If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   David Gregory of Meet the Press asks Glenn Greenwald why he shouldn't be charged with a crime for reporting on NSA surveillance. Glenn Greenwald, in turn, asks David Gregory why he's such a terrible journalist   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 172
    More: Amusing, Glenn Greenwald, NSA  
•       •       •

3657 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jun 2013 at 4:34 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



172 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-23 09:26:36 PM

Cubicle Jockey: And on that note, I hope Mr. Ellsberg lives for another fifty years. Because you know that when he dies, during the next major leak like this the David Gregorys and Biological Alis of the world will be falling over themselves saying "Mr. Ellsberg would never approve of these kinds of leaks".


Is there a point buried somewhere in the flurry of posts you've made since entering this thread? Some argument you'd like to make, perhaps? Some insight you'd like to share?
 
2013-06-23 09:28:25 PM

Lionel Mandrake: I've got way more respect for Greenwald than pretty much any pussy calling him/herself a journalist.  He may be an unpleasant individual and crass in his mannerisms, but he's actually doing something to confront the abuses of power that almost every FARKer left/right/center biatches about constantly...and CLAIMS to be upset about.

But when someone exposes (or helps to expose) those abuses, how quick so many of you Patriots are to label him a fool, a dick, a traitor...I'm truly surprised at how many FARKers left/right/center are falling right in line with federal government and their version of the situation.

Some fair-weather critics we got around here.  Some fkn pussies is what we got around here.


I agree completely. I haven't seen so many liberals doing double-think in my whole life. But it just confirms my theory that most of you deserve to be the cattle that you are.

/Can't be a right winger since it's full of people who think Fascism is Democracy and Jesus dinosaurs
/Can't be a left winger since it's full of people who think they can legislate people into better human beings by creating a police state
/In the end we all deserve what we get
 
2013-06-23 09:37:52 PM

Biological Ali: That joke article aside ("United Stasi"? Really?), the fact remains that Snowden has not revealed anything unconstitutional or illegal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Buxtun
There was nothing illegal about the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment either. It was just incredibly unethical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Whitehurst
Nothing illegal happened here either, just grossly bad practices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley
The FBI was just incompetent, and not behaving illegally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_MacLean 
Again, no illegal activity, just bad management.


You have a very narrow definition of Whistleblower.
 
2013-06-23 09:41:22 PM

Biological Ali: Is there a point buried somewhere in the flurry of posts you've made since entering this thread? Some argument you'd like to make, perhaps? Some insight you'd like to share?


"Biological Ali is wrong about Mr. Snowden's status as a whistleblower."
 
2013-06-23 09:49:33 PM

Cubicle Jockey: You have a very narrow definition of Whistleblower.


You missed the point. Ellsberg's "whistleblower" claim is apparently premised on the unsubstantiated claim that the leaks uncovered something "unconstitutional" (or that the things were already known to be unconstitutional and the leaks somehow help undo it - it's a hazy argument that he doesn't really spell out very well).  If the "unconstitutional" aspect is not accepted to begin with, the whole thing falls apart.

In this specific instance, there was nothing unconstitutional and nothing illegal. There was also no internal misconduct, nobody was harmed, and there was no governmental incompetence (aside, potentially, from the fact that someone like Snowden was able to access and leak this stuff to begin with). To give some perspective, the IRS thing (as trivial as it may have been in the scheme of things) would rank higher than this on the scandal-meter, since there was at least some genuine incompetence on display there.
 
2013-06-23 09:53:15 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Biological Ali: That joke article aside ("United Stasi"? Really?), the fact remains that Snowden has not revealed anything unconstitutional or illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Buxtun
There was nothing illegal about the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment either. It was just incredibly unethical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Whitehurst
Nothing illegal happened here either, just grossly bad practices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley
The FBI was just incompetent, and not behaving illegally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_MacLean
Again, no illegal activity, just bad management.


You have a very narrow definition of Whistleblower.


At least we never forced people into leper colonies.

What's that? Oh, nevermind.
 
2013-06-23 09:59:32 PM

mikemoto: Can't we just say that both Greenwald and Gregory are asshats?


Greenwald is the type of asshat who makes an excellent investigative journalist. Much as we loathe them, we need people like him around.

Gregory is the type of asshat who fills time on Sunday morning news shows. We could probably do without those, but then the handful of blowhard politicos who actually watch that crap wouldn't have anything to watch on the weekends.
 
2013-06-23 10:01:02 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Biological Ali: Is there a point buried somewhere in the flurry of posts you've made since entering this thread? Some argument you'd like to make, perhaps? Some insight you'd like to share?

"Biological Ali is wrong about Mr. Snowden's status as a whistleblower."


See now, isn't that better? The sooner you express your feelings in terms of a straightforward argument, the sooner someone can show you just how wrong that argument is. Saves everyone a bunch of time.
 
2013-06-23 10:02:01 PM
H.R. Haldeman to Richard Nixon, from the Nixon tapes  June 14, 1972

 Donald Rumsfeld was making this point this morning... To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing.... It shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.
 
2013-06-23 10:05:25 PM

secularsage: Greenwald is the type of asshat who makes an excellent investigative journalist. Much as we loathe them, we need people like him around.


I agree.  And I also appreciate Greenwald.  He is brave enough to be critical towards popular and powerful institutions.  That cannot be easy.
 
2013-06-23 10:06:01 PM

whidbey: thisispete: whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.

Given that I'm a New Zealander, my loyalties don't lie with the United States, anyway. But mass surveillance is not a sign of a free and democratic society.

Agreed.

Still Snowden compromised national security and put this country at risk by leaking some of the most important classified information we have.

At any rate, the unrealistic hope here seems to be that Snowden not be charged with breaking the law himself. I really don't see where there would be amnesty.


Just because something gets TOP SECRET/SCI/NOFORN slapped on it doesn't necessarily mean there is any actual national security, risk, or importance attached to it.  It's also possible the government is trying to obscure a program that can easily be abused to suppress dissent and would not be popular for good reason, which, in a country that's supposed to be governed with the consent of the governed, is kind of a problem.
 
2013-06-23 10:10:20 PM

SVenus: H.R. Haldeman to Richard Nixon, from the Nixon tapes  June 14, 1972

 Donald Rumsfeld was making this point this morning... To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing.... It shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.


Presidents may be wrong, but thankfully "[w]hen the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
 
2013-06-23 10:10:45 PM

AdamK: Thanks, but that statute is strictly related to national defense, so it doesn't apply. Unless we've gone completely '1984' bonkers and every government classified document pertains to "national defense". I' ...

well, in tennessee and florida it's considered terrorism to complain about the water supply

so yes, we've gone off the rails


http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Water-official-equates-co mp laints-with-terrorism-4614669.php

holy. farking ..  crap ... ...you weren't exaggerating.  TDEC Deputy Director of the Division of Water ResourcesSherwin Smith says, "...you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there's no water quality issues, that can be considered, under homeland security, an act of terrorism."

*headdesk*   *headdesk*   *headdesk*   *headdesk*   *headdesk*
 
2013-06-23 10:42:06 PM
David Gregory is being probed by aliens, and has been for the last two years. His stand-in robot wears entirely too much makeup foundation on the "news" shows.
 
2013-06-23 11:25:38 PM

DeArmondVI: SVenus: H.R. Haldeman to Richard Nixon, from the Nixon tapes  June 14, 1972

 Donald Rumsfeld was making this point this morning... To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing.... It shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.

Presidents may be wrong, but thankfully "[w]hen the President does it, that means it is not illegal."


But everybody under the President goes to jail. Except Fawn Hall.
 
2013-06-23 11:27:55 PM

whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.


Which is worse? Breaching national security or breaching The Constitution?

The Constitution's *purpose* is to limit over-reaching governmental powers.

"We're spying on you for your own good" harks back to Soviet/East German politics which some of us were raised to abhor.
 
2013-06-23 11:30:22 PM

DeArmondVI: Cubicle Jockey: Biological Ali: That joke article aside ("United Stasi"? Really?), the fact remains that Snowden has not revealed anything unconstitutional or illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Buxtun
There was nothing illegal about the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment either. It was just incredibly unethical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Whitehurst
Nothing illegal happened here either, just grossly bad practices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley
The FBI was just incompetent, and not behaving illegally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_MacLean
Again, no illegal activity, just bad management.


You have a very narrow definition of Whistleblower.

At least we never forced people into leper colonies.

What's that? Oh, nevermind.



Unfortunately, those arguments are ineffective against what I call the Lawful Stupid.  In the eyes of the Lawful Stupid, those things were perfectly justified because they were legal.  Likewise, seemingly unconstitutional surveillance is justified if a secret court deems it constitutional.  Congress provides perfectly good oversight, even when they're lied to and prevented from knowing what it is they're overseeing.  Lawful Stupid people actually believe this.  The only reason a Lawful Stupid person might agree that those things were terrible, is if the law has changed since then.

The only time an argument with a Lawful Stupid person can ever end in a way other than stalemate is in those rare cases when the law is just, or in the even rarer case when they are spontaneously cured of Lawful Stupidity.
 
2013-06-23 11:59:19 PM

StopLurkListen: AdamK: Thanks, but that statute is strictly related to national defense, so it doesn't apply. Unless we've gone completely '1984' bonkers and every government classified document pertains to "national defense". I' ...

well, in tennessee and florida it's considered terrorism to complain about the water supply

so yes, we've gone off the rails

http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Water-official-equates-co mp laints-with-terrorism-4614669.php

holy. farking ..  crap ... ...you weren't exaggerating.  TDEC Deputy Director of the Division of Water ResourcesSherwin Smith says, "...you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there's no water quality issues, that can be considered, under homeland security, an act of terrorism."

*headdesk*   *headdesk*   *headdesk*   *headdesk*   *headdesk*


"Tennessee Deputy Director of the Division of Water Resources"

Mixing thugs and a little power is not a good recipe.
 
2013-06-24 01:31:29 AM

Aarontology: Also, you'd think a journalist would understand New York Times Co. v. United States 1971


That's about prior restraints on speech.  Not about punishing someone after the publishing.
 
2013-06-24 02:43:26 AM

StopLurkListen: Well, I would define it in this context as knowingly trying to get somebody to commit a specific crime, that one can reasonably believe wouldn't have been committed without your intervention.

So every law enforcement sting operation is not only invalid, but every law enforcement officer involved in them should be brought up on charges of [insert citation of law]


If it results in the comission of a crime that would not otherwise be comitted, then yes.
 
2013-06-24 06:20:55 AM

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.

For telling Americans what our government is doing to us.

I don't support jeopardizing the entire security of the US to achieve that.

We already knew well before Snowden did his thing that there were Constitutional issues with what the NSA is doing. I don't consider him a hero, but someone who broke his confidentiality and in so doing became a threat to this country.


[ben franklin.jpg]
 
2013-06-24 07:55:57 AM
Quiet down.The public is stirring.
 We all know investigated journalism is on sabbatical.
img.fark.net
/ gatekeepers and fellow travelers.

// As soon as Obama & Hillary leave office,
 we'll find religion and get back on the job.
 
Displayed 22 of 172 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report