GREENWALD: WHY DOES FBI MANUFACTURE ITS OWN PLOTS IF TERRORISM & ISIS ARE SUCH GRAVE THREATS?

[99th_Monkey]

WHY DOES THE FBI HAVE TO MANUFACTURE ITS OWN PLOTS IF TERRORISM AND ISIS ARE SUCH GRAVE THREATS?
By Glenn Greenwald * The Intercept * Feb. 26, 2015

The FBI and major media outlets yesterday trumpeted the agency’s latest counterterrorism triumph: the arrest of three Brooklyn men, ages 19 to 30, on charges of conspiring to travel to Syria to fight for ISIS (photo of joint FBI/NYPD press conference, above). As my colleague Murtaza Hussain ably documents, “it appears that none of the three men was in any condition to travel or support the Islamic State, without help from the FBI informant.” One of the frightening terrorist villains told the FBI informant that, beyond having no money, he had encountered a significant problem in following through on the FBI’s plot: his mom had taken away his passport. Noting the bizarre and unhinged ranting of one of the suspects, Hussain noted on Twitter that this case “sounds like another victory for the FBI over the mentally ill.”

In this regard, this latest arrest appears to be quite similar to the overwhelming majority of terrorism arrests the FBI has proudly touted over the last decade. As my colleague Andrew Fishman and I wrote last month — after the FBI manipulated a 20-year-old loner who lived with his parents into allegedly agreeing to join an FBI-created plot to attack the Capitol — these cases follow a very clear pattern:

The known facts from this latest case seem to fit well within a now-familiar FBI pattern whereby the agency does not disrupt planned domestic terror attacks but rather creates them, then publicly praises itself for stopping its own plots.

First, they target a Muslim: not due to any evidence of intent or capability to engage in terrorism, but rather for the “radical” political views he expresses. In most cases, the Muslim targeted by the FBI is a very young (late teens, early 20s), adrift, unemployed loner who has shown no signs of mastering basic life functions, let alone carrying out a serious terror attack, and has no known involvement with actual terrorist groups.

They then find another Muslim who is highly motivated to help disrupt a “terror plot”: either because they’re being paid substantial sums of money by the FBI or because (as appears to be the case here) they are charged with some unrelated crime and are desperate to please the FBI in exchange for leniency (or both). The FBI then gives the informant a detailed attack plan, and sometimes even the money and other instruments to carry it out, and the informant then shares all of that with the target. Typically, the informant also induces, lures, cajoles, and persuades the target to agree to carry out the FBI-designed plot. In some instances where the target refuses to go along, they have their informant offer huge cash inducements to the impoverished target.

Once they finally get the target to agree, the FBI swoops in at the last minute, arrests the target, issues a press release praising themselves for disrupting a dangerous attack (which it conceived of, funded, and recruited the operatives for), and the DOJ and federal judges send their target to prison for years or even decades (where they are kept in special GITMO-like units). Subservient U.S. courts uphold the charges by applying such a broad and permissive interpretation of “entrapment” that it could almost never be successfully invoked.

Once again, we should all pause for a moment to thank the brave men and women of the FBI for saving us from their own terror plots.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots-terrorism-isis-grave-threats/

[Mnemosyne]

1. Exactly. nt

[uhnope]

80. WHY DOES GREENWALD MANUFACTURE HIS OWN CONSPIRACIES IF NSA AND FBI ARE SUCH GRAVE THREATS?

see, two can play that game

[Mnemosyne]

89. Have you a clue who the Miami 5 are? Just one example. Go scream at someone else. nt

[uhnope]

91. a boy band?

Oh you mean those admitted spies who have all been let out of prison to go home now. So what about them?

[Marr]

178. Nice attempt at Wiki-asscovering, but you looked up the wrong thing. /nt

[tiny elvis]

115. the newburgh sting

[DescendantOfMany]

2. Don't know, but anyone who would fall for that shit shouldn't be on the street in the first place.

"Hey, wanna blow some shit up?"

"Sure!"

[nichomachus]

4. But many do

The FBI also targets young Muslim guys who have legal problems and offer to make the problems go away if they'll be a double agent.

The FBI concocts some cockamamie plot that has no chance of working, uses the Muslim guys as honeypots to attract other young Muslim guys, and then the FBI "thwarts" the unworkable plot.

[Aerows]

57. Folks egging people on

"Hey, wanna blow some shit up?" shouldn't be on the streets to begin with, either.

[sabrina 1]

170. Whoever asks someone to 'blow some shit up' shouldn't be on the street either.

Is there a problem with our laws that if someone IS going to blow some shit up we are unable to arrest them?

Wait, I guess we first have to put the idea in their heads, mostly people who are possibly, mentally ill, because if we don't put the idea in their heads, DAMN, they might not think about it on their own, and then, how could we arrest them?

[randys1]

3. It got the terrorists, uh I mean teaparty, to vote to fund DHS at least

[JDPriestly]

44. Does that mean I can take my skin cream on board in my carry-on while the

DHS is out of work? I have eczema and really need my creams. But I usually don't take them in the plane because I don't want to have to slow everybody down.

[randys1]

49. Isnt there a new streamline boarding thing you can buy that allows you to bypass a lot of the

craziness?

[Aerows]

64. I see you've passed

"Missing the Point 101" with flying colors.

[randys1]

69. Trying to be lighthearted, but thanks for the insult

[Aerows]

70. Not really

I was trying to be lighthearted, too, but thanks for assuming the worst.

[randys1]

72. my bad then...i like your pic sig

[Aerows]

76. Thanks

[Fantastic Anarchist]

138. Well, that escalated and de-escalated rather quickly.

Glad everyone is chillin'!!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

137. Um, I know this guy ...

... I'll get you in touch with him. No one should have to face that. He's working on bypassing the DHS, so you can bring your creams on the plane. He needs people like you.

- FBI

**The above is strictly satire - please don't take me away to GITMO***

[grasswire]

5. wish I could rec a hundred times

WOW!

BOOM!

Precisely the right question.

[Laughing Mirror]

6. Keep Fear Alive

To keep the money rolling in. Always works.

[grasswire]

7. the real purpose

"Keep fear alive"

[Blue_Tires]

8. More apologia for extremism, and more West-blaming

Greenwald's SOP

[Electric Monk]

9. You approve of the FBI's methods mentioned in the OP? nt

[Blue_Tires]

10. I don't approve of Greenwald's slanted framing of them

Last edited Thu Feb 26, 2015, 11:23 PM - Edit history (2)

and this is just the latest of a ongoing pattern from him...

Does he have no idea how a sting operation works, or is he just being willfully ignorant?

[grasswire]

12. speaking of ongoing patterns.......nt

[Blue_Tires]

13. Just remaining as constant as the North Star

and calling them as I see them, regardless of DU's prevailing mood...

Problem?

[grasswire]

14. criticizing Greenwald for "constant pattern"..

....while "remaining constant as the North Star". Do you not see the problem?

[TheKentuckian]

106. The North Star isn't a constant.

[KingCharlemagne]

181. Hah! You damned literalist! :) - nt

[A Simple Game]

27. How about a different author and 3 years ago?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I could provide you more links but do yourself a favor and do a search about the subject, it's fairly well known that the FBI and others down to even local cops do this to make themselves look good and appear relevant.

If they have enough resources to create fake plots they have too many resources and are wasting money. The only reason you see a pattern is because there is one and it wasn't created by Greenwald.

[Hissyspit]

134. I was about to post that.

[Aerows]

142. As soon as that got brought up

You'll notice the posts complaining about Greenwald came to a halt - because they certainly don't want to acknowledge that this isn't about Greenwald.

It's about the FBI doing this that is the problem, but "The government can do no wrong" crowd doesn't want to discuss the actual problem.

[2banon]

151. Yep..I noticed that too.

some sort of weird obsession and jealousy that somehow induces "stupid" and reactionary is both pathetic and funny at once.

[Aerows]

152. They are always

trying to make a bogeyman out of whoever speaks up about wrong-doing in government, but never address the wrong-doing itself.

It's an attempt so shallow to deflect, derail and disrupt, you can see through it in the dark.

I have no respect for those types of arguments, and the people that make them simply aren't credible. Most people don't have "Stupid" tattooed on their foreheads, so I don't know why they are acting like we do.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

34. Please carefully explain Greenwald's slanted framing. Thank you in advance. nt

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

48. The FBI has been doing this for years

and we don't need Greenwald to show us that.
Those with eyes, open them and see the truth.

[G_j]

86. it's common knowlege for anyone paying attention

and has nothing to do with Greenwald.

[2banon]

133. I'm thinking you must have been born yesterday, yes?

naivete isn't a sin, but it is rather tiresome.

[Hissyspit]

135. No surprise you are defending this crap.

[MADem]

154. With the way things are going over at The Intercept, I suppose he feels a need to publish now

rather than later, because people are dropping like flies over at the Omidyar Empire.

First Taibbi, now this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/23/ken-silverstein-first-look-media-resigns_n_6738766.html

Investigative reporter Ken Silverstein announced over this weekend that he was leaving the company after only 14 months on the job. In a series of private Facebook posts published by Jim Romenesko, Silverstein blasted First Look's managerial "incompetence," calling the company a “pathetic joke” for squandering millions of dollars on long-time Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi's never-launched satirical site, Racket.

"I am one of a many employees who was hired under what were essentially false pretenses," Silverstein wrote. "We were told we would be given all the financial and other support we needed to do independent, important journalism, but instead found ourselves blocked at every step of the way by management’s incompetence and bad faith ..."

Funded by billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omiydar, First Look was supposed to be home to a number of high-profile, stand-alone publications helmed by some of journalism's biggest names. But the only publication First Look has succeeded in launching is The Intercept, which focuses on national security and features the work of Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jeremy Scahill. Silverstein originally worked for Racket when he joined First Look, but when the project was shuttered, he transferred to The Intercept, where he lasted two months.

"You know what’s cool about being a former employee of First Look/The Intercept?" Silverstein wrote on Facebook. "That Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Betsy Reed and Pierre Omidyar all believe in Free Speech and the First Amendment so they won’t mind my writing about my time working for and with them."

And he's gone back to his old employer--not CATO, this time, but the Koch-funded, Allen West - fronted, named after a racist "Hatton Sumners Lecture Series " at the National Center for Policy Analysis, which is a front to throw money at the "Right" people:

http://www.ncpa.org/events/glenn-greenwald


If Omidyar gets bored with this publishing thing, expect to see GG "on the menu" there, at CATO, and anywhere Koch money is tossed around.

[Marr]

179. I think you need to spend less time reflexively defending authority and

a little more time reading news stories.

Seriously-- how can you not know about this?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

15. You knew I'd show up asking about the links you brought up, the links showing Greenwald lies.

I'd love to see them. I'll stop asking soon, but you did make the offer a few days back so I thought I'd check at least once more.

[randome]

16. Look at the article. It's full of Greenwald's interpretation.

Facts are not in dispute so there is no 'lie'. But he will always put a negative slant on every single story he writes. The man doesn't know how to write anything else.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[zeemike]

30. How dare he put a negative slant

On the FBI creating a false terrorist plot...the nerve of that guy.

[randome]

52. That's all he does, though, is my point.

He is against anything to do with law enforcement so his particular slant on things is always suspect.

He has an agenda and it's mostly to be the darling of the Libertarian set, who also think all law enforcement is evil.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[zeemike]

56. That is a strong statement.

And strong statements require strong evedence...which you don't have.
And don't bother with the links, they will not prove that "He is against anything to do with law enforcement "

But you seem to have an agenda...should we not then suspect you of the same?

[randome]

60. Of course you should suspect anything you read on the Internet.

See my post #54, though. See pwnmom's post #42. Why doesn't Greenwald ask basic journalism questions? Why doesn't he research a topic to give the full story?

Because he has an agenda. He's scheduled to speak at a Koch event in April.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[zeemike]

83. Well you have an agenda too.

To paint him libertarian...Or anything that you can really because your agenda seems to be to discredit what he has done by making charges you cannot prove.

And even if you could it would not mean that the NSA is not spying on us, or is not guilty of doing things that are unconstitutional...makes no difference to me who revealed that, it is a fact.

[uhnope]

93. lol. Just a little paranoid

You can't prove that the NSA is not spying on me

[zeemike]

104. Talk about deflection.

This is about the facts that were released that they are spying on us.

[Aerows]

122. Speaking

of people with agendas ...

[ret5hd]

58. Would you give an example of a negative slant of his that should be portrayed in a more favorable...

light? thanks in advance.

[randome]

61. It's not a question of negative versus positive.

It's a question of not doing any research. See pwnmom's post #42 below. Why won't Greenwald present a full story instead of his angry opinion?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

124. "It's not a question of negative versus positive." said the guy who also said "He puts a negative ..

... slant on everything."

Did it ever occur to you that the FBI creating fake threats has its own negative slant without help?

[randome]

130. See, you're willing to take whatever Greenwald says as gospel.

Without even asking basic questions for yourself. See pnwmom's post #42. Things are rarely what they seem in Greenwald's articles.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

141. I'm assuming you are going to stay as far away from this post

by A Simple Game as possible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026283243#post27

How about a different author and 3 years ago?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I could provide you more links but do yourself a favor and do a search about the subject, it's fairly well known that the FBI and others down to even local cops do this to make themselves look good and appear relevant.

If they have enough resources to create fake plots they have too many resources and are wasting money. The only reason you see a pattern is because there is one and it wasn't created by Greenwald."

[randome]

149. Did I ever say that law enforcement does not abuse its authority?

Did I ever say that agencies sometimes carry entrapment too far? No to both.

But if Greenwald can't be bothered to do the basic journalism research that pnwmom did in post #42, why would any objective observer take his word that this case was 'manufactured'?

'Manufactured'. That's not a word someone would use for strictly factual reporting, especially when combined with the egregious absence of what put the FBI onto these suspects in the first place.

That's the hallmark of someone with an agenda who isn't that concerned with facts.

Greenwald's 'question' in his article's title is the same as someone asking 'When did you stop beating your wife?'
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

150. Respond to the NY Times article

Explicitly state that the FBI is guilty of wrong-doing. Explicitly state that what the FBI is doing is unlawful.

This isn't about Greenwald, Snowden, or whatever bogeyman of the week some try to make out of people that report horrible things being done by our government.

Again, my challenge: Explicitly state that what the FBI is doing in cases like this is wrong-doing and unlawful.

[randome]

153. Respond to what? I already said law enforcement sometimes goes overboard.

But the very first example in that NYT article:

When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of “inert material,” harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust.

The guy apparently made it known first that he wanted to attack Portland so the FBI led him on. I don't have a problem with that. Ignoring him because he hadn't yet committed a crime means endangering other people. Screw that. If you pop off your mouth about wanting to kill someone, you need to go either to a psychiatric institution or jail.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

155. See? More equivocation

Provided with an explicit example, you bring in a bunch of non-arguments, but say "Okay sometimes they mess up, but not <explicit example> this time because <bogeyman source!, keeping us safe!, it could have happened!>.

Your first sentence is an example of a Limited Hangout.

The second paragraph is an example of Minority Report mentality along with It could have happened.

You are using all of these techniques to attempt to argue the unarguable. Explicitly state that luring a kid whose mom took away his passport is a determined probable terrorist and the FBI was justified in setting up a sting operation with an informant with highly motivating reasons to get that person to make incendiary statements. You have an example. Explicitly state that you either agree or disagree with the FBI doing this with our tax dollars (since the funded all of this).

[randome]

157. How can I agree or disagree when I don't have the full story?

pnwmom uncovered part of it. The guy threatened to shoot Obama. He said he wanted to wage jihad. Whatever happens after that is not automatically justified but it does point to this guy deserving of an investigation.

And what the hell does a passport have to do with anything? He said he wanted to wage jihad. Someone like that who openly brags about it, if he's unable to get overseas, you think he's just going to sit quietly in a corner and daydream?

No, he's likely to get his 'jihad on' by attacking someone here.

Greenwald explicitly states that the FBI had no reason to investigate this man. Is that a lie? Or is he just incompetent and not as much of a journalist as pnwmom?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

160. Here we are

back to <the source is wrong!> let's discuss the messenger, not the message.

Did you comment on the NY Times story? No, you diddled around with limited hangout. You know exactly what that is, because you use it on EVERY SINGLE one of these articles, including all the tricks I pointed out on that OP I made, too.

I want to talk about the truth, randome, not spin in circles with someone who deflects and disrupts from the very real dangers our nation is facing from within.

You simply *WON'T* under any circumstances call out wrong doing by any branch of Law Enforcement, the military, or anything contradicting the MIC. I honestly think, that you *CAN'T*.

It's hilarious to watch you contort to avoid answering a question, though. You tie yourself up in knots to avoid a real discussion with a real example, or simply stop responding. That's a sign right there that you aren't here for a discussion. What are you here for?

[Scuba]

146. pwmom's post # 42 does not address the question, it just picks apart one incident.

The question remains, why is the FBI manufacturing terror plots? Aren't the "real" threats enough to justify all the dough we spend on spying and drones?

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/21/us-terrorism-prosecutions-often-illusion

The 214-page report, “Illusion of Justice: Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions,” examines 27 federal terrorism cases from initiation of the investigations to sentencing and post-conviction conditions of confinement. It documents the significant human cost of certain counterterrorism practices, such as overly aggressive sting operations and unnecessarily restrictive conditions of confinement.

“Americans have been told that their government is keeping them safe by preventing and prosecuting terrorism inside the US,” said Andrea Prasow, deputy Washington director at Human Rights Watch and one of the authors of the report. “But take a closer look and you realize that many of these people would never have committed a crime if not for law enforcement encouraging, pressuring, and sometimes paying them to commit terrorist acts.”

[randome]

148. The post clearly shows that the suspect openly admitted he wanted to shoot Obama.

A fact that Greenwald conveniently leaves out because he can't be bothered to do basic journalism research. Do you think an investigation is unwarranted at that point?

If one admits that we don't have the full story without doing our own digging, then why should we automatically assume that whatever Greenwald says is the truth?

Does law enforcement sometimes go overboard in trying to entrap people? There have been numerous cases of that. Is this one of those cases? We don't know because we didn't get the full story.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

156. Hmmmm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm

Oh hell - let's just link this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026250938

[Scuba]

159. What about all the other plots the FBI concocted? Why do they do this?

This isn't about Greenwald, nor is it about one particular incident.

[randome]

161. 'All the other' is a pretty wide range.

My opinion is that the FBI, like every law-enforcement agency, sometimes abuses its authority. My guess is that most of what we would call 'entrapment' is justified. If the FBI suggested to you that you could get away with blowing up Congress, would you go along with the plan to do it? My guess is no, although I don't know you personally.

The case that Greenwald cites, just because this guy didn't have a passport is no reason to ignore him. He said he wanted to wage jihad. If he couldn't go overseas, is it plausible he would have just forgotten the entire thing?

Apparently not because he was pretty easily talked into doing what he expected would be horrible things.

So in this particular case, I think the FBI was justified.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

162. The FBI is cooking up plots to keep us fearful. Your authoritarian perspective on it was expected.

[Aerows]

165. And to keep their funding

that's a major part of it all.

[sabrina 1]

167. Lol, all those awards he's racking up, two Academies, one Pulitzer, one Directors' Guild Award so

far, they must all be Libertarians?

Are you a close friend of his btw, you seem to be able to read his mind.

He does not think 'all law enforcement is evil'.

He thinks Cheney, Bush are evil.

He thinks Gonzales is evil, well, I suppose that was law enforcement, no?

Chertoff, is he law enforcement, he thought he was evil.

He thinks cops who brutalize minorities are evil. So yeah, law enforcement again.

I suppose if you like Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and Chertoff, and Ashcroft et al, you wouldn't like Greenwald.

Me, I agree with him, there are a lot of evil people in law enforcement from top to bottom.

And there are also good people in law enforcement.

Can you point us to where he said he thinks ALL law enforcement is evil? Or did he tell you that in a private conversation?

[randome]

54. Let me put it another way.

In nearly every story Greenwald has done about the NSA, he conveniently leaves out the fact that what he's talking about pertains to foreign communications only.

OR, and this is important, he fails to ask the very basic journalism question of whether it pertains to foreign intelligence or not.

His slant usually consists of leaving out the very basic questions that all journalists should ask.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[zeemike]

59. I have heard all of that before...it is repeated all the time.

But asks the questions most journalist will not ask...you know the negative questions you don't want him to ask.

But again this has all been argued before and I have heard all the excuses.

[TheKentuckian]

108. No, you want a Public Relations stooge to sell a rationalization

to provide a work around to our own most basic enumerated rights.

Just route through an international backbone, do a little cross work with other countries to aid each in sneaking around their respective privacy laws, apply stepping and next thing you know you have Hoovered and Kirbyed every communication into the net.

No, it isn't his job to lay down justifications for shady machinations and sell self serving at best, malevolent toward the worse end interpretations of the letter of the law the gouges the eyes out of the spirit of the law and skull fucks it with no lube.

What you call journalism others more accurately describe as advertising.

[Aerows]

143. Nailed it! n/t

[TheKentuckian]

171. Thank you!

[Vattel]

116. That is incorrect because what he's talking about doesn't only pertain to foreign communications.

[randome]

131. It does or he fails to even address the point, leaving his readers to assume the worst.

The NSA is forbidden by law from spying on Americans unless it's in conjunction with a foreign threat or foreign communications.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[TheKentuckian]

173. Just so happens criteria, routing, and cooperative intelligence set up this to include

all communications.

[randome]

174. Agreed this needs to be more closely looked at. No problems here.

It had nothing to do with Snowden until he stole, ran and gave away his documents for others to sift through. It did not impart a sense of emergency to him because, as an IT analyst, he apparently knew nothing about it since he never mentioned it until someone else did.

Greenwald did not mention it until he started reading the documents. Greenwald, in this case, is like Wikileaks, happy to receive stolen goods but unable or unwilling to do much in the way of investigative journalism himself. A perfectly lazy way to conduct the art of journalism.

The story in the OP is suspect because Greenwald says the FBI had no reason to suspect these guys when there clearly was a reason. The reason itself can be disputed or dissected but to claim one never existed is disingenuous.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[TheKentuckian]

176. Questionable? The facts aren't even debated, you are dancing on a mote of dust in the air.

You insist on positive spin to qualify as journalism.

What you want is a cover-up and failing that the services of an advertising agency to sell counter constitutional shenanigans.

[randome]

185. Here's the link from pnwmom's post #42.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/nyregion/3-men-in-brooklyn-charged-supporting-isis.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Are you saying the NY Times simply made it up that one of these guys threatened Obama and wanted to wage jihad?

Do you agree that's a fact missing from Greenwald's article? Do you agree that sounds like a reason to investigate the guy?

I think that's something Greenwald 'forgot' to mention, don't you?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[TheKentuckian]

187. A reason in this situation does not square the practices generally or even make them acceptable

in response to the reason.

I'm not really clear on what you think the point is. If you want to get out on that limb and defend the practices then get to it.

[randome]

188. How much more plain do I need to make it?

1. Obviously the FBI were right to investigate someone who said he wanted to kill Obama and become a martyr. And yes, I approve of that.

2. Greenwald couldn't be bothered to do basic research for his article.

If you disagree with point #1, what do you think the FBI should have done? Lock the guy up or see if he had any friends who wanted to help him?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[uhnope]

17. how's this

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

[DisgustipatedinCA]

51. Thank you for the reply.

This is not proof of a lie, however. The linked article from a Kos writer claims that Snowden and Greenwald are lying, and this claim is based on reporting from Dana Priest at the Post. But there's no sourcing in the Post article, so Priest is counting on the claims of the government as to how these requests flow, who authorizes them, and so on. In other words, the government says one thing, and Snowden says another. Well, we're already keenly aware the the NSA lies--they've done so at least twice under oath. Their word against Snowden's. Sure, Snowden might be lying, but neither the linked article nor the Post article are able to show that.

[uhnope]

74. sensational claims in Greenwald's headlines are never backed up by the article. that's called lying

From my link:

Despite these astonishing claims, Snowden and Greenwald have yet to provide any evidence of any actual, current abuses or illegalities, much less any abuses that are as easy and common as they suggested.

Let that sink in. They make farfetched claims, can't prove them, and then move on to more farfetched claims. At one point do we call that lying?

Let's look at one of the earliest, most famous and most farfetched claims. Here's one of the first "revelations" by Snowden, touted by Greenwald: "I, sitting at my desk," said Snowden, could "wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

This has never been proven. Not remotely. Every person with experience with the system says it's not true. Greenwald's own article doesn't prove it. Read the next several 'graphs in the article. It's full of this can happen, and these training materials says this could happen but never this is happening and here's the evidence. Sensational claims in Greenwald's headlines are never backed up by the article. That is called lying. And this is just one article. It's what he does for a living.

If you know that Snowden might be lying, why not do a little research on your own?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

85. First, I didn't say Snowden was lying. I don't think he was.

What I said was that Snowden lying was part of the set of possibilities. NSA lying is another in the set of possibilities, and we know they've done that. You didn't see the earlier thread to which I referred, but in that thread, I mentioned that it's common at DU to see Snowden and/or Greenwald referred to as liars. So in that thread, I asked for people to provide some sort of evidence that either of them are lying. That evidence has never been presented.

At what point do you call their claims lying? Well, there's a straightforward answer to that. You can call it lying when you can prove it's a lie. I choose to believe Ed Snowden over NSA.

[KingCharlemagne]

182. Uh, yeah, and then there's the whole 'cui bono?' (who benefits?) thing to

consider. To wit, who has more to gain by lying, Greenwald, Snowden, et. al. or Hayden, Brennan, et. al.? Ockham's Razor clearly favors the latter, methinks. Entire budgets and potentates depend upon the art of making statements that are eventually revealed to be 'inoperative' (to quote Ron Ziegler, Tricky Dick's erstwhile press secretary).

[uhnope]

18. Greenwald is Alex Jones dressed up for respectable folks

[lark]

23. I don't see that in there.

Some guy whose mom took his passport is a major terrorist threat? Really? If this was GW's FBI would you be making the same statements?

[erronis]

45. Typical quick retort and a few non-sequitor followups

To try to hijack the conversation.

Why not try a bit of back-and-forth - you know the type where you put forward a reasoned hypothesis, listen to the counter arguments and then rebut those specific arguments?

It's so damn easy to just make a stupid negative comment about someone else on the forums, or to pretty much write off any contrarian views.

It must be nice to get a paycheck from some sugardaddy that can fund your trolling.

[grasswire]

96. !!

that's gotta burn

[JDPriestly]

46. If the shoe fits, wear it. Greenwald makes a good point.

The unfortunate truth is that the FBI should use its resources and personnel to stop serious plots. They should not be encouraging young people to ruin their lives.

The FBI is not fulfilling its duty when it tempts these kids to do bad things. Offering compensation or any other incentive to criminal activity is a crime in and of itself.

We need some changes here.

[KingCharlemagne]

183. Damn, but I wish you would replace Comey as FBI Director. Your post is the most

sensible and succinct explanation of why what the FBI is doing is so wrong and wrong-headed. My sincerest compliments.

[grasswire]

11. succinct quote from the comments section

"The FBI should be preventing plots that somebody else is putting in motion."

[geek tragedy]

19. These stings serve a very good purpose.

They make any disillusioned loser with a high double-digit IQ less likely to believe or trust an actual terrorist recruiter, fearing them to be a narc, and thus will be deterred from joining up.

[99th_Monkey]

21. Perhaps, but I kinda doubt it

I doubt that these low-IQ 'losers' are capable of such a detached
rational analysis of 'the risk' that their handlers are narcs.

[geek tragedy]

22. What I'm saying is this makes the smarter ones less likely to

talk to recruiters, because they will suspect them of being narcs.

[Adam051188]

25. ....the smart ones might be unlikely to seek our violent outlets for their frustrations anyway....

but you would obviously know all about that

[geek tragedy]

26. unfortunately, intelligence and psychopathy are not negatively correlated nt

[Adam051188]

28. depends on your definition of intelligence

i would say you couldn't be more wrong.

keep in mind while considering this that our current economic/societal model in use will, with some mathamatical certainty, lead to the extinction of the homosapien within some length of time ranging from a handful of decades to a handful of centuries. factors involved are climate change, peak oil, overpopulation, and nuclear proliferation.

do you believe those at the top of this economic/societal model, who are at least partially responsible for it's creation/continuation are of above average intelligence?

i do not

[ret5hd]

68. Excellent question...

The only thing I would add is that those at the top of this economic/societal model are those most able (under our current system) to effect a radical change of our current model.

Of course I am leaving out the possibility that the proletariat will rise, unable to tolerate the current model.

[KingCharlemagne]

184. They may not be of above-average intelligence but dollars to doughnuts, I'll bet

they are off the scale for Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

Interesting and scary thought experiment: what percentage of Fortune 500 CEOs are ASPD (sociopathic emphasis)?

[99th_Monkey]

31. If they were really 'smart'

they wouldn't even be going down that road at all.

Also, I find this 'entrapment' approach to law enforcement to be
morally repugnant and utterly reprehensible. Bribing some impoverished
sap to break the law is the last thing the FBI ought to be doing.

[geek tragedy]

38. cunning is a different attribute than enlightenment nt

[jberryhill]

81. There is solid law around "entrapment"

If the defendants can show entrapment, they can beat a conviction.

What gets lost in shouting "entrapment" is that it is an affirmative defense which succeds IF it can be shown on the evidence that the defendant did not have a pre-existing disposition to commit the crime.

If it is the case that the defendant would not have been inclined to do these things but for being egged-on or enticed, the prosecution fails.

Take the Abscam cases in the 70's. You can bet the entrapment defense got a big workout there, and failed.

[99th_Monkey]

84. Well, yes and no.

Yes, the defendant needs to already be 'inclined' somehow to consider doing a dastardly deed, as opposed to a defendant who is an otherwise law-abiding pillar of morality and good citizenship.

But no in the sense that this is both circular reasoning and self-fulfilling prophecy, since the 'otherwise good citizen' would be much less likely to go along with the plot. Besides that, it would run a very high risk of the 'good citizen' to not only refuse, but also to blow the whistle on Gov't agents trying to bribe them to commit a crime.

So heads I win, tails you lose.

Meanwhile, the FBI uses mentally unstable fringe folk as so much cannon fodder to feed the War on Terrah; which I find repugnant and reprehensible.

[jberryhill]

92. That risk in your second paragraph doesn't seem to have happened

I don't know all the specific facts and evidence in this one.

If you are familiar with malaria control, the current best method is to release various decoy mosquitos - such as infertile males, to get the female mosquitos to breed with them and thus bring down the reproduction rate.

There are people being recruited in this country to go join ISIS, and they are sure enough going off and joining ISIS or, if they can't do that, doing something dreadful here (like that guy with the knife at the bus stop).

IF... and this is an "IF"... it were possible to attract those actual would be recruits, who are sitting around right now not yet recruited, into a phony plot, that would be something worth doing.

Where the problems come up is in that "IF". So, as a baseline, it is probably important to get a read on whether it is the principle that is the problem, or the practical realities which are the problem.

It's one thing to say you don't like the way they are doing it, and another to say it is not a worthwhile endeavor. Because the first question is about having adequate safeguards around implementation.

So is it the idea that is screwed, or the way they are going about it?

[99th_Monkey]

95. Mentally unstable people need help, not entrapment into committing crimes

The sorry--ass state of our mental health services is no excuse for using mentally ill people as cannon fodder to make the security apparatus look good in the headlines, like they are really busting real terrorists.

[wildbilln864]

117. well said! n/t

[jberryhill]

119. That doesn't answer the question

You are saying that in this instance (and I recall a previous one where the defendant was obviously less than capable) the persons charged were not actually predisposed, but disturbed.

That's an implementation problem, and not one of principle.

Unless you are saying that any actual would-be recruits are, by definition, mentally unstable. I don't agree with that. Those young women in the UK acted with considered purpose and were by no means mentally impaired.

So, again, is it the principle or the practice?

[99th_Monkey]

120. Principle or Practice? It's your question, not mine.

This is your dichotomy not mine.

True or False?

Real or unreal?

White or Black?

Predisposed or Disturbed?

The Universe is just not that simplistic, so excuse me if I don't
exactly buy into your question

I'm not interested in splitting hairs about it.

[jberryhill]

126. I'm just trying to figure out

If your problem is with the concept of attempting to divert would be recruits, or with the way it worked out in this instance?

Do you object to police using "bait cars" to catch car thiefs?

[99th_Monkey]

144. I think it's a slippery slope

Once cops start doing the bait car thing, it starts down the
road to full blown entrapment, planting 'evidence' on innocents, etc.

I understand the rational for it, but disagree that it's the ideal way
to 'catch criminals', i.e. by setting them up with enticements and
especially paying them money for christ's sake. <-- really sick.

[jberryhill]

145. Good points

[Adam051188]

24. the kgb is my favorite government agency.

oh wait, i meant fbi....they're very different....

[Orsino]

128. We should always doubt it.

Open trials with juries of our peers.

While it's weird to convict people of not joining terrorist organizations, it's better to nab folks on lesser charges before anyone gets hurt.

[JDPriestly]

47. A high-double-digit IQ is not going to fall for the FBI's honey traps.

[geek tragedy]

78. but they're also then going to be more difficult to recruit because they'll

suspect recruiters of being informants.

Sowing mistrust and inhibiting cooperation between bad guys is a good thing.

[Mnpaul]

114. How about the people who did absolutely nothing wrong?

Case in point: The antiwar protesters who were raided by the FBI in 2010

The so called evidence provided by the FBI mole was ridiculous.

They claimed that the Antiwar Committee and one Freedom Road socialist had secret "red cells" across the country and were plotting to violently overthrow the Federal Government. They claimed that they were smuggling large amounts of cash to Palestinian terrorists. They couldn't even afford their own office and got free use of space in a small church.

They called the FBI on their BS and told them to stick their Grand Jury subpoenas where the sun don't shine - twice! The FBI slinked away and to this date has not produced one shred of evidence to back their wild claims.

[nashville_brook]

65. by this logic we should entrap everyone on everything citing "a common purpose."

[geek tragedy]

79. No, just those who want to commit acts of terrorism. nt

[jberryhill]

82. The law on entrapment is more demanding than that

If I had to guess, the idea is to dry up the pool of recruits, as suggested above.

However, it is not entrapment if it can be shown the defendant had a pre-existing inclination - a predisposition, essentially - to commit the crime.

It's like prostitution stings. The guy pulling over to the curb to chat with the prostitute is not exactly what you'd call a "pedestrian greeter" who just happens to chat up people on the side of the road, whether she's a police officer or not.

[Adam051188]

20. we only break the law so we can enforce the law

because laws are only for certain people. us special secret agent badasses don't have to obey laws, we shoot unarmed suspects multiple times at point blank range and find ourselves free of any wrong doing. THAT'S how badass WE are.

totally not terrorists

this is how civilization flourishes, right?

[zeemike]

36. Nope it is how it ends...if history is the predictor.

[MrScorpio]

29. COINTELPRO by any other name, smells just as putrid nt

[msanthrope]

32. More terror apologia from the man who thinks Matt Hale, white supremacist, is wrongly imprisoned....

Mr. Greenwald, who said he believed that Mr. Hale was wrongly imprisoned, said he did not recall the exact message Ms. Hutcheson relayed to him, or the person it was intended for, but that he had declined to deliver it. He called the message "a caricature of what a coded message would be."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/national/09hale.html?pagewanted=print&position=&_r=0

Mr. Greenwald, if and when he pays his past due federal and state taxes, and regains his law license, could defend these poor, misunderstood men. Or not.

[99th_Monkey]

37. Killing the messenger much?

What exactly does your post have to do with the OP? Oh wait, nothing. Never mind.

[msanthrope]

43. Do you really think, after your last self-deleted OP, that you should be trying to engage me?

Your last self-deleted OP was some of the most racist and offensive nonsense I have ever seen posted on this site.

And though I posted, over and over, about the issue of racism, you conveniently ignored me, and other posters who tried to engage you on the topic.

I post about Glenn Greenwald and you respond in under three minutes?

I'm not surprised you think that someone who threatens President Obama, and someone who thinks that shooting random officers, (all before the FBI got involved) aren't worthy of investigation.

[JDPriestly]

50. Someone who threatens the president or shoots random officers should

already be in jail and not susceptible to being lured into some wild, terrorist plot.

[msanthrope]

53. Indeed....and sometimes, cops use people who have already done crimes to catch others, or to

observe networks.

The cops aren't under obligation to arrest you when they first see you do crime.

[99th_Monkey]

63. I will engage you whenever I want. If you don't like it, please put me on 'ignore' already.

Your attempt to slime me because of ONE op I posted (and then deleted), where I admittedly didn't read the article carefully enough before posting it, and I could see how it could be interpreted as 'racist'.

I admitted my error on the string, and deleted the post. Ok, I am guilty of ONE post of questionable taste in EIGHT YEARS on DU. Oh the horror of it all.

Meanwhile the actual discussion of actual issues -- of entrapment of deranged marginalized loners into 'terror plots' hatched by the FBI -- get's ignored without comment by you.

[msanthrope]

71. Did you just use airquotes around the word "racist?" Wow. As for your point about

"deranged marginalized losers," kindly note that each accused committed their predicate crime long before FBI involvement.

[Marr]

180. More smearing from the person who suggested a Jewish man was a Nazi sympathizer.

Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Gross.

[msanthrope]

186. Mr. Greenwald called two Orthodox Jewish teens and an

African-American reverend "odious and repugnant" for suing Matt Hale.......

"All they can say Matt Hale did is express the view that Jews and blacks are inferior, he said. "There's just no question that expressing those views is a core First Amendment activity."

Further, Greenwald said, "I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me."

The first suit, filed in state court by Chicago attorney Michael Ian Bender on behalf of two Orthodox Jewish teens shot at in Rogers Park, is pending, though a circuit judge in Chicago threw out allegations that Smith's parents were somehow responsible for the shootings.

In addition to the Center for Constitutional Rights, Chicago's Latham & Watkins and the People's Law Office represent the Rev. Anderson.

"We signed onto this because we felt strongly about this case and this cause of action [for the Rev. Anderson] as a victim of a hate crime," said Mary Rose Alexander, the Latham & Watkins partner handling the case. "We feel justice should be served." The case is Rev. Stephen Tracy Anderson v. Matthew F. Hale, The World Church of the Creator, etc., and the Estate of Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, No. 00C2021.

http://www.culteducation.com/group/963-the-creativity-movement/9219-civil-rights-group-sues-white-supremacist.html

I can't imagine using that kind of language to describe victims of a hate crime. Can you????

[Marr]

189. You don't even understand why your Nazi smear is particularly offensive, do you?

I have to assume you don't, since you always cite that "odious and repugnant" line as if it justifies your smear. I'll spell it out for you.

"Odious and repugnant" carries no ethnic overtones. Your Nazi smear does.

[msanthrope]

190. Smear? Did Mr. Greenwald defend Matt Hale, white supremacist, or not?

I've never mentioned he was Jewish, and frankly, I don't care what religion he identifies with......can you imagine a religious person calling victims of hate crimes "odious and repugnant? "

How does one smear another by correctly quoting them?

[Marr]

191. How? Like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5981629

You do it fairly often. It's repulsive.

[msanthrope]

193. Well, you can put me on ignore if you don't like reading what I have to write

about Greenwald. Or...you can dispute the accuracy of the facts I present.

If Mr. Greenwald's own words "smear" him, what does that tell you?

[Thinkingabout]

33. If anyone could discover why plots would be created then Greenwald would be ace #1.

For Greenwald it provided a large amount of money, doubt the FBI is manufacturing plots a d especially one which would bring in the type of money Greenwald got.

[Maedhros]

35. People who are afraid are more willing to give up their freedom to someone who claims

they can "keep them safe." Sadly, it works.

[stonecutter357]

39. Greenwald

[leveymg]

40. Same reason the Flt 77 hijackers couldn't have done it without money from the Saudi Ambassadors wife

In the vast majority of cases, terrorists can't carry out their crimes without substantial assistance from governments - often that's the same government the terrorist is told he's attacking.

In every case of actual harm by Islamic radicals inside the US since the '93 WTC bombing, the FBI or CIA knew who the attackers were and had a role in facilitating their visas, arming, organizing, training, or funding the plot. That goes right up through the Boston Bombers, who were also here on CIA visas. Tamaran, the older brother, had been allowed to reenter the U.S. after his aborted operation in Chechnya even though he was listed by the CIA with the State Department as a known terrorist. These things get rather complicated, so the public narrative is simplified.

[Rex]

41. I've wondered that myself. What do they gain by goading people into doing criminal acts?

This was going on under the Bush administration, just what do we gain by these actions? Shouldn't the FBI be going after known terrorists and not creating them? No doubt there is a long list of real terrorists.

Strange behavior imo.

[nashville_brook]

66. it's PR, plain and simple.

[ret5hd]

73. Strange? Not if you are trying to protect your paycheck. (nt)

[grasswire]

97. job security

budget

follow the dollar.

and that's very, very sick.

[pnwmom]

42. "Adrift unemployed loner" with no connections with known terrorist groups unfortunately can describe

many people who carry out successful attacks, whether they are labeled as terrorists or not.

How did they choose these three to target? This article doesn't say.

According to a NYTimes account, at least one of the three was investigated after he threatened Obama online. Officials said it didn't feel imminent, only "aspirational." But I can see why it would get their attention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/nyregion/3-men-in-brooklyn-charged-supporting-isis.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

On Aug. 8, 2014, a person whose Internet protocol address and alias matched those of Mr. Juraboev posted to Hilofatnews, an Uzbek-language website supportive of ISIS: “I am in USA now but we don’t have any arms. But is it possible to commit ourselves as dedicated martyrs anyway while here? What I’m saying is, to shoot Obama and then get shot ourselves, will it do?”

On Aug. 15, federal agents went to Mr. Juraboev’s Brooklyn home. He said he believed in the Islamic State’s agenda, would like to travel to Syria to fight on its behalf and would harm President Obama if he could, according to court papers.

[randome]

55. Too bad Greenwald couldn't be bothered to do as much research as pnwmom on DU.

I guess that's too much to ask of such a famous man.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

98. this article doesn't even say that Juraboev made that alleged threat.

It says that a person whose ISP and alias match those of Juraboev posted it.

Could be anyone. The IP identity may not even be him.]

Weasel words

[pnwmom]

100. Talk about weasel words. Did you miss this part?

On Aug. 15, federal agents went to Mr. Juraboev’s Brooklyn home. He said he believed in the Islamic State’s agenda, would like to travel to Syria to fight on its behalf and would harm President Obama if he could, according to court papers.

So after they saw the online threat they went to his home and talked to him, and he repeated his intention to "harm President Obama if he could."

So were they supposed to cross their fingers and hope he didn't mean it?

[wildbilln864]

62. well maybe....

[99th_Monkey]

67. Bookmarked. Thanks. nt

[CanSocDem]

127. Good one!

Thanks for posting.


.

[Octafish]

75. GESTAPO must get paid.

Why spend so much on the military industrial complex for which we slave?

[grntuscarora]

87. I guess hassling environmentalists

isn't getting them the exposure and increased funding they want.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jan/23/fbi-contact-unwarranted-environmental-activists/

[nashville_brook]

94. precisely.

[Throd]

88. It is flypaper for potentially dangerous people. I'm not too bothered by it.

[99th_Monkey]

102. Really?

You are 'not bothered' that DHS/FBI seduce & bribe hapless mentally unstable & impoverished people to commit crimes and then trumpet their arrest as a 'victory' in our 'War on Terrah"?

Really?

Have you ever had a loved one who is mentally unstable? Would you wish this on them?

[Throd]

105. Are they all mentally unstable?

I'm not convinced they are all hapless victims.

Here in Northern California there is currently a case where a local guy got caught up in one of these stings. The guy is a raging dipshit and probably has some mental issues. He also had the opportunity to walk away from the "plot" at any time of his choosing. Instead he got busted at the Canadian border. What if his contacts weren't undercover FBI agents, but actually the real deal?

I am very concerned with government overreach and the surveillance state in the name of "security". However I view these matters more like the police leaving a "bait car" on the street and seeing who steals it.

[Maedhros]

107. Essentially, you are OK with people being imprisoned for radical politics.[n/t]

[Throd]

109. No. I care about their actions, not their politics.

[Maedhros]

110. But that's the thing: there WERE no actions.

There would most likely have NEVER BEEN ANY ACTIONS without the FBI instigating them.

The FBI's targets were selected because they posted inflammatory rhetoric on web forums. Glenn puts it well here:

They end up sending young people to prison for decades for “crimes” which even their sentencing judges acknowledge they never would have seriously considered, let alone committed, in the absence of FBI trickery.

Meek acquiescence to police state malfeasance is a far greater threat to this nation than any "terrorist."

[Throd]

111. And that is where it gets difficult.

Locking people up for something "they might have done" is indeed very problematic. It reminds me of a movie (starring Tom Cruise, can't remember the title) where people were hunted down for "future crimes".

[Fantastic Anarchist]

140. Minority Report. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

113. +100 nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

90. They have to justify their budget.

[Aerows]

163. Bingo

and only the most blind (or willfully blind) don't know that already. But boy howdy do we have a lot of people that want to convince us otherwise!

[sabrina 1]

99. Damn Greenwald, why won't he let them plot their own terror attacks and blame them on

someone else? Always the spoilsport, interfering with the propaganda!

Maybe they FBI and CIA suffer from that mental problem where mothers make their children sick then pretend to save them?

[99th_Monkey]

101. Absolutely! Greenwald needs to 'learn his place' or shut the f*ck up.

Glenn should get a job as 'real journalist' spouting corporate-approved pablum for the masses,
and selling his soul in the process. WTF is wrong with him?

[sabrina 1]

118. Well you know how much 'craves ATTENTION'. Though I have to say, before they started attacking him

he was just another blogger, a good one for sure, but in the effort to try to silence a blogger they turned him into an Internationally known, highly respected journalist. I doubt he ever dreamed of getting that much attention AND all those awards.

And you know, he has 'no credibility' say some anonymous people on the internet who I'm sure, have more than one Pulitzer Prize, including 2 Academy Awards, one for here, one from Britain AND the Directors Guild Award for the Documentary highlighting his work with Whistle Blower, Snowden.

I did ask one of those anonymous Greenwald detractors what kind of creds they had. So far, no answer!

Lol. I remember him when he was just a blogger on DK. He did stand out for the detail he would go into to tear apart Bush/Cheney's anti-Constitutional claims as to the power they had.

But I never thought he would be recognized outside the Political Forums he posted on.

If only they had just ignored him, but he WAS revealing stuff about Bank of America, and that, apparently is what got him all that 'attention'. Can't write about the corrupt Wall St banks and get away without them noticing.

[99th_Monkey]

147. +100 nt

[valerief]

103. FBI doesn't want their funding cut. nt

[ND-Dem]

112. good question. and why do all the international terrorists have british and american accents?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026282311

[Aerows]

123. Let's not go there

with conspiracy talk. Lets stay with the issue at hand that is a known fact, now.

[CJCRANE]

125. For people outside the western media bubble

that must seem a little suspicious.

[sabrina 1]

166. Remember when British soldiers dressed up like Iraqis in Iraq and blew up a

police station? The plan was to blame Iraqi 'terrorists' so other Iraqis would turn on them.

Unfortunately they didn't get away and it was revealed the 'terrorists' were British Soldiers.

[ND-Dem]

168. vaguely. but false flag terrorism isn't that uncommon.

Operation Himmler was a 1939 false flag project planned by Nazi Germany to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany...subsequently used by Nazi propaganda to justify the invasion of Poland.

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

Disguised as Arabs,[8] the Irgun planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel...

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

In 1788, the head tailor at the Royal Swedish Opera received an order to sew a number of Russian military uniforms. These were then used by the Swedes to stage an attack on Puumala, a Swedish outpost on the Russo-Swedish border, on 27 June 1788. The Puumala incident allowed King Gustav III of Sweden, who lacked the constitutional authority to initiate unprovoked hostilities without the Estates' consent, to launch the Russo-Swedish War (1788–1790)

In September 1931, Japanese officers fabricated a pretext for invading Manchuria by blowing up a section of railway.... used this Mukden incident to seize Manchuria and create a puppet government...In 1937, in the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, they based their invasion of China proper on the false claim that one of their soldiers had been kidnapped, initiating the Second Sino-Japanese War.

On November 26, 1939, the Soviet army shelled Mainila, a Russian village near the Finnish border. Soviet authorities blamed Finland for the attack and used the incident as a pretext to invade Finland...

On 4 April 1953, the CIA was ordered to undermine the government of Iran ...as a precursor to overthrowing Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.[26] One tactic used to undermine Mosaddeh was to carry out false flag attacks "on mosques and key public figures", to be blamed on Iranian communists loyal to the government...

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

[sabrina 1]

177. Yes, it's not at all uncommon. The incident I referred to happened in Basra. When they British

Special Ops were captured by the Iraqis, who discovered their identities and put them in jail, the Brits sent in a rescue unit mostly to prevent them from talking.

Later the Brits apologized as there was no way to hide what they had done. A car full of bombs and two Brits dressed like Arabs. As one journalist asked at the time: 'Who is blowing up Iraq'?

Thanks for the links. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt when the drums of war are beating.

[Aerows]

121. I can't take anyone

that defends this seriously. You have to either be in the tank, or so lost you will never come out of the weeds to think this isn't crazy, unconstitutional bullshit.

[GoneFishin]

129. K&R

[2banon]

132. This has happened time and time again, could smell that old stinky fish wafting

across the tv and radio airwaves and appearing on my smart phone.

These dicks have been playing out this dumb-f**k charade since it's inception,, and most through out my lifetime. They were out of hand in the 60's and early 70's.. after 9/11 - they got roaring stupid with the same M.O. . and the compliant media as ever breathlessly reports each one of these manufactured plots as if we were all saved from on the brink of another nuclear holocaust foiled again by the men in brown.

GG is so spot on.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

136. It's quite lucrative.

Kind of reminds me of those websites that infect your computer, and then make you pay them to remove the virus!

Great gig, if you can get it.

[Martin Eden]

139. Blatant Entrapment

How could any competent lawyer not win acquittal?

[Aerows]

158. I cannot take anyone seriously

who defends this either implicitly or explicitly, and honestly, everyone should have a jaundiced eye towards anyone that attempts to do so. Here is why:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026250938

[99th_Monkey]

164. +100 Thanks for the link -nt-

[McCamy Taylor]

169. Because their Saudi masters told them "Hands off our boys"

[woo me with science]

172. Huge K&R

[treestar]

175. "the three men do not appear to be"

to one person.

Does Glenn ever research a concept before opining on it?

He does nothing. Finds some excuse to bash and goes on from there. When something looks or sounds wrong, that's not enough. You need to research and look into it. It might be the best way to look for potential terrorists. It might not. But Glenn has not looked into it.

[elias49]

192. It sounds as though you've never read any of his work.

Do you think he wrote the piece we're talking about on a napkin?

[randome]

196. YES!

"...not due to any evidence of intent..." The guy threatened Obama and said he wanted to wage jihad! How does that equate to 'no evidence'? Explain that to me, please.

Does it sound like Greenwald did any research before shooting off his mouth?

Was he tired or drunk when he wrote this?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

194. kick

[Bradical79]

195. Where do these guys go after we arrest them?

Kind of curious if they end up in jail with other extremists, and how long of sentences they can expect.