I just ordered Glenn Greenwald's book, No Place To Hide.

[BlueCheese]

My local bookseller ran out of copies, so I ended up ordering it through Amazon, which lets you read the first chapter online even if you ordered a physical copy.

A few very interesting tidbits already:

1. Some people say that Edward Snowden is a coward because he didn't stay in the US and undergo the Chelsea Manning treatment or volunteer to face a firing squad at dawn. (Strangely, history doesn't think so poorly of Charles de Gaulle, the Dalai Lama or any number of exiles.) However, one important point is that Edward Snowden voluntarily identified himself as the source of the leaks. We know who he is not because the government found him out, but because he chose to reveal himself. As he wrote to Greenwald,

I want to spark a worldwide debate about privacy, Internet freedom, and the dangers of state surveillance. I'm not afraid of what will happen to me. I've accepted that my life will likely be over from my doing this. I'm at peace with that. I know it's the right thing to do. I want to identify myself as the person behind these disclosures. I believe I have an obligation to explain why I'm doing this and what I hope to achieve."

These are not the words of someone who wanted to escape the consequences for his actions and to keep living the good life in Hawaii.

2. What was Snowden's biggest fear? That despite the enormous scale of his revelations, that nothing would happen.

I only have one fear in doing all of this... that people will see these documents and shrug, that they'll say, "we assumed this was happening and don't care."

Now, in the light of the Snowden documents, a lot has happened. But it is true that some people have indeed decided to shrug, to say we knew this was happening, and to carry on unbothered. What has surprised and disappointed me most of all, however, is the source of some of this sentiment. I knew neo-cons and certain Republicans would be fully in favor of the NSA's massive surveillance programs. I did not expect that so many self-identified Democrats would find themselves also supporting them. Whether it's our leaders like Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Kerry, or grassroots people even here on DU, it's shocked me that so many people would not only ignore, but actively defend these programs. Whether it's loyalty to a Democratic administration or something else, these are programs that would have been anathema during the Bush administration. Equally jarring is the attitude of many establishment journalists, who seem ready to classify perhaps the most important journalism in our nation's history as criminal activity.

Just from what I've read so far, I'm convinced. Edward Snowden and several tenacious reporters have revealed government misconduct on a gigantic scale-- misconduct that was conducted in secrecy and shielded by deliberate lies to the public. They have made us aware of a massive invasion of our rights in ways that have no place in a democracy. The surveillance state has grown completely out of control and must be reined in and dismantled, and we cannot accept anything less.

[joshcryer]

1. Check out Luke Harding's boock next.

I found it vastly superior.

[Luminous Animal]

2. I didn't. Harding's book was written as a "thriller". Greenwald's book has a purpose beyond

titillation.

Harding's book was like walking with your Grandma while she was telling you a thrilling story while her hand was firmly in your grasp.

[joshcryer]

9. Yeah, "No Place To Hide" wasn't a thriller.

I think that Greenwald tried his best to make it a thriller but it didn't suite his click-bait checkbook journalist writing style. Chapter 2, "Ten Days in Hong Kong" tried to create such a narrative, but it was ultimately a bore. Notably, in his mention of being a litigator, did he mention his litigator failings as a Nazi defender, etc.

Harding doesn't focus on Greenwald, but Snowden, which to my observation is vastly superior. The story is Snowden, it's not Greenwald who just had the case fall into his lap almost luckily (he ignored Snowden's initial attempts to contact him).

[Uncle Joe]

3. Have you already read Snowden's book? n/t

[joshcryer]

10. Has Snowden written a book?

I read both "No Place to Hide" and "The Snowden Files" and found the latter to be far more compelling. The former is just a rehash of what we already knew plus some subset of some programs which are mainly supportive of the narrative than anything else.

[Uncle Joe]

12. My mistake, I meant Greenwald's book. n/t

[joshcryer]

13. Read 'em both.

Far be it for me to support Luminous Animal's statement, that Luke "wrote a thriller," but she's not wrong. I think Luke is simply the better writer and I think Greenwald's efforts are boring, especially when he rambles about how hard he had it. Poor guy, gets a contract with an oligarch, starts a new media venture, the man is down on 'em. Wah wah.

For what it's worth they're both easy reads and you can do them in a couple of days at best, but I think Harding is much more approachable. Greenwald does introduce some "new" revelations but they're not groundbreaking, it's just more of how the NSA spies, and more of a subset of the spying programs in question, imo.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Have you seen this interview of Wiebe And Binney? They do confirm much of what Snowden contends.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025071450

1. The NSA had prior knowledge of an imminent attack against the U.S. prior to 9/11, they also state that NBC didn't telecast that part of the interview with Snowden.

2. The NSA is spying on everyone in the U.S. this is stated a couple of times by both men.

Furthermore

1. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees are in bed with the NSA instead of overseeing them.

2. The NSA is sending information to the DEA among others and telling them not to disclose where they got the information that's easy to do as the FISA Court has no oversight.

3. They have a separate organization set up for the sole purpose of covering their tracks so that an article 3 court won't know how any evidence was obtained, thereby subverting our judicial system.

4. This is still ongoing, it didn't end with the Bush Administration.

5. There is a total lack of ethics in the NSA most everybody working there is more concerned with their reputation, family, paychecks, lives etc. and that's why more haven't come forward yet and this in turn can only serve to corrupt our government beyond recognition.

6. While the Stasi of East Germany didn't have the technology, the modus operandi is the same, total spying on everyone in their nation, respecting no privacy for the people.

[joshcryer]

17. Reading now.

But FYI I never disputed Snowden. Never, even, disputed Greenwald. I think Greenwald is trustworthy.

But I question Greenwald's motivations because for me he is a profiteer. Not an activist. Not a revolutionary. Not someone I should ascribe toward. Dude wants to make money.

[Uncle Joe]

20. I remember when the Republicans

said that about Al Gore whenever the issue of global warming came up, he just wants to make money on the issue.

I don't care whether Greenwald wants to make money or not, most people nowadays have to or want to.

The only question in my mind is whether their message has merit or not and I believe Greenwald's does.

[joshcryer]

22. Al Gore's cap and trade is a failure.

And I think Al Gore did it in part to make money. Cap and trade is a disaster. I never once criticized Gore for having a big house or flying in jets, but I have always criticized his approach. Gore believes in green capitalism, which is not possible.

[Uncle Joe]

25. Cap and trade is only a transition and Gore was sounding the alarm long before

his public service for the government ended.

Capitalism for better or worse is the world's driving engine, especially here in the U.S. and putting that to use was and is the most logical choice to changing over to sustainable energy sources. If all you have is horses you use them.

Gore's big house was built in the early 1900's and was an energy hog already in existence before he and Tipper bought it. Now it has the second highest energy efficiency rating that you can get from the TVA, on a micro level Gore turned a negative in to a positive.

The problem with the Republicans is that they could never see the forest for the trees, nowadays in regards to Snowden it seems too many Democrats have fallen in to that same trap.

[joshcryer]

28. Cap and trade doesn't work.

See this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x221199

And: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x241874

It's a mixed bag. I'm not criticizing Al Gore.

[Uncle Joe]

33. I agree it is a mixed bag, I never implied it was any silver bullet

just a means to move in the right direction.

It was moving away from decades of inertia and that was the first hurdle.

I know you're not criticizing Gore, josh.

[Helen Borg]

23. Irrelevant, even if true...

He seems passionate about what he does well. Desiring recognition and money for one's talents is pretty healthy, in my book.

[joshcryer]

29. Money is nothing.

It's ones actions that matter. And actionably, nothing has been done about the surveillance state. If anything, it's grown stronger.

[Helen Borg]

34. Greenwald has been doing more than his share on this matter.

[joshcryer]

36. Disagree.

Greenwald has trickled out increasingly blase information resulting in 1) no substantial public outrage and 2) most importantly, no reforms at the highest levels.

In the end the only person to benefit is Greenwald, due to the nature of the way he profits off of the media narrative.

[sabrina 1]

14. The book has received excellent reviews. I intend to order it as I believe it is a very important

book that will be read by future generations, hopefully in a time when the rule of law has been restored in this country and people will wonder how things ever got so out of control

IF we return to the rule of law, the credit will go to people like Snowden and Greenwald and Drake, Binney, and to members of Congress like Ron Wyden who has been a consistent voice against the theft of our rights using 9/11 as an excuse, sometimes a lone voice during the Bush era. Snowden has done him and the few others who tried to warn us, a tremendous service, proving that their warnings were based on FACT.

I pay no attention to those who are on the wrong side of history. I focus attention gratefully, on the fact that the American people are finally learning just how out of control our government is and how badly their rights have been abused.

Snpwden absolutely made the right decision by seeking political asylum elsewhere, where he can, unlike Manning eg, defend himself against the expected smear campaign.

[Uncle Joe]

18. I plan on reading it as well.

I also believe Snowden did the American People a service and there is no way, he could have received a fair trial here in the U.S.

Peace to you, sabrina.

[sabrina 1]

21. Thank you Uncle Joe. No Whistle Blower can receive a fair trial in this country. Manning's torture

and outrageous conviction ended any notion of that.

[Helen Borg]

6. Read both...

Greenwald's is heavy on the content/info. Harding has more fluff. It's actually not bad to read them both.

[joshcryer]

11. As did I.

Harding's is better about the background info, Greenwald inserts some minor aspects of the spying program, but nothing groundbreaking, and he spends far too much time self-aggrandizing about himself in later chapters.

[billhicks76]

4. Awesome Post 100% Agreed

Some in the establishment benefit from this corrupt system especially when outsourced big money contracts are involved. This includes some high profile democrats. I do believe some support is also due to misplaced allegiance because the current administration is democrat. I believe others are "leveraged" into support due to things gleaned from wiretaps of high profile figures. I think here on DU it's a mix of die-hard defenders who feel the need to excuse the crimes as they reflect poorly on an administration we support coupled with obvious paid sock-puppet profiles that shill for NSA as they have in the past for certain corporations pushing products or for military contractors interested in "managing" public opinion for their own selfish goals. It will be VERY interesting to see the list of names of those targeted by domestic surveillance that Glenn has promised. Someone is going to be very pissed off about that.

[Enthusiast]

5. +1

[BlueCheese]

7. Something else that stood out to me...

... was that some branch of the government (forget which) had explored the idea of feeding fake documents to Wikileaks, in the hope of discrediting Wikileaks if it published them.

In my apparently naive view, the government should conduct itself above reproach. It should not be resorting to underhanded techniques like this. This kind of sabotage or deception should only be used against acknowledged enemies, not the public.

[billhicks76]

8. Bamboozlement

Bamboozlement, obfuscation, misdirection, deflection, hoodwinking...these are all tactics individuals and big organizations use to trick people. Of course government agencies employ these tactics. It's not conspiratorial to think so. It's just the way the world operates. It's naive not to think so.

[sabrina 1]

15. Our government has been exposed as corrupt so often now that few have any faith in anything they

have to say.

I feel we have a right to apply the standard that was applied to us during the Bush years: If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about.

But they do appear to be getting pretty desperate to hide whatever it is they don't want the American people to know about.

The attacks on the messengers are proof that they fear the truth being revealed more than anything else. And are desperately trying to distract from the facts, but it isn't working. The more people learn, the more support there is for Whistle Blowers like Snowden.

[Maedhros]

32. That's what they did to Dan Rather with the Bush AWOL story.

They're good at that kind of stuff.

[ucrdem]

19. No place to hide from the humiliation, LOL

Last summer there was freaking no place to hide from this screwball Benghazi (extra extra, read all about a Verizon metadata warrant and some miscellaneous powerpoints, WTH?). This summer there's no place to hide from the fact that Greenwald and his nefarious friends got punked. And now the great journalist, who failed to get that Pulitzer he keeps fibbing about, is once again just another RW blogger, albeit a rich one, with a vanity blog featuring "news" from five months ago. Sad.

p.s. okay the Schadenfreude is rather delicious.

[neverforget]

30. lol!

[ucrdem]

31. Dankeschön

[sabrina 1]

24. I remember Greenwald when he was just another writer on Daily Kos. But he stood out to Democrats

from among so many others, because of his clarity on the issues, his detailed explanations of the law regarding our Constitutional Rights and his presentation of the material he chose to address, which was always, the attack by the Bush/Cheney administration on our Constitutional Rights and the lawlessness that was rampant regarding the treatment of detainees.

When people are passionate about something, it lights a fuse under others. And back then, in 2005 when he first began writing on Dem Forums, he was one of the most respected and quickly grew a readership on his own blog.

He was hated of course by the Right, but never shied away from 'taking them on' on his blog. His writings were like an oasis in a desert back then when our Corporate Media seemed to be paralyzed when it came to telling the truth about the threat posed to this democracy by the Bush/Cheney administration.

Greenwald has not change one iota regarding his views, since then. But something HAS changed and it is revealing, far more so than anything Greenwald could write.

What HAS changed is how some on the 'left' now agree with the right wing who were attacking people like Greenwald throughout the Bush years. And we need to find out WHY, whether these are just individuals who were silent during the Bush years, or whether or not they represent the current leadership of the Dem Party.

I will definitely be reading his book. It has received rave reviews from people who have read it so far.

[grasswire]

27. It is pretty clear why some on the "left" now agree with the right wing...

...regarding the surveillance state. You know why and so do I. We just can't say it here ese days because our speech is chilled by predatory alerters.

[sabrina 1]

35. I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. I'm going with the Third Way infiltration of the Dem Party for

now. Reading their website several years ago, sent chills down my spine as they CALLED themselves Democrats when it was clear from their views clearly stated on their website, that they were far more aligned with the far right, except on the obligatory issues necessary to 'pass' as a Democrat. Issues I've noticed, they SHOUT about, something anyone who genuinely IS a democrat doesn't need to protest so loudly about. Iow, they use issues traditionally associated with the Dem Party as weapons mostly against the Left, despised by the Third Way btw, as much as by the Right.

It certainly isn't a secret that a decision was made a couple of decades ago to drag the Dem Party to the right on many issues, SS eg, unnecessary wars for profit, to name a few.

The question is now, what recourse do Democrats have to end the corporatization of the Dem Party? Questions a lot of people are asking.

[ucrdem]

40. There are no diaries by Glenn Greenwald on Daily KOS.

I just searched:



But thanks for the memories!

[SunsetDreams]

48. Perhaps

it was Daily Koch?

[goldent]

26. The comparison to Charles de Gaulle is ludicrous

Yes, Charles de Gaulle was in exile, but in exile he led the Free French government, which itself was in exile. Come on, this is basic history!

[MADem]

37. Cryptome "freed" it (i.e. they published it on the internet for anyone to read).

Discussed earlier in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5028904


Mirror site for their material:
http://web.elastic.org/~fche/mirrors/www.cryptome.org/

Their argument--and it's a justified one--is that GG shouldn't be making money off of stolen material.

[ucrdem]

42. Thanks MADem, just skimmed it and reached this horrifying conclusion:

Foreign surveillance agencies conduct foreign surveillance!

And if they get a warrant they can collect phone metadata or even tap your phone!

Who knew?


p.s. lovely illustrations courtesy PowerPoint 2.0
...............
ETA: it appears the NSA can only tap directly certain phones calls, i.e. calls made using internet technology and calls traveling over transatlantic fiber optic cables. This from anonymous NSA sources. Can't cite a page # because there aren't any but it's in Cryptome PDF 3, screen 7.

[MADem]

43. I have to agree with Crytome's point.

If it's information that belongs to We The People, we shouldn't be paying some guy living in Brazil to access it. That's monetizing national security information, and that's just ... wrong!

[ucrdem]

44. Cryptome rocks.

I don't know the founders personally but I've been a huge fan ever since I saw this 2007 email from John Young to Assange in response to an invitation to lend his name to Wikileaks (via Google cache):

Wikileaks is a fraud:

Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate
dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:F7rhIjZKrcEJ:cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-lash.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Turns out he was right, too.

[MADem]

45. Dayum--that's news to me!! And boy oh boy, you are quite correct-- were they RIGHT!!!! nt

[msanthrope]

47. The Youngs had Assange's number from the start. Further, they called bullshit on GG and ES a long

time ago--noting that at this rate of release, it would be 30 years before we saw all the documents.

Cryptome has always been the site for leaks and info....I have to laugh when some posters on this board, Comrade Eddie fans, admit they are unfamiliar with it.

[woo me with science]

38. K&R

[msanthrope]

39. It's free on Cryptome. nt

[ucrdem]

41. Here's a link that worked for me:

https://web.elastic.org/~fche/mirrors/www.cryptome.org/2014/05/npth.7z

It's a zip file that decompresses into 5 pdfs via winzip or 7-zip, but I think the latest Windows can also do the job. Thanks John Young @ Cryptome!

[ucrdem]

46. Kick for the hilarity