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  
•       •       •

4116 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show 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 29 of 129 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report