General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Top 5 Exaggerations By Glenn Greenwald On NSA - Extreme Liberal
I have analyzed Glenn Greenwalds writing many times over the years. His slick use of rhetorical devices, and his propensity to exaggerate, jump out at me and smack me upside the head when I read his writings. Ive compiled what I think are the top 5 exaggerations by Glenn Greenwald since the NSA story broke. These are mostly from his appearances, where he apparently feels more free to exaggerate than when he commits something to paper.
Before I get to the list, I feel it is my duty to point out Glenns incredible hypocrisy about the right of privacy.
In his one big case as a lawyer, defending the white supremacist Matt Hale, Glenn Greenwald was smacked down by the judge for unethically recording witnesses without their knowledge. Mr. Privacy, Glenn Greenwald, invaded the privacy of witnesses in order to defend that vile creature...
http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/the-top-5-exaggerations-by-glenn-greenwald-on-nsa/
randome
(34,845 posts)Dr. Evil was more credible than Greenwald & Snowden.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)pkdu
(3,977 posts)Not on there already.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)That's the leverage that Snowden has. Deal with him or he will compromise US security and/or jeopardize US contacts in other countries. He said that on Chris Hayes show on MSNBC on Thursday.
Glenn went to law school for that.
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)goliath poor ole goliath has no protection against the insect.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)of actions. What's it called?
Oh yeah extortion. I would have had at least some respect for the guy if he would have leaked the first set of information & worked from there. But telling the Chinese Intel just made him a great big douche.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)An "extreme" liberal would be more upset about the trashing of the Constitution
tavalon
(27,985 posts)but it's still true that the NSA is spying on We The People.
Try again.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)However, you didn't take information to the Chinese so no one will call you a traitor for it.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Stop looking at the people and start looking at what they've tried to show you. The people are unimportant, the information vital to the survival of this nation. Which, btw, is on it's last legs.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)so what's the big deal?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)secret programs...apparently it just isn't that big of a deal to some people!
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)So far nothing no evidence to match the claims.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)We can all agree that we need an investigation, e.g. Church Hearings and for the SCOTUS to weigh in on all this, right?
randome
(34,845 posts)A group to evaluate what needs to be secret and what doesn't. OTOH, that's sort of what Congress does, too.
I just think the panicked reactions are overblown. Besides, Obama already has a commission of some sort that is examining how to declassify documents. I forget what it's called.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Good, see we can agree on something
reteachinwi
(579 posts)It is against long standing Agency policy to comment directly on any classified matter, and its Directors have consistently refused to confirm or deny any Agency activity when questioned by the press. But when the UK Guardian broke the story of the PRISM leak, the Director of National Intelligence promptly confirmed the document as authentic, calling the leak reprehensible:
The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans. James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence[9]
This very unusual confirmation raises more questions about the PRISM document than it answers.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/nsa-deception-operation-questions-surround-leaked-prism-documents-authenticity/5338673
http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authorized-under-section-702-of-fisa
randome
(34,845 posts)A person putting together a PowerPoint presentation is nearly always concerned with putting pretty shapes and colors on screens.
To portray a PowerPoint slide as a serious document shows how little some people have worked in an office environment. It is not used as an agency directive. It's not used for anything other than quick messaging displays.
It's a goddamned toy and Greenwald has shown his naivete about such matters to try to get us to swallow this as something nefarious from the NSA.
It's on the level of someone sketching shit out on a napkin and then calling it golden.
And this is what Greenwald led off with.
And this is beside the fact that 'direct access' on the PowerPoint slide most likely refers to secure FTP servers, not 24/7 monitoring of the Internet. It's just ludicrous to think that the NSA is watching everyone.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
reteachinwi
(579 posts)That was my point. Something about this story seems not to add up. It is a feint, fighting the enemy where he is not, a diversion. From what?
randome
(34,845 posts)I think when confronted with just about any document, it's difficult to not say anything. If Clapper had said nothing, however, it would have confirmed the worst fears of those who run to fear like moths to a flame.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
think
(11,641 posts)not the spying by the NSA which a FISA court already ruled has violated the constitution?
I should accept that US Senators need to get permission to tell me that?
I should be OK with not knowing the existence of this ruling because it's classified?
I should disregard the other whistle blowers who followed the chain of command and are ignored?
I should trust the NSA that they are no longer violating the constitution because they said so?
I should bury my head in the sand and pretend my civil liberties haven't already been infringed upon albeit legally in most cases perhaps illegally in others since the govt made it legal to do so?
I should understand that basically EVERYTHING my govt does needs to be classified so no leaks can damage the hidden agendas of banksters and the MIC?
I should accept the "least untruthful" answers given by Clapper because those are the best answers we get to hear?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They released a limited number of documents that don't back up all of their claims.
As a result, their credibility is actually quite important. They could have released everything, and thus taken themselves out of the discussion. But they didn't. Kinda odd for 'bold truth tellers'.
Nope, sorry.
The 'spying' as done under the Bush administration did not have a warrant. Which is why it was unconstitutional. Now they get warrants. Ta-da!
You got that backwards. Congresspeople had to give the executive branch permission to keep things secret in 1947. Why would congresspeople not be able to change that program?
Are you OK with not knowing the exact details of how our nuclear warheads work?
Just trying to figure out if you think it is ever OK for the government to keep secrets.
Such as? Or were their powers of ignoring so great that these people vanished from the face of the Earth?
No, but that's why both other branches of our government are monitoring the program....when those brave Senators you mention above bother to show up for their briefings.
They stopped being your records in 1979. Kinda hard to claim your liberties are being violated by selling information that you don't own.
No, actually the vast majority of the government's activities are still public. And lots of the MIC work is somewhat public - for example, the government publishes information every time Booz wins a contract.
You just have to bother spending time digging through Fed Biz Ops, which is admittedly much less fun than railing against people.
Alternatively, you could wonder why congresspeople are busy setting up perjury traps instead of attending briefings. You know, actually doing oversight instead of looking good on a blog.
think
(11,641 posts)(Bold added for emphasis.)
By Sreeja VN | June 13 2013 1:32 AM
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC, ruled Wednesday that it has no objection to the release of a 2011 opinion of the court, which found that some of the National Security Agencys surveillance programs under the FISA Amendments Act, were unconstitutional.
~Snip~
San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, had filed a lawsuit last year seeking a release of the FISC court's 2011 opinion.
However, the ruling will not make the opinion immediately available to the public, and EFF will have to pursue the matter in a lower court -- where it initially filed its plea -- which would then decide whether the document is eligible to be released under FOIA....
Full article:
http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-not-object-release-2011-court-opinion-confirmed-nsas-illegal-surveillance-1305023
Or this:
Government lawyers are trying to keep buried a classified court finding that a domestic spying program went too far.
By David Corn
| Fri Jun. 7, 2013 12:22 PM PDT
~Snip~
This important caseall the more relevant in the wake of this week's disclosureswas triggered after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, started crying foul in 2011 about US government snooping. As a member of the intelligence committee, he had learned about domestic surveillance activity affecting American citizens that he believed was improper. He and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), another intelligence committee member, raised only vague warnings about this data collection, because they could not reveal the details of the classified program that concerned them. But in July 2012, Wyden was able to get the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify two statements that he wanted to issue publicly. They were:
* On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
* I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.
For those who follow the secret and often complex world of high-tech government spying, this was an aha moment. The FISA court Wyden referred to oversees the surveillance programs run by the government, authorizing requests for various surveillance activities related to national security, and it does this behind a thick cloak of secrecy. Wyden's statements led to an obvious conclusion: He had seen a secret FISA court opinion that ruled that one surveillance program was unconstitutional and violated the spirit of the law. But, yet again, Wyden could not publicly identify this program....
Full article:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The main thrust of your arguments is the executive branch is all-powerful due to the classification system. That isn't true. The executive branch had to get explicit authorization from Congress to create that system.
Why do you think Congress can create a system, but is then forever enslaved to it and not able to make any modifications?
Or are you gonna post some more quotes from Holder to avoid answering that question too?
think
(11,641 posts)needing permission to expose the violations.
Are you denying that a US Senator had to get permission to tell us this? Are you denying that the NSA violated the constitution in light of the secret FISA court ruling?
If you prefer to dismiss the facts because they don't fit your narrative so be it but the facts are what they are.
I'm not sure what you are talking about but it certainly isn't what I am talking about.
I said NOTHING about the executive branch so please don't stuff words in my posts that aren't there.
As for modifying congress it should be done and it sucks that Wyden needed permission to tell us that the NSA was caught violating the constitution.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Which branch of government do you think contains the NSA?
He chose the declassification route. That doesn't mean it is the only route available to him.
Congress has the power in this conflict. They could end the entire classification system tomorrow. Alternatively, they can use "the power of the purse" to end any program they don't like.
You are continuing to claim the executive branch, including the NSA, is all-powerful.
Nope, I'm not. But that's why policies changed and the 2010 law was passed. Or were you just assuming the rulings were current?
You should stop talking to mirrors.
think
(11,641 posts)Please do tell me how that works. I'm not privy to the changes you refer to so it may be possible but on the surface it sounds circumspect at best.
And while you are it if you could please provide a link to back up this claim I'd appreciate it as I've never seen anything in this regards.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The date of the ruling has not been released, as far as I can find. The discussion about the ruling was that the Bush administration was "doin' it wrong", and the 2010 law and new policies were designed to comply with the ruling.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)He gave notice, in writing, days in advance, the EXACT wording of the question...
Hell of a sneaky thing to do.
I can't believe I'm even responding to this.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)think
(11,641 posts)yes you did....
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)Do NOT fall for the shiny object diversion.
Do NOT miss the point.
Remember the Constitution.
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
DevonRex This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)It's different when the government does it.
Response to Hissyspit (Reply #22)
DevonRex This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Hissyspit (Reply #41)
DevonRex This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Thump thumpity thump thump thump snap crackle pop.
Guy: "I did it darling, I finally did it. I pushed her down the stairs."
Mistress: "That's wonderful dear, I,...wait a second, are you calling me from your home phone?"
Guy: "Yes, why?"
Mistress: "Well, don't you think it's going to look a little suspicious when the police check the phone records and find out you called ME instead of 911?"
Guy: "What?"
Mistress: "I should have known when you told me you voted for Dubya TWICE."
Guy: "Huh?"
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Cha
(296,747 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Scary guy.
Cha
(296,747 posts)"Note where he wonders if President Obamas supporters would be enthused enough in 2012 to get out of bed and vote . oh boy.
. and not once in the entire interview did the king of civil liberties mention GOP voter suppression efforts.
But, hey, not an issue that concerns him, of course."
http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/16/glenn-greenwald-expertly-previews-the-2012-election/
Straight from the ass's mouth.
Highly recommended.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)That was his actual excuse.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)views on immigration."
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the ass?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)When I was a weekly newspaper editor back in the early Nineties, I wrote some op/eds I wouldn't want anything to do with today.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the MSM.
Look, I actually hope the GOP takes Glenn's advice on how to deal with "illegals." It'll make 2016 easier.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)He isn't allowed to become more enlightened.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Greenwald's absolutely disgusting bullying of AngryBlackLady indicate that he exactly what he was in 2005--a racist and a bully--
http://angryblacklady.com/2012/01/02/greenwald-a-bridge-too-far/
One commenter at that site said it best--
sherifffruitfly | January 2, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Reply
IMO were watching a microcosmic version of the 60s party realignment. A bunch of white so-called progressives are magically discovering their ronpaul states rights libertarian core roots, now that we have a black President. They are aligning themselves appropriately to this discovery.
Obviously this is on a much smaller scale than the 60s realignment, but the qualitative similarity is there nevertheless. They will be much happier in their new home. It remains to be seen if there are enough of them to yield a result analogous to the youve lost the south for a generation result of the 60s realignment.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)okaawhatever
(9,457 posts)trying to beat WaPo to press. WaPo consulted with gov't on national security exposure. When they didn't agree to meet Snowden's timeline he called Glenn. Clearly Snowden needed his China story out to coincide with the Chinese visit.
I understand many Jewish people are critical of him for his positions on various Israeli affairs. Don't know much about that, though.
Real group of "heroes" here.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:44 PM - Edit history (1)
Massad was so anti-Semetic that AlJazeera refused to publish him.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)No media outlet can possibly do something like this without publicly accounting for what happened and expect to retain credibility. How can you demand transparency and accountability from others when you refuse to provide any yourself? Refusing to comment on secret actions of this significance is the province of corrupt politicians, not journalists. It's behavior that journalists should be condemning, not emulating.
Media outlets do occasionally retract stories or even Op-Eds, but they then provide an explanation. Earlier this year, the Observer published a repellent Op-Ed by the British columnist Julie Burchill, which contained all sorts of ugly slurs against transgendered people (it was also published in the Guardian's online Comment is Free section). In the wake of intense condemnation, the Observer decided to retract the Op-Ed and remove it from the site. The paper's editor, John Mulholland, issued a statement explaining the retraction, and the paper's readers editor (the rough British equivalent of an ombudsman), Stephen Pritchard, then wrote a detailed account of what happened.
Although I condemned the original Op-Ed, I did not agree with the decision to delete it. For one thing, it's a futile gesture: in the internet age, everything published is permanent. For another, it's contrary to the journalistic ethos: although it would have been appropriate to decide in the first instance not to publish it, once a decision is made to publish something, it should not be removed merely because it provokes controversy or even offense. Retractions should be reserved for serious factual errors. But at least the Observer transparently explained its actions and provided an account of what it did.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Just who are "the usual suspects?" And did you read what was posted at the link he provided?? Sure...you can post his stuff from the Guardian, but Mr. Greenwald likes to use his twitter feed to really stir the shit and be a racist bully...
http://thegrio.com/2012/01/02/glenn-greenwald-defends-obama-could-rape-a-nun-attack/
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)and nothing racist about the nun joke. I remember a similar joke about Bush posted on DU but in Bush's case, he was raping a boyscout. Personally, I didn't find either joke amusing.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And you didn't answer my question--who are "the usual suspects" that Mr. Greenwald is referencing?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)So there's nothing to find appealing.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I am glad you are bumping this so more people see it.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)of said purveyors of those tactics or of the government of Israel and its actions as a tactic of censorship.
It's not that hard to understand.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I wonder if Glen will address the inconsistencies in what he's reporting now and what he did back then?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Cha
(296,747 posts)"Note where he wonders if President Obamas supporters would be enthused enough in 2012 to get out of bed and vote" . oh boy.
. and not once in the entire interview did the king of civil liberties mention GOP voter suppression efforts.
But, hey, not an issue that concerns him, of course."
http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/16/glenn-greenwald-expertly-previews-the-2012-election/
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)Cha
(296,747 posts)From your link, michigandem.. thanks.
"And the number 1 exaggeration is
drum roll please
this little gem from his appearance on Morning Joe where Mika dared to challenge him.
The objective of this is to enable the NSA to monitor EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION AND EVERY SINGLE FORM OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR!
Ding, ding
..we have a winner!
NSA to monitor EVERY SINGLE FORM OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR Chew on that one for a while. How many millions of NSA employees do you suppose it would take to do that?
How in the hell can Glenn Greenwald get away with saying such crap on national television without someone challenging him? Anyone falling for his hyperbole and paranoia really needs to wake up, do a reality check and then get a grip. Its one thing to be outraged about our government stepping on our privacy rights, with checks and balances within all three branches of government, but it is quite another to buy into the idea that the objective of the NSA is to monitor every single conversation and every single form of human behavior.Come on, why the exaggerations? Is it because the truth doesnt accomplish Glenn Greenwalds goal of world domination? (That was me exaggerating.)
P.S. When I first learned that my phone calls were being kept track of, well over 30 years ago, when I first saw a phone bill that had the numbers listed and the times the calls were made, I was a little concerned. I didnt freak out, I just accepted that with new technology, that was the world we lived in. That was 30 freaking years ago. Since then, Google can target ads for snowblowers on damn near every web page I go to, because one day, I did a search for snowblowers.
If you werent aware that all your electronic communications are out there for anyone with even a little bit of technical ability to grab on to, I really think you need to pay a little more attention.
I didnt like the idea of it over 30 years ago, but having accepted that fact so long ago, I have a hard time getting too upset about it now. I take comfort in the fact that I am not a criminal and frequently think that if someone is monitoring my calls or emails, they are bored shitless."
Gotta love Jim.. Extreme Liberal.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)The first thing I think of is right wing hyperbole...sorry but it is true...that is what they do to deceive, thinking that if they tell you they are Extreme Liberal you will think that they share some liberal belief.
Sorry, but the credibility of this has been exposed to my thinking.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)The DU "smear machine" has been on full tilt boogie since 2008. Funny that you think it's a problem now.
It's called criticism, right.
FSogol
(45,435 posts)PSPS
(13,577 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)thanks for sharing that
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)with an ad hominem attack on Greenwald and then progresses to an appeal to authority fallacy using simple rebuttals by the head of NSA, the NY Times and others as proof that Greenwald's assertions are either exaggerated or false. Next comes the appeal to common practice fallacy, which claims this spying on Americans is fine because it's been going on for a long time. Regardless of the merits of Greenwald's case, these kind of shoot the messenger counter arguments are quite frankly pitiful.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)is a fan of Ron Paul. Well that tells me all I need to understand why he has been going after the President for the past few years.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I can't believe this OP still stands and you have not yet been shown the door.
You go too far friend. This is not a post of praise for one of DU's most sacred of golden calves.
Julie
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)"You won't have to clean out the cistern this week, Smithers."
"Thank you, Mr Burns."
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Snowden replacement and this will continue to turn over and over. Three hots and a flop for the next and next and next. What about our right to be free from this continuous crap.