General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWherein Glenn Greenwald throws Snowden under the bus...
Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2017, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)
You know what I like about binary, absolutist minds? It is so goddamned easy to lead them into an argument where they go full-circle...
A little further digging in his TL will also reveal numerous rants on why leaks about Trump's incompetence is bad... Irony has officially been killed...
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)undermine a democratically elected Democratic Gov't.
They guy is a Republican no matter what he claims to be. If he acts like a Repub, spews as a Repub, and defends Repubs, he ain't no liberal.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
betsuni
(25,367 posts)How could he have even typed that out without ... yeah, never mind. Idiot.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)its a riot to see it all.
OregonBlue
(7,753 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Wording was awkward (and plays into binary, absolutist minds) but a whistleblower on illegal activities is a different kettle of fish from an official who thinks--without proof, or where is it?--that his elected superior can't be trusted. Note that Snowden went public and provided said proof, while this individual or individuals are not doing the same.
Oh yeah, I'm sure you will say " proof" and nuance are for Trump/Putin supporters and shills. Save yourself the effort; I won't be listening.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And Snowden provided proof of what, exactly?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Of the NSA's unprecedented surveillance program which was not authorized to spy on Americans without cause but, of course, did. Also plans by the NSA to expand that/those programs. But I'm sure that's not a problem 'cause you have nothing to hide, right? And nobody in power would ever exploit these programs and capabilities 'cause that's not how we roll, right? We'd never have to worry about some delusional asshole with twitchy, snubby fingers getting his mitts on the NSA's programs designed to "Collect it All," "Process it All," "Exploit it All," "Partner it All," "Sniff it All" and "Know it All." Not a problem, right? Buehler?
Um, yeah, "going public" is whistleblowing. By definition.
Whistleblowing
The disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Whistleblowing
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)were not surprised by any public revelation of what the NSA was doing. What, precisely did he reveal that was not already known by anyone awake during the Bush Presidency? Can you name anything specific? No? Name a single person who was wronged? I think Larry Klayman sued the government, you can start there.
And while your Internet sourced definition of the law is cute, I, like most people, prefer the US Code. I am sure you can point to an actual statute that defines whistleblowing, yes?
Hell, for shits and giggles, the professor in me begs you to show the class precisely which Code section you would apply as a defense to:
1) 18USC 641
2) 18USC 793(d)
3) 18USC798(a)(3)
I'll wait.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Gotcha. Enjoy your police state.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)It is perfectly possible to abhor the NSA's grievous faults and assaults on liberty, whilst stating that Mr. Snowden is a traitor and a coward. See? There are consequences for choosing not to follow the law.
I note you didn't take up my challenge. Pity.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)So I will respond in more depth.
I've been around this board long enough to know that there is no statute that protects whistleblowers at the federal level. Is it your position that there should not be?
Are you OK with the treatment of Russ Tice, William Binney or Thomas Drake? Are you OK with the use of the Espionage Act, as employed by Obama (and anyone who comes after him)?
I've been around long enough to remember the derisive glee with which we pointed out the hypocrisy of Republicans getting their panties in a wad when Democrats dared to do what they did all the time: IOKIYAR! I have also been around long enough to remember that much of the opprobrium directed at Snowden was based, not on the program per se but rather on the fact that he blew the whistle on Obama, not Bush. Is it your position, as it seems it is of some on this board, that IOKIYAD? Or IOKIYAO?
Is it your position that this/these programs are OK, regardless of who does them or that "we all knew about it at the time?" I note you didn't answer that question. Pity.
"Snowden is a traitor." Funny, he hasn't been charged with that, let alone convicted, even in absentia. Are you his prosecutor, judge and jury now? I'm pretty sure that is not how this shit works.
Having been on this board for a while, and eddimacated thereby.
Ciao baby.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That's your answer?
The CRS made up a whole brief about a law that does not exist?
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R43765.pdf
For shits and giggles, here's a whole list of federal Whistleblower protections:
http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=816&Itemid=129
The professor in me must give you an "F."
Snowden is a traitor, and has been charged under The Espionage Act. He is a coward, too.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)There's laws and there's laws, aren't there? I mean, these are on the books: it is illegal to fish for whales in Nebraska; it is illegal to serve beer and pretzels at the same time in North Dakota, you can be arrested and fined for harassing Bigfoot in Washington.
But those are just some of the silly ones right? Real laws are what we're talking about, real laws that actually impact our society, our security agencies, our business climate in modern life. Real laws like, say, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. It is still on the books but since the 1970s the courts have construed it very narrowly, requiring a plausible conspiracy before allowing discovery--which makes it hard to show a plausible conspiracy.
And then there's the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, which has also been construed very narrowly: "In 2006 Thomas Gimble, Acting Inspector General, Department of Defense, stated before the House Committee on Government Reform that the ICWPA is a 'misnomer' and that more properly the Act protects the communication of classified information to Congress. According to Michael German with the Brennan Center for Justice, the ICWPA, provides a right to report internally but no remedy when that right is infringed, which means that there is no right at all.
And the Espionage Act of 1917, of which you are so fond. From an article in the Guardian, "Only ten people in American history have been charged with espionage for leaking classified information"...these prosecutions (have) "chosen to ignore the legal definition of whistleblower any person who brings to light evidence of waste, fraud, abuse or illegality * and has prosecuted truthtellers."
*How odd: same definition as mine.
True, the author has an ax to grind, specifically with Obama, but it is a fact that of the 10 (at the time) prosecutions, 7 of them were under Obama. You can read up on the details and draw your own conclusions.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/obama-abuse-espionage-act-mccarthyism
So I urge you, Professor, to investigate the real world aspects of your whistleblower protection laws before simply assuming that they actually provide "protection." I suggest you start with the three individuals I named above, and which you have pointedly ignored: William Binney, Russ Tice and Thomas Drake.
correction: you are right, Snowden has been charged under the Espionage Act, which is not the same as being a traitor, accept in some people's minds--I would have thought a professor would be more precise but there you go. We will just have to disagree on whether he is a coward.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Which means Snowden could have gone to either Bernie or Warren and been protected. That's the rule.....and if you want to work in the IC, you accept the rules.
Binney, Tice, and Drake? Again....thanks for proving my point. Patriots don't run. They are vindicated heroes who did not turn tail and run to the Chinese and Russians....they stayed and fought. I have respect for those men and none at all for Putin's pet.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)It's tough enough to accept the authoritarian anti-free speech sect in the Republican community but to have to read it on a so-called Democratic site is sickening.
The usual band of anti-privacy anti- whistleblower chicken littles all come flocking into these threads to hate on not only whistleblowers, but award winning actual jouralists that speak truth to power - something so rare in the American MSM.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)An Glenn is a failed Wall Street attorney who used to work for the Koch Brothers....not exactly speaking truth to power.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)so that won't fly...
And since you tried to insult me by dropping a challenge and leaving, onto the ignore list you go, tough guy...
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Apparently you did too.
pbmus
(12,422 posts)JI7
(89,237 posts)and i don't even care for snowden.
rpannier
(24,326 posts)Were it not so pathetic
4lbs
(6,824 posts)The fucker serves only himself. Even if it proves him to be a hypocrite. He will throw anyone under the bus if it serves his purpose.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Cha
(296,730 posts)who needs all his little protectors out en force for the lying pos.
wth does greenwald see in trump? never thought I would see him throw snowden under the bus.
AJT
(5,240 posts)How does Greenwald equate 45's administration with openess and freedom? What is wrong with him? Where did all of this craziness come from? Has he become a fascist?