russ Feingold on FISA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=150878&mesg_id=150878

"However, that does not alter the fact that President Obama clearly said "If you are an American person". He did not further qualify that to say something like "If you are an American person talking to another American domestically". He stopped at "If you are an American person."

[maxrandb]

42. It's become fairly obvious that Greenwald has an agenda

I'm just a little shocked by how quickly some on DU throw President Obama under the bus for a 29 year old High School dropout and a reporter with an agenda.

[Kolesar]

44. They're on DU, but they are on the Alex Jones forum at the same time ...eom

[Dawson Leery]

51. kick

[railsback]

53. Be careful, DUers

When Greenwald/Snowden tell you they have evidence that its a good idea to jump in front of a speeding bus, try to think past the initial euphoria.