When Greenwalds Attack! 10 Examples From His Past

[Galraedia]

It’s fascinating for someone who has kept a critical eye on Glenn Greenwald to see him playing in the big leagues and striking out so much. I do believe it’s time for him to be sent back down to the minors.

Glenn Greenwald frequently attacks people who disagree with him, he can’t help himself. He has a hair trigger on that gun of his and likes to shoot it off. (By the way, he is against gun control, in case you weren’t aware.)

The most recent example of Glenn’s penchant for lashing out happened on Twitter as he attacked Daniel Serwer of Johns Hopkins University and peacefare.net.



Read more: http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/when-greenwalds-attack-10-examples-from-his-past/

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

1. The man has no class or credibility

Professionalism for him went out the window when he first took to Twitter to battle critics, rather than just letting his stories stand for what they are.

His defensive attitude is very suspect.

[Luminous Animal]

77. Indeed. Serwer showed no class attacking Greenwald and in doing so diminished his credibility.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

88. I can't argue with that. Two miserable men digitally slapping each other.

It's embarrassing.

[Luminous Animal]

90. Ah, so you know them personally. Cool!

[AZ Progressive]

85. You sound like a Propanganda Planter

Please don't be soo obvious.

[reusrename]

122. The irony in your post is delicious.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Daniel Serwer writes for the neoliberal Atlantic.

Next?

[baldguy]

10. He sounds like a monster:

Daniel Serwer (Ph.D., Princeton) is a Senior Research Professor of Conflict Management at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, as well as a Senior Fellow at its Center for Transatlantic Relations and a Scholar at the Middle East Institute.

Formerly vice president for centers of peacebuilding innovation at the United States Institute of Peace (2009-10), he led teams there working on rule of law, religion, economics, media, technology, security sector governance and gender. He was also vice president for peace and stability operations at USIP (1998-2009), where he led its peacebuilding work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and the Balkans and served as Executive Director of the Hamilton/Baker Iraq Study Group. Serwer has worked on preventing interethnic and sectarian conflict in Iraq and has facilitated dialogue between Serbs and Albanians in the Balkans.

Serwer was a minister-counselor at the Department of State, serving from 1994 to 1996 as U.S. special envoy and coordinator for the Bosnian Federation, mediating between Croats and Muslims and negotiating the first agreement reached at the Dayton peace talks. From 1990 to 1993, he was deputy chief of mission and chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, where he led a major diplomatic mission through the end of the Cold War and the first Gulf War.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-serwer

[randome]

13. The bastard!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[babylonsister]

30. That louse!

[Hissyspit]

48. Serwer's initial comment was completely out of line.

Don't like Greenwald's response, but I understand why he got pissed.

[Cali_Democrat]

53. Daniel Serwer appears to be a credible source. n/t

[Hissyspit]

62. I know who Daniel Serwer is.

Confirming a statement is from a source is not flacking. And he's being a surveillance state apologist lately:

http://www.peacefare.net/?p=15892

[baldguy]

58. Greenwald promoting Snowdens lies is out of line - esp. for a "journalist".

[arely staircase]

79. Greenwald thinks Snowden has done more than a guy who negotiated peace in Bosnia

nuff said.

[KittyWampus]

12. And Dennis Kucinich comments on FOX. He's VP of the USIP

which lists Kerry Kennedy & Nancy Zirkin on BoD.


Daniel Serwer (Ph.D., Princeton) is a Professor of Conflict Management, as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He is also a Scholar at the Middle East Institute.

Formerly Vice President for Centers of Peacebuilding Innovation at the United States Institute of Peace (2009-10), he led teams there working on rule of law, religion, economics, media, technology, security sector governance and gender. He was previously Vice President for Peace and Stability Operations at USIP, where he led its peacebuilding work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and the Balkans and served as Executive Director of the Hamilton/Baker Iraq Study Group. Serwer has worked on preventing interethnic and sectarian conflict in Iraq and has facilitated dialogue between Serbs and Albanians in the Balkans.


………….
Nancy Zirkin is the executive vice president for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the nation’s oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, consisting of nearly 200 national organizations.

[frazzled]

46. And Greenwald writes for AEI and American Conservative

Isn't that hysterical?

[Whisp]

3. He also uses sock puppets on forums to support himself...

would I believe, sure!

That's the kind of character he is. The kind lacking.

[JaneyVee]

4. Does he not know who Daniel Serwer is?

Glenn is a meany online.

[naaman fletcher]

5. Therefore

What the NSA is doing is ok

[Moonwalk]

60. No. That is not the "therefore." What is the NSA doing? That is the "therefore"--

We do have a right to question the credibility of witnesses and hearsay. And if the witness or the person relating the hearsay is unreliable or has a bias agenda--one that relates to what they're presenting as "facts"--then that does cast some doubt on the veracity of what they're saying. It might be all true. Or it might be partially true. Or it might be entirely false.

This, by the way, is debate 101. How reliable is the the source? How "unbias" is he/she? Do they have a stake in the outcome of this? And if there is technical aspects to the information, how much of an expert are they? And yes, that goes for both sides.

Debate 101 also says that we should avoid ad hominem. Attacking the person rather than the argument. You're accusing this thread of ad hominem. Is it really doing that, or is it attacking the credibility of the person issuing the information? Explain why you think it is the one over the other, because you cannot accuse this thread of that "therefore" until you explain why it is wrongly ad hominem rather than validly questioning credibility.

[Recursion]

80. +1 billion "What is the NSA doing? That is the therefore"

Thank you

[Cha]

6. I love it when it's thrown back in his fuckin' ignorant face.

[TheMadMonk]

64. Classy. Real Classy. /nt

[Marr]

96. Why are you so viscerally enraged by Glenn Greenwald?

It's bizarre.

[reusrename]

123. Well, see, that's the thing about the OP.

It says Greenwald attacks.

Do you consider that an attack?

It's a question of basic honesty here.

Just wondering where you come down.

If that's considered an attack, then why isn't the original tweet by Serwer, the one where he belittles the idea of promoting Snowden, why isn't that considered an attack?

I'm actually curious about this.

on edit> I apologize for losing my temper the other night. I honestly am trying to figure out what is underneath this rift.

[flamingdem]

7. Where is Greenwaldo?

I love that he denied being a Right Libertarian while leaving out the mention that could be he's a Left Libertarian.

[KittyWampus]

16. Here's the thing. All Snowden has "revealed" is old news gotten in old newspapers. Greenwald helped

a nobody with nothing much to show get huge amounts of attention.

It disrupted Chinese/America diplomacy amongst other things.

Again, Snowden has revealed absolutely nothing new about the NSA. He stole some of their documents but none of which prove anything he/Greenwald talks about.

The 'direct access' claim is old news from 2008 covered in the Washington Post.

So why the timing?

Why the hoopla when he isn't even revealing anything the press hasn't written about?

I am really beginning to think Snowden was an unwitting participant in a ratfuck.

He probably thinks he's hot shit cause he stole some documents… but he hasn't exposed anything new nor provided anything to back any of his claims to access.

[randome]

19. You know, you get some interesting Google images for 'ratfuck'.

Just an aside.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[KittyWampus]

23. Karl Rove in the process with a rat?

[randome]

29. I don't see Karl but I see a couple of Paul Reiser? Wonder what's up with that?

But I'm not going to spend time trying to figure that out!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[shenmue]

8. Do not question the Snowden. You will be assimilated.

Remember, this is DU. Different opinions not allowed.

[Blue Bike]

9. You just confirmed my suspicion that the NSA is not spying on us

Now that we know the way Greenwald attacks people on Twitter, there's no doubt we can talk over the phone, email each other and chat freely.

Will Greenwald lovers still believe that Snowden was telling the truth once they learn about Greenwald's verbal fights with other people?

[randome]

15. Lack of evidence plus smarmy personality equals asshole.

There is actually more evidence that Greenwald is an asshole than there is that the NSA is reading our thoughts as we type.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[NineNightsHanging]

20. Smear campaign well underway

MLK Is a COMMUNIST! OCCUPY are all RAPISTS!


randome. if you think the NSA isn't snooping, Ill refer you to old words like Echelon, Carnivore.


and more recent stuff--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014531603


You are actually MORE concerned that greenwald is _____ THAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS COLLECTING ALL OUR DATA....mind-boggling doesn't even cover it


***(I should also mention it's pretty well known now that government agencies have people on the payroll to post to sites like this.)***

[randome]

24. Evidence. Not even proof, just evidence.

If I thought the government was collecting all our data, I would be concerned.

But I have more pressing matters to attend to than someone's cheap talk from an 'undisclosed location' in Hong Kong. Or Moscow or wherever the hell Eddie ("I'm not here to hide from justice.&quot Snowden has run off to.

For instance, my daughters turned 16 a few days ago!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[NineNightsHanging]

28. sorry, where have you been?

The government itself has acknowledged it is engaged in data mining

[randome]

31. If you mean the metadata, get to work on changing the laws for that.

If you mean PRISM...no. From what's been released, that is not what PRISM is doing.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[NineNightsHanging]

35. wrong again

PRISM is data mining the "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports." (wash post)

Supposedly anyone who they think is "51%" chance of being foreign..... large dragnet

are you uninformed or purposely trying to spread disinfo?

[randome]

40. So if an analyst is undecided about whether someone is foreign or not...

...but they are leaning toward the conclusion that they are foreign, they should, what, forget about it? Cross their fingers and hope for the best?

You know that 51% is applied to someone already under suspicion, right? They don't just pick names out of a hat.

What percentage would you prefer to be applied? You know that's a meaningless question, of course, because you can't really quantify a hunch or a 'leaning'.

Law enforcement analysis that doesn't pay heed to their instincts is of no value to us.

So what if PRISM is a #1 source? The documents they released indicate that only foreign-based data is part of it.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[NineNightsHanging]

50. FISA is ruling on entire surveillance programs, not individual warrants

and its not some targeted program, Ill quote the NYTimes

"A separate N.S.A. program that has been collecting domestic “telephone metadata” — logs of all telephone calls dialed by Americans — has continued. "

[randome]

54. Which we've known about for years. Bush, Jr. had the same metadata.

If all of a sudden you want to change the laws on that, go ahead.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[NineNightsHanging]

55. We dont even KNOW the interpretations of the laws now

What part of Secret Court (FISA) eludes your comprehension?

People like Wyden said they couldn't even TALK about what they know, and they said they don't even know much of it

The laws won't be changing meaningfully. We have an entrenched "shadow court &quot new York time's description) doing who knows what.

some major naivete going on here

[randome]

56. I think we are all in agreement to push for more transparency and less secrecy.

That will be the best thing to come out of this Greenwald/Snowden caper.

I think there are enough senators involved now that some changes will be made. And I think the President knows it's to everyone's benefit to see those changes through.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[KittyWampus]

26. The NSA is spying. It's what they do. But why did Greenwald give a nobody w/no real story

so much attention?

Snowden gave up nothing new. All he did is steal some documents… none of which prove a thing he says.

Everything Snowden claims to have knowledge of HAS BEEN REPORTED IN MAINSTREAM PRESS.

So why the heck did Greenwald give him such a huge spotlight? To regurgitate old news? With nothing to add to any of that old news?

The timing- it damaged Chinese/American diplomacy among other things.

[NineNightsHanging]

32. uh, WRONG

PRISM is a word no one knew before Snowden's leaks

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/07/the-relevance-of-edward-snowden.html

"Some of Snowden’s documents expose practices that don’t fit with the government’s assertions that it was working within the law, unless some very common words don’t mean what one thinks they do. And it seems that, in the government’s lexicon, as rewritten by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, they don’t. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the N.S.A.’s license to collect data on the American public en masse depends on secret court opinions redefining the word “relevant” to “mean, in effect, ‘everything.’ ”

I assume you've seen the NYT article regarding the FISA court pretty much creating new law in its ridiculously expansive interpretations?

[KittyWampus]

34. WOW! We learned the word PRISM. Here is an article from 2008 about "direct access"-

So no, Snowden revealed nothing new. He just read some old newspapers and regurgitates it out as if it's new.

Here's a link to the thread I started w/Washington Post article from 2008.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023205754

Just because your or I or the New Yorker didn't read that article back in 2008 doesn't mean it wasn't known about.

Here's another example of Snowden pretending to be more knowledgable than he is:

Snowden says Israel, U.S. created Stuxnet virus that attacked Iran

THIS IS OLD NEWS.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/snowden-says-israel-u-s-created-stuxnet-virus-that-attacked-iran-1.534728

[NineNightsHanging]

38. Do you know the difference between the FBI and the NSA?

You seem confused. That article is about the FBI. We are talking about the NSA.

here's from Wikipedia's article on PRISM

"Prior to 2013, a number of programs had been authorized and executed by the U.S. government which sought to collect communications or communications data on a large scale. Some aspects had been declared unconstitutional (United States v. U.S. District Court), and legislation passed which was expected to resolve this; in at least one case, legal action was impeded by the secret nature of any purported or alleged surveillance (American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency)."

[KittyWampus]

39. If you read the article (you read it that fast?) it says they work with the NSA.

The bureau says its budget for the collection system increased from $30 million in 2007 to $40 million in 2008. Information lawfully collected by the FBI from telecom firms can be shared with law enforcement and intelligence-gathering partners, including the National Security Agency and the CIA. Likewise, under guidelines approved by the attorney general or a court, some intercept data gathered by intelligence agencies can be shared with law enforcement agencies.

[NineNightsHanging]

44. You're still wrong

FBI sharing data with the NSA is

NOT, I repeat NOT the same

as the NSA having a large dragnet on Americans

The NSA is ONLY supposed to deal with foreign entities and those with DIRECT ties to them

There is some (theoretical ) oversight of the FBI. The FISA oversight of the NSA is a JOKE. They almost never refuse a request BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, and most crucially---FISA is approving ENTIRE PROGRAMS not individual warrants and much of this is SECRET

I suggest you read the recent reporting by the NYTimes . We have SNOWDEN to thank for this reporting. It wouldn't have happened without him

[snappyturtle]

63. +1 Thank you. I'm so tired of the blind allegiance.

[zeemike]

81. They know all of that shit.

They just don't care.
This is all about dividing us into for and against...
That is why the lame attack on Greenwald about a twitter comment...to keep the shit flowing.

[aquart]

59. Google already has all my data. That actually bothers me more.

[AZ Progressive]

84. Just because you keep on repeating things doesn't mean its true

[randome]

91. Agreed. The same can be said of Eddie ("I'm not here to hide from justice.") Snowden.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Galraedia]

18. Will Greenwald lovers still believe that Snowden was telling the truth once they learn that...

Some of the things that Greenwald and Snowden have said are contradicted by the documents released. Example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023137494

If Snowden was interested in the truth he wouldn't be making false claims and exaggerations.

[Cha]

70. Snowden isn't interested in facts.. it's obvious by now

that he's only interested in whinging about PBO from his rw libertarian bullshit pedestal and finding a nice comfy place to retire so he can keep sending his whining missives.

[burnodo]

67. +1

[msanthrope]

11. Glen does not play well with others. And he's not a good enough journalist to get away with that.nt

[Major Hogwash]

87. Why doesn't Greenwald turn his attention to the real spying problem . . . Facebook!!

My gawd, they're not even a government entity and yet they are tracking every single page that is downloaded on their site!!

[DirkGently]

14. Clearly the NSA is not spying on people because Twitter.

[Electric Monk]

17. Oh, and I heard Glenn has an overdue library book, so pay no attention to NSA wiretapping.

You get it. Many others spouting propaganda here? Not so much.

[Mnpaul]

99. I heard that Greenwald bites off the heads of kittens

on an related note, centrist Democratic apologists have reached a new level of pathetic. I think it is rather funny. It is like a never ending Tom Tomorrow 'toon.

[randome]

21. The NSA watched your thoughts form as you typed that.

That's what I heard some guy say.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[arely staircase]

100. the NSA can't read your thoughts

if you put tin foil on your head.

Fact

[Galraedia]

22. Sorry, but Greenwald doesn't get a free pass for reporting on something that was revealed years ago.

Nor does he get any points for promoting and making false claims and exaggerations. Example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023137494

[DirkGently]

25. Funny, the ACLU seems to think there's something new here.

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a constitutional challenge to a surveillance program under which the National Security Agency vacuums up information about every phone call placed within, from, or to the United States. The lawsuit argues that the program violates the First Amendment rights of free speech and association as well as the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The complaint also charges that the dragnet program exceeds the authority that Congress provided through the Patriot Act.

"This dragnet program is surely one of the largest surveillance efforts ever launched by a democratic government against its own citizens," said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. "It is the equivalent of requiring every American to file a daily report with the government of every location they visited, every person they talked to on the phone, the time of each call, and the length of every conversation. The program goes far beyond even the permissive limits set by the Patriot Act and represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association and the right to privacy."

The ACLU is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services, which was the recipient of a secret FISA Court order published by The Guardian last week. The order required the company to "turn over on 'an ongoing daily basis' phone call details" such as who calls are placed to and from, and when those calls are made. The lawsuit argues that the government's blanket seizure of and ability to search the ACLU's phone records compromises sensitive information about its work, undermining the organization's ability to engage in legitimate communications with clients, journalists, advocacy partners, and others.

"The crux of the government's justification for the program is the chilling logic that it can collect everyone's data now and ask questions later," said Alex Abdo, a staff attorney for the ACLU's National Security Project. "The Constitution does not permit the suspicionless surveillance of every person in the country."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program

Getting a little crowded under the character assassination bus, don't you think?

[KittyWampus]

27. Where does any of that have anything to do with anything of substance Snowden provided?

Every claim Snowden made was as if he is simply regurgitating stuff he's read in old newspapers. I posted a link to a 2008 Washington Post story that covers the "direct access" claim.

Snowden stole some documents… but those documents don't prove or provide any information regarding direct access.

Greenwald gave a huge amount of attention to a nobody with nothing new to show. All Snowden has is some stolen documents that don't say much.

[DirkGently]

33. Well, it is based on the precise information he revealed. n/t

[BlueCheese]

43. Just to take a few examples: Did you know before these articles that ...

... the government was collecting phone records of all calls, domestic and international, that are made within or out of the U.S.? Were you certain that this practice had continued from the Bush administration to the Obama administration, and did you know that it had expanded from international communications to include domestic ones? If so, shouldn't there have been an outcry when Clapper directly contradicted this in March 2013? Why would Wyden have asked the question if the answer was old news?

... the government was snooping vast amounts of Internet traffic, and searching it without a warrant, with only a 51% confidence that it involved non-U.S. persons, and that they could keep the data even if they later found out it involved U.S. persons-- in other words, they can look at your data without a warrant? Did we know about the minimization procedures and the procedures that are in place?

[randome]

47. I think I see where some of the confusion comes from.

That 51% figure relates to someone already under suspicion. In other words, if an analyst has data furnished by the FBI about, say, a threatening email, but the analyst can't be positive that the email sender or recipient is foreign but they have a reasonable suspicion that one or both are, then they can legally look further into that person's data.

Does that sound plausible? That's my understanding of the 51% figure.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Galraedia]

37. The NSA programs and the Fourth Amendment

To the best understanding that we can reliably gather, the two NSA programs gather only metadata—they are not akin to wiretaps but pen registers. The programs are predicated on the creation and retention of metadata by telephone and internet service providers such as Verizon and Google in the ordinary course of their business activities. The government then subpoenas the metadata and stores it; the conditions under which the government later accesses that data are disputed, but that dispute need not detain us, for the Fourth Amendment regulates how government may obtain data, not what it can do with data once it has been obtained.

The programs therefore do not involve the government obtaining “your data,but rather business records—data about you—that is created and retained by third parties from whom you buy services. This distinction is critical because, by breaking the Fourth Amendment chain between the person whose activities are described in the metadata and the government, it obviates any Fourth Amendment claim. A few years ago, Volokh Conspirator Nick Rosenkrantz suggested a helpful framework for assessing claims that constitutional rights have been violated that I would sum up as the “grammar” of a rights violation: “What right (precisely), of whom, has been violated by who?” It’s a deceptively-simple question, but the NSA program shows its bite. In the present case, the right against unreasonable searches or seizures of the whom’s person, house, papers, and effects was allegedly violated. But who violated that right? Did Verizon violate it? Surely not. They collected the data, but Verizon is a private actor; it can collect whatever data it likes, subject to statute law. Did the government violate it? How? They didn’t search or seize the who‘s person, house, papers, and effects. They may have searched and/or seized Verizon’s papers and effects, but that’s a whole different whom. The gravamen of the Fourth Amendment protests is not that Verizon‘s Fourth Amendment rights were trespassed!

Three analogies might help illustrate why the Fourth Amendment claim can’t work. Suppose that you routinely use the services of a particular caterer for your parties. The caterer keeps records of each event it supplies, including what foods and drinks, etc. The FBI is suspicious that your parties involve something untoward, and so they obtain the caterer’s records to build a case against you. No FBI agent has yet come within a hundred miles of your person, house, papers, or effects, and yet, for you to say that the NSA program violates the fourth amendment, you must be ready to assert that the FBI’s seizure of the caterer’s records are a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Or suppose that you use FedEx for sending business mail, and let’s assume that FedEx logs each package that you send in its customer records. The Feds suspect that you’re up to no good. Now, if they intercept and open a package, without a warrant, your fourth amendment rights come into play. If, however, they obtain FedEx’s customer records, it’s hard to see how that violates your fourth amendment rights. They aren’t opening your mail, they’re obtaining data that describes your mail from a third party. That’s a precise analog of the PRISM program, so far as we currently understand it.

Read more : http://simondodd.org/blog/?p=1083

[BlueCheese]

41. In the cases described above...

... the FBI has some prior reason to believe the records they're looking for are related to criminal activity. This is the FBI/NSA pre-emptively looking through everybody's records, without prior cause.

The entire framework of the above approach is backwards. Instead of putting the burden of proof on the government to justify its behavior, it says that citizens have to explicitly say what rights they have are being violated. Is it really that hard to think that the government has no business knowing whom I've called if they have no reason to suspect me of a crime?

[DirkGently]

42. Dragnets are unconstitutional. There's no "caterer analogy" exception.

This is really silly stuff. Dragnets are generally unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what's gathered, unless you're prepared to argue there's no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you think that, post your phone records in the thread.

Moreover, we don't know what we don't know, because the administration had embraced the Bush administration's aggressive stance on inquiry, refusing to even turn over FISA rulings -- including the one in 2011 that found the PRISM law was being interpreted in way that violated the Constitution -- to avoid all oversight.

There is no airy dismissal to be made here. It's not old news. It's not no big deal. No one thinks that.

[Blue Bike]

57. lol. Yeah. They want to send Snowden to jail for revealing already-revealed stuff

What charges are those, where people go to jail for leaking already leaked info?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

36. They're everywhere!

SQUIRREL![\b]

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. It's so much fun to watch them play...

And a shame they grow up so soon.

[randome]

51. "Figaro!"

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[OregonBlue]

45. Greenwald is a showboating Libertarian. In short, a puke. I can't believe how many people think he

walks on water. He is not one of the good guys.

[NineNightsHanging]

52. well DICK cheney has criticized snowden, and loves the nsa's programs

as do ALL the neocons.....................................hmmmm

who is worse? DO TELL

[AZ Progressive]

89. So all Libertarians are evil? Liberals may sharply disagree with Libertarians on economic issues...

However, libertarians are much closer to liberals when it comes to civil liberties.

Your letting your partisanship get in the way of things. This is not team sports. We need to go issue by issue.

[whatchamacallit]

61. Yay, another one of the "irrelevant Glenn-Greenwald-is-such-an-asshole attacks"

the Rude Pundit calls out!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023148436

Y'all make fools of yourselves with this shit.

[Luminous Animal]

65. Hahaha! I totally missed that!

[Octafish]

66. Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA

Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 August 2012 14.58 EDT

EXCERPT...

But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.

SNIP...

Even more amazing is the reaction of the newspaper's managing editor, Dean Baquet, to these revelations, as reported by Politico's Dylan Byers:

"New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet called POLITICO to explain the situation, but provided little clarity, saying he could not go into detail on the issue because it was an intelligence matter.

CONTINUED with LINKS...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia

That's a good example.

[Luminous Animal]

95. A most excellent example.

Ah, I remember Greenwald attacking the MSM for supporting war, torture, surveillance, and DU appreciated him for the skewering.

[Octafish]

104. That's what makes a real journalist - integrity.

It doesn't matter who he likes or what party he votes for, Greenwald calls it like he sees it and tells the Truth.

And Truth is what democracies crave.

Hey, Luminous Animal! Whaddya think of this?

Comey's testimony raises new and vital questions about the NSA scandal

(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)
Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday May 16, 2007 06:16 EST

The testimony yesterday from James Comey re-focuses attention on one of the long unresolved mysteries of the NSA scandal. And the new information Comey revealed, though not answering that question decisively, suggests some deeply troubling answers. Most of all, yesterday's hearing underscores how unresolved the entire NSA matter is -- how little we know (but ought to know) about what actually happened and how little accountability there has been for some of the most severe and blatant acts of presidential lawbreaking in the country's history.

SNIP...

Amazingly, the President's own political appointees -- the two top Justice Department officials, including one (Ashcroft) who was known for his "aggressive" use of law enforcement powers in the name of fighting terrorism and at the expense of civil liberties -- were so convinced of its illegality that they refused to certify it and were preparing, along with numerous other top DOJ officials, to resign en masse once they learned that the program would continue notwithstanding the President's knowledge that it was illegal.

SNIP...

But the more important issue here, by far, is that we should not have to speculate in this way about how the illegal eavesdropping powers were used. We enacted a law 30 years ago making it a felony for the government to eavesdrop on us without warrants, precisely because that power had been so severely and continuously abused. The President deliberately violated that law by eavesdropping in secret. Why don't we know -- a-year-a-half after this lawbreaking was revealed -- whether these eavesdropping powers were abused for improper purposes? Is anyone in Congress investigating that question? Why don't we know the answers to that?

SNIP...

Comey and Mueller were clearly both operating on the premise that Card and Gonzales were basically thugs. Indeed, Comey said that when Card ordered him to the White House, Comey refused to meet with Card without a witness being present, and that Card refused to allow Comey's summoned witness (Solicitor General Ted Olson) even to enter Card's office. These are the most trusted intimates of the White House -- the ones who are politically sympathetic to them and know them best -- and they prepared for, defended themselves against, the most extreme acts of corruption and thuggery from the President's Chief of Staff and his then-legal counsel (and current Attorney General of the United States).

CONTINUED...

http://www.salon.com/2007/05/16/nsa_comey/

That was six years ago and we're just finding out a little more, thanks to Snowden coming forward through Greenwald. Odd how anyone, let alone any DUer, could fathom how that would make one into a thoughtcriminal.

[Luminous Animal]

108. The attempts to characterize Greenwald as coming late to the party re: the NSA are pathetic.

[sulphurdunn]

68. Since we're in full ad hominem mode,

let's rock! Daniel Serwer is an uber imperialist. His bona fides make that clear. His job is to bring the institutions of the Empire to subjugated people. When people like him invoke the word "peace" you may be certain there won't be any.

[Luminous Animal]

69. Wait what? Shouldn't that read "when Daniel Serwer attacks"?

Because, clearly, he launched the opening salvo.

[pa28]

71. And then there was his savage attack on Steven Rattner.

His institutionalized betters have every right to attack him without having their own hypocrisy being so rudely exposed.

Poor Daniel Serwer
Poor Steven Rattner
Poor David Gregory

Oh the humanity.

[whatchamacallit]

74. Haha awesome! n/t

[Luminous Animal]

75. +1! So let me get this straight, people attack Greenwald, he responds, and somehow...

he becomes the attacker. It's opposite world!

[struggle4progress]

93. Typical BS from GG IMO: what did Rattner have to do with the aluminum tubes story?

[msanthrope]

116. What did Rattner have to do with aluminum tubes? It's a lame rejoinder otherwise. nt

[pa28]

121. Yeah. This thread might have been better titled "When Greenwald makes lame rejoinders!"

Still, I feel really sorry for these noble guys.

[baldguy]

124. Um, didn't Greenwald support the war in Iraq?

Why, yes. Yes he did.

http://thedailybanter.com/2012/07/glenn-greenwald-attacks-writers-for-supporting-iraq-war-when-he-did-too/

[quinnox]

72. So he should just take it, and not respond to direct insults?

Fuck that, I like that Greenwald doesn't take crap from apologists and shills for the 1%. Greenwald being a little ornery is awesome in my book.

[totodeinhere]

73. Why are you trying to change the subject and make this about Greenwald?

This is not about either Greenwald or Snowden. It is about the surveillance state. This classic attack the messenger game is getting tiresome.

[grahamhgreen]

76. Total FAIL: Ad Hominem attack. PRIVACY IS OUR RIGHT!!!

[AZ Progressive]

78. Why are some people in DU attempting to use Propaganda tactics...

...that look eerily similar to the Administration? Do they think the rest of us will buy it? Don't they realize that they look like a plant, a propaganda soldier?

[quinnox]

83. this one who wrote the OP, for awhile was using the "anti-American" insult, but seems to have

dropped it. He was using it against all supporters of Snowden. I wonder why they dropped it, I guess someone told them it was just a tad too freeper-ish sounding.

[Iliyah]

82. Thats funny - Galreadia

grown men acting like little boys - LOL

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lol lol lol

[arely staircase]

86. His supporters often engage in this same tactic:

It is the pervasive suggestion in his work of the corruption and ill-motive of his opponents, whom he serially fails to credit with believing the arguments they are making. His post about me is a case in point. In his first paragraph, he purports to know my “overarching purpose.” He insinuates–all but states, really–that I am a paid shill of the powerful. And throughout his piece, he casually casts aspersions on my motives and integrity (“dutifully fulfilling his function,” “devote themselves to serving those in power,” “That’s not whose interests they’re funded to defend,” etc.).

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/01/why-i-wont-engage-glenn-greenwald/

[AZ Progressive]

92. This level of desperateness by Obama supporters suggest willful delusion...

A delusion in order to combat the cognitive dissonance, people do it all the time to keep on supporting something or to not feel bad about something. When you have to resort to ad hominem attacks, and IF your not a paid shill or a plant, then it suggests willful delusion.

[busterbrown]

101. I knew there was a reason I wasn’t paying attention to this from the beginning..

This thing has the capacity to go on forever. However I will say this..When I hear the word Libertarian
I cringe..... If Snowden or Greenwald have any Libertarian blood in their veins. They are in my book,”Dead to me.”

I will say this however, the old adage? “follow the money” in my mind comes deep into play here.

Finally...I knew from the beginning that this was going to be complicated and I was gonna just sit tight and see where you guys ended up...

It worked...

[SidDithers]

94. DU Rec...

Greenwald is a clown, and anything that gets the Greenwald worshippers at DU riled up gets a rec from me.

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

103. DU Wreck...

is more like it.

diS

[pmorlan1]

97. Pathetic

The attacks on Greenwald look just like the ones I used to read during the Bush years when all the right wingers were going after him.

[Luminous Animal]

98. DU rec. Becuase, like Sid, I sometimes forget where I am.

[Marr]

102. These Greenwald pile-ons really make people here look ridiculous.

Look, if you want to make an argument for why broad brush domestic spying is acceptable, do it. But these sneering little Two Minutes' Hate meetings are just juvenile and embarrassing.

[Hydra]

112. 1984 is getting way too real

I'm seeing it everywhere these days

[Electric Monk]

115. Let's play a quick game of "Who said this?"

“But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.”

(you can find the answer here)

[xocet]

105. Let's Bring the Thread Back to the Real Issue - the NSA Surveillance Overreach...

[arely staircase]

106. then start a thread, this one is about Greenwald nt

[xocet]

107. Whatever... n/t

[frylock]

109. who the fuck recs their own threads?

awesome retort by GG btw.

[quinnox]

110. lol, nice catch

Apparently, the OP does. Our favorite poster, who lately has posted things like Snowden's picture in a "commie" red style color shade, and thrown accusations of being anti-american towards Snowden supporters. I swear, this guy is a riot, in terms of its almost Onion-like in its being surreal.

[arely staircase]

118. seriously?

recing your own threads is just a way to make the algorithm send your post to the greatest, latest, whatever. there is nothing vain or deceitful about it. just represents a desire that your post be seen by more people. I rec my own threads but usually only after a bunch of others have. I didn't know it was considered poor form.

[quinnox]

119. well, on that topic, there are definitely alternative opinions available

personally, I would never rec my own threads. It just seems off to me.

[arely staircase]

120. ok, at least there are deferring opinions

I have done it but would stop if it makes me look like a whatever.

[Union Scribe]

111. Same kind that would sign his own yearbook.

Dear me, hope to see you this summer. You r so cool never change! Love, me.

[limpyhobbler]

114. The whole Greenwald thing is really exposing a some truths about Democrats. nt