Greenwald: "...this kind of radical, grotesque form of progressive hypocrisy"

[bigtree]

excerpt from an excellent interview by 'Reason' of Glen Greenwald for their Feb. issue:


Reason: Have you been surprised or disappointed in any way with the weak reaction against the NSA by a lot of the people on the left?

Greenwald: No, I haven't been surprised, in part because there were so many other policies that progressives—or liberals, or Democrats, whatever you want to describe them as being—pretended not just to oppose but to vehemently condemn and be offended by when they were done by George Bush, and when Barack Obama was condemning them. And then they just stood by quietly, meekly acquiescing if not outright endorsing Obama once he was in power and embracing these same theories, in some cases even expanding them.

So this kind of radical, grotesque form of progressive hypocrisy was something that I had become extremely accustomed to, had written about and had just expected as a fact of life...

But the behavior of Democrats was completely predictable. They pretended to be hideously bothered by a much smaller-scale amount of eavesdropping revealed under George Bush and then were completely supportive of what was done under President Obama.

I think that the much more relevant split, politically, is no longer left versus right or Democrat versus Republican but insider versus outsider. You saw this most prominently in the last year with that NSA vote, where the people who saved the bulk metadata program were the White House, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner—this kind of unholy trinity of establishment insiders—who whipped all their establishment members of Congress in defense of the NSA.


read interview: http://www.newsweek.com/greenwald-shedding-light-exercise-power-dark-304759


...again, a candid and insightful interview - interesting reading for both supporters of his work and detractors alike. Quote: "I would rather have those people (journalists)—and I would include myself in that—subjected to excessive criticism and attack than insufficient criticism and attack."

[KG]

1. !

[uhnope]

172. a fake accuses others of hypocrisy

Gimme a break

Report Indicates Snowden/Greenwald Lied About Key Claims

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/09/1229963/-Report-Indicates-Snowden-Greenwald-Lied-About-Key-Claims

[billhicks76]

174. You Give Me A Break

Last edited Thu Feb 12, 2015, 09:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Glenn nailed it. Pure unabashed truth. Hypocrisy has no room in our party. And either do NSA/DEA apologists who support destroying our rights to make contractors rich and give them a stranglehold on our democracy. In addition I wish someone could screen the sock puppets they send out to comment everytime Snowden or Greenwald is featured in an article here. I'm sure you too must've at least noticed their timing right on cue as they troll the internet to defend their position. A position which is antithetical to Democracy.

[randome]

183. Leave my puppets out of this!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[wildbilln864]

184. spot fuckin on! n/t

[grasswire]

186. well said nt

[pnwmom]

266. It's Koch brothers-funded propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(magazine)

Reason Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization completely supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, corporations, and the sale of its publications. According to the organization's tax filings, in 2012 the Reason Foundation's largest donors were the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1,522,212) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($2,016,000).

[stevenleser]

198. Yep. Some research the facts enough to know it. Others, well, facts just dont matter to them. nt

[uhnope]

206. It seems like rationality vs hero worship and emotional motivations

[LiberalLovinLug]

233. So sick of the juvenille school yard tactics

"If you aren't with us you're for the terrorists" BS all over again.

If you dare question the government (who happens to be led by a D at the moment) and its altruistic intentions, even as the powers, wealth, and influence of massive corporations is growing and given more and more "rights". If you appreciate what one whistleblower has done to push the conversation forward at great expense to his own personal freedom....you are hero worshiping, not to mention irrational. Implying that those that support what he has done are carving statues of Snowden and burning incense in our own privately constructed mini temples.

Its a feeble attempt to frame and smear anyone that agree with his actions and Greenwald's reporting on them in the most asinine way possible. I'm surprised not to see the ROTFL smiley that usually accompanies the childish snark of this small but vocal herd.

[Autumn]

2. I'm gonna just rec this and grab

and I'm gonna need this

[Alittleliberal]

121. +1000

[cui bono]

229. Well move over and make some room...

[pnwmom]

264. Why are you recommending a propaganda piece funded by the Koch brothers?

He's not just anti-Democrats. He's anti progressives and anti liberals. And, surprise, surprise, he's funded by David Koch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(magazine)

Reason Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization completely supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, corporations, and the sale of its publications. According to the organization's tax filings, in 2012 the Reason Foundation's largest donors were the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1,522,212) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($2,016,000).

[Fumesucker]

3. It's always been insider vs outsider

To quote George Carlin, it's a club and you ain't in it.

Since the coming of the internet it's just become much more obvious, stuff I once only hazily knew a few rumors about from alternative papers I now know in stunning detail.

[RiverLover]

4. Apologists & hypocrits enabling the insiders vs outsiders

Are bad for our party, and our country.

Good interview. Thanks for posting!!

[Dragonfli]

179. That's it in a nutshell, oddly, I would add to your list bad for them as well

Those insiders they enable will most assuredly not include their useful idiot sophistry soldiers in the inside as they might imagine.

To them, even their tools are outsiders to plunder and keep in submission no matter how much they lick their boots and help in the work that continues to screw them and the rest of us outsiders.

They think they will win the lottery or in the case of some, be picked up on a permanent basis by Murdock and receive a multi-million dollar contract and a prime-time show rather than the occasional spot as reward for such diligent water carrying.

It is sad in a way,

[n2doc]

5. In before the haters show up n/t

[randome]

22. HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE!

HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

207. "In before people who don't share my opinion show up"

There. Fixed it for you.

[sibelian]

221. Yeah, but we've seen them, and heard their opinions

and their opinions are clearly motivated entirely by hatred. So, actually, your fix is for own benefit.

[cui bono]

232. No. Not at all.

If you lurked before you started posting you know that there is a group on here that routinely throw people under the bus simply because they dare criticize Obama in any way. GG is one of them. Try to get any of those people who attempt to swiftboat GG to actually discuss the policies being criticized and they will answer with a personal attack against GG, nothing substantive at all. They simply want him smeared so that no one will listen to him.

So no, if they would actually ever express an opinion about policy perhaps there might be a grain of truth to your post. But that is not the case. They only care that their teen beat president got criticized and their feelings apparently got hurt so they swiftboat whoever made the criticism.

All you have to do is read the bolded part of the OP. That is so very true on DU. There's even a group dedicated to that sort of mind think.

[NanceGreggs]

242. Well, let me fix THAT for you ...

There is a group on here that routinely throw people under the bus simply because they dare to support Obama in any way. Try to get any of those people who attempt to swiftboat Obama to actually discuss the policies being criticized and they will answer with a personal attack against the poster - nothing substantive at all. They simply want him smeared because they believe they are smarter than the President and could run the nation soooo much better than he has - despite all evidence to the contrary.

They only care that their teen beat idol, Greenwald, gets criticized and their feelings apparently get hurt, so they swiftboat whoever made the criticism.

All you have to do is read the posts here on DU. There's even a group dedicated to that sort of mind think - The True Progressives (TM). It's not an official group, mind you - but they invariably show up when their idol, GG, has his motives questioned, or when GG's "facts" turn out to be less than credible.

It's impossible to miss the irony of GG fans accusing Obama supporters of being "mindless cheerleaders", when those fans swallow everything GG says as gospel, and regurgitate his pitiful fact-less opinions as though they were anything more than the ramblings of an egotistical, self-serving narcissist who never tires of hearing his own voice.

Of course, I - along with everyone else - am anxiously awaiting GG's much-touted "fireworks display" of mind-blowing revelations about the NSA, which has yet to surface. Perhaps he's too busy making money from his exploitation of his "good buddy", Snowden, to be bothered with such trivialities.

[BetsysGhost]

244. _

[grasswire]

246. LOL

well played

[NanceGreggs]

258. Welcome to DU.

Your contribution to the discussion has already proven to be invaluable - precise in its language, unwavering in its strong position on the issues, and a welcome respite from those who have nothing substantive to say - but feel compelled to post anyway regardless of that fact.

[Bobbie Jo]

252. Fixed.

[Cha]

247. Really. Mahalo, Jeff.

[stevenleser]

6. Except, it's not true. Greenwald conveniently ignores facts that do not support him.

I and those who agree with me, were against Bush era spying because it was warrant less wiretapping. There was no paper trail.

Obama stopped doing that and went back to using FISA.

Every issue to which Greenwald can point is similar. He ignores differences so he can paint Obama and Bush with the same broad brush.

[Dragonfli]

8. Yes it changed from warrantless, to meaningless blanket rubberstampted

pseudo warrants.

As I recall they still collect everything and promise not to peek without the faux warrant. Nice to know they can tap whatever they want and save everything.

It is an improvement in rationalization nothing more.

[stevenleser]

11. That is your opinion and it is driven by a desire to paint Obama and Bush as the same, not by truth.

It ignores why FISA was passed in the first place.

It ignores the fact that we can never go back and figure out who ordered a warrantless wiretap or why they ordered one.

It ignores the fact that we can never be sure how information from a warrantless wiretap was used.

There is no paper trail with a warrantless wiretap.

Now if you insist on painting that as "a distinction without a difference", that's up to you. But it is not an intellectually honest position.

[Dragonfli]

15. "It is driven by a desire to paint Obama and Bush with the same brush"

Is a bullshit projection.
You pretend to assume that and then state it as fact (which it isn't) in order to paint me with that particular brush, not an intellectually honest position on your part, kinda fucked up shit really. I see your tenure at Fox has taught you well.

[stevenleser]

24. It's right on. You simply ignore facts you find inconvenient to get to a desired result. That's

not projection.

[Dragonfli]

29. Since I have no desire to paint them as the same

It is complete and total bullshit, the fact that you claim to know my desires means either you are a delusional person that thinks he can read minds (or is it souls where desires are concerned) or you are using a technique to paint me as something which in this case would be projection.

Which is it?

Also, you never even addressed my main point about collecting everything and promising not to peek, warrants don't work that way unless they are faux, warrants state exactly what they are looking for and collect only that, not the neighbors stuff as well in case someday they get a warrant for that stuff.

You have learned from FOX, you use the same techniques.

[stevenleser]

65. Sure you don't. Yet you deliberately ignore all evidence that would lead you in another direction.

And I am willing to bet this is hardly the only issue where that is so. Let me guess you agree with one or more of the following;

- Health care reform was a sellout

- Obama is practically just as warlike as was Bush

- We have no leg to stand on addressing ISIS burning of someone because we have dropped bombs in the past

- Obama's recovery has only or primarily helped the wealthy by design.

Am I right?

[Dragonfli]

78. No I do Not "ignore all evidence ...." You need to take your Karnac shit on the road

Or learn to do something other than argue like a FOX contributor that thinks making nonsense allegations based on your psychic ability to paint people as whatever you think would invalidate their opinion to your low information audience somehow proves your position.

[stevenleser]

82. Of course you didn't respond to what I knew had to be true, you do the same thing time after time

If there is a conflict in the facts and one interpretation is in favor of the administration and one suggests the administration might be the same as the Republicans or Bush administration, you default to against the administration almost if not every time.

[Dragonfli]

92. You have got to be kidding me, you are actually mad because

I won't help you build your strawman?

You are the funniest and most transparent poster I have seen in a long time.

I can see why you wanted my help, your strawman is built mostly of air and your Karnac act.

[stevenleser]

95. Nope, I'm pointing out you always ignore facts that knock down your intended fallacious result. nt

[Dragonfli]

167. That is an absurd statement, Let me try one. "I would like to point out

that you always pee sitting down and you never wash your hands after" .

Hey, this FOX contributor gig is fun, I can see why you enjoy it. Convenient prescience as a replacement for an argument is fun, it doesn't even matter if what you say is almost certainly false.

[2banon]

64. No, it isn't "right on". those rose colored glasses need to be replaced with clear lenses.

[stevenleser]

66. I'm willing to hear other reasons why people are deliberately ignoring facts that would lead them in

another direction.

[2banon]

90. On the contrary. Curiously, it is you ignoring the Facts.

Are you a staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee? Is Senator Wyden LYING to the Public?

[stevenleser]

94. Since the biggest fact here is the Constitutionality and I am the only one referring to appellate

cases, that is obviously untrue.

[AgingAmerican]

117. You mean the UNconstitutionality

nt

[stevenleser]

123. No, I don't since a small mountain of cases all indicate FISA is Constitutional. nt

[bigtree]

181. constitutionality doesn't speak to intent

...using a 'national security' rationale or justification for mass spying on Americans doesn't excuse it; just allows the Executive to get away with it.

Why did Pres. Obama eventually conclude the bulk collection was wrong?

Was it on the merits? Does he fear an eventual ruling against it? Is he covering up actions even more insidious than we know; like Bush was when he went to Congress for retroactive approval for violating the law?

Maybe he knows his NSA went too far.

[1StrongBlackMan]

253. Accusations of Projection must have been ...

in the morning briefing ... this is the third time I've seen it used in this (incorrect) manner.

[bettyellen]

89. It's been proven this is Greenwald's aim... Way too many

Misleading stories and lies of omission for anyone to take him seriously as a journalist.
Not a comment on you, but GG is a biased hack. Nothing more.

[AgingAmerican]

118. Apparently the Pulitzer committee took him seriously

...as a journalist.

[randome]

119. The Guardian won the Pulitzer, not Greenwald.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[AgingAmerican]

122. The series on which Greenwald worked, along with others, won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize

...for 'Public Service'. You should be praising him.

[stevenleser]

125. Even if we take your fallacious reasoning as fair, the Pulitzer committee are not Constitutional

experts. They have no way of knowing whether what he is writing has no Constitutional basis.

[AgingAmerican]

130. What 'fallacious reasoning'?

Details please.

LOL at your attempted smear of the Pulitzer committee. You just used fallacious reasoning (ad hominem)!

[stevenleser]

135. The Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. nt

[AgingAmerican]

136. Is this the best position you can muster?

Seriously, that is pretty damn weak. Pointing out the fact that Greenwald won a Pullitzer is a 'fallacy' to you?

[stevenleser]

137. Logical fallacies used in reasoning are serious issues with that reasoning. nt

[AgingAmerican]

176. pointing out a simple fact

Isn't 'reasoning,' nor is it an appeal to anything. You are grasping at straws.

[Rex]

155. Foxnews has taught him well the art of never showing proof of your claim.

'No facts steven' just wants people to have faith in the evidence he seems not able to produce in link form.

[stevenleser]

193. I've been on several networks including your favorite, RT. So that doesnt work. nt

[Rex]

290. Of course there is no proof I like RT and in many posts denounce it outright.

Not that I would expect someone of your low caliber to ever be accurate in...well...anything. You are a first class hack, get over yourself and move on.

[Marr]

190. This just in! Fox News contributor disagrees with Pulitzer committee on subject of

what constitutes good journalism!

Film at eleven.

[stevenleser]

192. I'm not a Fox News contributor. So, you're wrong right out of the gate. nt

[Marr]

194. Fox News Expert? Fox News Consultant? I don't know what their

official label would be.

[stevenleser]

196. And that is your general issue. You opine about a lot of stuff without knowing. nt

[Marr]

200. You're right-- I'm ignorant. What *is* your official label at Fox News, anyway?

[stevenleser]

202. I don't have one, because I am not a Fox News employee. nt

[Katashi_itto]

231. Could have fooled me

[stevenleser]

250. Then you are easily fooled. All the networks have guests on who are not employees all the time. nt

[Katashi_itto]

260. Right...so that's what it's called nowadays...

[grasswire]

189. .......and another apologist for the insiders chimes in nt

[bettyellen]

279. LOL, keep telling yourslef that. Hee hee.

[Enthusiast]

170. PLUS ONE, a whole bunch!

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Ascribing ulterior and negative motives to others is not a legitimate discussion device and any

person who was interviewing me who pulled that shit would find himself confronted about it on air if necessary. What are you Karnac? A mind reader? It is a claim without basis.
That's just the sort of thing that makes me shut down an interview and/or stop reading a pundit. It's unacceptable in every way.

[stevenleser]

41. They can correct me, if they can. I've pointed out the facts they are conveniently ignoring. If...

they have another reason for ignoring them, I'm all ears.

[Dragonfli]

59. I ignored no facts and you damn well no it

I acknowledged the FISA court but feel it changed nothing because of the blanket nature of the faux warrants and the fact that the warrants are only used for access,, not collection which is done in bulk with nothing more than a promise that no one will peek.

A real warrant would state exactly what is sought.

Just because I do not agree with you that this farce protects us does not mean I have ignored it, it only means that you disagree.

You are the one ignoring the facts here, the most glaring one is that they not only haven't slowed down, they are collecting even more meaning the reforms in practice are useless.

[stevenleser]

69. Ignoring facts vs paying brief lip service to them and discounting them is functionally the same. nt

[Rex]

156. It's a Foxnews tactic that works on the brain dead.

I find No Facts Steven to be a funny sort of pundit. Ask him to produce a link to back up his claim and he just pretends that there are progressives out there that agree with him (again no evidence) and so you must be wrong.

He sadly has gotten worse at being a pundit since his lovefest at Socknews.

[Ichingcarpenter]

161. limited hangout

The operations of secret intelligence agencies aiming at the manipulation of public opinion generally involve a combination of cynical deception with the pathetic gullibility of the targeted populations.

Limited hangout artists are instant media darlings The most obvious characteristic of the limited hangout operative is that he or she immediately becomes the darling of the controlled corporate media

Selective reporting refers to rare events which are widely reported, thereby altering the perception of how common they actually are. This is common amongst practictioners of bullshit, where they - and their customers - selectively report their successes but make no mention of their numerous failures.

It contrasts to cherry picking in that selective reporting is often unintentional, and concentrates on the reporting and memory of events, while cherry picking is more specific to selecting evidence and actively ignoring evidence that isn't favourable. Both are mechanisms of confirmation bias and are reasons why anecdotal evidence, no matter how "convincing", is not accepted as evidence in science and rationalism.


this post has nothing to do with anybody or the conversation................I just want more hearts...........lol

[Rex]

162. LOL! Yes confirmation bias, very good.

Good to see someone else knows what is going on. Eisegesis and sophism. That is all I see in the replies. Pretty much all that makes up a pundit these days.

[Ichingcarpenter]

166. Selective reporting

Selective reporting is a strong bias that prevents correct conclusions arising from testing hypotheses - it's a specific form of selection bias whereby only interesting or relevant examples are cited.

example...........


Selective reporting of drug deaths is very common. Deaths from improper use of legal over-the-counter drugs are often ignored, while deaths from illegal recreational drugs receive a lot of publicity. The resulting perception is that recreational drugs are very dangerous. A review of 10 years of media reports about drug deaths in Scotland showed that 1 in every 250 death from paracetamol was reported, for benzodiazepines - 1 in 50, for ampthetamines - 1 in 3, and for ecstasy - every single death was reported


I try to look at the big picture but avoid putting the totality of my reality in the finite of an absolute.

[stevenleser]

197. I'm not a Fox News employee. You are just confirming you have nothing other than

misrepresentations.

[Bugenhagen]

249. I think I almost choked on an irony

[uhnope]

205. It seems your rationality is in the minority here.

And it seems most people here are motivated by emotion and hero worship.

[Dragonfli]

216. I would like to point out your auto correct error You must have meant RATIONALIZATIONS

Also, whereas I agree that people are doing 180s now that a Democratic President is in office, only some of it can be attributed to hero worship regarding Obama.

Much more of it is simply blind partisanship exhibited by those that only criticized bulk collection of data and institutionalized wiretapping of innocent Americans as a way to attack the other party during the Bush years - not because what was being done was wrong (which it was).

Of course such people would embrace such things once their party leadership endorsed it, hyper partisans do not care about civil liberties or fourth amendment rights, they simply care if it can be used to attack or must be defended depending on something as trivial as the party membership of the ones violating those fourth amendment rights.

You also grossly overestimate the amount of blind unprincipled partisanship that exists here, it is actually a small minority of posters that are well organized and persistent in there rationalizations and coordination of their talking points.

Such hyper-partisanship cares only about the team, not if what the team does is right or wrong, legal or illegal, beneficial or damaging to the citizenry just whether the team scores a win.

[2banon]

56. Thank you Dragonfli, you took the words right out of my mouth. We should come up with a more

suitable moniker for the Rubber Stamp proceedings referenced as FISA that passes as judicial "oversight"..

I thought of one, but it doesn't roll off the tongue very well..

[Dragonfli]

87. I agree, it is used as a rubber stamp

but something more specific than "rubber stamp" would be helpful.

We also need another word for blanket warrants as warrants aren't supposed to be vacuums used to such up an ocean to find one fish, warrants are supposed to be very specific and detail exactly what one is searching for and collect only that.

[zeemike]

79. And now it is all perfectly legal and we accept it as normal.

The right already accepted it as normal so it was just up to the democrats to bring the party into line...and many of us have because Obama said it was OK.

[bvar22]

159. As I recall,

not a single warrant request was denied or sent back for clarification.

[RiverLover]

9. And we are underwhelmed...

OVERNIGHT TECH: NSA critics underwhelmed by Obama’s reforms
2/3/15

Minor changes to the nation's spying laws aren't earning plaudits from the intelligence community's civil libertarian critics.

The few administrative reforms unveiled by the Obama administration in a report on Monday hardly merit notice, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said. "My first impression on reading this report is it's hard to see much 'there' there," he said in a statement. "When it comes to reforming intelligence programs and protecting Americans' privacy, there is much, much more work to be done."

Neema Singh Guliani, a lobbyist with the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the handful of limits on agencies' collection and storage of people's data "do no more than tinker around the edges." "The documents clearly show that the government continues to stand by a number of its troubling mass surveillance policies, despite mounting evidence that many of these programs are ineffective," she added. "The report released today underscores the need for action by Congress and the courts to fully reform the NSA."

Similar disappointment came from the Electronic Frontier Foundation — which called the new reforms "weak" — and from the Brennan Center for Justice, where Elizabeth Goitein said the changes are far short of the "fundamental course correction" needed...

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/overnights/231657-overnight-tech-nsa-critics-underwhelmed-by-obamas-tweaks

[stevenleser]

12. See my #11. nt

[Octafish]

10. Like when Candidate Obama said he'd reign in NSA abuses?

The Surveillance Reforms Obama Supported Before He Was President

Links and details to every position and how they changed after he became President. Or is ProPublic lying, too?

[stevenleser]

14. See my #11. nt

[Oilwellian]

188. All I can see is #2 n/t

[stevenleser]

191. Stop staring in the mirror. nt

[840high]

68. Thanks

[bigtree]

17. now the abuses are sanctioned by a secret court which appears to be more influenced by the govt.

...than citizens. It's findings are almost always kept secret. Where's the accountability?


from SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL in 2013: In its entire 33-year history, the FISA court has rejected just 11 of 34,000 requests...10 of 11 members were nominated by Republican presidents, and the executive branch almost never loses.

[randome]

20. The percentage of approvals does not mean what you think it does.

As has been pointed out numerous times. A prosecutor does not go to a judge in the first place unless they are damned sure the request will be approved. Otherwise, the prosecutor looks like a loser.

What is surprising here is that Greenwald is not surprised. He seems to have adopted this infallible persona and wants us to believe that he is all-knowing and always correct.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

26. well, we're in the same boat as before

...we really don't know what the refusals mean; what grounds they were decided on. We do know, though, that the scope and amount of surveillance has increased.

In fact, in most of these hearings, effectively, only the government has the ability to weigh in.

Sen. Blumenthal (I'll use his objections as a representation of my complaint) :

"The FISA court reviews domestic surveillance requests through a secretive process that denies the public an opportunity to influence or even understand opinions with immense implications for our privacy. In the domestic criminal context, the contours of Fourth Amendment limitations have been developed through a process in which advocates, officials and the public have a chance to identify flaws in the government’s reasoning. While domestic criminal warrants are issued after proceedings in which only the government is able to make its case, the legal principles governing the decision to issue these warrants come from judicial decisions regarding their admissibility — decisions issued after public proceedings where both sides have a chance to be heard. By contrast, in the FISA court context, drastic expansions in government surveillance can occur without any party other than the government having an opportunity to know, much less to weigh in."

[randome]

30. I'm not sure where this stands now but legislation to introduce a Special Advocate...

...has been making its way through the sausage process. This would be a privacy advocate who would help oversee minimization procedures or raise objections to anything the NSA requests that might run afoul of civil rights expectations.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[stevenleser]

93. And it won't help, because that person will not be able to publicly report what happens. So...

... the fodder will continue to be there for conspiracy theorists and those on the left who want to paint Democrats the same as Republicans.

[stevenleser]

23. Not "now". FISA has existed since the late 1970s. nt

[bigtree]

37. of course, you know the program has been perverted from it's original intention

The reasonable test. Reasonableness. That's the threshold test Bush and his lawyer Gonzales came up with to determine whether to spy on Americans. 'Reasonableness' is also the standard that Bush's Gen. Hayden used to defend the warrant-less wiretapping and data-mining of U.S. citizens, in blatant disregard for the FISA law set in place by Sen. Kennedy and others in response to unwarranted surveillance in the '60's and the '70's.

Is the FISA law reasonable?

FISA isn't exactly an institution which should hearten those who advocate open government. The FBI and the NSA have used the act to set up a secret courts and have perverted the act to conduct surveillance for domestic criminal investigations in addition to their foreign counterintelligence probes.

Under FISA, all hearings and decisions are conducted in secret. The government is normally the only party to FISA proceedings and the only party that can appeal to the Supreme Court.

The ACLU asked the Supreme Court to review whether the Constitution and the Patriot Act permitted the government to use looser foreign intelligence standards to conduct surveillance in criminal investigations in the United States. The Supreme Court refused that request. In an appeal, the ACLU argued that,"These fundamental issues should not be finally by courts that sit in secret, do not ordinarily publish their decisions, and allow only the government to appear before them."

The ACLU and its supporters have asserted that some of their members and many other Americans are currently subject to illegal surveillance, noting that the FBI has already targeted its members in numerous other ways. Under the FISA statute, a U.S. citizen may be subject to a FISA surveillance order for political statements and views that are determined to be unpopular by the secret Court of Review.

Admittedly, the FISA courts are, despite their misuse, the primary check on the Executive branch's and their agents' ambitions to eavesdrop into the lives of our country's citizens for reasons of national security or for other more nefarious purposes. Before the president can get authority from the FISA court they need to make their case. Probable cause is the standard that the law proscribes for the court to use in determining whether to grant authority to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens.

But, the Bush administration and the subsequent Obama admin have relied on their own standard outside of the FISA courts of 'reasonableness' which is a decidedly lower threshold than, I think, judges should allow. A quick read of the fourth amendment states that:

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

Probable cause is defined by the "totality of circumstance" test established in Illinois v. Gates (462 U.S. 213) (1983), overturning the two-pronged test in which prosecutors tried to rely on an informant's "veracity," "reliability" and "basis of knowledge" and were found by the Illinois Supreme Court to be "highly irrelevant".

The flawed assertions by the prosecution in the 'Illinois' case sound as close as can be to Bush's and Hayden's 'reasonableness' standard (later upheld by the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), appointed by President Obama last summer). Where is the 'totality of circumstances' in the wide net they cast with their random wiretaps and data mining?

The FISA law doesn't leave any room for their loose standard of judgment. That's why we established the FISA courts. It's absurd for the Bush regime to assume they alone should have the authority to unilaterally determine whether they have met the threshold required to conduct surveillance on Americans. That judgment should be made within the democratic system of due process that our representatives clearly intended for the FISA to represent.

The fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure that the FISA court relies on to make their judgements are intended to restrain our government and its elected representatives as they perform their duties; to act in a manner which preserves the promises of democracy and provides for free expression, debate, advocacy, and representation in our political and legal system. Without these constitutional protections, it is impossible for the government to act decisively on the assumption it has the full weight of the American people behind any decision it might make.

In wartime, a weak franchise may wrongfully view opposition as treason and seek to crush it. But, in the absence of the full consent of the governed, and in the shunning of the very constitutional protections our leaders swore to uphold and defend, such a heavy hand by the omnipresent government could rightly be seen as tyranny.

[stevenleser]

85. No, it hasn't. The law was designed to continue to allow the President to conduct surveillance

for national security purposes as quickly and easily as possible, as is his Constitutional responsibility, while providing a basic level of oversight to congress and the courts.

That has not changed.

[bigtree]

97. yet it was perverted to allow the government to justify spying on citizens

... namely, collection of Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a warrant; without any suspicion of wrongdoing.

Their own review board, the PCLOB issued report in January 2014 that collection of telephone metadata in the U.S. under Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the 4th Amendment. The Obama administration disagreed and continued the operation, albeit changing their collection method from government storage of data to formal demands of individual servers for information.

So, “minimization” procedures were accepted and all the govt. needs to do is claim that they're operating out of a concern for 'national security', still relying on the 'reasonableness' standard. In this way they can conduct searches without a warrant from a judge if they deem their actions 'reasonable' under the circumstances. That's the pretext for continuing and expanding the dragnet.

All the govt. needs do, under the law, is present their demands in writing to telecommunications companies; no warrant required. They are subverting FISA and collecting reams of personal info on American citizens without warrant.

[stevenleser]

98. Again I will quote the 1984 US v Duggan decision

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

[bigtree]

104. and this is what's being objected to

...and what many critics have urged Congress to address.

In the meantime, bulk collection of information on American citizens continues, unabated.

So, we disagree.

[stevenleser]

106. FISA was what addressed that. This is my point and Carter's and Ted Kennedy's point.

"Defendants argue that FISA is impermissibly broad in several respects. They point out that foreign intelligence information includes "information with respect to a foreign power . . . that relates to . . . (A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or (B) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States." 50 U.S.C. ? 1801(e)(2). They also point to the definition of an agent of a foreign power as a person, other than a United States person, who
.
.
.
Nor are we impressed by defendants' argument that insofar as ? 1801(e)(2) defines foreign intelligence information as information that "relates to . . . (A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or (B) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States" it is impermissibly vague. Section 1801(e)(1)(B) defines foreign intelligence information as "information that relates to . . . the ability of the United States to protect against . . . international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." Given the information provided by Hanratty, the government plainly had a basis under this section for describing the information sought by surveillance of Megahey, self-proclaimed leader of an international terrorist group, as foreign intelligence information. Thus, even if we thought ? 1801(e)(2)'s concepts of national defense, national security, or conduct of foreign affairs to be vague, which we do not, we would find therein no basis for reversing the convictions of these defendants, whose circumstances were governed by an entirely different definition.

.
.
.

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court [Keith, J.], 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith &quot , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324."

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm
-----------------------------------------------------

Appellate decision after appellate decision reads this way on FISA. Your objections are not Constitutionally sound.

[bigtree]

110. I don't believe you've addressed the flimsy determination of national security interest

...or the loophole which allows the Executive to claim 'foreign intelligence information' is their purpose in meta-data collection of American citizens' info.

Also, can you cite me any instance where there has been an arrest or a warrant issued for arrest of a terrorist source or individual based on information derived in these bulk collections of American citizens' data?

[stevenleser]

111. That was the defendant's contention in Duggan and most other FISA cases and they are wrong.

I provided you a more fuller excerpt so you can read more cases that are cited.

[bigtree]

126. a 30 year old case where a crime had clearly been committed

...nothing in there that I see about the bulk collection of meta-data; the circumstance we're discussing today; other than the same court sanctioned authority to make a determination the actions were in the national security interest.

I mean, Steven, that the bulk collection of data is a fishing expedition which doesn't appear to have a specific target, crime, clear suspicion of a crime as was the case in the Duggan, etc. trial.


http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

Appeals from judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, after a jury trial before Charles P. Sifton, Judge. Defendants Duggan, Megahey, and Eamon Meehan were convicted on two counts involving the interstate transportation of explosives, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ?? 842(a)(3)(A) and 844(d); two counts of firearms offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ?? 922(e) and (k); one count of unlicensed exportation of certain munitions items, in violation of 22 U.S.C. ? 2778(b)(2); and one count of conspiracy to violate various of the above statutes and 26 U.S.C. ? 5861(d), in violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 371. Defendant Colm Meehan was convicted on the above firearms, munitions, and conspiracy counts. Defendants Colm and Eamon Meehan were convicted of possessing guns while illegal aliens, in violation of 18 U.S.C. app. ? 1202(a)(5).On appeal, all defendants contend, inter alia, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. ?? 1801-1811, is unconstitutional and was improperly applied; the Meehan defendants contend that the trial court improperly excluded their proposed defense of insanity.


On appeal, all of the defendants contend principally (1) that the district court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained through a wiretap pursuant to FISA on the grounds that (a) FISA is unconstitutionally broad and violates the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment, and (b) the government failed to comply with FISA's prerequisites for wire surveillance; (2) that the district court erred in excluding their defense that their actions were taken in reasonable good faith reliance on the apparent authority of one Michael Hanratty, a government informant, to act as an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA&quot ; and (3) that the conduct of government agents was so outrageous as to deprive them of due process of law. In addition, Eamon and Colm Meehan contend that the district court erred in rejecting their proffered defense of insanity. We reject the defendants' contentions and affirm the convictions.

I see where the court didn't find the justifications under national security, etc. 'vague', but that's not addressing bulk collection of data, at all.

Why do you believe Pres. Obama called for an end to N.S.A. bulk collection of data last March? Why do you think he hasn't made a specific recommendation or request of Congress for reform or actually made moves (completely within his unilateral power) to end the program?


NSA's Bulk Collection Of Phone Data Continues ...February 04, 2015
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/04/383724551/nsa-s-bulk-collection-of-phone-data-continues-intelligence-review-says

[stevenleser]

133. How many more do you want and how recent do they need to be and will it matter to you?

I suspect it will not. You are bound and determined to believe what you want to believe in the face of any evidence thrown at you.

Which makes the point I made from the very beginning.

[bigtree]

138. well, you didn't address bulk collection in the cases cited. Essentially just a document dump

...no matter. Answer my questions as a journalist. I really don't understand or appreciate the animus and the cynical remarks, but I'm going to make one more attempt to get you to address the bulk collection of data on American citizens which I don't believe is justified by 'national security' or that 'foreign intelligence information' is their purpose in meta-data collection of American citizens' info.


Why do you believe Pres. Obama called for an end to N.S.A. bulk collection of data last March?

I see where he made the promise a year ago for "a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata."


From a Feb. 1 'Scientific Computing' article:

WASHINGTON, DC — No software-based technique can fully replace the bulk collection of signals intelligence, but methods can be developed to more effectively conduct targeted collection and to control the usage of collected data, says a new report from the National Research Council. Automated systems for isolating collected data, restricting queries that can be made against those data, and auditing usage of the data can help to enforce privacy protections and allay some civil liberty concerns, the unclassified report says.

Presidential Policy Directive 28, issued by President Obama in January 2014, to evaluate U.S. signals intelligence practices. The directive instructed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to produce a report within one year "assessing the feasibility of creating software that would allow the intelligence community more easily to conduct targeted information acquisition rather than bulk collection."

read: http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2015/01/surveillance-nrc-finds-no-alternative-bulk-data-collection


Why do you think he hasn't yet made a specific recommendation or request of Congress for reform or actually made moves (completely within his unilateral power) to end or reform the program?


NSA's Bulk Collection Of Phone Data Continues ...February 04, 2015
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/04/383724551/nsa-s-bulk-collection-of-phone-data-continues-intelligence-review-says

[stevenleser]

142. FISA appellate rulings say the same things about cases.It's not too vague, it's Constitutional. nt

[bigtree]

145. I kinda thought you'd decline to answer my questions

...it would expose the rigidity of your own view of NSA's bulk data collection; more than likely at odds with the President's own view.

Still, anytime you'd like to take a crack at them...

Why do you believe Pres. Obama called for an end to N.S.A. bulk collection of data last March?

I see where he made the promise a year ago for "a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata."


From a Feb. 1 'Scientific Computing' article:

WASHINGTON, DC — No software-based technique can fully replace the bulk collection of signals intelligence, but methods can be developed to more effectively conduct targeted collection and to control the usage of collected data, says a new report from the National Research Council. Automated systems for isolating collected data, restricting queries that can be made against those data, and auditing usage of the data can help to enforce privacy protections and allay some civil liberty concerns, the unclassified report says.

Presidential Policy Directive 28, issued by President Obama in January 2014, to evaluate U.S. signals intelligence practices. The directive instructed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to produce a report within one year "assessing the feasibility of creating software that would allow the intelligence community more easily to conduct targeted information acquisition rather than bulk collection."

read: http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2015/01/surveillance-nrc-finds-no-alternative-bulk-data-collection


Why do you think he hasn't yet made a specific recommendation or request of Congress for reform or actually made moves (completely within his unilateral power) to end or reform the program?


NSA's Bulk Collection Of Phone Data Continues ...February 04, 2015
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/04/383724551/nsa-s-bulk-collection-of-phone-data-continues-intelligence-review-says

[stevenleser]

195. Your questions are answered. The appellate courts don't consider FISA too vague.

They consider the President's responsibilities and powers to be broad in this area.

[bigtree]

203. not my questions

...you're slipping into deflecting disinformation

[Rex]

294. Slipping? His mentors on Foxnews would be proud of their newbie pundit!

He has learned their tactics well.

[randome]

124. No one is collecting your phone calls.

The metadata is being collected, yes, but this can't even be looked at without the proper authorizations. Objecting to that is like objecting that your grocery store keeps a receipt of everything you buy.

And emails? Where is the evidence that the NSA is collecting all your emails?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

128. we know this, how?

[randome]

187. We don't know this. Neither do we know that the FBI is not spying on you this very minute.

But we have checks and balances. Obama made changes after taking office precisely to prevent the abuse that Bush, Jr. was engaged in. Is it a perfect system? No. It never is. But it's better than it used to be.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

291. NSA lovers seem to know exactly what the spy agency is up to.

I guess irony is lost on them.

[bvar22]

164. This guy disagrees.

[randome]

185. Right. Which is why the FISC changed after Obama took office.

Precisely to prevent the sort of abuse Bush, Jr. engaged in. "Don't trust" doesn't mean bvar22 gets to know everything that goes on in the world. It means checks and balances.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[stevenleser]

25. And by the way, do you understand why FISA has such a high approval level? Here is a hint

it is based on repeated appellate decisions on its Constitutionality.

[Octafish]

28. Do you even read what you write, stevenleser?

FISA court is appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts, the same guy who helped Bush steal Florida.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/chief-justice-roberts-is-awesome-power-behind-fisa-court

No wonder they have such a "high approval level" that is "based on repeated appellate decisions on its Constitutionality."

[stevenleser]

33. Yes, and I have also read the appellate decisions. Have you?

http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/08/repost-transcript-of-nsa-surveillance.html

.
.
.
Six Democrats and three Republicans cosponsored the bill and it was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter October 25th, 1978.

Hearing about FISA in a vacuum without any other information would probably cause most people to believe that FISA has the strong potential to violate the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. In fact, FISA was created to strengthen the fourth amendment and I will explain how.

FISA was created by Ted Kennedy for two reasons. First, it was created as a response to President Nixon using warrantless wiretaps and other searches to target political opponents and activist groups. The other reason it was created was made clear by one of the US Court of appeals decisions that affirmed the constitutionality of FISA, and that is the 1984 US v Duggan decision. Part of the Duggan decision reads:

"Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."


The Duggan decision goes on to list six or seven other appeals court decisions where courts concluded that the President has the inherent power to conduct this kind of warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information.

Senator Kennedy and President Carter did not like the idea of warrantless wiretapping even though it was judged in the case of foreign espionage and terrorism to be Constitutional …so they created FISA which requires the Justice Department and intelligence agencies of the executive branch to get a judge to sign off on a warrant in order to conduct these surveillances. It also gives a number of congressional committees the ability to look over these warrants.

Critics point out that the judges almost always sign off on FISA warrants. That’s right. They sign off because as pointed out in the Duggan decision, appeals courts have already ruled many times that the President has the right to conduct this surveillance and that this surveillance does not violate the fourth amendment provided that the ultimate target of the investigation is a foreign sponsored entity or terrorist organization. FISA does provide additional rules as to how these activities are to be done and also restricts how long the justice department and intelligence agencies can hold onto the acquired information before they must dispose of it.
.
.
.

[Octafish]

40. So what? That, uh, analysis was when Jimmy Carter was president.

You know, before 9-11 changed everything and the USA PATRIOT Act allowed all manner of unconstitutionality in the name of national security, which is why you couldn't have read the "appelate decisions." Many of them are classified and redacted, meaning they are outside of public review.

https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/fisc.html

[stevenleser]

46. No, it's not. It's continuous way before and long after Carter was President. nt

[Octafish]

51. Which isn't the point. No problem. Readers should dissect your analysis point-by-point.

Here's one interesting observation:

One of the problems with this so called scandal is that the reporting by Greenwald was woefully incomplete as to the history of this kind of surveillance and I am not just talking about the Bush administration aspect of it. Greenwald’s omissions in this latest article extend to his own prior coverage of NSA surveillance and to administrations before George W. Bush. Greenwald provided less than 15% of the facts that the public needs to be fully informed about what is going on here.

SOURCE: http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/08/repost-transcript-of-nsa-surveillance.html

15% huh?

I’m really disappointed at my fellow journalists and pundits in general with the coverage of this story. When you understand the history of when and why FISA came into being and when you understand appeals court rulings regarding Presidential powers with regards to surveillance aimed at foreign directed entities and terrorist groups. When you understand those things and you combine them with the history since 9/11 of the Bush administration attempt to ignore FISA and wiretap without a warrant, a practice that the Obama administration has completely renounced, I think you are left with only one possible conclusion.

SOURCE: http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/08/repost-transcript-of-nsa-surveillance.html

Journalism and being a pundit is a challenge.

[stevenleser]

60. Folks here did at the time and I have no problems with them trying again. My analysis is 100% fact

based.

[Rex]

157. Well he is a pundit now doubt, but a journalist? LOL!

You cannot get an ultra-nationalist to be objective and it is obvious with No Facts Steven that he doesn't care one wit about the truth. Pundits...a pox on our media with their subjective and often wrong opinion on things. As we see here with NFS being unable to handle being shown how wrong he is.

Perfect fit with people like O'Reilly and Hannity IMO.

[stevenleser]

199. I'm not a nationalist, but you definitely are one, a negative nationalist. I criticize the US.

You never seem to be able to come out on anything other than against the US.

You talk about right wing tactics. The one you seem to have mastered is accusing other folks of what you yourself are guilty.

[bigtree]

204. there's that phony new label you invented to defelect criticism of this administration

...anti-policy isn't anti-U.S.

'America, love it or leave it?'

'With us or against us?'

That's some ridiculous and dead-dumb logic you've adopted. If we criticize our government's policies - if we're not falling all over ourselves to cheer lead some policy or pol - we hate America? What a sad and brainless smear.

[Rex]

292. Again, you have no proof of that anywhere I love watching you fall apart on such simple

replies. No wonder you cannot go on anything but a scripted infotainment channel...your tactics are dull and boring, but fit right in with pundits.

I guess you can dream of being a real journalist, but sadly you don't seem to have the skills for it. Stick with Foxnews...you are PERFECT for that channel!

You behave just like an ultranationalist and then cannot handle it, such a thin skin to the truth it is all over the place in this thread in your replies. Too bad huh? You could always self-delete.

[AgingAmerican]

278. You ain't a kidding

Spin isn't journalism, and even his spinning ability is laughable. Hard to believe someone that intellectually dishonest calls himself a 'Democrat'.

[grasswire]

209. to wit: General Hayden's comment...

...that he didn't need to ask for permission to go rogue after 9/11.

[questionseverything]

254. you are purposefully conflating foreign collection with citizens collection

why don't you post the case where blanket warrants covering 60,000 people are discussed by the supremes........not that it matters with the state of corruption we have in that court


the nsa guys have admitted they want a "haystack" to sift thru....the "haystack" itself is unconstitutional

in the last week we have learned the dea is collecting license plate data with an aim at confiscation of property,no probable cause required...then the citizen gets to hire a $300/hour lawyer to get it back...this program started in 2008

we already know the dea has falsified evidence trails to cover the illegal wiretapping the nsa is doing so where the alphabet agencies will stop is any1s guess

[treestar]

76. You're assuming no one who is a judge ever follows the law

As usual, making the most negative judgment possible of any human beings in any position of authority whatsoever.

Kind of like Mr. Greenwald does.

[Octafish]

107. Amazingly vague; apart from the smear, of course.

You're assuming no one who is a judge ever follows the law

As usual, making the most negative judgment possible of any human beings in any position of authority whatsoever.

Kind of like Mr. Greenwald does.

I shouldn't have to explain to you or stevenleser how Secret Government is un-American, un-democratic and un-constitutional. You're DUers, right?

[msanthrope]

52. GG also ignores the fact that a court admonished him for wiretapping a witness.....

So I guess that's some serious hypocrisy.....

[rhett o rick]

62. Your argument hinges on the motives that you believe Greenwald has.

But if you look at the facts, Pres Obama has not curtailed anything. He has expanded the powers of the NSA/CIA Deep State. FISA is a joke. Gen Clapper got away with lying to Congress because he is more powerful than Congress. It's my opinion that Pres Obama may want freedoms and liberties for the 99%, but is powerless to do anything against Gen Clapper and the all powerful NSA/CIA Deep State organization. Candidate Obama had a different take on transparency and rolling back the Patriot Act than Pres Obama. Did candidate Obama lie to us or did he find out that he couldn't change those spy programs put in place by the Bush Admin.

It would be swell if our government wasn't violating the Constitution but to trust the same NSA/CIA Deep State Organization that's been in power for over a decade is naive.

Seems to me that if someone casts doubt about our freedoms being abused, some here attack the messenger, I guess to stifle the discussion.

[stevenleser]

67. No, it doesn't. My analysis looks at the facts and then looks at reasons why people choose to ignore

them.

[rhett o rick]

99. As does mine. nm

[stevenleser]

100. No, it doesn't. Here's proof. This is a constitutional issue. Where are your appellate citations? nt

[rhett o rick]

105. That's like saying that a bank heist isn't in progress because the cops haven't shown up.

We don't know but maybe someone told the cops not to show up.

The lack of citations is not proof.

[stevenleser]

108. Yes it is. You make all kinds of accusations without proof. I provide proof and you get mad.

See my #106 for more proof.

[zeemike]

96. The problem is that those facts are dismissed.

And when you are looking for percentages to bolster your point some facts must be dismissed or ignored...if you won't see it it is not there.

[rhett o rick]

102. I get lost in their logic. Things are not better in the area of NSA/CIA Deep State Organizational

power, yet the friends of Obama will argue they are with no facts. Gen Clapper flipped off Congress and the American people with no consequences. We know that we taxpayers are paying billions for something but they won't tell us what. We know that a private corporation has a lot of control of the secret data on Americans. We know that the spy programs that were created under Bush still exist and are being used. We know that the same people are running the Deep State Organization that have for a decade. We the people are represented by Congress. Have they told us not to worry? Quite the contrary.

Candidate Obama recognized the problem. Pres Obama has only shown support for the NSA/CIA Deep State.

[zeemike]

131. I think that is the intent, to get you lost in the logic.

I like to think of it as running you around in circles, chasing the ever changing point.

[sabrina 1]

80. There is NO SUCH THING in our Constitution

as GROUP WARRANT. For millions of people.

And YOU forgot to mention that the requirement for PROBABLE CAUSE was placed in the 4th Amendment for reasons that should not need to be explained to ANYONE on a Democratic forum.

I keep asking this of those who are condoning these anti-Constitutional policies:

For what Probable Cause is MY Telecom Corporation 'collecting and storing' my personal, private correspondence?

I have asked THEM. They DENIED they are doing it, which is a lie as we know. But at least they know how outrageous it is for our government to be spying on its own people and prefer to pretend they are not a part of it when we know for a fact they are.

So what is the Probable Cause on each and every American that allows the Government to get a Warrant to spy on its own citizens?

Still waiting for an answer to that question from those who choose to ignore that little and dangerous fact.

[cui bono]

267. No, Obama didn't stop doing it, he pushed to legalize it and expanded it.

[Octafish]

7. Truth.

You saw this most prominently in the last year with that NSA vote, where the people who saved the bulk metadata program were the White House, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner—this kind of unholy trinity of establishment insiders—who whipped all their establishment members of Congress in defense of the NSA.

Hurts.

[malaise]

13. Yep

Truth hurts

[imthevicar]

208. Just Because I hold the POTUS' feet to the fire,

Does not mean I approved when GWB did it.

[marmar]

16. Yep. And I knew it would happen to some degree once we got a Democratic administration .....

...... but the scope surprises me. It's pathetic.

[rhett o rick]

74. Here is my CT. The Oligarch Rulers realized that the excesses and attacks on our liberties and

freedoms by the Bush Republican Admin were starting to stir up the masses. They then decided to give the masses what they thought they wanted, a progress Democratic Admin. that they would from day one, undermine. The idea of course was to show the masses, "See, the Democrats are not capable of changing anything, in fact they will continue the same programs of the NSA/CIA Deep State Organization. It's my opinion that Gen Clapper has a higher pay-grade than the President.

[zeemike]

127. Yep that is mine too.

Our government leaders are not as powerful as we think they are, and most of them know it.

[Maedhros]

150. Your CT is taken directly from Frank Herbert's "Dune"

Baron Harkonnen's plan was to give governance of Arrakis to his nephew, Globbu "Beast" Rabban, whom he instructed to brutalize the population. Then, when the people of Arrakis had been properly abused by and outraged at Rabban, the Baron would give them to his other nephew, Feyd Rautha, who would win them over with charm and reform.

The important point was that the Baron called the shots the whole time.

I suspect we have something similar happening. We need to fight the Baron, not get caught up in taking sides with the puppets.

[SidDithers]

163. ...

Sid

[rhett o rick]

182. I take it as a badge of honor that you follow me thread to thread with the cute Sid emoticon.

I am surprised that you haven't alerted. Or did you? I know you take your roll of "house-keeper" very seriously, or did you call it "house-cleaning", I forgot. Which was it?

[uhnope]

236. And I know where they were sitting when they decided this!!!

[rhett o rick]

238. I am curious what is intended by mockery? Is it a tool to be used when one doesn't have

anything else? Maybe it's intended to shame. That seems to be a popular theme now. Shame those one doesn't agree with.

I would love to enjoy the comforts of the self-induced denial bubble. To think there are no conspiracies in politics is naive, maybe willfully naive, but naive none the less.

So help me out. What is the intention of mockery?

[grasswire]

248. crickets! nt

[WillyT]

18. K & R !!!

[Overseas]

19. Sad K&R.

[SidDithers]

21. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[elias49]

31. Try to contribute. LOL

Sic

[msanthrope]

34. He did contribute....that's what Greenwald's advocacy is worth. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

91. BINGO! + 1000 eom

[msanthrope]

146. And note---it's advocacy, not journalism.....the question is, who is he advocating for? nt

[BlueCaliDem]

148. Rand Paul? He appears to like Ron Paul's son as much as he does the father.

But to be very honest, I really don't know where his loyalties lie...I just know it isn't with any Democrat, Liberal, or Progressive unless it's a faux-Democrat, Liberal-Libertarian, and Libertarian-Progressive. I guess Glenn prefers to support Libertarians. Last I head, Big Gov't is trying to get him for tax evasion so it stands to reason he'd want a Libertarian in the WH who can help "ease" his tax-plight.

[msanthrope]

149. Well, he's worked for the Kochs, and currently, he's Omidayar's employee. He's expressed that

having a billionaire President might be the way to go. And he worked for one of Goldman Sachs' most-used lawfirms.

He's a Libertarian---went on tour with Bruce Fein a few years back. The audio was astonishing.

Yeah---he's running up against FATCA and tax evasion, so it's not looking great for him.

[marmar]

36. It's all they've got: LOLs and ROFLs, usually accompanied by the appropriate emoticon.

[Octafish]

43. LOL!

Don't let them get you down.

[Octafish]

42. SidDithers of DU. LOL.

Greenwald adds to what we know. Knowledge is what makes democracy possible.

What do you add? Besides mockery?

[SidDithers]

49. Well, I don't add articles from racists, homphobes and insane conspiracy theorists...

I leave that up to you, octafish of DU.

Sid

[JTFrog]

54. +1 n/t

[Octafish]

103. Show where I wrote anything to support ''racists, homphobes and insane conspiracy theorists...''

Saying I'm a racist or homophobe or an crazy conspiracy theorist is a smear. Please show where I've intentionally lied or presented information that was not true on DU. Go through my Journal on DU3 or DU2.

If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. Show.

[Ichingcarpenter]

173. They can't all they have is

I really don't care what you they think or propagandize

by using - ?Strawman - ?False Cause - ?Ad Hominem arguments and confirmation bias




Selective reporting refers to rare events which are widely reported, thereby altering the perception of how common they actually are. This is common amongst practictioners of bullshit, where they - and their customers - selectively report their successes but make no mention of their numerous failures.

It contrasts to cherry picking in that selective reporting is often unintentional, and concentrates on the reporting and memory of events, while cherry picking is more specific to selecting evidence and actively ignoring evidence that isn't favourable. Both are mechanisms of confirmation bias and are reasons why anecdotal evidence, no matter how "convincing", is not accepted as evidence in science and rationalism.



nice amount of hearts my friend.........you are loved

[Octafish]

101. You keep repeating that, SidDithers of DU.

I've asked you, repeatedly over the years, to show what you term my "propensity for promoting and legitimizing the work of noted bigots, racists, homophobes and conspiracy theorist lunatics. You're a guy who thinks white-nationalist Paul Craig Roberts and insane homophobe Wayne Madsen are credible, and appropriate sources for use on a progressive message board."

Seeing how you fail to actually show any of that, I want these to be in the record for all DU to see:

Where I quoted Roberts when he supported Don Siegelman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022073759


Where I quoted Madsen recently to document the business links between Bush and bin Laden:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6059251


Where I first quoted Madsen on DU2 in 2003 (earlier examples exist, but none so illustrative):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x610051


Where you smear Naomi Klein, making me think the practice is your speciality:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5318151


You will note that I did not support any theory, smear, or lie; I only posted what these people wrote. And as far I as I knew or know, none of these people are anything like what you describe.

What's a person called who repeats something that is not true, SidDithers of DU?

[SidDithers]

129. "And as far I as I knew or know, none of these people are anything like what you describe."...

Then you're being intentionally blind.

Sid

[Octafish]

132. Show where either one is what you said, SidDithers of DU.

Otherwise all you got is a smear of them and me.

I've asked you, repeatedly over the years, to show what you term my "propensity for promoting and legitimizing the work of noted bigots, racists, homophobes and conspiracy theorist lunatics. You're a guy who thinks white-nationalist Paul Craig Roberts and insane homophobe Wayne Madsen are credible, and appropriate sources for use on a progressive message board."

So, show.

[SidDithers]

139. Seriously?...

Here's a post I made, in reply to you showing that PCR is a white-nationalist and a racist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2080243

Paul Craig Roberts is a white nationalist asshat...

In promoting his opinions on some topics, you give legitimacy to him and his other racist views. He's done fundraising for racist hate site VDare.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070208212620/http://www.vdare.com/appeals/072506_pcr.htm

He's had such lovely things to say as:

But the most fearsome fact is that the demonization of white people in the universities today is more extreme than the demonization of the Jews that was a prominent feature of German university life for 60 years prior to the rise of National Socialism.

Demonization of whites is the weapon used by multiculturalists to breakup western civilization. But teaching hatred has other consequences. Demonization has already demoralized some whites, making them ashamed and fearful of their skin color.

By the time whites become political minorities, decades of demonization will have prepared the ground for legislation prohibiting their propagation and, perhaps, assigning them to the gulag as a final solution to “the cancer of human history.”

That was from his glowing review of Pat Buchanan's book, "Death of the West"
http://web.archive.org/web/20110719200202/http://www.vdare.com/roberts/west_future.htm


You've been told this before. I thought you could be taken at your word:

VDARE is a pro-white power hate site founded by an immigrant NAZI.

Does Paul Craig Roberts have an official affiliation with the organization or do they simply re-post his articles?

If Roberts is a member or supporter of VDARE, I'll stop reading him.

FYI: I've been a member of SPLC since the early 90s. I don't like NAZIs, the klan or any hate groups.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002548165#post113

That fundraising letter clearly shows that Roberts is a supporter of VDare, and yet here you are, once again using him as a source, in a subthread where you're defending another DUer's use of an anti-Semitic source.

Look, I don't give a fuck what you want to believe. Believe any kooky nonsense you want. What I do give a fuck about is the promotion or exposure given to racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic websites at DU. Those types of sites or authors don't deserve any traffic directed their way from DU. There are hundreds of those sites out there, many closely linked with conspiracist topics, and that's why the TOS is clearly worded the way it is.

If you, or others like you, use a racist (like Paul Craig Roberts) or anti-Semitic or homophobic (like Richard Boyden) source. I'm going to call you out on it.

Every. Single. Fucking. Time.

Sid

I'd forgotten that you had defended the use of Richard Boyden. Apparently, you're OK with that homophobic piece of shit too.




Here's a post I made, in reply to you about Madsen, and provided a link (albeit reluctantly) to his homopohobic rantings:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6058472

Wayne fucking Madsen...

Last edited Thu Jan 8, 2015, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

You really do know how to pick your sources, don't you octafish of DU?

Do you spend any time learning about the assholes that you bring to DU? Or do you just regurgitate the first link that google gives you when you're looking for something bad to say about Obama.

I mean, it's bad enough when you use anti-immigrant, white-nationalist Republican Paul Craig Roberts as a source, even after being told of his racist opinion and saying that you'd stop reading him. Obviously you've never stopped.

But Wayne Madsen is far beyond even Paul Craig Roberts. Madsen is a far-right conspiracy theorist who, in 2010, ran a series of articles accusing Obama of being gay, and being secretly married to his Pakistani roommate.

Yup. You read that right.

Excuse the link to rense, but you need to be shown just what kind of asshole you're linking to:
http://rense.com/general95/onemanuel.html

You should be fucking ashamed of yourself, octafish, for trying to give legitimacy to filth like Wayne Madsen.

You've really outdone yourself this time.



Sid

PS - jurors, I'll take the hide, if you think it's warranted, but DUers who use right-wing asshole homophobic racist conspiracy theorists need to be called out on that use. And this poster has a long history of not caring what kind of source they use.

Now, make some excuse about why it's OK for you to link to, and promote the writings of, homophobic and racist assholes. Is it simply that you don't care that the writers you're linking to hold such odious views?

When you link to, and promote the writings of these dumbasses, you legitimize them. Which is a shitty thing to do, on a progressive messageboard.

Sid

[Octafish]

141. Wow. That's some record I've got.

None of that from 2012 makes Roberts or Masden or me rightwing homophobic conspiracy theorists, though.

And why have you been tracking what I write, SidDithers of DU? It's something else that's been years, now.

Do you work for DU? Do you track me as a volunteer? Where do you find the time?

[Rex]

158. He's still mad because his favorite 'poster' the Dude got shitcanned.

Zombies abound...

[Octafish]

165. You Better Believe It

That Dude was something, protecting the BFEE and advancing ideas that sounded good, but on closer examination went straight to the Koch/Aspen class. Small world.

[grasswire]

211. and why would a Canadian even care???

boggles the mind.

[stonecutter357]

235. .

[nationalize the fed]

27. Truth

cuts like a knife and Glenn uses it like a sword.

I think that the much more relevant split, politically, is no longer left versus right or Democrat versus Republican but insider versus outsider.

You saw this most prominently in the last year with that NSA vote, where the people who saved the bulk metadata program were the White House, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner—this kind of unholy trinity of establishment insiders—who whipped all their establishment members of Congress in defense of the NSA.

[elias49]

32. K&R

For truth that hurts some.

[SixString]

38. DU Rec.

[redruddyred]

39. can I support prez obama...

but still think he's wrong about the NSA?
cos that's where I'm at with this one.

[Dragonfli]

45. Of course, in fact, only people that do not think for themselves

Approach issues and politicians in such a way that would require 100% agreement.
What you suggest is normal and healthy if you indeed do support him yet think he is wrong about the NSA.

[bigtree]

47. oh, hell yes.

I think many folks misread our democratic process of government in a way which assumes that opposition to policy precludes support for the Executive. Now, I will say, there can well be a preponderance of objections which could cause one to conclude that the entire enterprise is so corrupted that they can't countenance support. I'm at a point now where I don't see much value in promoting Barack Obama's presidency, as I do in advocating for policy. I find that nothing substantial occurs in politics when politicians feel they can take your support for granted. Issues need forceful advocacy - and sometimes protest - to gain a necessary level of attention and support in the political process. 'Feet to the fire' is more than an attitude, it's almost a political necessity if we want to see policy move beyond the comfort-zone of acceptability, to true progressiveness.
.

[treestar]

72. I would think so

But where you support him, be prepared to be called a mindless cheerleader.

[rhett o rick]

262. Not true at all. The term is reserved for those that not only never disagree with the President

but vehemently attack any and all criticisms of the president. Those here with open minds will do both, criticize and support. Manny recently agreed with the President (actually the President agreed with Manny) about keep atrocities in perspective and some head's here almost exploded. One poster actually attacked a remark they thought was Manny's only to learn it was a direct quote from the President. I agreed with candidate Obama when he was opposed to Fast Tracking and oppose President Obama's "change" to supporting Fast Tracking. I think the term you used would apply to those that agreed with Obama in both cases and would agree again if Obama changed his mind again.

[freebrew]

115. Was there ever a president that was always right?

I can't think of any, they had good ideas and bad ones.
Just because some of us don't agree with Obama's actions on this policy doesn't mean
he's always a bad guy. Most of us are well able to have our own likes/dislikes.
I don't have to support ALL of his actions.

Yet, I can think of several presidents that had NO redeeming value....funny, all Rs.

[Skittles]

251. have you been in the BOG lately?

[freebrew]

274. I needed that...I suppose.

[JNelson6563]

44. Well he IS an expert on the matter!

[msanthrope]

50. Warrantless wiretapping? Yes.....Glenn was admonished by a court for doing so to a witness. nt

[riderinthestorm]

48. K&R nt

[Capt. Obvious]

53. I thought this thread would have a ton of responses

[randome]

57. Considering that pixels weigh approximately nothing, a ton of responses would be...

...a lot of responses. Oh. Now I get it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

55. This guy is forever putting other people down

He hasn't a good word to say about anybody.

[bigtree]

58. I think he speaks to that

Greenwald:

My role, as a journalist, is not to give comfort. I'm not a therapist, or a nurse, or a pastor. I think one of the most crucial parts of journalism is to constantly poke and prod at convention and orthodoxy and to challenge assumptions that people are just implicitly accepting. Not just even if it makes people uncomfortable, but especially then.

I think you need, always, to have every kind of human belief being challenged and scrutinized and put under a microscope. That's an important part of what journalism is about.

[treestar]

70. I don't agree exactly

Sounds like an excuse for going after other people, which he prefers to do. The role of journalist may be to report fact, but it's always accompanied by his opinion of people near the issue, and his opinion of people is negative.

And he would scream if some other reporter decided it was his or her job to point out his own faults.

[bigtree]

83. I didn't think you would agree, treestar

...but I think it would be fair to accept that he doesn't operate out of some meanness just for insult sake. He has a philosophy of purpose and he's using that as his guiding principle, right now, for his journalism. I tend to agree that journalists can be lulled into a state of reflexive comity which compels them to preclude the skepticism and even cynicism which forces deeper questions and the critical examination of issues and events which serve to transform reporting from mere observation to understanding.

As for having his own faults pointed out to him, I'd think he would react much like anyone and defend his own view of his integrity.

[99th_Monkey]

245. +100 nt

[stevenleser]

73. If it was all people in general, that would be fine. He is a study in the horns and halo effect.

He hangs a halo on Putin and the horns on Obama.

[TheKentuckian]

168. From the perspective of those who feel any less than laser focus on horns is building a halo and

that not highlighting one set of horns is tarnishing the halos of those they see them on.

The reality is there are few horns and even fewer halos.

[AgingAmerican]

134. Wasn't that Reagans bitch?

...about the media in general? That they didn't put out enough, 'Good news'?

What good news about the NSA should Greenwald be pushing?

[treestar]

154. That it is back under FISA

And he's not talking about the NSA but about the people.

[OnyxCollie]

61. K&R. nt

[840high]

63. KR

[Ichingcarpenter]

71. K&R. nt

[asiliveandbreathe]

77. I can appreciate Greenwalds passion for

what should be done...our representation in Washington, yep, us, we get who we vote for...now my ongoing question..."who the hell then"? - If not a democratic president - then who? - and how the hell are we going to change that?

Seriously, if you don't vote, or don't vote for a Democratic representative, vote - a third party? - that, as we all know, would throw the election to a republican...folk's, all I can say, remember what happened in 2000, sadly.......

I said, during that fiasco to my husband, if Bush gets in, we are going to war...that should be reason enough to vote wisely...

I will only assume you know turning this ship around..takes everyone - A Democratic President - over a republican - I will take the Democratic President...NO MORE WAR! (Prez. Obama has done as much as he can to thwart the call to war)

What a mess this President was handed...if not President Obama, then who?

[Oilwellian]

213. We've been waiting for six years

for Obama to honor the probable cause requirement in the Fourth Amendment. Rubber-stamping warrants for the FISA court does not address that glaring issue, and as it is now, is highly illegal and unconstitutional. So it doesn't seem to matter who we vote for on this issue. Obama could end this tomorrow with an EO.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. Whereas, the Brits condemned GCHQ's collaboration with NSA a violation of human rights.

It looks like the Brits are more protective of Human Rights than our congress.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31164451?ocid=global_bbccom_email_06022015_top+news+stories

GCHQ censured over sharing of internet surveillance data with US

But the tribunal has now ruled that the system did "contravene" human rights law - until extra information was made public in December.

In its disclosures in December, GCHQ said UK intelligence services were "permitted" to request information gathered by Prism and Upstream - US surveillance systems which can collect information on "non-US persons".

It said a warrant was usually needed to make such a request, and information would only be sought in "exceptional circumstances" - and this had "not occurred" at the time the statement was made.

Before December, the IPT said: "The regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK, which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and... Upstream, contravened articles 8 or 10 [of the European Convention of Human Rights]."

[sibelian]

222. Clearly a racist, libertarian, Rand Paul loving tribunal.

What about Obama's public image?

[Dont call me Shirley]

84. "Reason" Magazine = Koch Libertarians

[Maedhros]

151. And exactly how does that make what Greenwald says wrong?

Please elaborate.

[sibelian]

218. So you're saying the Koch brothers have more of a social conscience than Obama?

Is that what you're saying?

[Dont call me Shirley]

225. Nope, actually I'm saying "take into deep consideration the source". "Consider their motivations."

"Ponder the underlying meaning". Think about what the Kochs have done to pay for the destruction of our democracy, instilling their brand of unfettered corporate rule, hatred of minorities, promotion of eugenics. What motivation would they have to promote this story?

[Maedhros]

241. None of that matters if you cannot refute Greenwald's points.

Sure, maybe the Koch's want to embarrass Obama. If Greenwald's points are valid, then they are worthy of examination and discussion regardless of whether that discussion makes the President look bad.

Your trying to deflect discussion from actual issues to an ad hominem against the Koch brothers. I will concede that the Kochs are despised enemies, rightly so, but the nature of their character is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

If you disagree with Greenwald's points, refute them. Back up your refutation with reasoning.

[Babel_17]

86. The larger point

The larger point, imo, is why we continue to have a government, with its semi-subordinate agencies, in which we don't have sufficient trust.

We trust Andy Griffith/Sheriff Andy Taylor with a loaded gun, Don Knotts/ Deputy Barney Fife, not so much.

[JEB]

88. Thanks for posting. K&R.

[ProSense]

109. Typical Greenwald...full of shit.

Greenwald: <...>

But the behavior of Democrats was completely predictable. They pretended to be hideously bothered by a much smaller-scale amount of eavesdropping revealed under George Bush and then were completely supportive of what was done under President Obama.

<...>

And you had the kind of Tea Party outsiders with the outsiders on the left joining together to try to defund it. This coalition has actually become more apparent in lots of different areas, including drug policy and penal reform and intervention and war questions.

Even if you look at the two outside agitation movements of the last five years, which were Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party movement, perceived as polar opposites, they were both actually born out of anger over the bailout. So I think objections to crony capitalism, and the kind of inherent corruption of how the public and private sectors are interacting, are also commonalities among the left and the right, and those are some extremely significant issues.

You can (add) social issues to that as well, whether it be choice or marriage equality, where you find advocates of those positions on both the right and the left. There is a lot more common ground than people typically recognize.

See, it wasn't as bad under Bush. His entire posture with this interview is to blur the lines between left and right in an attempt to hype right wingers.

Yeah, there are an equal number of conservatives outraged by NSA spying and &quot add) social issues to that as well."

Tool.

[stupidicus]

116. well, he assumes learned/intelligent readers

that could discern he was referencing what we now know to be their respective abuses and diffs in response to that newly acquired knowledge.

In other words, all we knew about Bush and largely whined about was his FISA violations of the absent warrant kind

A)"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." White House Press conference on April 20, 2004 [White House Transcript]

which pales in comparison to all of the things we know now about the programs those like you support that BHO has captained.

He's not saying things were any better under Bush, just that we now have more knowledge of the breadth and depth of the abuses, and that those like you are silent despite the significant uptick in 4th amendment violations.

This is of course undeniable, but give it your best shot, no?

[msanthrope]

144. Missed You!!!! Gave you a Heart!! nt

[Cha]

257. Mahalo msanthrope..

me too~

[great white snark]

160. +1000. +500 for your comment and +500 for being a sight for sore eyes.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

201. Domestic surveillance has increased under Obama. This is not controversial.

It's a function of technology catching up. If W Bush had served a third hypothetical term (shudder), he would've caught up to the Obama Administration, but he didn't, and Obama didn't stop domestic surveillance. So it increased.

[Marr]

215. +1

[ProSense]

276. "This is not controversial."

No, it isn't. Why? Well, for one thing, it's feel-good stuff derived from an apples and oranges comparison. No matter how many times people tell themselves Bush only did it a little (make believe), the reality is that what Bush actually did was illegal, without checks and balances, and with Dick Cheney on record as bypassing the FISA courts.

Secondly, no matter how many times Greenwald's half-baked version of events get hyped or how many times his crackpot attempts to hype the right wing and pretend that Obama is worse than Bush gets hyped in an attempt to divide Democrats into Obama sycophants versus progressive with real perspective (who push, like Greenwald, that a significant number of conservatives/teabaggers are right, you know, on "social issues&quot , his opinions, as always, will appeal only to Greenwald fans. His opinions change nothing (see the 2012 election). To paraphrase Greenwald: At least Romney would (insert something that would make him better than Obama.)

Have a nice day, and do enjoy the hype. I will.

[Thinkingabout]

281. Nice to see you are back, we need you.

There has been so much misinformation on data collection from they are listening to every call, in which who cares what you are telling your neighbor, and of course the anti group still continues their crap output. I saw a post the other day about Ron Paul asking for questions to ask Snowden in a planned interview. The more information comes out like this the more I am inclined to think this is a lot of what is behind this whole scheme. There has to be a patsy some where. It is reported Snowden donated to the Paul campaign and perhaps they thought if he could "reveal" the data collection perhaps they could get Rand Paul elected as president. Just my thoughts.

[grasswire]

212. no linky-dinks? nt

[elias49]

228. You're BACK!

I never gave up

[Cha]

256. Yes, you're back and too bad for those who can only insult with their petty school yard taunts..

thanks Pro Sense.. I hope you and your husband are doing well.

[ProSense]

277. We're hanging in there.

Thanks Cha.

[stupidicus]

112. yep, spot on he was/is with all that

the only unanswered question is why they're such two-faced phonies on the issue.

I think that the way they react to the "both the same" meme offers some clues. They simply personally cannot/will not accept the fact a more than sufficient enough similarities exist between BHO and Bush on the spying issue to make them functionally "the same" as big brother personified.

Hell, in terms of we little people, I've seen the same thing over his drone policies and more. Let's face it -- to be a truly dedicated always defender for BHO you have to have some distortionist/contortionist blood coursing through your veins, and find lying to others a natural product of lying so much to yourself...

http://warisacrime.org/content/27-35-bush-articles-impeachment-apply-obama

[Cryptoad]

113. Greenwald is a Papa Paul Whore! nt

[gcomeau]

114. More Greenwald hyperbolic bullshit.

Greenwald has his agenda. He doesn't like surveillance. Period.

And you know what, whatever. Fine. I get that. Sympathize even.


The problem with Greenwald however is in the pursuit of advocating for his agenda he has absolutely no fucking problem being as over the top and innaccurate in his reporting as he feels like if he thinks it will rile people up the way he wants them riled up. So Obama's reversal of illegal warrantless wiretapping under Bush and a shift to a court monitored and Congressionally authorized legal program becomes Obama "embracing these same theories, in some cases even expanding them. "



Obama as bad as or worse than Bush! OMG everybody! Everyone get super upset and freak out along with me right now!!!!!! Bush was super bad! And Obama is no different!


Or the very limitted occasional interception of a router that is being sent to an *already identified legitimate intelligence target* overseas suddenly becomes "OMG everybody! The NSA intercepts your routers in the mail and puts spy gear in them! Stephen Colbert, they probably did it to yours!"




And that is Greenwald's reporting on these issues in a nutshell. I cannot take anything he reports seriously because he absolutely cannot be trusted to objectively report the facts when he's emotionally invested in the topic. He has zero demonstrated reservations about misleading his audience in the name of whipping them up into a frenzy over his righteous cause.

[sibelian]

217. "He doesn't like surveillance. Period.

And you know what, whatever. Fine. I get that. Sympathize even."

I think you're kind of beyond salvation at this point, aren't you?

[gcomeau]

223. What part of that, exactly...

...has you so worried about my salvation? The part where I understand that Greenwald has a blanket and totally undiscriminating view of the concept of surveillance that appears to know not the concept of context or practical justifications?

Or the part where I sympathize with his views, while not embracing them because they're silly and childish here in the real world where, sorry, some degree of intelligence gathering activity is a requirement of any responsible national government?

[sibelian]

284. "context or practical justifications? "

That bit. THAT'S the bit that makes me worry about your salvation.

[gcomeau]

285. So you think that doesn't exist?

That there are *no circumstances* under which *any intelligence activities* are justified to be conducted?

[sibelian]

286. Oh, I think it exists.

It's just that it's blatantly apparent that it isn't even vaguely relevant as a defence in the current narrative, as we are clearly not dealing with any kind of genuinely morally coherent context or practical justification.

Feel free to assert it. Anyone can construct the appearance of having contradicting anything, of course.

[gcomeau]

289. It's completely relevant.

You don't see it because you actually buy Greenwald's claims about the scope and extent of the activities going on and thus reach the conclusion his misinformation is designed to make you reach. That OF COURSE that can't possibly be justified!


But an illustration of the bullshit Greenwald constantly pulls on this subject.


Step 1. Publish an article that presents the information in the scariest possible terms.


http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/12/glenn-greenwald-nsa-tampers-us-internet-routers-snowden

---The NSA in planting spy gear in "routers heading overseas"!

---The US is doing this same thing the Chinese have been accused of doing, installing spy gear in "their routers" to be able to spy on "anyone using them"!

---The US ROUTINELY intercepts routers destined for "international customers" to install surveillance tech in them!!!!


Everything about how that article is written is designed to tell Greenwald's readers that this activity is widespread, and not terribly discriminate. Half the people who read that couldn't be blamed for coming away with the impression that the planet has been blanketed in internet routers with NSA surveillance hardware in them.


Step 2. Let everyone freak out and lose their minds over the "revelation" while stoking the fire.

Then we get things like Greenwald going on his interview circuit and... completely doubling down on reinforcing that impression. So he goes on somwhere like the Colbert Report and when he gets a joke about how maybe Colbert could call the NSA for tech support if his router breaks down responding by declaring that router "probably came from the NSA" when he knows perfectly well that's bullshit.

And then, after a day or so...



Step 3. Dump the actual data that doesn't say anything near what he claimed it said... knowing that it won't matter, the damage is done.

http://glenngreenwald.net/pdf/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Compressed.pdf

Because while the entire media world may have spent a day freaking out about the "explosive new revelations" from Greenwald in the first 24 hours, so everyone and their (now probably paranoid) granmothers saw the scary scary information about the massive indiscriminate spying the NSA is doing, practically nobody is going to pay attention to a serious analysis of those documents.

If they did thy'd find out things like those routers getting intercepted are only the ones that are being sent to designated targets not just random "international customers". And it wasn't that "in one case" a router sent back a signal after a couple months. There has ONLY BEEN ONE CASE OF IT EVER FREAKING HAPPENING.

ONE GODDAMN CASE.

That is what Greenwald got the entire fucking planet in an uproar over with his vague exaggerated hyperbole about how anyone in the world should beware of buying any router that comes from America because it probably had NSA spyware in it.



One.

Single.

Case.



Of a router sent to a specific intelligence target.


But Greenwald clearly doesn't give a shit. Because Greenwald isn't trying to inform his audience he's trying to scare the crap out of them so he can produce a general backlash against the concept of surveillance in general. And he has no problem misleading to accomplish that goal.




Which is why I don't believe a damn word that comes out of his mouth on the topic. and if you do you're a dupe.

[Android3.14]

120. He describes the left's version of Britney Spears adulation of Bush the Lesser

"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."

Thanks, Britney, for showing us what a slave mentality is like, especially when it crosses all party lines.

[LittleBlue]

140. Guilty as charged, unfortunately

No one on DU would support NSA spying or attack whistleblowers if Bush were in the WH.

The last few years have been difficult knowing that so many who masqueraded as government critics were playing politics and had no real principles

[gcomeau]

143. Ummm, what?

No one on DU would support NSA spying or attack whistleblowers if Bush were in the WH.

The NSA is a spy agency. The only way people here wouldn't have been supporting NSA spying during the Bush years is if everyone here was calling for the disbandment of the entire agency.

I must have missed the great DU wide campaign to eliminate the NSA while Bush was president. All I saw was a great deal of fully justified outrage about things like *illegal warrantless wiretapping*. Which has been ended now.

[LittleBlue]

152. Mass data collection with blanket warrants

I shortened it to spying because that is the topic, obviously. Continue to play games though, it goes along with what I've been saying.

*updates ignore list*

[gcomeau]

153. Yes...

Mass data collection with warrants that allow the collection, not in depth examination, of all that data. Combined with further required warrants to actually examine specific portions of it in detail.

Or in other words, legally authorized intelligence gathering, as opposed to the very ILLEGAL activities Bush was up to.



Now you can disagree with those legal activities happening, but it is disingenuous to pretend they're the same damn thing as the illegal actions Bush took and just lump it all together under the common label of "spying".

[TheKentuckian]

177. I find it nearly impossible to believe that the vigorous complaints about Bush

where not his actual actions but the fact they were not codified. I recall something like zero percent of critics demanding these counter constitutional activities be brought under the color of the law but stopped as what they were and are contrary to the very spirit of clearly enumerated natural rights.

The best rational defense is pointing to precedent, the fact that the precedents are tangential and themselves relying on self defining logic of a "national security" carve out it's self without basis and directly centered in plain and uncertain language of EXACTLY what a warrant is and what it must be based on to be valid. Anything attempting to sneak around that crystal clear text was and is intentionally subverting the supreme law of the land which throughout it's history the court has done when sufficiently motivated.
The argument is that of traitors to self determination, supremacy of the rule of law by ever twisting it for their own ends, and in the end the human spirit and the dignity that must be afforded to sentience.

These are the arguments of the malevolent, the unbelievably foolish, and/or cowardly authoritarians who would have us be subjects rather than citizens. The chatter of the betrayer and the willing, obedient slave to the machine. Both pitiful and beyond despicable.

[stillwaiting]

180. I love this post. Your writing style is quite compelling. nt

[gcomeau]

226. In that case...

"I recall something like zero percent of critics demanding these counter constitutional activities be brought under the color of the law ..."

Your memory needs some work. Feel free to go back and scan through all those references to warrantless wiretapping under Bush and see how many times people bring up the fact that it violated FISA.



(Hint, it's a lot)



And, that aside, none of this addresses the point I was making. What Obama is doing =/= what Bush was doing. So trying to claim it's the same thing is dishonest hyperbolic bullshit.

[Oilwellian]

214. When they collected your data...

and now have it stored in a nice little vault to be accessed at anytime, what was the probable cause they listed on the warrant that was issued in your name?

[Dragonfli]

219. That question will not be answered, it never is, they will deflect or ignore. /nt

[gcomeau]

220. Neither know nor care.

The hypothetical prospect that my e-mails about my weekend beach plans may, possibly, live on in some storage bank somewhere that will never ever ever ever be bothered to be sifted through does not exactly fill me with anxiety.



And this is not dealing with the point that that is a very different thing than what Bush was doing so the misrepresentation of the two as the same thing is dishonest bullshit.




The end.

[sibelian]

224. Then your opinions can be completely discounted

as they are basically morally congruent as those with anti-vaxers.

[gcomeau]

227. Yes, the consistent fall back position of those who can't argue them.

Bye.

[niyad]

147. k and r

[Enthusiast]

169. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[Capt. Obvious]

171. and hundreds of replies

[JDPriestly]

175. Excellent interview. Thanks for posting.

[blkmusclmachine]

178. Who doesn't love the National Spy Agency?!?!

[cui bono]

230. And this is one of the the biggest problems with the Obama presidency:

there were so many other policies that progressives—or liberals, or Democrats, whatever you want to describe them as being—pretended not just to oppose but to vehemently condemn and be offended by when they were done by George Bush, and when Barack Obama was condemning them. And then they just stood by quietly, meekly acquiescing if not outright endorsing Obama once he was in power and embracing these same theories, in some cases even expanding them.

[Maedhros]

243. It's the one saving grace to losing the White House to a Republican.

Those people will go back to opposing the National Security, Surveillance and War State instead of cheering it.

[Blue_Tires]

234. LOL..Glenn is the last one who should be playing the

"who used to believe/support what " -card...

Naturally, nobody is going to call him out for it...

[whatthehey]

237. Mendacious Libertarian muckraker rakes mendacious muck on non-Libertarian. News at 11..

[cheapdate]

239. Fuck the NSA and fuck Greenwald (p.s. fuck Reason magazine, too.)

[frazzled]

240. Ah, "Reason"--the libertarian journal of the Reason Foundation

Their mission: Advancing a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law.

Favorite Board of Trustee member: Drew Carey.

[struggle4progress]

255. Oh! Look who's behind this:

Reason Magazine is a libertarian monthly print magazine produced by the Reason Foundation

... The Reason Foundation is funded, in part, by what are known as the "Koch Family Foundations" ... Dr. Adrian Moore, Vice President of Public Policy of the Reason Foundation, is an Advisor to the American Legislative Exchange Council's Commerce, Insurance & Economic Development Task Force. Reason Foundation representatives have also advised ALEC Task Forces on issues such as state budgets and health reform ... Jacob Sullum is the senior editor of Reason,, a monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation. Sullum's positions on tobacco issues have consistenly been supportive of the tobacco industry ...

[Cha]

259. Reason Magazine is a libertarian monthly print magazine produced by the Reason Foundation

Libertarian Bullshit.

Thank you, struggle4progress.

[pnwmom]

265. Right. And funded by David Koch. It doesn't belong here. n/t

[whereisjustice]

261. The very idea of a American surveillence state should transcend politics the same as torture, rape

and murder. Greenwald is to be commended for not letting the hypocritical turds and NSA apologists interfere with his work. I hope he continues to challenge authoritarian trolls and conservative nut jobs here and everywhere.

[pnwmom]

263. The Koch Brothers stooge unmasks himself. He's not only against Democrats, he's against progressives

and liberals. They're all just grotesque hypocrites.

He's the only one who's perfect.



"Reason" is funded by the Koch Brothers, FYI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(magazine)

Reason Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization completely supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, corporations, and the sale of its publications. According to the organization's tax filings, in 2012 the Reason Foundation's largest donors were the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1,522,212) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($2,016,000).

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TomCADem/83

In recent years, liberals have begun to push back on and expose the myth that the media is liberal. Websites like Media Matters have done a wonderful job of exposing right wing bias in the corporate media. Likewise, we have had some success in exposing massive corporate funding of astroturf campaigns like the Tea Party, which is controlled by groups like Dick Armey’s Freedom Works and funded by oil industry billionaires, the Koch brothers. The media still tends to portray the Tea Party as a legitimate grass roots movement while ignoring the control exercised by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and corporate operatives who manipulate middle class Americans into supporting policies that are detrimental to their interests.

However, what is often ignored are right wing/corporate funded political operatives generating attacks on Democrats from the “left” while giving Republicans a free pass. Of course, these operatives do not announce their intentions, but instead simply launch attacks on Democrats from the left while largely ignoring the far more extreme positions of Republicans or suggesting that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. However, occasionally, such operatives are caught engaging in these fraudulent acts.

The question in 2012 with Republicans and corporate American intent on taking back the White House, killing unions, and privatizing Medicare, how far will Republicans and corporate propaganda groups go in their efforts to organize sock puppet attacks on Democrats from the left in order to undermine support for Democrats among liberals?

Here are some prominent recent examples of right wing/corporate attacks on Democrats from the “left” by alleged Liberals/Democrats/Green Party/Immigrant Rights Advocates:

SNIP

[Fumesucker]

271. Obviously the three books that Greenwald wrote severely criticizing Bush and Republicans were a ruse

Criticizing them for the same behavior that he's now criticizing Democrats and Obama for.

All a clever setup since he knew that Obama was going to be elected POTUS in 2009 when he was writing those books.

For instance this book published on May 15, 2006 with a subtitle "defending American values from a president run amok", it's obvious Greenwald is talking about Obama, he just cleverly disguised it as an attack on Dubya, anyone with eyes can see that.

[pnwmom]

272. Since then he's been co-opted by the Koch brothers. They're experts in using people like Greenwald.

[Fumesucker]

275. Is that the best you can do?

Pretty weak sauce.

[nikto]

268. Obviously, it is much harder to be Progressive, than Partisan

1 represents actual values.

The other is mere membership.





I choose Progressive Values, over the cozy illusion of inclusion in a Party that has
steadily abandoned the values that once made it great.

[nikto]

269. When The Dems abandon whistleblowers...

They have embraced being GOP-Lite.

[woo me with science]

273. kick

[woo me with science]

280. kick

[Blue_Tires]

282. "...this kind of radical, grotesque form of progressive hypocrisy"

Is also what keeps Glenn from criticizing Russia, his home nation of Brazil, ISIS atrocities, etc...

All Greenwald is doing is talking about himself...Just have to hold a mirror up to him

[bigtree]

283. he did a service in reporting his home country's abuses in his country of residence

____His reporting on the National Security Agency (NSA) won numerous other awards around the world... including the Esso Award for Excellence in Reporting in Brazil for his articles in O Globo on NSA mass surveillance of Brazilians (becoming the first foreigner to win the award)("Prêmio Esso de Jornalismo 2013". Premioesso.com.br.)

Greenwald lives in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the hometown of his partner, David Michael Miranda. Greenwald has stated that his residence in Brazil is the result of an American law, the Defense of Marriage Act, barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages, which prevented his partner from receiving a visa to reside in the United States with him. Greenwald has also cited fears of arrest should he move back to the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald

Brazil has offered him protection from U.S. government persecution, probably because of the service he did for the country in exposing US spying on their Madame President Dilma Rousseff and her top advisers.

I can imagine his critics would like to see him place a wedge between him and his country of asylum while cheering on his US government pursuers. Tough...


Greenwald criticizes ISIS in the article cited (but conveniently not excerpted or linked to by the op) in more detail and in more graphic terms than ANYONE on this thread:

Greenwald in the article:

"...there is nonetheless something quite obfuscating about this beloved ritual of denouncing the unique barbarism of ISIS. It is true that ISIS seems to have embraced a goal – a strategy – of being incomparably savage, inhumane and morally repugnant. That the group is indescribably nihilistic and morally grotesque is beyond debate."

[Blue_Tires]

287. Brazil is his "home" country now...

Nary a peep about what was going with the leadup to the WC, or Petrobras, etc...

In the span of 2 years, Russia has mercilessly cracked down on GLBT, Chechens and other minorities, imprisoned dissident journalists, made whistleblowers 'disappear', further restricted their citizen's already nonexistent internet freedoms, shot down a civilian airliner while continuing to deny any responsibility, and destabilized, then invaded a neighboring country...If that wasn't enough, they are also propping up Assad in a Syrian civil war where he has killed a quarter-million of his own people...

Yet for some reason Glenn Greenwald steadfastly refuses to report on any of that -- I thought he was supposed to be fearless, and speaking truth to power and all that bullshit??

[bigtree]

288. like I said

...I realize you couldn't care less about his need for asylum. All you're focused on here is an unfaltering defense of the U.S. government which is not only persecuting him for his journalism, but denies him his basic rights. Real cool to bash him for not muckraking in his host country. He's still a U.S. citizen and its not only proper that he gives his professional attention to our policies; it's an admirable pursuit.

So, he hasn't covered every objectionable country's transgressions in the world. What a ridiculous and bitter standard.