Glenn Greenwald: As Obama Makes "False" Surveillance Claims, Snowden Risks Life to Spark NSA Debate

[Catherina]

Last edited Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Democracy Now! | Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Glenn Greenwald: As Obama Makes "False" Surveillance Claims, Snowden Risks Life to Spark NSA Debate

[center]

[/center]

Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who broke the NSA surveillance story earlier this month, joins us one day after both President Obama and whistleblower Edward Snowden gave extensive interviews on the surveillance programs Snowden exposed and Obama is now forced to defend. Speaking to PBS, Obama distinguished his surveillance efforts from those of the Bush administration and reaffirmed his insistence that no Americans’ phone calls or emails are being directly monitored without court orders. Greenwald calls Obama’s statements "outright false" for omitting the warrantless spying on phone calls between Americans and callers outside the United States. "It is true that the NSA can’t deliberately target U.S. citizens for (warrantless) surveillance, but it is also the case they are frequently engaged in surveillance of exactly that kind of invasive technique involving U.S. persons," Greenwald says. After moderating Snowden’s online Q&A with Guardian readers, Greenwald says of the whistleblower: "I think what you see here is a person who was very disturbed by this massive surveillance apparatus built in the U.S. that spies not only on American citizens, but the world, with very little checks, very little oversight. He’s making clear his intention was to inform citizens even at the expense of his own liberty or even life."

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AARON MATÉ: We turn now to the latest news in the NSA surveillance scandal. On Monday, both President Obama and whistleblower Edward Snowden gave extensive interviews on the surveillance programs Snowden exposed and Obama is now being forced to defend. Speaking to Charlie Rose on PBS, Obama drew a line between his surveillance efforts and those of the Bush administration. He also reaffirmed his insistence that no Americans’ phone calls or emails are being directly monitored without court orders.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails.

CHARLIE ROSE: And have not.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: And have not. They cannot and have not, by law and by rule, and—unless they—and usually it wouldn’t be "they," it would be the FBI—go to a court and obtain a warrant and seek probable cause, the same way it’s always been, the same way, when we were growing up and were watching movies, you know, you want to go set up a wiretap, you’ve got to go to a judge, show probable cause.

AARON MATÉ: Obama’s comments came as new poll numbers showed his approval rating has dipped 8 percent since the NSA disclosures emerged nearly two weeks ago. The drop was even higher among young voters, whose support for Obama fell 17 points. In his interview with PBS, President Obama was also asked about the potential extradition of whistleblower Edward Snowden. Obama referred questions to federal prosecutors but said Snowden faces "criminal investigation—and possible extradition."

AMY GOODMAN: Well, after going public as the source behind the NSA disclosures just over a week ago, Edward Snowden remerged on Monday after several days of quiet. In an online chat with the British newspaper The Guardian, Snowden rejected what he called "smear" efforts to paint him as a spy for China, saying he’s had no contact with the Chinese government. He also defended his leaking of classified NSA documents, saying he deliberately chose not to reveal, quote, "any US operations against legitimate military targets," unquote. He added, "I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals and private businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressive criminal acts are wrong no matter the target," he wrote.

Snowden indicated he remains in Hong Kong after arriving there last month, but wouldn’t confirm his exact location. He also stood by his controversial assertion that he has—as an NSA contractor, had the capability "to wiretap anyone" in the U.S. with a personal email address. In comments suggesting he may be concerned his life is in danger, Snowden said more leaks are on the way, no matter what happens to him. He said, quote, "All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped," he wrote.

In the latest of Snowden’s disclosures, The Guardian of London reported on Sunday the U.S. and Britain spied on foreign diplomats at two international summits in London during 2009. Britain’s NSA counterpart, the GCHQ, established fake Internet cafés to spy on foreign delegates’ computer use, and the NSA shared information on the phone calls of Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev. The revelation came just as the G8 summit opened in Ireland, with President Obama in attendance and Britain again playing host.

All this comes as the Obama administration appears to be stepping up its effort to defend the surveillance program Snowden exposed. Before Obama’s interview with PBS Monday, the National Security Agency disclosed it investigated less than 300 phone records seized in the broad collection of metadata last year. The agency also said the monitoring has foiled terror plots in the U.S. and 20 other countries, and vowed to release details this week. The head of the National Security Agency, General Keith Alexander, is appearing before the House Intelligence Committee today in a rare public hearing.

For more, we’re going to Glenn Greenwald, the columnist for The Guardian of London who broke the NSA surveillance story earlier this month and a number of others since, including Snowden coming forward as the NSA whistleblower. He’s back home in Brazil after returning from Hong Kong, where Edward Snowden is believed to remain. On Monday, Glenn Greenwald moderated Snowden’s online chat with The Guardian.

[hr]

Well, welcome back to Democracy Now!, Glenn. A lot has been happening. To say the least, you have been very busy. Talk about first—you moderated the discussion yesterday. What most surprised you, or, I should say, what do you feel was most important about what Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, wrote yesterday and was asked?

GLENN GREENWALD: I think the key thing is that he continuously emphasizes that the caricature being made of him, that he’s some kind of a spy or setting out to destroy the United States, is completely inconsistent with his behavior. He could have released all sorts of extremely damaging, even crippling, documents, if that had been his intention. He could have sold those documents to foreign adversaries, if he wanted to enrich himself. None of those things were what he did. He instead very carefully vetted the documents that he turned over to us, and some to The Washington Post, and urged us that we then conduct our own review to make sure that the documents that end up being published are ones that are truly in the public interest. And I think what you see here is a person who was very disturbed by this massive surveillance apparatus built in the United States that spies not only on American citizens, but the world, with very little checks, very little oversight. And he’s making clear that his intention is to inform his fellow citizens, even at the expense of his own liberty or even life. And I think that comes through very clearly.

AARON MATÉ: Well, Glenn, during his Guardian online chat, Snowden was asked to respond to the recent comments of former Vice President Dick Cheney. Speaking on Fox News, Cheney called Snowden a traitor who may be a Chinese spy.

CHRIS WALLACE: What do you think of Edward Snowden?

DICK CHENEY: I think he’s a traitor. I think he has committed crimes, in effect, by violating agreements, given the position he had. He was a contractor employee, but he obviously had been granted top-secret clearance. And I think it’s one of the worst occasions, in my memory, of somebody with access to classified information doing enormous damage to the national security interest of the United States. I’m deeply suspicious, obviously, because he went to China. That’s not a place where you’d ordinarily want to go if you’re interested in freedom and liberty and so forth. So it raises questions whether or not he had that kind of connection before he did this.

AARON MATÉ: Asked for his response, Edward Snowden told the Guardian readers, quote, "This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering (the Iraq War) that has killed over 4,400 (Americans) and maimed nearly 32,000 (Americans), as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American." Glenn, what is your assessment of the criticism of Edward Snowden from both the right, as personified by Cheney, but also from liberals, from supporters of President Obama?

GLENN GREENWALD: It’s interesting, because the criticism completely converges. In fact, I recall very well during the Bush years of 2006, 2007, when their NSA scandal was really raging, that exactly the same arguments were being made about those of us who were writing about these programs and those who had leaked them and the journalists who had published them, that they were traitors, that they were endangering national security, that they were engaged in all sorts of attempts to harm the United States. And it’s amazing because back then you heard from Democrats, none of whom was saying that, and yet now, under a Democratic president, of course, many of them are mimicking exactly those same beliefs. I mean, give Cheney at least some minimal credit that he’s being consistent, horribly—consistently horrible, but at least consistent, in contrast to these Democrats who, under Bush, were very ardent critics of the surveillance state, of secrecy, of the idea that journalists are criminals or leakers are criminals, who now have completely done a 180 reversal now that it’s a Democrat in office. And I can tell you that, by far, the most vehement and vicious attacks on our reporting and the stories that we’ve been writing come not from Republicans, but from Democratic partisans, both in politics and in the media.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn, right now the G8 summit is taking place. Can you talk about the latest release from Ed Snowden about the U.S. and British governments using Internet cafés, phone taps, etc., to spy on G8—G-20 delegates during the 2009 summit?

GLENN GREENWALD: Sure. I didn’t actually participate in that story, but the reason it was significant is not because it shows that the United States and Britain are spying, say, on the Russian president, which I think everybody expects and probably a lot of people want. The significance is twofold. One is that they are spying very aggressively on their own allies, under the guise of inviting them to an economic summit. But I think the much bigger part of the story is it shows just how sophisticated and deceitful the eavesdropping capabilities are of Western governments, and specifically of their intelligence and surveillance agencies.

And so, this is what I think is really the critical aspect of all of these stories, which is, there are these extremely invasive capabilities being assembled by these governments that allow all kinds of deceitful spying, obviously ones that even trick the Russian government in the efforts to protect themselves from spying, and we ought to have as part of our debate an understanding of what these capabilities are, so that we can have a real discussion about the kind of limits that should be imposed on them. So, that’s always what happens is, when these spying agencies create these capabilities, in the first instance, they direct them at other governments, they direct them at hostile countries, but they always end up creeping further and further toward domestic surveillance. And we ought to know what these capabilities are, so that we can anticipate them and plan for them and talk about ways to limit them and prevent abuse.

AARON MATÉ: Well, Glenn, I’ve read some criticism of Snowden and your reporting, drawing a distinction between exposing domestic surveillance and then blowing the whistle on foreign espionage, saying that they’re separate, and that, in fact, talking about programs like this one that was uncovered in Britain, spying on foreign leaders, distracts from the issue of domestic spying.

GLENN GREENWALD: So, I think there’s a continuum here. You know, the journalistic inquiry is: Is there a significant public interest, and does it outweigh whatever harm you might cause? And so, on the continuum of what’s in the public interest, I think that at the very top end of that spectrum, in terms of public interest, is when a government engages in massive surveillance on its own citizens without suspicion or evidence of wrongdoing, which is what most of our stories have focused on. I think after that comes when the governments of the United States and its allies are spying on citizens of the world without suspicion. There is a huge loss to privacy, Internet freedom, liberty, when the NSA spies on innocent people who aren’t Americans, who live in other countries, as well.

And then, I think at the far end of that continuum, on the other spectrum, is when governments spy on other governments. So I agree that the public interest there is less than it is when the NSA spies domestically, but it’s not nonexistent. As I said, we need to know what these capabilities are, so that we can act before they start being applied domestically. But the vast bulk of our stories have been and will continue to be stories about how the NSA directs its surveillance at Americans and citizens around the world indiscriminately, without any evidence of wrongdoing, what Mr. Snowden yesterday called the largest, suspicionless surveillance program ever created in human history.

AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s go to what President Obama said in the Charlie Rose interview, when he said he could say unequivocally that we’re not listening to your phone calls. The NSA—it says—"The NSA cannot listen to your phone calls," Obama said. The NSA cannot target your emails, and have not, unless they get a subpoena. Can you talk about that?

GLENN GREENWALD: I’m staggered by how deceitful and misleading that claim is from President Obama. It’s actually worse than just misleading and deceitful; it’s just outright false. And this is the story that we’re working on to publish next, which is an inside look at what the FISA court really does in terms of what it is called oversight, but is really an empty fig leaf, when it monitors the NSA.

Under the 2008 FISA law, which replaced the 30-year FISA law enacted in 1978, the principal change is that the United States no longer needs an individual warrant when it listens in on the telephone calls or reads the emails of American citizens when they communicate with people outside of the United States. It is true that when American citizens talk to other Americans on U.S. soil, exclusively domestic communications, the NSA legally is required to get an individualized warrant from the FISA court before they can listen to the content of those communications. But when an American citizen is talking to somebody outside of the United States who’s not a U.S. citizen, and the target of those communications is the person outside of the United States, that is now completely legal for the NSA to eavesdrop on that call or read the email without going and getting a warrant. That is the whole point of that 2008 law. Remember, the Bush administration in 2005 got caught eavesdropping on the conversations of American citizens, the international conversations of American citizens, without a warrant. And what that 2008 law did is legalize that Bush program by eliminating the warrant requirement.

And so, every six months, the NSA goes to the FISA court, and they say, "Here are the procedures that we use for determining who is and is not a U.S. citizen, who is and is not on U.S. soil." The FISA court stamps the—an approval stamp on those guidelines, and the NSA is then empowered to go around collecting whatever calls and whatever emails they want. They can force the telecoms and the Internet providers to give them whatever content they want, which often includes American citizens talking to these foreign targets, without any kind of a search warrant. So when President Obama says nobody is listening to your calls or reading your emails without first getting a search warrant, that is absolutely false. It is true that the NSA can’t deliberately target—deliberately target U.S. citizens for that kind of surveillance, but it is also the case that they are frequently engaging in surveillance of exactly that kind of invasive technique involving U.S. persons.

Let me just say one last thing. This is why—just go to Google and read about this—Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, two Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, have been repeatedly asking the NSA, "How many Americans’ telephone calls and emails are you intercepting without warrants under this program?" And the NSA continuously tells them, "I’m sorry, we can’t provide you with even a rough estimate. We don’t have the technical capabilities to do that. It would take too much time and distract away from our core mission for us to assemble those statistics." So this idea that President Obama is promoting, that the NSA never listens to Americans’ calls or reads their emails without warrants, is utterly false.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn, we have to break for just 30 seconds, but we want to come back and play another clip for you of President Obama speaking on Charlie Rose on PBS on Monday night. Glenn Greenwald, of course, is the award-winning journalist who has broken the NSA leaks story on Edward Snowden, who has come forward as the whistleblower who released a tremendous amount of information about the NSA and his role as a consultant working in an NSA office in Hawaii as a consultant for Booz Allen Hamilton. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back with Glenn Greenwald in just 30 seconds.

(break)

[center]

[/center]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Glenn Greenwald. He is back in Brazil from Hong Kong, where he broke these major stories on the National Security Agency and what it is doing with our email, our phone calls and much more. Aaron?

AARON MATÉ: Well, Glenn, I want to go back to Obama’s interview with Charlie Rose on Monday night. Obama dismissed fears the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata could potentially be abused.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The very fact that there’s all this data, in bulk, it has the enormous potential for abuse, because, they’ll say, you know, you can—when you start looking at metadata, even if you don’t know the names, you can match it up. If there’s a call to an oncologist, and it’s a call to a lawyer, and you can pair that up and figure out maybe this person is dying and they’re writing their will, and you can yield all this information. All of that is true—except for the fact that for the government under the program right now to do that, it would be illegal. We would not be allowed to do that.

AARON MATÉ: Glenn, so that’s Obama saying that we have this trove, but it’s not accessed, basically, unless there’s probable cause. Your response?

GLENN GREENWALD: OK, first of all, the fact that there are legal constraints in place, as we’ve seen repeatedly throughout history, is completely meaningless if there’s no meaningful and robust oversight. And there is nobody that looks over the NSA’s shoulder and finds out whose metadata they are linking to the actual identity of the person, whose metadata they’re investigating and putting together dossiers. It is completely within the discretion of the NSA, checked only by other executive branch agencies, to determine that.

Secondly, there is nothing easier in the world than linking these telephone numbers to any individual. Anybody could do that with very little effort. The American government, the NSA collects these massive databases that contains all sorts of information about people that enables a picture to be put together that is very invasive. So, whether or not there are rules that the NSA has adopted internally that say you can only do this if you have reasonable belief that the person has engaged in wrongdoing is completely independent of the fact that the—as Obama himself says, there is massive potential for abuse inside an agency that is incredibly secretive and that has very few checks and mechanisms for limitations on that abuse. And that, I think, is the key point.

And this is—you know, we have had more debate in the last nine or 10 days over what the NSA is, what it does, than we have had in the last 10 years, and that’s ultimately really what our journalism is intended to achieve, is to drag all of this out into the spotlight and make us understand what the NSA’s capabilities are, what kinds of potential for abuse there is, and what the checks on that abuse are, or the lack thereof.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, I wanted to get your response to Republican Congressmember Peter King of New York. Speaking to CNN last week, he called for your prosecution over the reporting you’ve done on Edward Snowden’s revelations.

REP. PETER KING: Actually, if they—if they willingly knew that this was classified information, I think actions should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude. I know that the whole issue of leaks has been gone into over the last month, but I think something on this magnitude, there is an obligation, both moral but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something which would so severely compromise national security. As a practical matter, I—I guess there have been, in the past several years, a number of reporters who have been prosecuted under it, so I—the answer is yes to your question.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, your response?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, I would defy anybody to go and look at anything that we reported and identify a single piece of information that even conceivably has harmed national security. The idea that we have somehow tipped off the terrorists to the fact that the U.S. government is monitoring their telephone calls and emails is completely idiotic. Any terrorist who’s alive has known for many, many years that the U.S. government is eagerly attempting to do that. The only things that we’ve revealed are things to the American people that they didn’t know about how their communications, not the communication of the terrorists, are being monitored.

Secondly, there’s this thing in the United States. It’s called the Constitution. And the First Amendment to it guarantees the right of freedom of the press. And what freedom of the press means, if it means anything, is the right to, as a journalist or even just as a citizen engaged in journalism, go in and investigate what your government is doing in the dark, and then use the mechanisms of the press to inform your fellow citizens about what it is that they’re doing. That is the heart and soul of investigative journalism. So if you take Peter King at his word, that any time national security secrets are revealed, it would mean that any investigative journalist, by definition, is a felon and ought to be prosecuted and criminalized.

There was a column in The Washington Post by Marc Thiessen, who is the primary apologist and defender of the Bush’s—of the Bush administration’s torture regime—he was a Bush speech writer—also essentially saying that I committed felonies, and The Washington Post did, as well. It’s incredible how menacing that is. If you’re looking for threats to America’s national security, you should look to the people who are calling for prosecutions in this case, not to the people, like Edward Snowden or myself, who are exposing it.

AMY GOODMAN: But, Glenn, are you afraid? Are you afraid for your safety, well, your privacy, etc.?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, I think if you look at what the U.S. government has been doing over the last five or six years, it would be irrational to just dismiss the concern that they may prosecute journalists. They’ve embraced theories that do criminalize journalism. They convened a grand jury in the WikiLeaks case, even though WikiLeaks did nothing more than report government secrets. They didn’t steal them. They didn’t play any role in obtaining them. They embraced a theory that James Rosen, the Washington bureau chief of Fox News, was a co-conspirator in felonies by talking to his source. So, of course there’s a concern that these kind—that this kind of legal jeopardy will become real, but it’s not a fear that will deter me in any way from continuing to report very, very aggressively on these stories.

AMY GOODMAN: Bradley Manning is being tried at Fort Meade. That’s the headquarters of the National Security Agency. Can you talk about the significance of that and how they’re related, Glenn?

GLENN GREENWALD: Sure. I mean, I think the—you know, the critical context for everything that has happened here, from Snowden’s leaks to his decision to leave the United States and go to Hong Kong, the context of it is this incredibly vicious and unparalleled war on whistleblowers that the Obama administration has been waging. And, of course, that war on whistleblowers is as vividly apparent in the case of Bradley Manning as it is anywhere else. Here is somebody who didn’t release any top-secret information. It was all secret and classified. There is zero evidence that any national security harm came from it. There’s certainly no evidence that he intended any national security harm. He, too, could have sold that information or given it to a foreign government that was hostile to the United States. He didn’t do that. His intent clearly was to blow the whistle. And yet he’s almost certain to be in prison for the next two decades, probably, if the U.S. government has its way, for the rest of his life, at the age of 25. He was, as the U.N. found, subjected to very abusive detention practices. And so, when you say that Ed Snowden shouldn’t have left the United States or anything like that, the context is that the U.S. government has proven that whistleblowers will be severely and harshly treated as a way of deterring and intimidating people from engaging in further disclosures.

AARON MATÉ: Glenn, the NSA has promised to come out this week with details on the plots that it says have been foiled by surveillance. Your assessment of what you’ve heard so far? We’ve heard talk of phone records being used to foil the subway bombing plot in 2009. And also, your assessment of the news that the NSA is saying that 300 phone records were searched last year?

GLENN GREENWALD: So, this is the playbook that the U.S. government has been using for I don’t know how many decades to delegitimize any disclosure, going back to the Pentagon Papers, when they accused Daniel Ellsberg of helping the communists in Vietnam and jeopardizing and putting at risk the—

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn, we have 10 seconds.

GLENN GREENWALD: —the lives of American servicemembers. So, it’s completely irrational. I think any of those claims should be very rigorously scrutinized, because they don’t stand up to scrutiny.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn, do you have more pieces coming out?

GLENN GREENWALD: Yes, we do, including in the next couple days.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to "democracynow.org".

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/18/glenn_greenwald_as_obama_makes_false

[center]

Q: He'll (Snowden) be prosecuted?

Binney: First tortured, then maybe even rendered and tortured and then incarcerated and then tried and incarcerated or even executed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023041294#post142

[/center]

[ProSense]

1. What I'd

"Glenn Greenwald: As Obama Makes "False" Surveillance Claims, Snowden Risks Life to Spark NSA Debate"

...like to know is when Snowden is going to release more information to back up his claims. He "risks life"?

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

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

[BlueCaliDem]

4. Libertarian trolls are infesting DU. Oh, they're smart, playin' it smart

by acting like Democrats, but any Democratic Party voter who takes what Glennie says without question is a fool. Or a Libertarian. But they sure as HELL aren't Democratic Party voters.

[LondonReign2]

29. Zzzzzzzz

Your loyalty appears to be to a Party. Does a political party deserve loyalty no matter what policies they embrace?

Moderate Republicans have encountered this same issue -- as the party violently lurched rightward, they found that it no longer supported the ideals they held. They had to make a difficult decision -- hold true to their core beliefs, or be loyal to a political party.

The Democratic Party has been making that same march to the right. There are a few hold outs, like Warren and Grayson, and Sanders (who isn't even a Democrat), but great swaths of the party have been dragged rightward.

You've made your decision, it sounds, to stick with Party over policy. I prefer to vote for those whose policy I agree with.

[BlueCaliDem]

49. Here's a wake-up call, Sleepyhea - WE ARE A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM. Loyalty no matter what? Bullshit.

Common sense and being part of the reality-based community is what I am. Weak but self-proclaimed righteous voters are taking this country down and helping the GOP to fuck it up even more because this democratic candidate or that Democratic candidate ain't perfect enough. Fuck perfect. I'm not part of that "righteous" and Purist coalition and I don't suffer those fools easily. If I want a perfect world with perfect people, I'll read a romance book. I suggest you do the same. Oh, of course, AFTER you finally wake up - and smell the coffee.

[graham4anything]

61. Unless you personally know otherwise,Sen.Warren will be standing congratulating Hillary in 2016.

if you know otherwise, please let us know.
The altwriter stands with Rand. I myself sit when Rand stands 100% of the time.

[MADem]

106. Warren used to be a Republican, which shows how much you actually know about my Senator.

This is "Democratic" Underground, you know. You might want to reread the TOS, particularly the bit about helping "Democrats" -- not any old flake with a left-ish idea-- win elections.

[MADem]

70. Glenn Greenwald, defender of the people, who supports CORPORATE PERSONHOOD.

I guess it all depends on what ya mean by "people!" Glenn agrees with Scalia, that corporations are people!

Don't believe me...here it is, straight from the very mouth of the horse:

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

[BlueCaliDem]

78. Greenwald is a Republican in Liberal clothing. It's sad to see too many Liberals falling for his

shit and lies. I always believed that Liberals were smarter than that, and not easily fooled. I don't want to lose that belief.

[MADem]

104. I know--I really thought people on this board were a bit more nuanced in their understanding

but, regrettably, many are not. Not all, fortunately. And of course, they're aided and abetted by socks and trolls who know how to stir shit up.

If it's 'fight the power' and Way Out West, they fall for it. Again and again.

And then they get all disappointed when their "heroes" disappoint them. Again and again.

[Maedhros]

89. Your argument is terribly misleading.

From the first paragraph of the linked story:

The Supreme Court yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, declared unconstitutional (on First Amendment grounds) campaign finance regulations which restrict the ability of corporations and unions to use funds from their general treasury for “electioneering” purposes. The case, Citizens United v. FEC, presents some very difficult free speech questions, and I’m deeply ambivalent about the court’s ruling. There are several dubious aspects of the majority’s opinion (principally its decision to invalidate the entire campaign finance scheme rather than exercising ”judicial restraint” through a narrower holding). Beyond that, I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture. But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities from spending money to express political viewpoints.

Greenwald states that he is "deeply ambivalent" about the SCOTUS ruling and that he believes that "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture." Hardly the words you'd expect from a corporatist.

But the speech restrictions struck down by Citizens United do not only apply to Exxon and Halliburton; they also apply to non-profit advocacy corporations, such as, say, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions, which are genuinely burdened in their ability to express their views by these laws. I tend to take a more absolutist view of the First Amendment than many people, but laws which prohibit organized groups of people — which is what corporations are — from expressing political views goes right to the heart of free speech guarantees no matter how the First Amendment is understood.

Greenwald is not championing free speech FOR CORPORATIONS. He is championing FREE SPEECH.

There is more to Greenwald's point here than "supporting corporate personhood." Maybe if you read the article you might understand it.

[MADem]

94. And that INCLUDES free speech for corporations.

By his words we shall know him! He doesn't have a problem with government of, by and for...the corporations.

That's his bottom line, updates, and "ambivalences" notwithstanding.

[Maedhros]

118. Not only do you not read Greenwald's articles

you don't even read what he writes WHEN IT IS COPIED AND PASTED FOR YOU IN A RESPONSE TO YOUR POST.

You posted:

"He [Greenwald] doesn't have a problem with a government of, by and for...the corporations."

Yet you failed to comprehend this sentence written by Greenwald:

I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture.

That states explicitly that he DOES have a problem with it - he calls corporate influence "easily one of the top sicknesses."

[MADem]

121. Bottom line--he supports the ruling.

So keep whining and griping at me if it makes you feel, in some unimportant way, virtuous and better and superior....but get back to me when he rethinks his dumbass position and doesn't support the ruling.

[Monkie]

96. you are being very generous by calling him misleading, its obviously done on purpose

but its a good thing, just keep calling him out and shoving facts down his nose, he will give up lying and "misleading" once he sees how badly he damages the case for them being traitors, or when snowden is done leaking and all of them "have no clothes left"

[Monkie]

93. you again, lying and hoping people dont read the article? did you read it?

his disdain for corporations was venomous.
the article has him making a careful case based on constitutional concerns while at the same time saying this:

In sum, there’s no question that the stranglehold corporations exert on our democracy is one of the most serious and pressing threats we face. I’ve written volumes on that very problem.

i must say i am really glad you are not make the case for the side of a argument i am on, if you were i would give up, and crawl into a corner and hope i would die before anyone noticed you and i had the same opinion about anything.

i should thank you really, you are doing more to damage the case for those that are against snowden's whistleblowing than i could ever do.

[MADem]

95. What's his bottom line, though? He supports the ruling.

And I'm not lying--you just wish I were.

[Monkie]

97. the stranglehold corporations exert on our democracy is one of the most serious and pressing threats

ok, it is possible you are not lying and legally blind, in that case i apologise to you.

[Maedhros]

122. Yes - but did you read why he supports it?

Of course you didn't, but I'll post it again:

But the speech restrictions struck down by Citizens United do not only apply to Exxon and Halliburton; they also apply to non-profit advocacy corporations, such as, say, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions, which are genuinely burdened in their ability to express their views by these laws. I tend to take a more absolutist view of the First Amendment than many people, but laws which prohibit organized groups of people — which is what corporations are — from expressing political views goes right to the heart of free speech guarantees no matter how the First Amendment is understood.

That is a reasonable opinion, and does nothing to undermine Greenwald's credibility with regard to his reportage.

[MADem]

133. Look. It's simple for me. I do not believe that corporations are people, and I do not believe that

money equals speech.

GG can parse, and 'splain, and play this game and that--but to me, one person, one vote, and individuals have the right of free speech--not Monsanto, not Microsoft, not facebook.

It's awfully funny that I come to DU to find people supporting Mitt Romney's "Corporations are people, my friend" POV.....just because the Joe Cool of the Hour, Greenwald, is riding that train.

[Maedhros]

149. I, personally, agree that corporations should NOT have free speech rights

or other rights enjoyed by living, breathing citizens.

However, I can accept Greenwald's position on the court ruling because he is taking a hard-line stance for free speech. He is consistent in his positions, and always in favor of preserving civil liberties.

I'm defending him because he is being misrepresented as being pro-corporate, which is plainly false to anyone who has read even a smattering of his works over the years.

I understand: Greenwald is writing things that are very critical of the President's policies regarding drone warfare, secrecy and domestic surveillance. It is natural that you would interpret that as some kind of attack on the man himself and, by extension, on you, because you identify so strongly with the President.

I would counsel not taking it so personally. This is about policy, not people. We are a nation of laws, not men, and the laws we have right now regarding domestic surveillance are deplorable.

[MADem]

152. Well, I don't think this is a matter for parsing. Money is not speech, and 'corporations are' NOT

'people, my friend.' I don't do the Mitt Romney on that issue, and I do look askance at anyone who does--and then has the brass to hide behind the constitution while so doing.

I can 'do' wiggle room on a lot of stuff--but not that. I don't think the founding fathers, if we're gonna get all fundy-constitutional up in here, thought that Wal-Mart or Fox News or Apple are "people."

I've been around here a long time, and my reputation is that I don't take things personally. I don't hold grudges and I like good discussions. You don't know me--I can tell. Otherwise you wouldn't suggest such theories.

The people who don't like what I have to say do seem to take things personally, though, judging by some of the personal insults I've received of late--and what's that about, I wonder?

[Maedhros]

171. Well, you use a lot of inflammatory invective

when discussing Greenwald's work, which damages the objectivity of your analysis.

Also, your (and my) disagreement with Greenwald's position on the Citizens United decision does nothing to discredit his reporting on NSA surveillance.

[MADem]

172. If someone can be squirrelly on one thing, they can be squirrelly on another.

GG is too much a part of this story--he's no longer "reporting" it. If you're going to object to a lack of "objectivity" you might start with the problem he has with regard to that matter.

Also, he's not reporting the full story. He doesn't have to tell us where his subject is hiding, but it is appropriate to report how his subject is supporting himself (or who is paying the bills) without a job, and who the team of "helpers" are who surround him. It's a salient aspect to this situation.

[Maedhros]

173. But he was not squirrelly on Citizens United.

He took a stance consistent with the greater body of his work to date. You or I may not LIKE that stance, but that doesn't make it "squirrelly."

For my own part, I'd rather that the story focus on the activities of the security state apparatus rather than on Snowden's activities.

[MADem]

174. "The greater body of his work" then, is problematic.

Corporations are NOT people, my friend. Anyone who thinks they are, is, to my mind, a bit squirrelly on a good day.

[Maedhros]

176. I don't think it is wise

to write off a writer's entire body of work based upon one disagreement.

[MADem]

177. I am not writing him off--I'm just saying his shit is problematic.

He's not The Way and The Light, that's what I'm saying.

[Maedhros]

179. You cite Greenwald's opinion on the Citizens United ruling

as evidence that his reporting on the Snowden leak is inaccurate.

That makes no logical sense - in the first instance Greenwald provides commentary on a supreme court decision regarding campaign finance laws, in the second he is reporting on evidence of blanket domestic surveillance by the NSA.

Regardless of whether we believe his opinion on Citizens United is wrong, the evidence presented for the surveillance issue is sound. Other arguments must be used to refute it.

[MADem]

180. This isn't court, I'm not a lawyer and you aren't judge nor jury.

It's not "evidence"--it's suggestive of a problematic thought process.

This is the guy who told everyone that SIGINT was the same as COMINT, when it isn't. I am not convinced that GG knows what the hell he -- or Snowden -- is talking about.

[Maedhros]

181. It is something of a "court of public opinion"

and I am most certainly a judge, in the sense that I must weigh the arguments presented to me and base my opinions on the merits of the arguments.

I don't find your arguments compelling.

[MADem]

182. Well, we have something in common, then.

I feel the very same way about yours!

[Maedhros]

183. Fair enough. [n/t]

[sabrina 1]

74. Democratic voters and DUers took what 'Glennie' said about Bush without question. Not once do I

recall anyone on any Liberal forum ever questioning Glennie's almost daily attacks on Bush. Were you complaining about 'Glennie' back then? I've tried to search to find the sudden switch by some on the 'lefl' from breathless anticipation of his next, almost guaranteed, daily anger at 'Glennie' for being such a traitor, and have found not a single example, so far.

He was talking about the same things, Bush policies, then that he is talking about now.

What changed your mind on Bush policies?

[BlueCaliDem]

75. What changed my mind on Glennie? Glennie himself.

As an aside, if you believe that President Obama's policies are the same as Bush, you've been punk'd.

That said, I used to like to read about Greenwald - until I learned that he attacked a black woman on twitter. Until I learned his civil rights fight was to the extent of defending a White supremacist in a court of law. Until I learned that he loved Bush and supported Bush until he turned on him {something he never afforded Obama from the get-go}. And then I learned he supported Ron Paul in the last election, and when Paul fizzled out, he hurled his support behind ex-Republican Gary Johnson. What Liberal would support RON PAUL OR Gary Johnson??

But you keep a nice warm and fuzzy for that turncoat Liberal-troll. I abhor him as much as he abhors President Obama and the Democrats because I'm a Democrat, not some fake Liberal like Greenwald.

[MADem]

99. Sing it loud! Allow me to associate myself with your remarks! nt

[MADem]

98. Glennie got plenty of pushback here on DU about this very issue.

You know how to use the archives, see for yourself.

I'm talking about Citizens United, which is "big picture" -- not the actions of one failed leader with term limits.

[MADem]

66. I'd like to know who is paying his bills, and if he's getting treatment for his epilepsy, and

if a medical examination revealed any tumors or temporal lobe lesions.

I'd also like to know what medications he's on.

[sabrina 1]

76. Why, what business would that be of yours? His personal medical records now??

Wow, we are definitely seeing 'our side' in a whole different way than I once saw it. I was certain we were the party that protected the Constitutional Rights of Americans.

But you'd like to see his medical records? Because he's a journalist writing about things you don't like?

Well, you may very well get your wish, I'm sure the current surveillance program has already been put to good use in Glenn Greenwald's case.

Why do I say that? Remember the HB Gary emails?? Anonymous released them after hacking into their files.

We were shocked to find that this contractor, applying for a Government Contract, appeared to believe that to get it: 'smearing Glenn Greenwald' who was just a blogger at that time, though very anti-Bush policies, would help them get that Government, tax funded contract. Why would they do that? A contract to Smear a Blogger, paid with our tax dollars? Greenwald better watch his back because they have already targeted him. I wonder who else they've targeted?

So you may get to see his medical records. That's what the old Soviet Union used to do, make dissidents look crazy, send them to mental health clinics. It's strange how alike we all are in the end, isn't it? When angry we resort to similar notions on how to 'get' those we disagree with.

Thank the gods for the US Constitution which would make such a horrible invasion into the private business of a journalist, illegal. We still have a Constitution, don't we?

[JuniperLea]

86. He could have slipped his cracker altogether...

He could be a nutjob who shouldn't be listened to.

Greenwald has been all over the map for a long time... I see no need to pledge allegiance to him.

[ljm2002]

112. "He could be a nutjob who shouldn't be listened to"...

...well, so could you, JuniperLea, so could you.

In fact from the evidence I have seen, Greenwald is quite cogent. Which is more than can be said for his most fervent detractors here.

[MADem]

101. Yes, of course, questions are forbidden! Don't question ANYTHING. That would be ... BAD!

It's my business and the business of any sentient beings, because where he's getting his money might influence where he's directing his loyalty.

Or is that too tough a concept for you to embrace?

And who wants to see a journalist's medical records? I guess reading isn't your strong suit. I said nothing of the sort.

But hey, you got your umbrage on, didn't you! Too bad you didn't read what I wrote before you went off on that tangent of yours.

[reusrename]

150. You are arguing with yourself now. Can't you see that?

[MADem]

151. Ah, yes--that's why you are responding to my posts.

[ucrdem]

153. Score!

p.s. no, you're not arguing with yourself, in fact you're speaking for most here.

[MADem]

161. Why thank you!

I just want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth--no matter where it leads.

[HardTimes99]

117. I agree 100%. Like McCarthyism and equally despicable - nt

[ljm2002]

110. Stunning...

...really, to see someone post what you just posted.

You're not serious. You can't be.

Can you?

Who the hell is paying your bills? Are you getting medical treatment? Any brain lesions? And please share with us what medications you are on, we're all dying to know.

[randome]

115. Well, Snowden claimed he had epilepsy but that was probably a lie.

And for someone whose resume appears to have been faked and who claims the NSA is watching our thoughts form as we type -well, it's not inconceivable that he might have some medical issues we don't know about.

Disagree with that, sure, but it's as valid a theory as any other.

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

[sabrina 1]

125. Well then, let's go down that road. We're halfway there already.

I'm going to go read some of the exposures of how they did this in the old Soviet Union. They were good at it, there are lessons to be learned.

If we're now at the point where when someone speaks out we need to check their medical records, let's at least do it right. We're a democracy and don't have much experience in those areas. In fact we fought against them for so long.

I can hear them say 'we were right after all', can't you?

[MADem]

119. Why are you making a false comparison? I didn't run off to Hong Kong with a suitcase full of thumb

drives, I did not abandon my life, my job, my family and loved ones, and ally myself with reporters and demand that they publish certain things at very specific times, and then time my follow-on interview and "web chat" to release specific items designed to make life difficult for one black man running one major power.

These acts are not those of a "patriot." They suggest, very strongly, an AGENDA. I'm wondering if this agenda was formed by a mind that has temporal lobe issues. It is not an unreasonable question--epilepsy DOES affect the brain in a variety of ways. It is not a benign condition, and your pouting at me about it isn't going to change that simple fact.

FWIW, I don't have epilepsy and I am not getting medical treatment, nor am I on medications save the occasional aspirin and a multivitamin if someone offers me one. Oh, and I pay my own bills, and I'm not trying to survive, unemployed and without any apparent source of income, in high cost Hong Kong.

Happy?

[ljm2002]

120. What false comparison?

You want to know personal information about a person whose actions and opinions you disagree with.

I don't know about your actions, but I certainly disagree with your opinions on this matter. Therefore I have just as much right to know your medical history as you have to know Snowden's.

And for the record: I don't give a shit about your medical history, nor your source of income. But you knew that.

[MADem]

126. You are being deliberately obtuse.

One more time-- I didn't run off to Hong Kong with thumb drives full of classified material stolen from the US government.

The person with epilepsy did.

So don't compare me to that person.


And if you "don't give a shit" about my medical history or source of income, why did you DEMAND it? Don't ASK for things you don't want--it makes you look unserious.

Make up your mind. Better still, stop playing childish "gotcha" games.

[ljm2002]

130. I DEMANDED your information?

That's rich.

Quick lesson: this is a public discussion board. Anyone can post anything they want, subject to the jury system and moderators who get rid of spam etc. NO ONE can make DEMANDS of others here. Oh they can try, but really, no one can force you to reveal your private information. Nor can anyone force you to make a post, or respond to a post. You get the idea.

Now who's being obtuse here? You stated you would like to know Snowden's medical history as well as where he is getting his money right now. As for the money, fair enough: he's a public figure now and he is certainly in a unique situation, and the whole subject of surveillance, national security, etc. is delicate to say the least.

But you went beyond that to say you would like to know his medical history: more about his epilepsy; whether he has tumors or lesions on his brain; what medications he is taking or may have stopped taking.

My response to you was an attempt to illustrate that such a request is over the line.

Your response is to get all huffy and assure me that YOU are honest and above board when it comes to money, and that YOU have no current medical issues of interest and that YOU are not taking any medications except banal OTC painkillers.

Now you would have to be obtuse to think that my statement was a demand for you to release that information. And I don't think you really are that obtuse. I think you are game playing. But you're not very good at it, are you?

[MADem]

134. Yes, you did. You didn't say "If you don't mind..." or "Would you be so kind..."

And I'm not huffy--but you sure are sounding that way.

You go do a little reading on adult onset epilepsy. Get on down in the weeds, now, and do some homework.

Some of the after-effects of the condition would explain why a guy in a good job, with a nice home, a beautiful girlfriend, in a beautiful environment would feel the need to throw all that in the crapper, run off to Hong Kong, and make vague, portentious and grandiose pronouncements about what he believes "truth" to be.

But nooooo....he's a "hero." That's the easy answer.

[ljm2002]

139. Har de har har har...

...as the Bowery Boys would say.

First: I have never, never used the word "hero" in reference to Snowden. Don't believe me? Feel free to look it up.

Furthermore, your insistence that I DEMANDED your medical information is ridiculous, and can only be interpreted as game playing on your part. I employed a standard rhetorical device, turning around your request upon yourself. Now it is not surprising that this annoyed you, but it is absurd of you to try and pretend you were acceding to a DEMAND by stating your current medical situation, as if I give a rat's ass about it.

So now you have morphed your wish to know his medical history, into long-distance diagnosis. Because it is inconceivable, apparently, that anyone would do what Snowden did for any other reason than lesions on the brain.

Which is of course ridiculous. Unless you think all the other NSA whistleblowers also have lesions on the brain. Which maybe you do?

[MADem]

158. Who the hell is paying your bills? Yeah, that sounds like a sweetly phrased request!

Get over yourself. The one playing games here isn't me. Your words. Your "tough guy" attitude.

If you can't follow what I'm saying, perhaps you should drop by the wayside. I don't think my points are all that difficult to understand.

There's no "morphing" going on--you're just not following the conversation.

How many of all those "other" NSA whistleblowers you want to drag out ran away to Hong Kong, abandoning home, family, fiancee, friends, and job, with no warning, after demanding that WAPO publish within 72 hours, going into "hiding" (and it remains a mystery who is helping with that "hiding" and who is paying the bills), then offering an exclusive interview with a Chinese reporter from the SCMP (Beijing friendly entity; Rupert Murdoch, minority shareholder, FWIW), and then doing a bizarre web chat that only serves to obfuscate, not clarify?

Let's see, that would be...none of all those other NSA whistleblowers? Yes--NONE of those other NSA whistleblowers.

Your point is not taken.

[ljm2002]

166. You said I made a demand of you...

...and I pointed out to you that is absurd. I am in no position to make demands. Yes, I will make strong statements, as will you, to wit: "If you can't follow what I'm saying, perhaps you should drop by the wayside". In other words, STFU. But of course I have no intention of dropping by the wayside merely because you suggest it. I choose not to give that power to some anonymous poster on DU.

Regarding those other whistleblowers, I brought them up to point out that they, too, had problems with the NSA's surveillance methods. So it's not that easy to dismiss Snowden's claims. Furthermore, they were effectively silenced. Your issues with Snowden seem to be with his methods. And yet the methods that the other whistleblowers used have been ineffective, whereas Snowden's tactics have sparked a fierce debate on this topic. For whatever reasons, he has been effective in his stated goal. So far.

Whether or not you agree with the actions Snowden took, it is both unnecessary and silly to suggest that he must have brain lesions by way of explanation. R.I.D.I.C.U.L.O.U.S.

[MADem]

167. And I replied by saying that you didn't make a sweetly-phrased request.

A "strong statement" that asks for information, is, to most people reading the English language, also known as a DEMAND. How many more times will we go round this rosebush?


You know, I take the time to read your posts before I reply. It's apparent you aren't affording me the same courtesy. If pointing that out is "STFU" to you, well, you really aren't reading my posts--so why should I continue to waste my time speaking with someone who is stuck on TRANSMIT, but can't flip the switch to RECEIVE?

And please--don't go playing the aggrieved victim because it's too much trouble for you to read and process my points. That's just not on.

And as for those poor "silenced" whistleblowers--they're so "silenced" that they're giving interviews to anyone and everyone who will book them. So....I guess we not only have a difference of opinion WRT the word "demand" but we also have a difference of opinion WRT the word "silenced."


Do you really think you're throwing any light on this discussion, or are you just beating your own drum in an attempt to distract from the fact that you didn't read what I wrote?

You go read up on ADULT ONSET EPILEPSY. That's your search term, and that is the condition that Snowden, himself, said he has.

Take your time, do some homework. Pay particular attention to the material that talks about how the condition can affect personality, intelligence and the ability to process information.

You just might learn something.

[Dragonfli]

123. I am sure that in the tradition of Nixon sending a crew to Ellsberg's Psychologist's office,

Our current policy can reassure us that all his records have been collected, sifted, and any smear worthy info has been analyzed for a coordinated attack.

They likely even have agents spreading the attack points in all relevant discussion boards and other media, is it good money?

[MADem]

129. Go ahead and keep pretending that adult onset epilepsy is the equivalent of psychiatric treatment.

If it makes you feel good, and special.

They aren't the same at all.

People with epilepsy can undergo substantial personality changes. Those changes could have impacted this individual's thought process.

It's as good a theory as "Paulbot hero, defender of Truth and Justice" that people who now talk about "Ed" like he's their best friend are coming up with....

[Dragonfli]

141. I agree! Of course it would be the records of a different kind of doctor that need collecting.

The point is that luckily no one needs to send clumsy burglars to gather smear data to discredit someone on the list of enemies; we have grown exceedingly efficient at it.

Now, we have talking points that could be used to imply that the enemy may be suffering severe cognitive dysfunction, why he is likely just crazy!! Wink Wink. I will spam my email list with the revelations of G. G.s probable madness while you and the crew push that talking point here!

This is working splendidly, I can't wait to learn what the analysts send us next - He's Epileptic and Gay - MAybe he's one of those communists as well!!!?

You slipped collaborator, it is not his dirty hippie friends that call him "Paulbot" as that would be us, that came in the talking points ages ago, perhaps you forgot?

[MADem]

160. Well, no one's talking about burglars. I wonder why, in that Love-Fest of a censored "chat" he had

on the internet, no one bothered to ask the question--or no one bothered to provide him with the question so he could respond to it.

Look--he's the one who said he had adult onset epilepsy. HE did. He took leave to get treatment for it--so HE said.

Now here you are, directing nasty, childish, antisocial "collaborator" personal insults at me, because I look at the whole picture and DARE to wonder if that doesn't have impact?

Gee, do you think the one-legged man might have trouble winning the race? Or is it "rude"--or worse--being a "collaborator"--to suggest he might have trouble being first across the finish line? Is it "disloyal" to some romanticized image of the guy in your head to notice that your adored one has contributed, not once, but twice to the Paul campaign?

What are you so afraid of, that you have to direct insults at me? Why can't you converse like a normal adult, without calling people names, and falsely implying that anyone who doesn't see things your way must be part of a "crew?"

What does that say about you? I will say it doesn't say much for your conversational skills--for starters.

[Just Saying]

154. My mother has adult onset epilepsy

Brought on by a stroke at 29. I get where you're coming from here.

[MADem]

159. It can happen to people and even THEY don't know why they have had personality changes.

They know that something's different, they don't know why, and they don't feel like they are in control of the changes. It can cause anything from mild irritation and inconvenience to near suicidal despair.

It can be a struggle for people, especially those who use their brains more than their brawn in their jobs.

[Just Saying]

162. Certainly a struggle.

And the medications may control the seizures but they cause their own set of issues. (They never fully controlled her seizures.)

I was young when my mom had a stroke that caused her epilepsy but about 10 years ago, her seizures changed. Instead of petit mal seizures that most people that didn't know her wouldn't even notice they became sort of sleepwalking episodes where one minute she was fine and the next she didn't know my son, or wandered off or thought my brother and I were kids again. My Dad had to put alarms on the doors because one night she wandered off to the neighbor's garage in her nightgown.

A few years later she had brain surgery. For about a year after it she was depressed, paranoid and had many symptoms of traumatic brain injuries. It was incredibly hard on her. She is a lot better now. She has mild seizures but better than they ever were before and none of the sleepwalking episodes.

I really hope you're doing well!

[MADem]

164. I am so sorry. I'm glad she's at a better point now.

I am also sure that you know, better than anyone else, that your mother didn't "want" to not remember your child, or find herself in the wrong decade, or wander off and not know where she was, or have those terrible feelings of depression and paranoia.

And you are entirely correct about the symptoms sometimes--even without additional surgery--mimicking TBI. Anyone who knows anybody who came back from "Over There" with a TBI (or even a PTSD--which also mimicks TBI) diagnosis knows first-hand the personality changes that accompany that sort of traumatic event.

The brain is part and parcel of our bodies, and stuff does, sometimes, go wrong with it, and it CAN impact behavior. I don't think it should be off-limits to ask these questions, particularly when the source for the adult-onset epilepsy diagnosis was Snowden, himself.

Let the chips fall where they may.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

136. Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

And that's a very sad thing for someone who has been on DU for so long.

[MADem]

163. Your assessment of my circumstances is quite incorrect.

Why are you afraid to discuss the points I've raised?

In full discussions amongst mature adults, nothing should be off-limits. If you knew anything about adult-onset epilepsy, you wouldn't be trying to denigrate me for mentioning these possibilities.

You might want to read up on the condition. You might find yourself surprised by what you learn.

[BlueCaliDem]

2. Yeah, sorry, but I don't go for propaganda by a

Libertarian, Bush-luvin, Ron Paul supportin', KKK defendin', closeted Republican who's parked his ass in Brazil behind security gates where he writes shit about the black man in the White House who he abhors.

I'm still a Democrat with an eye on 2014 {and I'm sure Glennie is, too, hopin' for more Republicans in Congress, no doubt} so excuse me if I when Greenwald is being touted as some kind of heroic Paul Revere on a DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING site.

If I could unrec your post, I would do so happily and with passion.

[randome]

14. You've been doing a lot of 'plonking' lately? Not enough fiber?

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

[ucrdem]

22. "Plonking is the last refuge of scoundrels"

[BlueCaliDem]

52. Oh look. Another lost Libertarian/Liberal who doesn't know, well, consider the "scat" in his

moniker and his happy use of "asshole", you *do* know about shit.

Now back in your Momma's basement you go where the world's perfect and everybody loves America. It's not so scary there.

And I'm pretty much known here, GlennBot, and I'm a SOLID Democrat - unlike you.

[ucrdem]

59. I think a jury just plonked him. nt

[Hissyspit]

12. The usual misrepresentation and lies, I see.

There are actually good criticisms of Greenwald.

Too bad you didn't use any.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

138. It has been fascinating watching people just totally lose their shit --

Fascinating, and frankly

[ljm2002]

113. "Bush-luvin"...

...er, yeah, right.

Perhaps you ought to review Greenwald's history vis a vis the Bush administration and get back to us.

That's assuming you have an interest in the truth, that is.

[randome]

3. Greenwald is coming unhinged.

He's saying, basically, that if the NSA listens in on a conversation between an overseas terrorist organization and someone here in the U.S., they should only listen to the foreign terrorist part of the conversation!

Good God, that sounds daft!

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

[Whisp]

50. I know! how stupid and hilarious.

maybe the NSA should put the 'mime' filter on all American citizens on one end of the conversation.

Glenn is laughing his ass off at the things he is getting away with saying. He is proving something alright, and it's got not much to do with the NSA story but with how utterly stupid and gullible people can be.

Tomorrow he can say he uncovered that Obama really is a Muslim! He won't have any 'proof' tho, but people HERE will believe him. I think he is gearing up for something that outrageous and just warming the team up.

oiy, mama.

[randome]

54. I would like to believe he knows he has screwed this up by trusting Snowden.

But that's just optimism for human nature on my part.

Does he not have any friends, fellow reporters at the Guardian, maybe, who can tell him he's gone off the rails with this?

I guess if Trump can surround himself with only those who agree with him, so can Greenwald.

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

[BeyondGeography]

5. Someone's running out of ammo

Ed Snowden is a more admirable figure than Barack Obama now?

[randome]

6. Hong Kong Eddie 2016!

Greenwald will become a household name. Not in a good way.

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

[Whisp]

58. Ron Paul would surely think so.

and we all so love Ronny here, lately.

what a scam artist.

[ucrdem]

7. Are hypnotic subliminal messages hidden in that head shot or what?

It's starting to get on my nerves. And Amy and her bag of rats jumped the shark years ago.

Fail.

[Luminous Animal]

8. So far, the responses to this thread have been incredibly intellectually stimulating.

Clearly, DU has the smartest members on the web!

Thanks for posting this here!

[backscatter712]

15. +1! Certain posts have helped me update my Ignore list. n/t

[magellan]

30. I don't ignore any of them

I'm mesmerized watching them assume the characteristics of freepers out of the same misguided notion of loyalty to party and president at all costs. It's a guilty pleasure, I admit. The other side don't have actual brains to leak outta their ears.

[backscatter712]

35. Hard to say where they come from.

Maybe they're loyal to Obama, but my best bet is either they're professional astroturfers/50-centers, or they're Cavers.

One fun thing to keep in mind: Putting someone on Ignore doesn't prevent you from trash-talking him. Just saying...

[GoneFishin]

111. It's a given that there are some professional astroturfers here. The only questions is how many

and which ones are they. They ones that regurgitate the same arguments long after they have been debunked are likely professionals, since they show no regard for facts and are more interested in quantity than quality.

[emulatorloo]

131. Sounds like a couple Fake Progressives I know

with excessive daily post counts. Lots of propaganda operations going on at DU. Gotta spend that Citizens United cash, ya know.

[Bobbie Jo]

175. Interesting

4 month assessment.

Belated welcome to DU!

[MADem]

178. My sentiments exactly! nt

[ucrdem]

32. You might also consider your transparency list.

It's showing.

[Catherina]

34. Mine is a mile long lol. As Skinner once put it, between trash thread and ignore

you can make DU just the way you like it. And that's how mine is now, a Liberal site for conversation among like-minded individuals making intelligent comments, even when there are disagreements.

I'm a proud member of the Don't entertain this garbage Brigade.

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.

[carolinayellowdog]

81. amen, mine has gone from about 30 to 130 in the past week

and DU is now remarkable for all the wisdom, knowledge, and mutual support-- and not for willful ignorance and sadistic authoritarianism

[Catherina]

17. Really? I can only see this response, #9, #13 and #15

All the other responses are from people on my ignore list so I know they can't be intellectually stimulating since that's the criteria I use. You're kidding right? I'd hate to have anyone on it mistakenly. If anyone on my ignore list is making intellectually stimulating responses, can you PM me their username so I can un-ignore them?

[Luminous Animal]

45. Yep. I was kidding. Your ignore list is still relevent.

[Catherina]

55. Thank you because it usually takes a history of obnoxious behavior & comments to get on it n/t

[LondonReign2]

36. I enjoy the Brigade's posts

With each one, they highlight and reinforce the worst arguments of their position

[limpyhobbler]

9. Obama apologists are coming unhinged

Basically they are saying it's OK if the government builds a massive library of all our personal communications and reads our emails, and keeps this behavior a secret from the American people, as long as it is done in the name of terrorist hunting.

1) The program should not have been kept secret.

2) They shouldn't be collecting info on everyone. If there is real suspicion to believe someone is a terrorist, then they should go get a warrant specifically for that suspect.

The "my President right or wrong crowd" must be working overtime trying to defend this massive government abuse.

[still_one]

19. and greenwal apologists are likewise becoming unhinged. Exposing foreign intelligence as part of

this, instead of focusing on the domestic spying, tells me greenwald has his own agenda

[ProSense]

25. I'll say it again,

"Exposing foreign intelligence as part of this, instead of focusing on the domestic spying, tells me greenwald has his own agenda"

...the reason Snowden is tripping all over his claims of domestic spying is because it was a distraction, the "bombshell" loaded with inaccuracies to blow up the story. It's seems clear to me that his goal was to embarrass the U.S. He seems preoccupied with spying on other countries.

Think about some of his claims:

More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032903#post12

This is also curious:

Greenwald said that some journalists’ accounts of the Snowden leaks scandal, the impression many get is that America would turn to extraordinary methods to eliminate the threat posed by Snowden if he decided to turn over to a foreign government the information at his disposal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035095

NYT editor's blog: Snowden’s Questionable New Turn
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023034825

[still_one]

28. At least you didn't call me Joe McCarthy, and I appreciate that.

[BeyondGeography]

27. Not to mention Snowden

How anyone sees this purely as an act of conscience anymore escapes me. The is Ed Snowden's Excellent Adventure, a shortcut to global fame, notoriety and a lifetime ticket away from a job and country he obviously hated. At least he hopes.

[MADem]

165. I am not ruling out an "act of illness." At least not yet.

There might not be any mendacity there--it could be that the adult onset epilepsy he said he suffered from has changed his personality and disrupted his thought processes. "Suicide by blowing up your life and shitting on your country in a scattershot fashion" just doesn't make sense.

There were other ways to voice his frustrations, if he had a real beef--especially since he donated to Rand Paul's father (and Rand is on Senate Intel Oversight). He could have gotten a fifteen minute bloc with the guy, no problem. It wouldn't have taken more than two phone calls. He didn't even try that route.

[limpyhobbler]

47. oh really

Yeah he does have an agenda: defense of privacy, liberty and equality.

I heartily endorse it.

[railsback]

23. Yes, 'unhinged', that's the ticket

I assume to be 'hinged', one would need a head with hair, a can of gasoline and a match.

[Catherina]

116. It should not have been kept a secret & now we're told let's debate but on false terms false framing

The program is so transparent that took takes a Whistleblower, or “traitor”, to bring attention to its existence.

[HardTimes99]

127. They are basically saying "Trust us" after their very own DNI Clapper lied his ass

off to Congress, got caught in the lie, and THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES.

WTF?????

I fall back on Juvenal's ancient wisdom: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who will guard the guardians?&quot

[still_one]

11. nice drama greenwald. you, snowden, China, and Russia deserve each other

[backscatter712]

16. Joe McCarthy, is that you?

*PLONK*

[still_one]

21. have to get personal don't you. I guess it proves the point about unhinged huh?

In fact greenwald makes a lot of statements with out substantiation, filled in with some truths. I wonder who is more mccarthy like?

[HardTimes99]

128. When all else fails, red-baiting is the fallback position. You have

nailed it, my friend.

[bvar22]

13. DURec, and a kick for the 4th Amendment and TRANSPARENCY.

...and a FU to Dick Cheney and the whole Fascist Security State Home Team.

[cpwm17]

24. +1,000,000

[cantbeserious]

107. + Infinity

eom

[b.durruti]

144. +11111 -nt-

[The Link]

18. Sometimes I wonder how much of the irrational hatred of Greenwald is due to his sexual orientation.

[still_one]

20. what are you talking about?

[The Link]

31. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023041524

[still_one]

37. Well, I didn't know that. Then again that is not how I look at things. Thanks for the info. If

that is the view of some, it is wrong, but I would find that hard to believe the most DUers view it that way, no matter which side of the Snowden discussion they fall on

[The Link]

39. I certainly don't think its most DU'ers that feel that way.

There does seem to be some rather irrational hatred for the guy though.

[still_one]

48. True. I think most of that is because of his "obsession" with Obama, which borders on his extreme

dislike of Obama, to the degree that it may bias his reporting.

Regardless, I am sure your original point does prejudice some against Greenwald, though that should NOT be the case

[Maedhros]

124. It's not personal for Greenwald

He doesn't dislike Obama, he vehemently disagrees with the President's policies.

Can you find a quote by Greenwald in which he makes an ad hominem attack on Obama?

[one_voice]

26. I'm sure...

[The Link]

33. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023041524

[one_voice]

41. and?

that didn't prove anything.


edited to add: I don't think when someone points out that he's sitting in Brazil, they're thinking about his sexuality. I think what they're saying is it's easy to throw molotov cocktails from a distance.

I really don't believe they're thinking for one second about him being gay and that's why he's there. That being said, he may have chosen to live there being the type of stuff he's 'reporting'.

apologies if I sounded snarky.

[randome]

42. My father is gay. And Greenwald is an ass.

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

[Skidmore]

63. Nothing like lobbing an

incindiary bomb whil stirring up shit, is there?

[SidDithers]

65. Sometimes I wonder how much of the irrational hatred of Obama is due to his skin colour...nt

Sid

[ucrdem]

69. So do I.

Loyal opposition is one thing, constructive criticism has its place too, but the wholesale switftboating and worse that go on here every single day are inexcusable.

[MADem]

108. Touche`, mon frere~!!!!

[graham4anything]

38. Isn't there a 4 paragraph rule?

[ucrdem]

43. I think she's ignoring it.

[Luminous Animal]

53. It belongs to the Creative Commons and thus no restriction on reproducing in full as long as it

attributed.

[graham4anything]

56. Charlie Rose?

[Luminous Animal]

60. Democracy Now. Did you read it?

[ucrdem]

64. It's a DU rule isn't it?

Not a copyright rule.

[Luminous Animal]

67. Most outlets copyright there contect 100% but allow for fair use.

Those that belong to the Creative Commons allow for reproduction in full, thus no copyright violation thus no violation of DU rules. The Creative Commons info is at the bottom of the post.

[ucrdem]

71. Yes, but there's a DU rule that trumps copyright.

At least in LBN. In GD it's probably more flexible but that aside, this OP is way too long. That's what links are for. I don't think it's necessarily a problem, just overkill.

[Luminous Animal]

79. Then let the admins know.

[ucrdem]

109. Thanks, I'll pass.

And for the record I very much like and respect Catherina, WillPitt, Octa and many others I happen to disagree with on this issue.

[bvar22]

40. Another KICK!

....and a thanks to Catherina for the OP.

Amazing the number of people frightened by the sound of a Whistle Blowing.

They even dragged old Dick Cheney, the Power Hitter for the Fascist Security State,
out of his cave on Sunday to attack Snowden,
and Bob Schieffer, in another absurd failed attack, actually compared this little computer geek to MLK and Rosa Parks!!!!

Yes. In their blind PANIC, they have become "unhinged" ( to put it nicely).

[Catherina]

51. The sight of Dick Cheney defending this should be enough to make any thoughtful person pause

When the full force of this program is firmly in the hands of criminals, as may happen in the next Administration, you know very well what will happen.

It's going to be "There's a Communist!" "There's an environmental activist against GMOs!" just like it was "There's a Jew!" "There's a runaway slave!" in other shameful chapters of history. No sir, ma'am, that is not the country I want to leave to our children.

[cascadiance]

87. So Cheney exposing Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings made him a good patriotic American...

... and not a traitor like Snowden. Of course there's no excuse for telling America that they are all being spied upon. Far more important an being a "patriotic American" that we stop a Democrat's wife and shut down a whole CIA agency that would "interfere" with certain intelligence agencies cronies ability to spread WMD's wherever they feel it to be necessary for their own purposes!

[Catherina]

102. That's about it. 'The shoes done swapped feet'

Cheney is a good patriotic American.

The whistleblowers warning everyone of constitutional crimes are the enemy.


'The shoes done swapped feet'

[HardTimes99]

132. Imagine these surveillance programs in the hands of a . . . President Palin. I

Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:32 AM - Edit history (1)

rest my case.

[Catherina]

143. That's a disturbing thought. She'd do worse than what Bush did with them

There are places my mind really doesn't want to go because the risks are awful.

[Catherina]

73. You know, now I'm really mad. How many more innocent people, Americans and others

have to die for profit?

Some people have become completely unhinged because they view the surveillance discussion as a dark conspiracy to weaken Obama's legacy. Hello?! We are not in charge of Obama's legacy, he is. And his legacy will be based on the decisions he made, without our input, against our will even, as we've seen over the years.

What is more important? Obama's legacy or the constitution, the very bedrock of our Republic? Obama's legacy or the lives of millions of innocent people all over this world? Obama's legacy or our conscience?

This is not about Obama unless he allows it to become about him.

This disclosure provides Obama an opportunity to appeal for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the rule of law rather than men. He still has plenty of time to go down in history as the President who looked into the abyss and stepped back, rather than leaping forward into it. I would advise he personally call for a special committee to review these interception programs, repudiate the dangerous "State Secrets" privilege, and, upon preparing to leave office, begin a tradition for all Presidents forthwith to demonstrate their respect for the law by appointing a special investigator to review the policies of their years in office for any wrongdoing. There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency.

Edward Snowden, June 18, 2013

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

-- Friedrich Nietzsche, "Beyond Good and Evil"

[MineralMan]

44. Err...Fuck Ron Paul and his Entire Cohort.

That is all.

[frylock]

83. i'll see your ron paul, and raise you a dick cheney..

i'll even sweeten the pot with a john boehner and a mitch mcconnell.

[Rowdyboy]

84. +1000

[bluedigger]

92. I don't care if you said it first.

Fuck Ron Paul.

And that other Dick, too.

[WillyT]

46. K & R !!!

[KoKo]

62. Recommend!

[Cali_Democrat]

72. Greenwald is really cracking me up.

How long before he starts the Snowden 2016 campaign?

[CakeGrrl]

77. Please proceed, Greenwald/Snowden.

[MrScorpio]

80. If Greenwald is so concerned about the growth of unrestrained surveillance capacity...

Then why isn't he also focusing on the outsourcing and privatization of the capacity, on who's profiting from it, what influence those corporate entities have on the process, what THEY'RE doing with that information and why it's going to be impossible for any kind of democratic process to rescind the capacity's size and scope given the current situation?

He's very good at equating his current "nemesis", Obama, which his former one, Cheney. Hell, that's a win-win for old Glenn.

But Snowden himself came out of the world of contracted, privatized surveillance. That should give everyone a great opportunity to expose the key problem here, that the Government; the NSA, the Congress and even the President his damn self, are not in complete control of this massive data collection and interpretation apparatus. That because of its size, profitability, scope and lack of direct control, we're seeing the expansion of surveillance targeting and its eventual means of redefining its own legality to completely justify its own existence.

This is a vast bureaucratic process, bolstered by a process of privatization. This is NOT a partisan issue. We are way beyond politics here.

I'm still waiting for Greenwald to expand beyond the politics game and pick up the ball to tell the rest of the story.

But somehow, I doubt that he will.

[HardTimes99]

135. When we can finally step outside the cult of personality that seems to suffuse

this issue currently, I think you have raised a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE that absolutely requires more discussion and focus.

I have had this creeping feeling in the past week that we face Leviathan, a monster who has outgrown the control of his and her creators and become an all-devouring beast. Each time I think about contacting my Rep or Senators, I pull back, partly because the story is changing so quickly and partly because electronic contact with them now might implicate them, me and all within my circle in the dragnet. (Imagine that data in the hands of a President Santorum.)

Writing that just now, it sounds totally and completely paranoid. I never felt this way even during the darkest days of Reagan's presidency (Iran-Contra or the PATCO strike). So I agree with you that "we are way beyond politics here."

[cascadiance]

82. Weasel word parsing? Is recording a call not "listening" to it if no one is "listening" to it...

... actively why it is being recorded? Because you know if all calls are being recorded someplace, they aren't being "listened" to when they are first recorded. They will only be listened to if they are pointed to later when someone wants to listen to someone's calls selectively.

And if they are recording "everyone", then they really aren't "targeting" anyone either.

So, this walk back is merely an attempt to deflect and avoid charges of perjury later, and Obama will have his "what sex is" moment then in a more serious fashion if he's covering for a lot of nasty crap that is likely going on.

Next time someone asks him a question at a press conference, they should ask him are American calls blanketly or randomly being listened to OR recorded to allow a later time to "listen" to them?

[Catherina]

90. How far we've come. Nixon was convicted of violating the Halperins' 4th amendment rights

US v Nixon was all about violating Morton Halperin's Fourth Amendment rights after Nixon put Halperin on his Enemies List and had him wiretapped for 21 months.

That was just for 1 person. Now a US President is excusing the MIC's extensive Enemies List and violating the 4th Amendment rights of the entire world, regardless of international and national laws.

The mind boggles.

All that word-parsing for a bad word salad. President Obama is following very bad advice.

[JuniperLea]

85. This is all he said he said...

The whole thing is ridiculous IMHO. NSA spying is not news, it's something we've lived with for over a decade now. The rumors are all the same, and the comebacks are mostly the same.

Excuse me if I file my nails and wash my hair... take a trip and redecorate my living room. It will take at least that long to get enough FACTS to piece anything REAL together on this mess.

But carry on... let your hair burn... clutch your pearls and suffocate on your own outrage. I'll wait until the dust settles before forming an opinion.

This whole thing is cracking me the hell up.

[Number23]

137. "clutch your pearls and suffocate on your own outrage." Woah!!

Haven't seen you in forever!

The OP has been a super busy little bee lately. No posts in forever and then what feels like 4000 over the last three days. I find this all of this more stupid than entertaining but I can certainly understand why someone would get a kick out of all of the outrage.

[Just Saying]

157. Couldn't agree more!

Best post I've read on this scandal. Well tied with the poster who suggested logging off and gardening.

[questionseverything]

88. i am still a dem

but i am an American first and i have no intention of giving up my rights to a support a president that seems to be of the same mind as dick cheney or because i am afraid of some boogey man terrorist

here is one official bragging that they have the ability to listen to phone calls,now in this case they could clearly get a warrant with probable cause but the point is since they did not know they needed to listen until after the fact..it must of been recorded or transcribed

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/01/ebo.01.html

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.

[Catherina]

91. Which brings up more word-parsing

President Obama is parsing his words trying to make distinctions between the NSA and the FBI's work as if there's some sort of built-in checks and balances there. There are 4 NSA whisteblowers on record, some of them very senior, contradicting, with specifics, the carefully parsed picture Obama's conveying to people.

Very well said and welcome to DU . That's how I feel too. I'm an American first, not a partisan who's going to jump off the cliff.

[questionseverything]

145. ty for the welcome

good article on those other whistle blowers

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10075

and it is the nsa that does the recording,collecting(which the gov't is still denying)

i believe obama wants to do the right thing but has so much pressure from the military industrial complex he can't do it unless "we the people" force him

[DCBob]

103. "risk life"??

He was a bored mid-level systems analyst who saw an opportunity to make some news and also probably make some money.

[Politicub]

105. The glee in Greenwald's articles and interviews is disturbing

I get the sense that he relishes all of the drama he is creating. And like an addict, he will do anything to keep the high.

He seem to be affected by his own presence with this thing, and takes EVERYTHING that Snowden says at face value. And if Snowden doesn't say anything about it, Greenwald goes all Fox News and presents his own opinion as fact.

Before anyone accuses me of attacking the messenger - blah blah blah - go back and read the latter coverage and interviews.

Bradley Manning is a hero. To lump him in with the traitorous Snowden is beyond the pale. Snowden is actively trying to damage his country, while Manning was trying to get the truth out in the open.

This drip drip drip approach that Greenwald and Snowden are taking reveals them for the attention whores that they are.

[HardTimes99]

114. You have performed a MAJOR PUBLIC SERVICE for DU and I

salute and thank you!

[polly7]

140. Bravo, Catherina!! nt.

[Catherina]

142. Whistle-blowers conclusions quite different than Obama's presentation

3 Former NSA Employees Praise Edward Snowden, Corroborate Key Claims

The men, all whistleblowers, say he succeeded where they failed.
Conor Friedersdorf Jun 18 2013, 8:30 AM ET

...

Thomas Drake, William Binney, and J. Kirk Wiebe each protested the NSA in their own rights. "For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens," the newspaper reports. "They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media."

In other words, they blew the whistle in the way Snowden's critics suggest he should have done. Their method didn't get through to the members of Congress who are saying, in the wake of the Snowden leak, that they had no idea what was going on. But they are nonetheless owed thanks.

And among them, they've now said all of the following:

-- His disclosures did not cause grave damage to national security.

-- What Snowden discovered is "material evidence of an institutional crime."

-- As a system administrator, Snowden "could go on the network or go into any file or any system and change it or add to it or whatever, just to make sure -- because he would be responsible to get it back up and running if, in fact, it failed. So that meant he had access to go in and put anything. That's why he said, I think, 'I can even target the president or a judge.' If he knew their phone numbers or attributes, he could insert them into the target list which would be distributed worldwide. And then it would be collected, yeah, that's right. As a super-user, he could do that."

-- "The idea that we have robust checks and balances on this is a myth."

-- Congressional overseers "have no real way of seeing into what these agencies are doing. They are totally dependent on the agencies briefing them on programs, telling them what they are doing."

-- Lawmakers "don't really don't understand what the NSA does and how it operates. Even when they get briefings, they still don't understand."

-- Asked what Edward Snowden should expect to happen to him, one of the men, William Binney, answered, "first tortured, then maybe even rendered and tortured and then incarcerated and then tried and incarcerated or even executed." Interesting that this is what a whistleblower thinks the U.S. government will do to a citizen. The abuse of Bradley Manning worked.

-- "There is no path for intelligence-community whistle-blowers who know wrong is being done. There is none. It's a toss of the coin, and the odds are you are going to be hammered."

...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/3-former-nsa-employees-praise-edward-snowden-corroborate-key-claims/276964/

[hr]

Q: What should Edward Snowden expect now?

Binney: Well, first of all, I think he should expect to be treated just like Bradley Manning (an Army private now being court-martialed for leaking documents to WikiLeaks). The U.S. government gets ahold of him, that's exactly the way he will be treated.

Q: He'll be prosecuted?

Binney: First tortured, then maybe even rendered and tortured and then incarcerated and then tried and incarcerated or even executed.

Wiebe: Now there is another possibility, that a few of the good people on Capitol Hill — the ones who say the threat is much greater than what we thought it was — will step forward and say give this man an honest day's hearing. You know what I mean. Let's get him up here. Ask him to verify, because if he is right — and all pointers are that he was — all he did was point to law-breaking. What is the crime of that?

Drake: But see, I am Exhibit No. 1. ...You know, I was charged with 10 felony counts. I was facing 35 years in prison. This is how far the state will go to punish you out of retaliation and reprisal and retribution. ... My life has been changed. It's been turned inside, upside down. I lived on the blunt end of the surveillance bubble. ... When you are faced essentially with the rest of your life in prison, you really begin to understand and appreciate more so than I ever have — in terms of four times I took the oath to support the Constitution — what those rights and freedoms really mean. ...

Believe me, they are going to put everything they have got to get him. I think there really is a risk. There is a risk he will eventually be pulled off the street.

...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

[Major Hogwash]

146. How did Snowden risk his life?

I don't understand why Greenwald said that.
How, in what way?

[ucrdem]

155. He risks being droned?

Stop asking questions dammit!

[treestar]

147. Putting that together took a long time

I hope you were paid well.

[ohiosmith]

168. This post was alerted on. By a jury of vote of 3/3 it is allowed to stand.

At Wed Jun 19, 2013, 07:13 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Putting that together took a long time
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3044490

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Accusing DUer of being a paid poster is disruptive and rude.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 19, 2013, 07:21 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Unnecessary snark.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I do not agree with Catherina on this but I also do not think she is a paid troll nor do I think it is ok to call her one. Hide. Ohio Joe
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Man oh man! Leave the post!

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[treestar]

170. The odd thing is that it's said all the time of Prosense

And no one alerts on those posts.

Turnabout is fair play, here. That accusation has been made repeatedly of anyone who questions any critique of the President, Democrats or the NSA hair on fire issue.

[Catherina]

148. UK Guardian new article: "Greenwald: Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process"

Greenwald: Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process

Luminous Animal has a DU discussion thread about it.

[DeSwiss]

156. K&R!

[Harmony Blue]

169. Beautiful post

well stated.