Greenwald tries to do damage control

[ProSense]

About the Reuters article

The latest effort to distract attention from the NSA revelations is more absurd than most

Glenn Greenwald

When you give many interviews in different countries and say essentially the same thing over and over, as I do, media outlets often attempt to re-package what you've said to make their interview seem new and newsworthy, even when it isn't. Such is the case with this Reuters article today, that purports to summarize an interview I gave to the daily newspaper La Nacion of Argentina.

Like everything in the matter of these NSA leaks, this interview is being wildly distorted to attract attention away from the revelations themselves. It's particularly being seized on to attack Edward Snowden and, secondarily, me, for supposedly "blackmailing" and "threatening" the US government. That is just absurd.

That Snowden has created some sort of "dead man's switch" - whereby documents get released in the event that he is killed by the US government - was previously reported weeks ago, and Snowden himself has strongly implied much the same thing. That doesn't mean he thinks the US government is attempting to kill him - he doesn't - just that he's taken precautions against all eventualities, including that one (just incidentally, the notion that a government that has spent the last decade invading, bombing, torturing, rendering, kidnapping, imprisoning without charges, droning, partnering with the worst dictators and murderers, and targeting its own citizens for assassination would be above such conduct is charmingly quaint).

I made three points in this La Nacion interview, all of which are true and none of which has anything remotely to do with threats:

<...>

My point in this interview was clear, one I've repeated over and over: had he wanted to harm the US government, he easily could have, but hasn't, as evidenced by the fact that - as I said - he has all sorts of documents that could inflict serious harm to the US government's programs. That demonstrates how irrational is the claim that his intent is to harm the US. His intent is to shine a light on these programs so they can be democratically debated. That's why none of the disclosures we've published can be remotely described as harming US national security: all they've harmed are the reputation and credibility of US officials who did these things and then lied about them.

- more -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/13/reuters-article-dead-man-s-switch

From the English translation provided by Greenwald: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/356145450555944961

- Are you afraid that someone will try to kill him?

It's a possibility, although I do not bring many benefits to anyone at this point. Already distributed thousands of documents and made sure that several people around the world have their entire file. If something were to happen, those documents would be made public. This is your insurance policy. The U.S. government should be on your knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowden, because if something happens, all information will be revealed and that would be their worst nightmare.

Snowden documents could be 'worst nightmare' for U.S.: journalist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023242606

[MjolnirTime]

1. Too late. Your mask has been torn away, Glenn.

[Mojorabbit]

2. in that same translation

after the worst nightmare comment
" But that's not his goal. Its objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy. It has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the U.S. government if they were made public."

Once again you left out the qualifying part of a statement.

[ProSense]

3. "in that same translation after the worst nightmare comment"

The "worst nightmare" comment is bizarre.

Here's what follows the "worst nightmare" comment:

- Are you afraid that someone will try to kill him?

It's a possibility, although I do not bring many benefits to anyone at this point. Already distributed thousands of documents and made sure that several people around the world have their entire file. If something were to happen, those documents would be made public. This is your insurance policy. The U.S. government should be on your knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowden, because if something happens, all information will be revealed and that would be their worst nightmare.

- Can Latin America be a good shelter for Snowden?

-Only a few countries, including several in Latin America, China and Russia, have challenged the U.S., have realized that America is no longer in a position of strength as it did before with the rest of the world, and that the rest of the countries do not have to obey their demands as if it were an imperial order. In Latin America feels a natural sympathy for the United States, yet there is a great resentment for specific historical policies of Washington toward the region. What happened to the plane of Evo Morales in Europe caused a strong reaction, was treated as if Bolivia was a colony and not a sovereign state.

Show me where it states: "But that's not his goal."

[Mojorabbit]

6. It is in your link of the translation

Here is the question
Beyond the revelations about the spying system performance in general, what extra information has Snowden?

-Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the U.S. government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States. But that's not his goal. Its objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy. It has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the U.S. government if they were made public.

http://translate.google.com.br/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lanacion.com.ar%2F1600674-glenn-greenwald-snowden-tiene-informacion-para-causar-mas-dano

[ProSense]

10. Again,

"It is in your link of the translation"

...that has nothing to do with the point he made after, which is the "worst nightmare".

- Beyond the revelations about the spying system performance in general, what extra information has Snowden?

-Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the U.S. government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States. But that's not his goal. Its objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy. It has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the U.S. government if they were made public.

- Are you afraid that someone will try to kill him?

It's a possibility, although I do not bring many benefits to anyone at this point. Already distributed thousands of documents and made sure that several people around the world have their entire file. If something were to happen, those documents would be made public. This is your insurance policy. The U.S. government should be on your knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowden, because if something happens, all information will be revealed and that would be their worst nightmare.

On top of the "on your knees" comment and holding information hostage, he's confirming that Snowden stole information unrelated to the goal of the leak, validating the felony theft charge against him.

[Mojorabbit]

12. Nothing in your link validates anything

Leaving out the quote where he stated it was not his goal to harm the govt and only posting the quotes where information would be released if the man is harmed is being dishonest. There is no other word for it.

[randome]

13. Blackmailers imply much but never use the word 'blackmail' themselves.

Greenwald's 'warning' is obvious.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Mojorabbit]

17. Yes he is trying to protect his client

from harm. But he has made it clear that his client's goal is not to harm the US. Only an idiot would neglect to have a back up plan to protect himself in a case like this.

[stevenleser]

28. Client? Snowden is not his client. Greenwald may be acting as if he is, but he is not representing

Snowden.

[ProSense]

18. Wait,

Leaving out the quote where he stated it was not his goal to harm the govt and only posting the quotes where information would be released if the man is harmed is being dishonest. There is no other word for it.

...what the hell are you talking about?

The full reponse to the question was posted. Just because you want to claim that the quote wasn't presented in full to justify your bullshit accusation is your problem.

The repsonse was to the question: "Are you afraid that someone will try to kill him? "

The response is quoted in full in the OP.

- Beyond the revelations about the spying system performance in general, what extra information has Snowden?

-Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the U.S. government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States. But that's not his goal. Its objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy. It has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the U.S. government if they were made public.

- Are you afraid that someone will try to kill him?

It's a possibility, although I do not bring many benefits to anyone at this point. Already distributed thousands of documents and made sure that several people around the world have their entire file. If something were to happen, those documents would be made public. This is your insurance policy. The U.S. government should be on your knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowden, because if something happens, all information will be revealed and that would be their worst nightmare.

On top of the "on your knees" comment and holding information hostage, he's confirming that Snowden stole information unrelated to the goal of the leak, validating the felony theft charge against him.

Your accusation is bullshit.

[Mojorabbit]

19. He is not proving anything. We know he had four flash drives. We do not know the extent of

the info on it. This is the second time I have seen you present only part of the information that skewed a point. It is better to present the whole of the information so people can make informed conversation about it.

[ProSense]

21. You

"He is not proving anything. We know he had four flash drives. We do not know the extent of the info on it. This is the second time I have seen you present only part of the information that skewed a point. It is better to present the whole of the information so people can make informed conversation about it."

...don't like reality do you? Is this the question and full response?

- Are you afraid that someone will try to kill him?

It's a possibility, although I do not bring many benefits to anyone at this point. Already distributed thousands of documents and made sure that several people around the world have their entire file. If something were to happen, those documents would be made public. This is your insurance policy. The U.S. government should be on your knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowden, because if something happens, all information will be revealed and that would be their worst nightmare.

Did Greenwald make that statement?

[Mojorabbit]

22. I give up.

Two points are made in the article.
One that it is not Snowden's aim to harm the US but to inform of abuse of the system.
Two that if anyone is thinking of offing him, other's have the info and it would not stop the info from being distributed

We already know that multiple journalists have the info. That was said from the beginning. The interviewer asked if he
was afraid that someone might kill him and Greenwald answered that the info would be revealed. We already know it
must be embarrassing stuff or our govt would not be going after him so aggressively

Posting the second point and leaving out the first is not presenting the entire picture. x

I could say, I saw your boyfriend out with a hot chick last night and he said she was amazing.
I could neglect to mention that the hot chick was his sister.
I would be giving an incomplete accounting of the event.

and on edit here is Greewalds comments
I made three points in this La Nacion interview, all of which are true and none of which has anything remotely to do with threats:

1) The oft-repeated claim that Snowden's intent is to harm the US is completely negated by the reality that he has all sorts of documents that could quickly and seriously harm the US if disclosed, yet he has published none of those. When he gave us the documents he provided, he repeatedly insisted that we exercise rigorous journalistic judgment in deciding which documents should be published in the public interest and which ones should be concealed on the ground that the harm of publication outweighs the public value. If his intent were to harm the US, he could have sold all the documents he had for a great deal of money, or indiscriminately published them, or passed them to a foreign adversary. He did none of that.

He carefully vetted every document he gave us, and then on top of that, asked that we only publish those which ought to be disclosed and would not cause gratuitous harm: the same analytical judgment that all media outlets and whistleblowers make all the time. The overwhelming majority of his disclosures were to blow the whistle on US government deceit and radical, hidden domestic surveillance.

My point in this interview was clear, one I've repeated over and over: had he wanted to harm the US government, he easily could have, but hasn't, as evidenced by the fact that - as I said - he has all sorts of documents that could inflict serious harm to the US government's programs. That demonstrates how irrational is the claim that his intent is to harm the US. His intent is to shine a light on these programs so they can be democratically debated. That's why none of the disclosures we've published can be remotely described as harming US national security: all they've harmed are the reputation and credibility of US officials who did these things and then lied about them....

[ProSense]

23. "Two points are made in the article. "

You're damn right there are "two points" (in fact, there are several points), and the one cited in the OP is presented in full.

Greenwald did, in fact, state:

- Are you afraid that someone will try to kill him?

It's a possibility, although I do not bring many benefits to anyone at this point. Already distributed thousands of documents and made sure that several people around the world have their entire file. If something were to happen, those documents would be made public. This is your insurance policy. The U.S. government should be on your knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowden, because if something happens, all information will be revealed and that would be their worst nightmare.

You were attempting to conflate the two points to claim that I omitted part of that quote.

That was a bullshit.

[Mojorabbit]

24. Not bullshit. A fact and not the first time.

One of the things that makes this board great is that we do not present skewed or cherry picked information. There have been some epic fact finding threads here over the years and that is because the full scope of a subject is presented.

[ProSense]

25. No, it's bullshit, as is your attempt at deflection. n/t

[allin99]

4. the whole truth is always best, everything else is bullshit

[ProSense]

8. Yeah,

"the whole truth is always best, everything else is bullshit"

...I love this part

- Beyond the revelations about the spying system performance in general, what extra information has Snowden?

-Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the U.S. government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States. But that's not his goal. Its objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy. It has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the U.S. government if they were made public.

- Are you afraid that someone will try to kill him?

It's a possibility, although I do not bring many benefits to anyone at this point. Already distributed thousands of documents and made sure that several people around the world have their entire file. If something were to happen, those documents would be made public. This is your insurance policy. The U.S. government should be on your knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowden, because if something happens, all information will be revealed and that would be their worst nightmare.

On top of the "knees" comment and holding information hostage, he's confirming that Snowden stole information unrelated to the goal of the leak, validating the felony theft charge against him.

[Mojorabbit]

9. I agree. nt

[karynnj]

44. Can you think of any group we do want to have this knowledge?

I can - and they are the reason for the program.

[struggle4progress]

5. "It's not about Snowden! It's not about threatening to damage the US with a deadman's switch!

It's not about sabotaging US diplomatic efforts or creating diplomatic tiffs! It's not about how easy it easy for people to pass privatized background checks and get contracting jobs that enable them to sweep up classified documents! It's about ... it's about ... wait a minute ... it'll come to me ..."

[randome]

14. No, I don't think it will come to you because they don't seem to know what they're doing any longer.

Truth! Justice! Or I will bring you to your knees!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hekate]

27. really -- lolz

[kentuck]

7. I think he meant "renditioning" ?

"...just that he's taken precautions against all eventualities, including that one (just incidentally, the notion that a government that has spent the last decade invading, bombing, torturing, rendering, kidnapping, imprisoning without charges, droning, partnering with the worst dictators and murderers, and targeting its own citizens for assassination would be above such conduct is charmingly quaint)."

[Whisp]

11. what a giant putz GG is.

He is in over his empty head on this.

What a moran.

[JaneyVee]

15. Everyone throws around the word distraction as if people can't pay attention to

Both stories, the one of the leak and the one of Snowden. It's not that complicated.

[CakeGrrl]

40. "Distraction" = "Shut up and leave Greenwald/Snowden alone!"

Don't dare question either of their motives. The non-sequitur standard stonewall response is now:

"Do you care that the government is spying on us?"

[railsback]

16. Sure sounded like a freakin' threat to me

So now I'm absurd for taking a verbatim quote out of context?

What a douche.

And he'll do it, man!

[Mojorabbit]

20. Who called you absurd? nt

[railsback]

32. Um.. a bunny rabbit

[Hissyspit]

26. You mean you, not Glenn.

I understood what he was saying.

[boilerbabe]

29. you whistleblower haters are a fucking hoot!

[ProSense]

31. Snowden is not a whistleblower. n/t

[Marr]

33. Compelling argument. /nt

[CakeGrrl]

41. Simple statement of fact. /nt

[Marr]

46. Actually, it's a propaganda talking point. You really should learn the difference. /nt

[Major Hogwash]

34. Greenwald couldn't produce a healthy fart if he ate a hill of beans!!

But, if he did, it would sound like this . . . toot toot, not hoot hoot.

[Scurrilous]

36. Music Break!

[brush]

30. Something's fishy

Last edited Mon Jul 15, 2013, 09:30 AM - Edit history (2)

Greenwald writes:

" . . . a government that has spent the last decade invading, bombing, torturing, rendering, kidnapping, imprisoning without charges, droning, partnering with the worst dictators and murderers, and targeting its own citizens for assassination would be above such conduct is charmingly quaint."

Try the last century and he'd be much nearer the truth. The US has been doing this stuff for as long as any of us has been alive. It didn't just start with Obama like all the people with their hair on fire are shouting. Matter of fact, it didn't just start with Bush either.

We're talking empire here, which is what all the bases and troops around the world, and our nose and military forces in other countries internal affairs, good, but mostly bad (our corporate interests) are. And the President of the United States is the head of this corporate/military conglomerate. And I'm betting if said president tried to change it he'd, sad to say, end up like JFK.

Snowden and Greenwald are enjoying their time in the spotlight but they're both kinda late to the party if they think this stuff is new.

[CakeGrrl]

43. Greenwald is trying, and starting to fail, to cover for his Obama hatred.

He let a lot of stuff go unremarked under Bush.

Between him, Wikileaks, and Snowden's whining that the President is ruining his escape from breaking the law, their collective anti-Obama masks are slipping.

Wikileaks Obama Twitter rant:
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023234734

Glenn Greenwald Goes on a Bash MSNBC Twitter Marathon Rant:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023242112

[Laelth]

35. k&r for exposure.

I must add that I am quite ashamed that Greenwald could honestly say the following:

the notion that a government that has spent the last decade invading, bombing, torturing, rendering, kidnapping, imprisoning without charges, droning, partnering with the worst dictators and murderers, and targeting its own citizens for assassination would be above such conduct is charmingly quaint

In my name.

-Laelth

[ProSense]

38. That

statement coming from Greenwald doesn't impress me. Everyone knows what occured under Bush.

And here's another Greenwald attempt to cover his ass: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134060

[Laelth]

39. It shouldn't impress you.

I would think it would embarrass you ... because it is substantially true.

-Laelth

[ProSense]

45. Remember

"I would think it would embarrass you ... because it is substantially true. "

...this sentiment:

[Blackford]

37. A member of the media blaming the media for their own screwups

Methinks GG is channeling Sarah Palin.

[Bonobo]

42. M

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3242606

...ore self-referential links, cut and paste spam and dirt-flinging.

[snooper2]

47. If one or both of you don't release "all" the documents

you enshrine your status as- Loser!

[okojo]

48. Greenwald is deluding himself about espionage...

Greenwald said,

" had he wanted to harm the US government, he easily could have, but hasn't, as evidenced by the fact that - as I said - he has all sorts of documents that could inflict serious harm to the US government's programs."

Snowden has done the damage by taken the material from a secure network, publishing the material in the public domain doesn't make it more damaging, the material has been compromised.

This is like the argument that those who spied for friendly nation or a false flag operation, stating they were helping an friend of their country, not the enemy or a belligerent. It doesn't matter, the information is out there, other intelligence agencies can find ways to get it, that amateurs like Edward Snowden wouldn't know about.

Much like how Jonathan Pollard was giving away pretty much the entire communication and satellite network of the US Armed Forces to the Israelis, thinking they were an ally. When in turn the Israelis turned around and a gave much of the submarine detection and surveillance info to the Soviet Union in exchange for Russian Jewish Dissidents. The material and secrets are no longer in a secure network/area.