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 25
    More: Amusing, Glenn Greenwald, NSA  
•       •       •

3660 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jun 2013 at 4:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-23 01:45:29 PM  
3 votes:
Good for you, Glenn.

F*ck off, David.
2013-06-23 11:30:22 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:08:43 PM  
2 votes:
Please note that Mr. Snowden represents the 7th prosecution of a leaker under Obama for violation of the 1917 Espionage act.

Want to know how leakers were previously prosecuted under that act in the ninety-two years before his inauguration?

3.
2013-06-23 05:57:45 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-06-23 04:57:40 PM  
2 votes:
Freedom of the Press is not immunity.  If someone (Snowden) commits a crime and you report on what they give you, you have not committed a crime.  If you incite someone like him to commit a crime to get you information for your story, you *have* committed a crime.  (I'm not saying that this happened here, but the idea that a journalist cannot have committed a crime in writing a story is ridiculous.)
2013-06-23 03:10:58 PM  
2 votes:

vpb: They are both full of crap.  Reporting on a leak isn't aiding and abetting.

On the other hand, Greenwald thinks that a reporter who reveals the existence of a CIA source in North Korea and possibly got someone killed shouldn't be investigated?

They are both pretty extreme.


It's been clearly established that outing an undercover CIA agent is not a crime.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-23 02:48:29 PM  
2 votes:
They are both full of crap.  Reporting on a leak isn't aiding and abetting.

On the other hand, Greenwald thinks that a reporter who reveals the existence of a CIA source in North Korea and possibly got someone killed shouldn't be investigated?

They are both pretty extreme.
2013-06-23 11:27:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:00:10 PM  
1 votes:

Rwa2play: Shouldn't Mr. Greenwald's comment apply to the entire Washington DC press corps?


Well yeah, but most of them won't actually interview him.  They'll just interview John McCain about him.
2013-06-23 08:57:58 PM  
1 votes:

Biological Ali: quatchi: All that noted, reporters solicit information all the time. Leaks from whistleblowers are the canaries in the coalmine that is journalism.

Also, there needs to be a moratorium on the use of the term "whistleblower" in these threads. It's not a generic synonym for "somebody who leaks classified information" - "whistleblowing" means something specific, and what Snowden did isn't it.


I disagree, what he did is exactly the definition of a whistleblower.
2013-06-23 08:13:46 PM  
1 votes:
Shouldn't Mr. Greenwald's comment apply to the entire Washington DC press corps?
2013-06-23 07:40:05 PM  
1 votes:
FFS.  Greenwald is the only journalist left doing his job in a professional manner.
2013-06-23 07:34:24 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: Magruda: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act

I dunno, your link also mentions a "weakening" of the Act when it was amended in 2009 and that government employees do not always have "protection from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution when they speak pursuant to their official job duties"

and

National Whistleblowers Center issued a statement on Re-Introduction of Whistleblower Protection Act, expressing their concerns that the Senate's [2009] WPEA bill provides the Merit Systems Protection Board with sweeping new powers to dismiss whistleblower cases without a hearing and to act as gatekeeper for court access.

So no, I kind of doubt that citing that makes your case. Yeah, I've kind of crossed the line from Devil's Advocate to Dick Cheney country, and I apologize...


Either way, the reason I don't think he should be prosecuted is because much like Elsberg he did the public a service by exposing government illegality.
2013-06-23 06:51:57 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: SVenus: whidbey: SVenus: whidbey: I don't consider him a hero, but someone who broke his confidentiality and in so doing became a threat to this country..

It's not logical to make the case that Snowden breached national security?

Absolutely a logical case to make.  What would his alleged motive for this breach?

You don't need a motive. What he did put the system at risk.


And if the system is more damaging to society than anything it could protect us from, then what?
2013-06-23 06:46:47 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: Magruda: whidbey: Magruda: 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.

So you claim that Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, yet somehow harmed national security? Do tell.

Pretty sure we didn't "know" the details from pages and pages of classified documents, and yeah, it's a breach of security to attempt to have them published.

You're really not trying to argue against this? If so, why?

So the details are the most damaging part of the leaks? That makes no sense.

What makes no sense is that you seem to think he should be given a pat on the back and a medal for what he did.


Exposing our government's violation of the constitution? No, no metal for him he did what every citizen should have done.
2013-06-23 06:30:12 PM  
1 votes:

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.

[citation needed]

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. [citation needed]

Those are the exact same arguments that were made about Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers and Manning with Wikileaks. In both those cases the leaker was a threat to the interests of state power, not the security of US citizens. Are you of the opinion that the only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to engage in spying on citizens accused of no crimes?

Maybe I'm the one who's wrong here, and the government will do a perfect job in self-regulating itself with tremendous data gathering powers.

For some reason, I am reminded of former Attorney General John Ashcroft. While vilified by liberals during his tenure, I find it odd that so many critics of Bush-era policies may actually now find themselves his allies.

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

Because, truly, it would be a shame for people to "remain silent in the face of evil."
2013-06-23 06:23:51 PM  
1 votes:
img.fark.net
MSM cretins like David Gregory and Chris Matthews aren't journalists. They are the "HAIL ANTS" type of media sellouts who have long ago thrown their dignity and sense of morality down the sewers in return for "access" to the powerful and elite.

They are not journalists. They are paparazzi.
2013-06-23 05:47:56 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.


Yes.  It is.
2013-06-23 05:47:14 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-23 05:42:21 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-06-23 05:26:02 PM  
1 votes:
I'm pretty sure Glenn Greenwald is a self-satisfied jerk, but at least he's trying to do some actual journalism.

If I were a CNN shill, I'd make a strong effort to avoid any direct comparisons between myself and the real deal...
2013-06-23 04:55:37 PM  
1 votes:

Aarontology: make me some tea: Aarontology: So basically, Gregory wants to outlaw a free press.

That's what he's implying, yes. Hence my "sad" comment, because this shiat's going off the rails.

That's what's so troubling about this. It's gone far beyond the government spying on the American people.


And, it seems, many in the media would rather be collaborators than watchdogs.
2013-06-23 04:49:34 PM  
1 votes:

gimmegimme: It's been clearly established that outing an undercover CIA agent is not a crime


if you're a Republican
2013-06-23 04:47:01 PM  
1 votes:

make me some tea: Aarontology: So basically, Gregory wants to outlaw a free press.

That's what he's implying, yes. Hence my "sad" comment, because this shiat's going off the rails.


That's what's so troubling about this. It's gone far beyond the government spying on the American people.
2013-06-23 04:26:37 PM  
1 votes:

Nabb1: vpb: They are both full of crap.  Reporting on a leak isn't aiding and abetting.

On the other hand, Greenwald thinks that a reporter who reveals the existence of a CIA source in North Korea and possibly got someone killed shouldn't be investigated?

They are both pretty extreme.

No, they aren't. It's not a journalist's responsibility to do the government's job for it no matter how much you and the Obama

every Presidential Administration think it is.

ftfy
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report