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.

(Washington Post)   No, Glenn Greenwald did not say, "I'll get you my pretties, and your little dog too"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 129
    More: Followup, Glenn Greenwald, real character, vows  
•       •       •

4115 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Aug 2013 at 12:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-20 12:55:58 PM
Damage was already done in the first hour of the story.
 
2013-08-20 12:58:26 PM
Greenwald has some serious personal issues and quite an axe to grind with all forms of authority.
 
2013-08-20 12:58:41 PM
REALLY don't care about Glenn Greenwald, professional scold/troll.
 
2013-08-20 01:00:09 PM
From the Thanks for helping department:

Guy Who Wrote Legal Memos Defending US Torture Defends NSA Because It Takes Too Long To Obey The Constitution

John Yoo, of course, is somewhat infamous for being the author of the so-called "Torture Memos," while he was Deputy US Attorney General for President George W. Bush, giving the Bush administration a horrific legal "justification" for torture.

You go Yoo
 
2013-08-20 01:01:25 PM
Greenwald has two motivations.
1. He hates America.
2. $$$
 
2013-08-20 01:01:42 PM
I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now. I am going to publish many more documents. I am going to publish things on England too. I have many documents on England's spy system.I think they will be sorry for what they did. [...] They wanted to intimidate our journalism, to show that they have power and will not remain passive but will attack us more intensely if we continue publishing their secrets.

What would you call that then?
 
2013-08-20 01:03:34 PM
Who now?
 
2013-08-20 01:06:07 PM
The Reuter's version definitely makes it sound like he's vindictive, and we've got their quote vs. Greenwald's own "paraphrase" of what he said. Unless he has a tape proving Reuter's is lying, this is just him trying to walk back some comments that make him look petty.

Dude is the textbook definition of sanctimonious, I always disliked him and this whole Snowden thing makes my distaste a thousand times stronger.
 
2013-08-20 01:07:05 PM
I've been quickly losing respect for Greenwald since this whole Snowden thing started.

You can't hide behind "journalism" and then threaten to release embarrasing documents at your pace when you feel its going to do the most damage to your enemies.
 
2013-08-20 01:09:39 PM
So this is the new Washington Post.  How refreshing!
 
2013-08-20 01:10:19 PM

steverockson: Greenwald has two motivations.
1. He hates America.
2. $$$


So are those crimes?
 
2013-08-20 01:11:37 PM

rikkitikkitavi: Greenwald has some serious personal issues and quite an axe to grind with all forms of authority.


THIS
 
2013-08-20 01:12:10 PM
It sounds like this Greenwald guy is an arsehole. It also sounds like some bureaucrats got their knickers in a twist over the reporting and tried to intimidate someone.

I think they all deserve what's coming.
 
2013-08-20 01:13:47 PM
So Greenwald admits that he has secret documents belonging to the British government yet still thinks he gets to be indignant about them detaining his husband?
 
2013-08-20 01:14:18 PM
 
2013-08-20 01:14:48 PM
Go, Greenwald.
His actions will determine the history of the Western civilization.
Save freedom of speech/press
... while the government tries every dirty trick of chew off one more bit of freedom out of our lives.
 
2013-08-20 01:15:08 PM
What a queer turn-up.

Also: Every party in this story is contemptible.
 
2013-08-20 01:15:33 PM

James!: So Greenwald admits that he has secret documents belonging to the British government yet still thinks he gets to be indignant about them detaining his husband?


Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees.
 
2013-08-20 01:16:48 PM

mr0x: His actions will determine the history of the Western civilization.


Hyperbole is the greatest thing ever.
 
2013-08-20 01:18:38 PM

Valiente: What a queer turn-up.

Also: Every party in this story is contemptible.


Both sides are bad, so vote NSA
 
2013-08-20 01:19:16 PM

BullBearMS: James!: So Greenwald admits that he has secret documents belonging to the British government yet still thinks he gets to be indignant about them detaining his husband?

Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees.


The Supreme Court of England?
 
2013-08-20 01:20:44 PM

BullBearMS: Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees


Classified documents?

If someone gives me classified documents and I don't give them back to the government, but instead make those documents public little by little, the Supreme Court said that is okay?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-20 01:20:49 PM

James!: mr0x: His actions will determine the history of the Western civilization.

Hyperbole is the greatest thing ever.


The stupidest statement in the history of the world.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-20 01:21:32 PM

vernonFL: BullBearMS: Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees

Classified documents?


How is it illegal to have Classifieds?  The paper prints them every day.
 
2013-08-20 01:22:01 PM

James!: BullBearMS: James!: So Greenwald admits that he has secret documents belonging to the British government yet still thinks he gets to be indignant about them detaining his husband?

Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The Supreme Court of England?


What nation is Greenwald a citizen of again?
 
2013-08-20 01:22:18 PM

d23: James!: mr0x: His actions will determine the history of the Western civilization.

Hyperbole is the greatest thing ever.

The stupidest statement in the history of the world.


I will literally smash through this computer and rip out your soul. LITERALLY!
 
2013-08-20 01:22:47 PM
Six of one, half a dozen of the same thing.
 
2013-08-20 01:23:23 PM

BullBearMS: James!: BullBearMS: James!: So Greenwald admits that he has secret documents belonging to the British government yet still thinks he gets to be indignant about them detaining his husband?

Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The Supreme Court of England?

What nation is Greenwald a citizen of again?


When did Greenwald get detained?
 
2013-08-20 01:23:48 PM

vernonFL: BullBearMS: Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees

Classified documents?

If someone gives me classified documents and I don't give them back to the government, but instead make those documents public little by little, the Supreme Court said that is okay?


The person who gave you the documents might be in trouble, if they used their clearance to leak the documents to you... but as a member of the press, you can write whatever the hell you want to write or reprint whatever documents are in your possession... yes, that's ok (in the context of law), the first amendment is very clear on the topic.
 
2013-08-20 01:24:04 PM
Edward Snowden's Real Impact

Snowden "is very pleased with the debate that is arising in many countries around the world on Internet privacy and U.S. spying. It is exactly the debate he wanted to inform."


Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
 
2013-08-20 01:26:18 PM
Interesting that so many would label Greenwald as the troublemaker in this case.

But, slaves will be slaves.
 
2013-08-20 01:26:25 PM

vernonFL: BullBearMS: Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees

Classified documents?

If someone gives me classified documents and I don't give them back to the government, but instead make those documents public little by little, the Supreme Court said that is okay?


Yup.

Decades ago, Daniel Ellsberg leaked a Top Secret report showing that our leadership had lied us into the Vietnam war. He gave this proof to the New York Times. They began publishing the report in segments.

Nixon tried to shut them down and charge people with espionage.

Nixon got biatch slapped by the Supreme Court.

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
-Justice Black
 
2013-08-20 01:27:16 PM
I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now. I am going to publish many more documents. I am going to publish things on England too. I have many documents on England's spy system.I think they will be sorry for what they did.

It will embolden me: I have many more documents to report on, including ones about the UK, where I'll now focus more. I will be more aggressive, not less, in reporting.


Shouldn't he be doing this regardless of what happened to his professional/personal partner? He could've just said, "This won't stop my duty to report the truth". But now he's making it about him and his feelings. Good job.
 
2013-08-20 01:27:23 PM

James!: BullBearMS: James!: BullBearMS: James!: So Greenwald admits that he has secret documents belonging to the British government yet still thinks he gets to be indignant about them detaining his husband?

Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The Supreme Court of England?

What nation is Greenwald a citizen of again?

When did Greenwald get detained?


Greenwald got detained?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-20 01:27:53 PM

BullBearMS: Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
-Justice Black


The court is owned by the Corporate-Government complex now.  You can't expect them to understand this!!
 
2013-08-20 01:28:10 PM
It really was all about sending a message to journalists...
 
2013-08-20 01:28:15 PM

mrlewish: steverockson: Greenwald has two motivations.
1. He hates America.
2. $$$

So are those crimes?


He/She used the word motivations, not crimes.
 
2013-08-20 01:28:20 PM

FTGodWin: Interesting that so many would label Greenwald as the troublemaker in this case.

But, slaves will be slaves.


You don't understand. If we allow the NSA to continue its activities, we'll finally start spreading freedom and democracy all over the world.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-20 01:28:33 PM

BullBearMS: James!: BullBearMS: James!: BullBearMS: James!: So Greenwald admits that he has secret documents belonging to the British government yet still thinks he gets to be indignant about them detaining his husband?

Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The Supreme Court of England?

What nation is Greenwald a citizen of again?

When did Greenwald get detained?

Greenwald got detained?


Who is Greenwald?
 
2013-08-20 01:29:06 PM

firefly212: vernonFL: BullBearMS: Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees

Classified documents?

If someone gives me classified documents and I don't give them back to the government, but instead make those documents public little by little, the Supreme Court said that is okay?

The person who gave you the documents might be in trouble, if they used their clearance to leak the documents to you... but as a member of the press, you can write whatever the hell you want to write or reprint whatever documents are in your possession... yes, that's ok (in the context of law), the first amendment is very clear on the topic.


The first amendment of England?
 
2013-08-20 01:30:15 PM

BullBearMS: Decades ago, Daniel Ellsberg leaked a Top Secret report showing that our leadership had lied us into the Vietnam war. He gave this proof to the New York Times. They began publishing the report in segments.

Nixon tried to shut them down and charge people with espionage.

Nixon got biatch slapped by the Supreme Court.

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
-Justice Black


Well then I could be completely wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Huh. Thanks.
 
2013-08-20 01:30:29 PM

BullBearMS: James!: BullBearMS: James!: BullBearMS: James!: So Greenwald admits that he has secret documents belonging to the British government yet still thinks he gets to be indignant about them detaining his husband?

Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The Supreme Court of England?

What nation is Greenwald a citizen of again?

When did Greenwald get detained?

Greenwald got detained?


Exactly, now lets talk about what actually happened.  A Brazillian citizen was detained by England.  What the fark does the US Supreme Court have to do with that?
 
2013-08-20 01:30:39 PM

propasaurus: firefly212: vernonFL: BullBearMS: Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees

Classified documents?

If someone gives me classified documents and I don't give them back to the government, but instead make those documents public little by little, the Supreme Court said that is okay?

The person who gave you the documents might be in trouble, if they used their clearance to leak the documents to you... but as a member of the press, you can write whatever the hell you want to write or reprint whatever documents are in your possession... yes, that's ok (in the context of law), the first amendment is very clear on the topic.

The first amendment of England?


There is an England?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-20 01:31:59 PM

BullBearMS: propasaurus: firefly212: vernonFL: BullBearMS: Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees

Classified documents?

If someone gives me classified documents and I don't give them back to the government, but instead make those documents public little by little, the Supreme Court said that is okay?

The person who gave you the documents might be in trouble, if they used their clearance to leak the documents to you... but as a member of the press, you can write whatever the hell you want to write or reprint whatever documents are in your possession... yes, that's ok (in the context of law), the first amendment is very clear on the topic.

The first amendment of England?

There is an England?


There is no there there.
 
2013-08-20 01:32:00 PM

d23: BullBearMS: James!: BullBearMS: James!: BullBearMS: James!: So Greenwald admits that he has secret documents belonging to the British government yet still thinks he gets to be indignant about them detaining his husband?

Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The Supreme Court of England?

What nation is Greenwald a citizen of again?

When did Greenwald get detained?

Greenwald got detained?

Who is Greenwald?


Who's a greenhorn? What's a greenhorn?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-20 01:32:40 PM

Car_Ramrod: d23: BullBearMS: James!: BullBearMS: James!: BullBearMS: James!: So Greenwald admits that he has secret documents belonging to the British government yet still thinks he gets to be indignant about them detaining his husband?

Are you trying to claim that possession of documents leaked by a whistle blower is a crime?

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The Supreme Court of England?

What nation is Greenwald a citizen of again?

When did Greenwald get detained?

Greenwald got detained?

Who is Greenwald?

Who's a greenhorn? What's a greenhorn?


Don't show your horn off here.
 
2013-08-20 01:35:06 PM

vernonFL: BullBearMS: Decades ago, Daniel Ellsberg leaked a Top Secret report showing that our leadership had lied us into the Vietnam war. He gave this proof to the New York Times. They began publishing the report in segments.

Nixon tried to shut them down and charge people with espionage.

Nixon got biatch slapped by the Supreme Court.

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
-Justice Black

Well then I could be completely wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Huh. Thanks.


What he's leaving out is that the situation with the Pentagon Papers was that they addressed things that had already happened. The government couldn't argue that their release harmed national security.  The Snowden leaks concern things that are happening so who knows.
 
2013-08-20 01:38:40 PM

steverockson: Greenwald has two motivations.
1. He hates America.
2. $$$


because the US Government never does anything wrong and there's no evidence that they are now?
 
2013-08-20 01:38:57 PM

d23: How is it illegal to have Classifieds? The paper prints them every day.


Well the idea that it's some how a crime to disclose information that every foreign government and large corporation is privy to is somehow treason, that's certainly retarded. I mean if Snotnosen had access to this stuff, then the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Israeli's, Pakistani's and most large corporations all know this stuff ass well. (And if the Pakistani's or the Saudi's know something then Al Qaeda knows it too)
 
2013-08-20 01:40:57 PM
 
2013-08-20 01:41:59 PM

James!: What he's leaving out is that the situation with the Pentagon Papers was that they addressed things that had already happened. The government couldn't argue that their release harmed national security. The Snowden leaks concern things that are happening so who knows.


There isn't a First Amendment?
 
2013-08-20 01:42:52 PM

vernonFL: I've been quickly losing respect for Greenwald since this whole Snowden thing started.

You can't hide behind "journalism" and then threaten to release embarrasing documents at your pace when you feel its going to do the most damage to your enemies.


Why not?

Greenwald may not be worthy of respect, but do only governments get to play by those rules?
Because they do that shiat EVERY DAY...with much greater consequences to the public good.
 
2013-08-20 01:43:27 PM

The writer of this article seriously needs to brush up on their journalism skills.  This comes down to who said what but in his own answer he says pretty much the same thing


Q: Will the UK's detention of your partner deter your future reporting?
A: Absolutely not. If anything, it will do the opposite. It will embolden me: I have many more documents to report on, including ones about the UK, where I'll now focus more. I will be more aggressive, not less, in reporting.
Q: What effect do you think they'll be of the UK's detention of your partner?
A: When they do things like this, they show the world their real character. It'll backfire. I think they'll come to regret it.

The bolded should never be spoken by a true reporter who's just "doing their job".  He's no longer a reporter then and is more of a commentator.  He's already formed an opinion over events that haven't even happened yet and is making assumptions about how people will feel.

He also indicates his focus will be more on the UK.  Why would that be if he didn't bear a grudge against them?

I doubt the Reuters comment has been made up and based on what he says in the quotes above, he's pretty much saying the same thing, just trying to say it in a more discreet way.
 
2013-08-20 01:44:28 PM

rikkitikkitavi: Greenwald has some serious personal issues and quite an axe to grind with all forms of authority.


The kinds of "authority" that are on exhibit should be had issues with, to state it awkwardly. When the Guardian is forced to smash its hard drives under threat of government thugs who say, "You've had your debate, there's no need to write any more," we've gone beyond what anyone should put up with. I hope Greenwald tears everyone involved several new ones.
 
2013-08-20 01:45:21 PM
I can't figure out how/why some people keep bringing this up as a first amendment violation that the supreme court is clear on.

A Brazilian citizen was flying from Germany and was detained by British officials when he stopped in England on his way to Brazil. You guys are aware that the constitution is not an international set of laws, but moreover a set of laws for America and its citizens. Also, the supreme court has no jurisdiction over England, Brazil, or Germany.

You retards are aware of that aren't you? Ok... maybe you're not, which would explain why so many of you complain about not being able to get a job with your degree in art history with a minor in interpretive dance from Arizona State.
 
2013-08-20 01:49:00 PM
perhaps now he regrets raising money for, and working so hard to support, the obama campaign
 
2013-08-20 01:49:42 PM
Which messenger are we shooting today again?
 
2013-08-20 01:49:57 PM

BullBearMS: James!: Exactly, now lets talk about what actually happened. A Brazillian citizen was detained by England.

What happened is that a Brazilian citizen got detained and his possessions seized in a gross abuse of extraordinary powers that only apply when seeking to determine if someone is currently involved with terrorism.

As journalism and terrorism aren't the same thing, people are understandably pissed.


Check section 58A.
 
2013-08-20 01:50:14 PM
Greenwald made his comments in Portuguese.  According to Yahoo Brazil, here they are:

"Vou publicar muitas coisas sobre a Inglaterra também. Tenho muitos documentos sobre o sistema de espionagem da Inglaterra. Agora o meu foco vai ficar lá também. E acho que eles vão se arrepender do que fizeram."

I am not a fluent speaker of Portuguese, so I would welcome the collaboration of anyone whose command of that language may be better than mine.  That said, I would translate Greenwald this way:

"I am going to publish a lot of things about England also.  I have many documents that concern England's espionage apparatus.  Now my focus will be on that subject as well.  And I think that they are going to regret what they did."

http://br.noticias.yahoo.com/protestos-detenção-brasileiro-companheir o -jornalista-caso-snowden-204358157.html

My sense is that the Reuters translation was a bit sensationalized, but that Greenwald's own summary (in his tweet) of what he said isn't entirely faithful either.  I for one came away with the sense that Greenwald's initial reaction to the British detention of his partner (he called it a clear attempt at intimidation) was, "I'm going to fix their ass."
 
2013-08-20 01:50:18 PM
My favorite thing about this whole discussion is that news media people are all in an uproar about journalism being under attack and blah blah blah.

The truth is, those cable news asshats have done far more damage to journalism than any govt actions could. They sit there for hours on end with their agendas, their props, and their bullsh*t. They haven't been journalists for a looong time... they're more like rodeo clowns.

/there are real journalists out there
//just not on cable tv or the guardian
 
2013-08-20 01:52:00 PM

BullBearMS: James!: What he's leaving out is that the situation with the Pentagon Papers was that they addressed things that had already happened. The government couldn't argue that their release harmed national security. The Snowden leaks concern things that are happening so who knows.

There isn't a First Amendment?


Not when it comes to classified government programs.
 
2013-08-20 01:52:54 PM
delete the spaces in my link in my last post please--the link didn't get through the filter in one piece.
 
2013-08-20 01:56:38 PM

Cubansaltyballs: My favorite thing about this whole discussion is that news media people are all in an uproar about journalism being under attack and blah blah blah.

The truth is, those cable news asshats have done far more damage to journalism than any govt actions could. They sit there for hours on end with their agendas, their props, and their bullsh*t. They haven't been journalists for a looong time... they're more like rodeo clowns.

/there are real journalists out there
//just not on cable tv or the guardian


Obama didn't just wiretap the AP and then have to back peddle furiously when he got caught at it?
 
2013-08-20 01:58:57 PM
Oh, here's a new one just from today.

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

How can anyone think these asshats need reigning in?
 
2013-08-20 02:00:26 PM

BullBearMS: Obama didn't just wiretap the AP and then have to back peddle furiously when he got caught at it?


You know there's a difference between a wiretap and a subpoena for phone records, right?

Or maybe you don't.
 
2013-08-20 02:01:28 PM

BullBearMS: Oh, here's a new one just from today.

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

How can anyone think these asshats need reigning in?


I know, right! He should totally be impeached because that reporter's boyfriend got detained.
 
2013-08-20 02:02:42 PM

BullBearMS: Oh, here's a new one just from today.

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

How can anyone think these asshats need reigning in?


"Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches."

Histories Greatest Something...
 
2013-08-20 02:08:51 PM

BullBearMS: Oh, here's a new one just from today.

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

How can anyone think these asshats need reigning in?


Well, isn't that lovely. And timely!
 
2013-08-20 02:13:52 PM

James!: BullBearMS: Oh, here's a new one just from today.

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

How can anyone think these asshats need reigning in?

"Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches."

Histories Greatest Something...


OMG! It's all so clear now!! Ballrog Taxbongo just wants to listen to our every conversation! He wants to know what you order on your pizza, or when your kid is ready to be picked up from school, or when your lawyer/mechanic/taxidermist calls and tells you the moonshiners got busted and turns outs... you've been ingesting paint chips for the last 30 years, which luckily explains your retardation.

But the courts struck back! They said: "No, Taxsambo!! You can't wiretap all those people." So you know what he did... he implemented Obamacare. Now he can get what he wants by corrupting the pure and honest healthcare industry. Since the courts said he can't tap our phones... he found a new way. He can now have his Goosethugs jackbootstep all over us and implant Obamaphones in our brains!!!
 
2013-08-20 02:15:36 PM

Cubansaltyballs: James!: BullBearMS: Oh, here's a new one just from today.

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

How can anyone think these asshats need reigning in?

"Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches."

Histories Greatest Something...

OMG! It's all so clear now!! Ballrog Taxbongo just wants to listen to our every conversation! He wants to know what you order on your pizza, or when your kid is ready to be picked up from school, or when your lawyer/mechanic/taxidermist calls and tells you the moonshiners got busted and turns outs... you've been ingesting paint chips for the last 30 years, which luckily explains your retardation.

But the courts struck back! They said: "No, Taxsambo!! You can't wiretap all those people." So you know what he did... he implemented Obamacare. Now he can get what he wants by corrupting the pure and honest healthcare industry. Since the courts said he can't tap our phones... he found a new way. He can now have his Goosethugs jackbootstep all over us and implant Obamaphones in our brains!!!


I like the cut of your tinfoil.
 
2013-08-20 02:15:51 PM

Cubansaltyballs: BullBearMS: Oh, here's a new one just from today.

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

How can anyone think these asshats need reigning in?

I know, right! He should totally be impeached because that reporter's boyfriend got detained.


An Obama shill who defends his constant push for warrantless spying on Americans?

Shocking.

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications

and

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

and

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

and

The Justice Department, saying "a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements (.pdf) from one place to another," is demanding the justices undo a lower court decision that reversed the conviction and life sentence of a cocaine dealer whose vehicle was tracked via GPS for a month without a court warrant.

and

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order

and

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens

and

The Obama administration for the first time responded to a Spygate lawsuit, telling a federal judge the wholesale vacuuming up of all phone-call metadata in the United States is in the "public interest," does not breach the constitutional rights of Americans and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

How anyone with pretenses of being liberal makes excuses for this behavior is beyond me, but the Obama shills are retarded like that.
 
2013-08-20 02:22:01 PM
Ok. I may have used a little strong language in that last post. But seriously, if they detain journalists, the fate of all humanity may be doomed. Our world may be turned into smoldering, lifeless moonscape.

For example, Mars is rusted, busted, empty wasteland. And you know what Mars doesn't have(besides an atmosphere)? Journalists. Not a single journalist on that entire planet. No upskirt shots being bought or sold. No clusters of vans waiting to see when the Martians carry out the corpses of little martian kids after a massacre. No endless prattle about royal weddings. No one to furiously beat off all the way to the scene of a mass-murder. No Kardasians. No agendas cloaked as reporting.

And you know what happened because of all of that? Mars died. Yeah, I'll say it. When the Martians realized their lives were meaningless without journalists, they all died. But how could they live? Their lives were devoid of all meaning... who would even want to live in a world where people didn't know a killer's mood or a what kind of candy-bar he ate the day before a shooting? Not me, that's for sure.
 
2013-08-20 02:23:14 PM

BullBearMS: An Obama shill who defends his constant push for warrantless spying on Americans?

Shocking.


You've convinced me. I'll never vote for him again.
 
2013-08-20 02:23:17 PM
Greenwald's initial reaction to the British detention of his partner (he called it a clear attempt at intimidation) was, "I'm going to fix their ass."

Yes.  The story that launched Greenwald to international notoriety is all about how knowledge of people's secrets gives power over them, and how that kind of power is dangerous because it tempts the wielder to act like a bully and abuse the power.  In this chapter, Greenwald's own actions illustrate that the power he now wields -- from his knowledge of and ability to control the release of the Snowden documents -- has puffed him up with a somewhat exaggerated sense of his ability to make governments regret their actions.
 
2013-08-20 02:25:10 PM

Cubansaltyballs: BullBearMS: An Obama shill who defends his constant push for warrantless spying on Americans?

Shocking.

You've convinced me. I'll never vote for him again.


You know BullBear isn't trying to get you to vote Republican, right?
 
2013-08-20 02:25:19 PM

BullBearMS: How anyone with pretenses of being liberal makes excuses for this behavior is beyond me, but the Obama shills are retarded like that.


Still not sure what any of this has to do with England.
 
2013-08-20 02:25:20 PM

4tehsnowflakes: Greenwald's initial reaction to the British detention of his partner (he called it a clear attempt at intimidation) was, "I'm going to fix their ass."

Yes.  The story that launched Greenwald to international notoriety is all about how knowledge of people's secrets gives power over them, and how that kind of power is dangerous because it tempts the wielder to act like a bully and abuse the power.  In this chapter, Greenwald's own actions illustrate that the power he now wields -- from his knowledge of and ability to control the release of the Snowden documents -- has puffed him up with a somewhat exaggerated sense of his ability to make governments regret their actions.


So in your eyes, the bully in this little drama is the journalist whose partner was detained for 9 hours for no reason. Interesting.
 
2013-08-20 02:26:30 PM

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Cubansaltyballs: BullBearMS: An Obama shill who defends his constant push for warrantless spying on Americans?

Shocking.

You've convinced me. I'll never vote for him again.

You know BullBear isn't trying to get you to vote Republican, right?


Yeah. Oops. I forgot to care.
 
2013-08-20 02:27:01 PM
If you have documents, don't talk, publish.
i70.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-20 02:28:27 PM
www.digitalfilmtree.com
 
2013-08-20 02:29:38 PM

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Cubansaltyballs: BullBearMS: An Obama shill who defends his constant push for warrantless spying on Americans?

Shocking.

You've convinced me. I'll never vote for him again.

You know BullBear isn't trying to get you to vote Republican, right?


He's too busy defending the Bush legacy.
 
2013-08-20 02:31:21 PM

Evil High Priest: So in your eyes, the bully in this little drama is the journalist whose partner was detained for 9 hours for no reason. Interesting.


When you're threatening to dump every secret a nation has (legal activities and otherwise) in order to get back at them or harm them... you can't honestly be surprised when they detain the guy you used as a courier. Or maybe you can... I have no idea if you're that retarded or not.
 
2013-08-20 02:32:18 PM
You know, I've never used this term before in reference to law enforcement, even in jest. But after the detainment of Greenwald's partner and what happened at the Guardians, I'll use it seriously.

Jack-booted thugs.
 
2013-08-20 02:32:21 PM

BullBearMS: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Cubansaltyballs: BullBearMS: An Obama shill who defends his constant push for warrantless spying on Americans?

Shocking.

You've convinced me. I'll never vote for him again.

You know BullBear isn't trying to get you to vote Republican, right?

He's too busy defending the Bush legacy.


Yeah, that's me. A huge George Bush supporter. I'm really sad Romney or McCain aren't president... those guys would never abuse our freedoms like this.
 
2013-08-20 02:34:11 PM

JonBuck: You know, I've never used this term before in reference to law enforcement, even in jest. But after the detainment of Greenwald's partner and what happened at the Guardians, I'll use it seriously.

Jack-booted thugs.


STOP. EVERYTHING. JonBuck just dialed it up to Nazi. This is serious. It's like a warning for the end-of-days!
 
2013-08-20 02:34:43 PM

Cubansaltyballs: Evil High Priest: So in your eyes, the bully in this little drama is the journalist whose partner was detained for 9 hours for no reason. Interesting.

When you're threatening to dump every secret a nation has (legal activities and otherwise) in order to get back at them or harm them... you can't honestly be surprised when they detain the guy you used as a courier. Or maybe you can... I have no idea if you're that retarded or not.


We have an idea about you.
 
2013-08-20 02:36:29 PM

Cubansaltyballs: BullBearMS: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Cubansaltyballs: BullBearMS: An Obama shill who defends his constant push for warrantless spying on Americans?

Shocking.

You've convinced me. I'll never vote for him again.

You know BullBear isn't trying to get you to vote Republican, right?

He's too busy defending the Bush legacy.

Yeah, that's me. A huge George Bush supporter. I'm really sad Romney or McCain aren't president... those guys would never abuse our freedoms like this.


Do you have any idea how retarded you make all liberals look when you reflexively defend everything we spoke out against under Bush because Obama is the one doing it now?
 
2013-08-20 02:36:59 PM

Cubansaltyballs: BullBearMS: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Cubansaltyballs: BullBearMS: An Obama shill who defends his constant push for warrantless spying on Americans?

Shocking.

You've convinced me. I'll never vote for him again.

You know BullBear isn't trying to get you to vote Republican, right?

He's too busy defending the Bush legacy.

Yeah, that's me. A huge George Bush supporter. I'm really sad Romney or McCain aren't president... those guys would never abuse our freedoms like this.


I agree that the problem would be exacerbated and done more brazenly by the GOP. But the problem is institutionalized and not partisan.
 
2013-08-20 02:37:15 PM

tgambitg: It really was all about sending a message to journalists...


resources3.news.com.au
That's not a message....

This is a message:
www.insideedition.com
 
2013-08-20 02:38:00 PM

Evil High Priest: 4tehsnowflakes: Greenwald's initial reaction to the British detention of his partner (he called it a clear attempt at intimidation) was, "I'm going to fix their ass."

Yes.  The story that launched Greenwald to international notoriety is all about how knowledge of people's secrets gives power over them, and how that kind of power is dangerous because it tempts the wielder to act like a bully and abuse the power.  In this chapter, Greenwald's own actions illustrate that the power he now wields -- from his knowledge of and ability to control the release of the Snowden documents -- has puffed him up with a somewhat exaggerated sense of his ability to make governments regret their actions.

So in your eyes, the bully in this little drama is the journalist whose partner was detained for 9 hours for no reason. Interesting.


Not at all.  I am firmly behind the ACLU's foreign-dwelling champion Glenn Greenwald in all this, although his books reveal a Naderish anti-corporate streak.  I merely pointed out the irony that his own remarks illustrate that power corrupts.  And yes, I think sending his lover to get the secret files and having him travel through the UK was stupid.  Of course they were going to search the guy.  Aren't there thousands of obscure people all over the world who would have gladly volunteered to be his courier?
 
2013-08-20 02:40:46 PM

BullBearMS: Do you have any idea how retarded you make all liberals look when you reflexively defend everything we spoke out against under Bush because Obama is the one doing it now?


Um. This isn't a team sport. I understand what Bush and Obama were doing re: wiretaps, data-collection, etc. and it doesn't bother me as much as other things do. When the media says "THEY LISTEN TO EVERYTHING", I don't believe that because I know better. I know the computers in CSI:Miami are not real and the govt doesn't have that kind of magic to listen, store, sort, read, review every piece of data. I know that, so the sensational bullsh*t the media spews doesn't stick in my head as a "fact", but more or less a "way to get ad revenue".
 
2013-08-20 02:40:49 PM

firefly212: the first amendment is very clear on the topic.


No it's not. There's no (clear) reason to think "freedom of the press" means "freedom to keep dangerous documents that plainly aren't yours."
 
2013-08-20 02:45:57 PM
Again, England detained a Brazillian.  Yet it's somehow an indictment of Obama?
 
2013-08-20 02:49:58 PM

4tehsnowflakes: Evil High Priest: 4tehsnowflakes: Greenwald's initial reaction to the British detention of his partner (he called it a clear attempt at intimidation) was, "I'm going to fix their ass."

Yes.  The story that launched Greenwald to international notoriety is all about how knowledge of people's secrets gives power over them, and how that kind of power is dangerous because it tempts the wielder to act like a bully and abuse the power.  In this chapter, Greenwald's own actions illustrate that the power he now wields -- from his knowledge of and ability to control the release of the Snowden documents -- has puffed him up with a somewhat exaggerated sense of his ability to make governments regret their actions.

So in your eyes, the bully in this little drama is the journalist whose partner was detained for 9 hours for no reason. Interesting.

Not at all.  I am firmly behind the ACLU's foreign-dwelling champion Glenn Greenwald in all this, although his books reveal a Naderish anti-corporate streak.  I merely pointed out the irony that his own remarks illustrate that power corrupts.  And yes, I think sending his lover to get the secret files and having him travel through the UK was stupid.  Of course they were going to search the guy.  Aren't there thousands of obscure people all over the world who would have gladly volunteered to be his courier?


I guess I'll start worrying about Greenwald's corrupt power when he has a national security state at his fingertips.
 
2013-08-20 02:51:56 PM

James!: Again, England detained a Brazillian.  Yet it's somehow an indictment of Obama?


Obama didn't admit he knew about it in advance, as has Cameron?

Obama isn't fighting for powers much more extreme than those just misused by Cameron?

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.
 
2013-08-20 02:52:07 PM

gingerjet: rikkitikkitavi: Greenwald has some serious personal issues and quite an axe to grind with all forms of authority.

THIS


...and it's only the slave mentality of people like you two that allow this kind of authority to commit its crimes. Therefore you share the responsibility due to your apathetic emotional leash. Go ahead, admit it. You're a couple of f*cking slaves, and you deserve it. I have nothing but contempt for all forms of authority - just like anyone with a shred of self-esteem does. Your self-righteous desperation for a boss-man will have you crawling like a dung beetle for the rest of your life. Have a nice day.

Love, Stephen
 
2013-08-20 02:53:53 PM
 I know the computers in CSI:Miami are not real and the govt doesn't have that kind of magic to listen, store, sort, read, review every piece of data.

Salty, it's short-sighted to rely on the fact that the current technical capabilities may not allow total storage and total awareness.  Whatever technical limitations remain today will lessen or disappear as storage technology gets better, transmission gets faster, compression gets better, and networked cameras become even more ubiquitous.

Unless the policy and priorities change, the NSA in 2025 will make the current guys look like amateurs.
 
2013-08-20 02:55:10 PM

BullBearMS: How anyone with pretenses of being liberal makes excuses for this behavior is beyond me, but the Obama shills are retarded like that.


I've heard liberals argue that it's good that the JFK investigation files are not being released on the 50th anniversary. Meanwhile, JFK himself said government secrecy in a democracy was "repugnant."
 
2013-08-20 02:55:49 PM

BullBearMS: James!: Again, England detained a Brazillian.  Yet it's somehow an indictment of Obama?

Obama didn't admit he knew about it in advance, as has Cameron?

Obama isn't fighting for powers much more extreme than those just misused by Cameron?

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.


So you'd like to change the subject then?
 
2013-08-20 02:59:34 PM

James!: BullBearMS: James!: Again, England detained a Brazillian.  Yet it's somehow an indictment of Obama?

Obama didn't admit he knew about it in advance, as has Cameron?

Obama isn't fighting for powers much more extreme than those just misused by Cameron?

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

So you'd like to change the subject then?


After being tortured and raped for 10 years those inmates at Gitmo are bound to hate the US by now.

The only safe thing to do is execute them all.
 
2013-08-20 03:08:26 PM

James!: BullBearMS: James!: Again, England detained a Brazillian.  Yet it's somehow an indictment of Obama?

Obama didn't admit he knew about it in advance, as has Cameron?

Obama isn't fighting for powers much more extreme than those just misused by Cameron?

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

So you'd like to change the subject then?


The subject isn't the misuse of power by the leaders of supposed democracies?

Why is Obama fighting for the power to toss anyone he likes into military prisons without charges or a trial, until the end of the "war on terror"?

If you remember, his lying ass claimed he didn't want that power when he signed it into law on New Year's eve, hoping everyone was too drunk to notice he'd done it.

He claimed he was going to veto the law as it was being drafted, for that matter.

Thankfully, a Federal Judge he appointed himself immediately found it to be Unconstitutional.

Yet now he is fighting to regain a power he claimed not to want?

Why do you think defending a lying ass politician is more important than defending your nation from abuse of power?
 
2013-08-20 03:08:37 PM
I see the Short-Attention Span™ trolls are out in force today

PS - if you don't hate the federal government you .. are the weakest link.
 
2013-08-20 03:16:16 PM
Regardless of how douchey you may think Greenwald is on this, a government that does this is a government that is slipping too far toward fascism.
 
2013-08-20 03:18:50 PM

d23: BullBearMS: Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
-Justice Black

The court is owned by the Corporate-Government complex now.  You can't expect them to understand this!!


Guaranteed that one of the first things the NSA did with their new post-9/11 toys was to go straight for the emails of Supreme Court Justices and any others that could eventually hold them accountable. This is J Edgar Hoover 101.

Somebody getting out of line? Just dig up some dirt in their email, reverse engineer a federal wiretap that "discovers" this person's involvement with an escort agency, leak that info. to the New York Times, and problem solved. Just ask Eliot Spitzer.
 
2013-08-20 03:18:52 PM

BullBearMS: James!: BullBearMS: James!: Again, England detained a Brazillian.  Yet it's somehow an indictment of Obama?

Obama didn't admit he knew about it in advance, as has Cameron?

Obama isn't fighting for powers much more extreme than those just misused by Cameron?

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

So you'd like to change the subject then?

The subject isn't the misuse of power by the leaders of supposed democracies?

Why is Obama fighting for the power to toss anyone he likes into military prisons without charges or a trial, until the end of the "war on terror"?

If you remember, his lying ass claimed he didn't want that power when he signed it into law on New Year's eve, hoping everyone was too drunk to notice he'd done it.

He claimed he was going to veto the law as it was being drafted, for that matter.

Thankfully, a Federal Judge he appointed himself immediately found it to be Unconstitutional.

Yet now he is fighting to regain a power he claimed not to want?

Why do you think defending a lying ass politician is more important than defending your nation from abuse of power?


I get it.  You have an entire list of links about Obama so once the subject strays from that you're basically lost.
 
2013-08-20 03:24:10 PM

Triumph: BullBearMS: How anyone with pretenses of being liberal makes excuses for this behavior is beyond me, but the Obama shills are retarded like that.

I've heard liberals argue that it's good that the JFK investigation files are not being released on the 50th anniversary. Meanwhile, JFK himself said government secrecy in a democracy was "repugnant."


It's especially repugnant when you use it to cover up illegal behavior as Bush and Obama have done.
 
2013-08-20 03:49:34 PM

4tehsnowflakes: Salty, it's short-sighted to rely on the fact that the current technical capabilities may not allow total storage and total awareness. Whatever technical limitations remain today will lessen or disappear as storage technology gets better, transmission gets faster, compression gets better, and networked cameras become even more ubiquitous.

Unless the policy and priorities change, the NSA in 2025 will make the current guys look like amateurs.


Yes, because it's clearly long-term thinking that leads you to believe internet traffic won't increase exponentially more than storage capabilities will in the next 10-15 years.
 
2013-08-20 04:00:56 PM

Stephen_Falken: ...and it's only the slave mentality of people like you two that allow this kind of authority to commit its crimes. Therefore you share the responsibility due to your apathetic emotional leash. Go ahead, admit it. You're a couple of f*cking slaves, and you deserve it. I have nothing but contempt for all forms of authority - just like anyone with a shred of self-esteem does. Your self-righteous desperation for a boss-man will have you crawling like a dung beetle for the rest of your life. Have a nice day.


OMG. So much this! Don't these little corporate stooges know that free countries don't have secrets. Having a govt with secrets is anathema to everything  freedom means. You know who had secrets? Hitler. Hitler had secrets, and if we don't want to be like Nazi Germany, we have to make sure our govt has no secrets. One single secretive program puts all of us just one step closer to the ovens.

I just wish these little boot-licking slaves with stop with all the bullsh*t about wanting to have a balance between secrecy/national security/privacy and just start building the ovens already, because that's where we're headed. Obama's worst secret got a man killed in May 2011. Had there been proper openness that sane non-slaves demand, that man would still be alive. But no.... Obama kept it a secret and the guy didn't even have a fair chance to get away. We should just be like China with no secrets, a govt where everything is open because everyone is equal. Seriously, when's the last time you heard about Chinese 'secrets' being exposed? You know why you never hear that... it's because they have NONE. Just like we should.
 
2013-08-20 05:05:00 PM

Cubansaltyballs: 4tehsnowflakes:  technical limitations will lessen or disappear

Yes, because it's clearly long-term thinking that leads you to believe internet traffic won't increase exponentially more than storage capabilities will in the next 10-15 years.


My belief is that the technical ability of governments to conduct SIGINT is only going to get better.  Your belief is that because the volume of internet traffic is so huge, we are all probably lost in the noise and no one should be worried.

I summon some farker with expert knowledge of software and how database queries work to tell Sel that there are various tools designed to help a data analyst cut through noise, and further that he should be more concerned.

/I said good day, sir!
 
2013-08-20 05:16:30 PM

4tehsnowflakes: My belief is that the technical ability of governments to conduct SIGINT is only going to get better. Your belief is that because the volume of internet traffic is so huge, we are all probably lost in the noise and no one should be worried.


You're missing the point. If there is more data, they have to review more data... after they collect it, sort it and store it. So back to the point... the volume of traffic and the presumed desire to capture ALL of it creates some serious technological problems. It's like an arms race and the NSA will never be able to collect all of it, because the more they collect means more bandwidth, more storage, more cpus, more databases, more everything... It really creates a huge problem of scale and keeping up with it.

There are two separate sides of this coin. One is the ability to collect data and the other is the ability to sift through what they've collected. You're confusing the two by saying since they are able to sift through whatever they store, that automatically means they are capable of collecting everything.

4tehsnowflakes: I summon some farker with expert knowledge of software and how database queries work to tell Sel that there are various tools designed to help a data analyst cut through noise, and further that he should be more concerned.


Who the f*ck is Sel?
 
2013-08-20 05:18:51 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: It sounds like this Greenwald guy is an arsehole. It also sounds like some bureaucrats got their knickers in a twist over the reporting and tried to intimidate someone.

I think they all deserve what's coming.


This.

As a culture, Americans seem to need squeaky clean heroes before we can get behind a movement? That's not how anything constructive gets done.

You have to actually get a little grimy, hold your nose, and choose the jerk who best represents your current best interests. Kinda like hiring a lawyer. If I want to get something done with a lawyer, I don't hire choirboys. Politics is like that.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Greenwald is an arse, but he's an arse probably holding the keys to information about government misdeeds paid for with OUR DIME.

Repeat after me: THERE ARE NO GOOD GUYS IN THIS DRAMA. No one is a saint in this, you need to at least listen to the jerk who best represents getting to the truth of the matter.

This week it may be Greenwald, noise and persecution complexes aside. Try to separate the messenger from the message.
 
2013-08-20 05:36:31 PM

corq: Try to separate the messenger from the message.


But the message is, "Look at me, I have lots of classified documents!  And I can publish snippets of them to make it look like US/British intelligence did awful things (without even fully understanding the documents I'm publishing)."
 
2013-08-20 05:39:15 PM
Even if he said he was gonna post more documents to get at England, I'd still be ok with this.
 
2013-08-20 05:46:01 PM

4tehsnowflakes: Greenwald's initial reaction to the British detention of his partner (he called it a clear attempt at intimidation) was, "I'm going to fix their ass."

Yes.  The story that launched Greenwald to international notoriety is all about how knowledge of people's secrets gives power over them, and how that kind of power is dangerous because it tempts the wielder to act like a bully and abuse the power.  In this chapter, Greenwald's own actions illustrate that the power he now wields -- from his knowledge of and ability to control the release of the Snowden documents -- has puffed him up with a somewhat exaggerated sense of his ability to make governments regret their actions.


I for one believe that Greenwald is a considerably less effective journalist than he makes himself out to be.

corq: The Irresponsible Captain: It sounds like this Greenwald guy is an arsehole. It also sounds like some bureaucrats got their knickers in a twist over the reporting and tried to intimidate someone.

I think they all deserve what's coming.

This.

As a culture, Americans seem to need squeaky clean heroes before we can get behind a movement? That's not how anything constructive gets done.

You have to actually get a little grimy, hold your nose, and choose the jerk who best represents your current best interests. Kinda like hiring a lawyer. If I want to get something done with a lawyer, I don't hire choirboys. Politics is like that.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Greenwald is an arse, but he's an arse probably holding the keys to information about government misdeeds paid for with OUR DIME.
.

Then why the f**k doesn't he publish it, for crissakes?!  Greenwald has been going on for months about all the dirt he has on the intelligence services of the evil US imperialists and their running dogs around the world, and the best he can do so far tell us that the NSA is collecting the records of which phone numbers we call, which is something we have known since 2006.  He's a lot of hat, but low on cattle.
 
2013-08-20 05:57:26 PM

tirob: Then why the f**k doesn't he publish it, for crissakes?!


Why shouldn't he keep giving them more rope?

At this point, they have told so many lies only to be caught at it almost immediately that even Salon has run articles on a Democratic President lying to everyone.
 
2013-08-20 06:23:54 PM

BullBearMS: tirob: Then why the f**k doesn't he publish it, for crissakes?!

Why shouldn't he keep giving them more rope?
.

Because if you do what Greenwald does, which is repeatedly to promise to publish blockbuster revelations, and to follow that up by publishing material which is not a revelation and which falls well short of being blockbuster, you acquire a reputation of being a bullsh*t artist.  Or at least I think you do.
 
2013-08-20 07:13:20 PM

tirob: BullBearMS: tirob: Then why the f**k doesn't he publish it, for crissakes?!

Why shouldn't he keep giving them more rope?
.
Because if you do what Greenwald does, which is repeatedly to promise to publish blockbuster revelations, and to follow that up by publishing material which is not a revelation and which falls well short of being blockbuster, you acquire a reputation of being a bullsh*t artist.  Or at least I think you do.


Since the stories in The Guardian and in the Washington Post enabled by Snowden's whistle blowing have shown our leadership to be lying out of their ass at every turn, I'm not sure what you think a revelation would be.
 
2013-08-20 09:25:32 PM

BullBearMS: tirob: BullBearMS: tirob: Then why the f**k doesn't he publish it, for crissakes?!

Why shouldn't he keep giving them more rope?
.
Because if you do what Greenwald does, which is repeatedly to promise to publish blockbuster revelations, and to follow that up by publishing material which is not a revelation and which falls well short of being blockbuster, you acquire a reputation of being a bullsh*t artist.  Or at least I think you do.

Since the stories in The Guardian and in the Washington Post enabled by Snowden's whistle blowing have shown our leadership to be lying out of their ass at every turn, I'm not sure what you think a revelation would be.


Which of the stories you refer to would you characterize as blockbuster revelations?  That the NSA collects our telephone metadata (dates from 2006, btw)?  That the NSA cooperates with its British and German counterparts?  That the NSA spies on EU diplomatic missions?  That the NSA has broken privacy rules several thousand times during the course of its millions of investigations?  That the NSA checks out peoples' Facebook pages and Twitter accounts?  Some of the stories are interesting, and several of them have some disturbing elements to them, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that any of them are blockbusters.
 
2013-08-20 09:44:57 PM

tirob: BullBearMS: tirob: BullBearMS: tirob: Then why the f**k doesn't he publish it, for crissakes?!

Why shouldn't he keep giving them more rope?
.
Because if you do what Greenwald does, which is repeatedly to promise to publish blockbuster revelations, and to follow that up by publishing material which is not a revelation and which falls well short of being blockbuster, you acquire a reputation of being a bullsh*t artist.  Or at least I think you do.

Since the stories in The Guardian and in the Washington Post enabled by Snowden's whistle blowing have shown our leadership to be lying out of their ass at every turn, I'm not sure what you think a revelation would be.

Which of the stories you refer to would you characterize as blockbuster revelations?  That the NSA collects our telephone metadata (dates from 2006, btw)?  That the NSA cooperates with its British and German counterparts?  That the NSA spies on EU diplomatic missions?  That the NSA has broken privacy rules several thousand times during the course of its millions of investigations?  That the NSA checks out peoples' Facebook pages and Twitter accounts?  Some of the stories are interesting, and several of them have some disturbing elements to them, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that any of them are blockbusters.


You mean that providing undeniable proof of what was going on, as in FISA court orders, wasn't a blockbuster?

There were reports of what was going on, but the government steadily lied and blocked any lawsuits from going forward in Federal courts by claiming nobody could prove they were being spied on so nobody had standing to sue.

The court didn't address the constitutionality of the FAA itself, but instead ruled that the plaintiffs-a group of lawyers, journalists, and human rights advocates who regularly communicate with likely "targets" of FAA wiretapping-couldn't prove the surveillance was "certainly impending," so therefore didn't have the "standing" necessary to sue. In other words, since the Americans did not have definitive proof that they were being surveilled under the FAA-a fact the government nearly always keeps secret-they cannot challenge the constitutionality of the statute.

Now that tactic will no longer work. Anyone on Verizon has undeniable standing to sue since we have a court order showing the government's order to Verizon to hand over all their customer's data.

That's not just a blockbuster. It's a farking game changer.
 
2013-08-20 09:57:51 PM

rikkitikkitavi: Greenwald has some serious personal issues and quite an axe to grind with all forms of authority.


Since you work in Toady Central, I'm assuming you don't.
 
2013-08-20 10:19:10 PM

BullBearMS: You mean that providing undeniable proof of what was going on, as in FISA court orders, wasn't a blockbuster?

There were reports of what was going on, but the government steadily lied and blocked any lawsuits from going forward in Federal courts by claiming nobody could prove they were being spied on so nobody had standing to sue.

The court didn't address the constitutionality of the FAA itself, but instead ruled that the plaintiffs-a group of lawyers, journalists, and human rights advocates who regularly communicate with likely "targets" of FAA wiretapping-couldn't prove the surveillance was "certainly impending," so therefore didn't have the "standing" necessary to sue. In other words, since the Americans did not have definitive proof that they were being surveilled under the FAA-a fact the government nearly always keeps secret-they cannot challenge the constitutionality of the statute.

Now that tactic will no longer work. Anyone on Verizon has undeniable standing to sue since we have a court order showing the government's order to Verizon to hand over all their customer's data.

That's not just a blockbuster. It's a farking game changer.


I'm not an expert on these issues, but I seriously doubt that a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of warrantless wiretapping of communications between Americans and people overseas will get very far on the merits.  I don't like the idea that someone in Utah may be reading my emails to and from Quebec, but the fact is that if you bring *anything* across any border anywhere--electronic data not excepted--the local authorities, including ours, will often check it out.  Without a warrant.

So no, I don't think this is big news.
 
2013-08-20 10:27:26 PM
Oh I do believe there will be more to come.. stay tuned
 
2013-08-20 10:27:43 PM

tirob: 'm not an expert on these issues, but I seriously doubt that a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of warrantless wiretapping of communications between Americans and people overseas will get very far on the merits.


Well, it's good that you can admit you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
2013-08-21 04:03:54 AM

BullBearMS: tirob: 'm not an expert on these issues, but I seriously doubt that a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of warrantless wiretapping of communications between Americans and people overseas will get very far on the merits.

Well, it's good that you can admit you have no idea what you are talking about.


I assume that you know more than I do about the subject.  That being the case, would you be interested in telling me whether you think that such a lawsuit would get anywhere, and if so, why?

What I *do* know is that once you start talking about communications across international borders, it has historically been much more difficult for us to invoke the Fourth Amendment protections that we're used to here.  Back in the days of letters, for example, people here who got mail from overseas would now and again find that the envelopes had been cut open and resealed.  Legally.  Without any kind of warrant to do so.  From my own experience I can tell you that CBP recently opened and resealed a small, innocuous package I got from abroad.  Whose contents had been declared.  I suppose I could have filed a class action suit about that, but I'm pretty sure that any judge I had taken it to would have dismissed it out of hand.
 
2013-08-21 12:40:41 PM

tirob: That being the case, would you be interested in telling me whether you think that such a lawsuit would get anywhere, and if so, why?


I do know that the barrier that has prevented the Supreme Court from even considering the facts has been removed.

Why aren't you happy about that?
 
2013-08-21 01:43:08 PM

BullBearMS: tirob: That being the case, would you be interested in telling me whether you think that such a lawsuit would get anywhere, and if so, why?

I do know that the barrier that has prevented the Supreme Court from even considering the facts has been removed.

Why aren't you happy about that?


I'm not unhappy about it.  I'd like to see the case litigated because I take an interest in the issue.  I think that the precedent is all with the government, though.  BTW, Greenwald is a lawyer.  He'd know that better than I.
 
2013-08-21 02:48:37 PM

tirob: I think that the precedent is all with the government, though.


In what way?

The entire Bush/Obama legal strategy has been to use lack of standing and state secrets doctrine to prevent the courts from even hearing the cases.

We made a huge deal about that under Bush and although Obama pretended to oppose it before he gained power, he has continued it until today.

The Obama administration for the first time responded to a Spygate lawsuit, telling a federal judge the wholesale vacuuming up of all phone-call metadata in the United States is in the "public interest," does not breach the constitutional rights of Americans and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

also, there is the obligatory mention

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-08-21 05:58:19 PM

BullBearMS: tirob: I think that the precedent is all with the government, though.

In what way?


I more or less went through this in my 4:03 (gosh!) post; historically, and notwithstanding any Fourth Amendment safeguards, the government has been able to look into peoples' papers (mail) and effects (baggage, packages) without a warrant if those papers and effects come from or are brought into this country from elsewhere.  The government will no doubt argue that the same should hold true for electronic mail and other kinds of electronic data brought or sent here from elsewhere.

BullBearMS: The entire Bush/Obama legal strategy has been to use lack of standing and state secrets doctrine to prevent the courts from even hearing the cases.


Lawyers always try to get cases dismissed on procedural grounds so that they can buy time to research the law on the merits.  It's called "going through the motions."

BullBearMS: Obama administration...telling a federal judge the wholesale vacuuming up of all phone-call metadata in the United States is in the "public interest," does not breach the constitutional rights of Americans and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

Here we have both procedural and substantive arguments.  I understand the main substantive argument by the government to be that people don't have a legitimate expectation of privacy for Fourth Amendment purposes in their telephone lugs, and this mainly because people know that the phone companies keep records of the lugs.  Compare this to the expectation of privacy in the calls themselves--people expect that neither the phone company nor anyone else will eavesdrop on their conversations (or most of their conversations, anyway.  I have been an unwilling eavesdropper on a good many cell phone calls).  I don't know the state of the law on this issue (and I can't find anything in a quick Google search), and that may be because the law hasn't gotten to this issue yet.  Here again, I'd be interested to see the result of a litigation of the issue on the merits.  I have no idea what the result of such litigation would be.
 
2013-08-21 06:21:02 PM
@BullBear:  Did a little more research.  This is the state of the law regarding metadata AFAIK.  It is old precedent and may be changed soon by all the litigation (and perhaps also the passing of new laws) going on now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
 
Displayed 129 of 129 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report