Greenwald Lied In His Reporting About NSA Program. Period. HE LIED.

[KittyWampus]

He either lied knowingly or took false information from Snowden and did not fact check it.

The distortion caused by Greenwald's lies and those published by other "journalists" is still being spread here on DU.

The word "spy" is used as a shorthand way to stoke outrage and obfuscate.

Those braying loudest seem to have no clue what actually transpired & it's legality.

My first reaction was this was a faux scandal hot on the heels of the other non-scandals. My second reaction was the story was too sensational. And here it is Monday and it's clear- Greenwald lied or was misinformed and no matter how torqued some may wish to get, the NSA as far as anyone knows was following the law.


Glenn Greenwald reported that the NSA had attained “direct access” to servers owned by Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Apple etc in order to attain private user information via a top secret government operation called PRISM.

"Glenn Greenwald used the phrase “direct access,” as in unobstructed direct server access, four times in his article, most prominently in his lede, “The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.”"

ALL THOSE COMPANY DECLARED THIS NOT TRUE.

Example,

Google wrote, “Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers.” Google also described how it will occasionally and voluntarily hand over user data to the government, but only after it’s been vetted and scrutinized by Google’s legal team.

THE GOVERNMENT SENDS REQUESTS FOR DATA. THEY GET WARRANTS> IT IS LEGAL.





http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/

http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/

[dennis4868]

1. Sorry but you are in

Glen Greenwald country here at DU. He is GOD. Only a handful of people here will take you seriously (myself included).

[still_one]

2. I don't know about that. A lot of people do not really know him. Some think he is a liberal, he is

Not

[Hissyspit]

49. And for those of us who do know him?

What's your point?

[still_one]

57. Be skeptical of everyone.

[Hissyspit]

58. Including my government, the NSA, and people who knee-jerk slander with partisan talking points?

O.K.

[still_one]

59. That is what I said. However, one persons talking points are fact to some, and an plot to others

and vice versa

The sword cuts both ways

and a public forum is to discuss and debate ALL views, not just ones we agree or disagree with

[Luminous Animal]

68. It seems a number of liberals are judging the spying debacle through the prism (pun intended) of

disliking @ggreenwald

Peter Daou ?@peterdaou on twitter

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

77. The point is that he is NOT liberal and has been going after the president since the man announced

his candidacy back in Springfield, Illinois on that cold, blistering day in 2007!

[Luminous Animal]

69. Really because he says he is and advocates for liberal positions.

Everywhere that you see the word "here" Greenwald supplies a link to his own articles:
http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html#!/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:

* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);

* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);

* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);

* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);

* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);

* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);

* criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);

* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);

* praising and defending the Occupy Wall Street movement as early and vocally as anyone (here, here and here)

* using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;

* co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardin, JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);

* co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);

To apply a "right-wing libertarian" label to someone with those views and that activism is patently idiotic. Just ask any actual libertarian whether those views are compatible with being a libertarian. Or just read this October, 2012 post - written on Volokh, a libertarian blog - entitled "Glenn Greenwald, Man of the Left", which claims I harbor "left-wing views on economic policy" and am "a run-of-the-mill left-winger of the sort who can be heard 24/7 on the likes of Pacifica radio" because of my opposition to cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

[Fumesucker]

10. If Greenwald is God then Obama must be God^2

[gholtron]

86. Make that two.

Count me in as taking your side. I posted on here about this on how fear was used to whip up the hype. Everyone knew about the Patriot Act. Everyone knew that Bush abused it. The article didn't show where any laws were broken. Warrants were obtained by going through the FISA court. Members of Congress were briefed. So there was over site. So what whistle did he blow? And why did he pick a Communist country, China, as one of the countries for Asylum? Rio does not have extradition. Just my two cents. 

[msanthrope]

3. Hey kitty---Greenwald wiretapped for Matt Hale. An oldie but goodie...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

[SidDithers]

4. Thanks for posting that...

Sid

[msanthrope]

7. Posters here have short memories. nt

[dlwickham]

52. they just choose to ignore the facts

[Luminous Animal]

70. Or they don't play Rovian games with the truth and can smell bullshit

right through the intertubes.

[msanthrope]

73. Indeed. I asked you previously how a trademark case for Matt Hale could possibly

be taken as a First Amendment challenge. You didn't answer.

[geek tragedy]

5. He's lying or they're lying. Don't trust either. nt

[hlthe2b]

6. You state in your subject without reserve 2x that "HE LIED" then you finally acknowledgee

paragraphs in, "Or was misinformed"....

I decided when this story broke and there was so much contradictory information going back and forth that I was going to sit back and let the truth eventually come out and NOT jump to conclusions.

It is this hyperbolic, adamant, and dogmatic response by both sides on DU that irritates the crap out of me. I don't know YET what the truth is and I don't think anyone here DOES. Yet some feel comfortable berating others who disagree with their knee jerk assessment and concluding that one or more of the supposed players are intentionally "LYING".... not misinformed but intentionally lying.

I hate the hell out of this behavior when the RW does it and even more so when we do. Uggh.

[randome]

23. He's a journalist. He is supposed to KNOW this stuff. Not guess at it.

He should not claim to know anything unless he has proof. In this instance, he has none.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Luminous Animal]

32. The article is balanced. He reported what the NSA documents claimed and he reported the denials.

This is basic journalism. Read the damn article and then come back and accuse him of lying.

There was zero lying. It was straightforward reporting from source documents.
This information is right in the articles headline:

• Top-secret Prism program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook
• Companies deny any knowledge of program in operation since 2007

From the article: (emphasis mine)

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers. the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

[rhett o rick]

37. I am visuallizing that you go into a dark room and repeating over and over, "My beloved government

isnt spying on me,"

[hlthe2b]

43. Until YOU have proof that this person (or the Admin, for that matter) LIED

then this is despicable behavior on the part of DU. I take no sides here. I'm still trying to sort through the frequently contradictory information and spin being put out. The one thing I am willing to do at THIS POINT, is to give both sides benefit of the doubt until there is conclusive proof to the contrary.

But, yes, it is despicable behavior to jump at baseless assessments of mal-intent pending definitive proof--here as well as on RW sites.

[Luminous Animal]

75. There is no lie here. Greenwald reported directly from the NSA documents and used the word

"claims" when describing what was in them and he also reported the tech companies' rebuttal.

He simply preformed honest reporting. He read the documents... reported that the documents "CLAIMED" this, he followed up to get clarification of those "CLAIMS", the "CLAIMS" were rebutted. He reported those rebuttals.

Read the article. It is basic, un-editorializing reporting.

This information is right in the articles headline:

• Top-secret Prism program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook
• Companies deny any knowledge of program in operation since 2007

From the article: (emphasis mine)

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers. the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

[burnodo]

71. oh, NOW he's a journalist?

yesterday he was just "a blogger"

[truedelphi]

60. You re bringing up a very decent point.

After sifting through about two hours of Greenwald interviews, Snowden interviews, the only lying I could think of is that Snowden somewhere states that the Google and other internet social media sites are in on this PRISM situation. (Although I forget if Google is specifically named.)

And then the Google people came out and said, no, that is not true.

The problem being - if Goggle Executives had signed on with the NSA involving Google with a program such as PRISM, they would also be required to not mention doing that. And to deny that they had done so.

And then the bigger problem is again, as you say, what is mis-informed vs out and out lying?

The biggest problem for Obama is that if he ever goes on the record and states that he was not well informed, that is a very dangerous position to take. I can clearly remember the debate in this country prior to Nixon resigning. It became apparent through hearing out that debate that nobody wanted:
1) a President that was in on some shady activities
or 2) a President that had stood back from those shady activities, but who lacked the ability to do diligent oversight on those involved in his Administration that took up shady activities.

[Bohunk68]

8. I've heard Greenwald a couple of times

on various programs and even with my albeit limited information, I knew that some of what he said was overblown or taken out of context. He is not someone with whom I have a lot of trust to be truthtelling.

[SidDithers]

9. Greenwald has never really been too careful with his facts...

remember his reporting here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x741377

He's not exactly a pillar of journalistic accuracy, is he.

Sid

[Cha]

15. But sure got the natives worked up about Obama. Wow, just wow

Thanks for the link, SidDithers.. And, they still haven't learned what Greenwald is about..

emcguffie#158 "Thank God, it's no longer true. A mistake was made -- by someone.

According to an update, the White House says this fellow wasn't invited to participate in anything. That he was possibly invited by the organizations involved.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/...

The White House, however, now tells a much different story. In an email to me from the First Lady’s Communications Director, the White House claims:

Several members of the White House staff are convening a meeting with multiple mental health professionals on Tuesday to discuss issues pertaining to the wellness of military families. SAMHSA and the American Psychological Association have both been asked to attend. We understand that Dr. James is involved with these groups and may have been indirectly invited to attend this meeting.

She claims, however, that he now will not be at that meeting, and further states that "Dr. James has not been appointed to serve in any capacity with the White House."

There’s obviously quite a discrepancy between the claims in the James email as provided by HLS' Human Rights Project and the White House’s claims. Calls to Dr. James regarding this matter have not been returned, but if I speak with him, I’ll post his response to the White House's denials.

So, either it was a genuine mistake, or the White House changed its mind.

That's good news, either way, although I certainly hope the mistake was made by the professional organizations."

[Astrad]

11. The NSA slide Snowden leaked

used the words 'directly from the servers of these US service providers...'

Though there is a debate as to whether the NSA person who wrote the slide was using the terminology incorrectly.

Certainly doesn't seem credible to say Guardian was knowingly lying.

[Luminous Animal]

88. Given that he used the word "claim" in describing the slide show - no he wasn't lying.

But Kitty pretends that the word wasn't there.

[hobbit709]

13. Name one person in this fiasco that DIDN'T lie.

[Luminous Animal]

92. Greenwald correctly reported the precise verbiage in the NSA documents and correctly reported

the tech companies' rebuttal. Greenwald was specific in reporting that the NSA "claims". Read the damn article.

Where is the lie?

This is basic journalism. Read the damn article and then come back and accuse him of lying.

There was zero lying. It was straightforward reporting from source documents.
This information is right in the articles headline:

• Top-secret Prism program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook
• Companies deny any knowledge of program in operation since 2007

From the article: (emphasis mine)

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers. the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

[Luminous Animal]

14. Greenwald reported exactly what the NSA documents said and he reported the tech company's denials.

There was zero lying. It was straightforward reporting from source documents.
This information is right in the articles headline:

• Top-secret Prism program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook
• Companies deny any knowledge of program in operation since 2007

From the article: (emphasis mine)

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers. the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

[questionseverything]

20. more info

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Alice in Wonderland indeed. Thanks for the link.

[Luminous Animal]

29. Thank you.

[reusrename]

16. clueless folks making clueless arguments

What makes you believe that Google's "legal team" knows exactly what access the feds have, or any of the other detailed classified ins an outs of this top secret program?



Seriously? This is the mountain you want to die on?

[KittyWampus]

18. LOL! So there is no proof you can offer. It's all just supposition. Based on, what? Cause Greenwald

and Snowden offered nothing.

[truedelphi]

35. All I know is I will take Greenwald's word and

Snowden's word over anything that Obama loyalists would have to offer, any day of the week. No matter how many OP's they set up to tell us that some minor omission or other means that Greenwald/Snowden fabricated any of this.

If Obama had remained true to the Kucinich-talking points he presented in his sweep through Wisconsin circa October 2008, I would defend him myself. But immediately upon election, he got busy handing over our governmental agencies and positions of power to his friends in Wall Street businesses, to Monsanto, and to MIC firms, plus allowed for full onslaught of Homeland Security and surveillance.

However Merckley and Wryden make me very proud of some members of the Democratic Party.

[vi5]

54. Bingo

Sorry, but Obama's national security/civil rights record is abysmal as far as I'm concerned. Their willingness to smear anyone who speaks out against dear leader is frightening.

I really hope DU isn't indicative of the current state of the Democratic party as a whole, because I don't recognize anything about my party in a lot of these posts and behaviors.

[deurbano]

83. Even BEFORE the election, "Obama's FISA Shift" was pretty depressing... and did not bode well.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/07/obamas-fisa-shi/

[truedelphi]

85. Agreed. But we were all living in the middle of what was

Eight long years of George Dubya, and we were clinging to hope, that this freshman congress man from Illinois might be the real thing.

[Kolesar]

102. Obama loyalists

If Obama loyalists are the biggest problem you have in your live, I envy you.

[truedelphi]

107. In some ways I am lucky.

Living in California, which has not yet had its water and topography destroyed by fracking, and also with the Prop 215 Med marijuana dispensaries somewhat up and running, there are quite a few good things in my life.

However, the fracking forces of control are about to descend on this state, as the Monterrey area has lots of shale. Gorgeous area of the world - and whatever it takes, the fracking has to be stopped.

Biggest local concerns this summer are wild fires, drought, wild fires, drought.

[xiamiam]

17. lol..silly to be so determined to blame the messenger..

I could see if you believed that yourself.. but to try to convince others that you have the key to the inside truth is just ridiculous.

[truedelphi]

39. + 10,000.

[Laelth]

19. And you believe those companies?

I don't.

-Laelth

[Monkie]

21. they lie because they are given immunity, and are not allowed to talk about national security

doh?
spin spin, smear the messenger, where have i seen that before.

[leftynyc]

24. Defend this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

That's the messenger you're currently worshiping.

[Luminous Animal]

27. What should I be defending.

That he was a Constitutional attorney and took the case on First Amendment grounds?

[msanthrope]

47. How is a trademark a first amendment case? Greenwald was a litigator for Wachtel so

I can understand why he might take a trademark case--but to pretend that a trademark case for Mr. Hale is some case of Constitutional moment is laughable.

[Luminous Animal]

87. I guess the NY Times got it wrong.

http://blue.utb.edu/labad/white_supremacist_is_held_in_ord.htm

[msanthrope]

96. LA...greenwald was the attorney on the original trademark case. Lefkow became

a criminal matter. Greenwald didn't rep him on the criminal matter but was interviewed regarding the violarion of SAMs. Greenwald then repped on the shooting victims cases. So tell me how the original trademark case was first amendment?

[Luminous Animal]

97. Greenwald was the attorney of record for the 1st amendment case.

[msanthrope]

98. Yes...after he repped Hale in the trademark case. His original rep was trademark and

the first amendment case was defense of the shooting victims' lawsuit. He lost both. If you're suggesting there is something noble in defending a white supremacist in a trademark fight against other white supremacists...then you would be wrong.

[Monkie]

51. i worship no man, smear the messenger of the messenger all you like

you are not even smearing the messenger, but the messenger of the messenger.
how about you address the facts.
you seem to call yourself a lefty, how does monitoring everyone, collecting everything that is available in digital form and storing it permanently fit in with being a lefty unless you are the joseph stalin or stasi kind of "lefty"?
your government, under the leadership of obama, a democrat in name, is monitoring everyone and storing this data permanently, this is unprecedented, anywhere, at any time in recorded history.

there is nothing for me to defend.
but i see what you are defending.

edward snowdon leaked this information, and he is a very brave man.

[leftynyc]

101. Greenwald has been working with

Snowdon since February. That doesn't make you queasy? That he may have coordinated this illegal act to further his own name? I honestly don't see what's brave about "blowing the whistle" on something that is not illegal and then running away - that's bravery in your world?

[Monkie]

105. the USA and the companies collaborating are the ones that broke laws

this is what makes me queasy, why should i care about your laws being broken when you dont care about mine?
the companies collaborating with the NSA broke EU law.
also, the guardian liaised with the NSA about the leaks, and redacted some of the prism slides it published, the guardian is publishing this data in accordance with UK law while being the subject of a secret D-notice, there is nothing illegal going on with these leaks, furthermore, it is a fact that "the law" allows breaking the law under specific circumstances as you well know.

thread with details regarding the guardians liaising with the NSA and the secret D-notice:

www.democraticunderground.com/10022992399

[leftynyc]

106. Then let the EU prosecute

because the US government didn't break any laws (you are aware of this, aren't you?). Snowden DID break US law (leaking classified documents). It's not really hard to understand. That you are naively choking down whatever greenwald has to say tells me all I need to know.

[cui bono]

25. And big corporations NEVER lie.

We know that this mass spying exists. Obama and congress were keeping it from us. So your response is to try to discredit some of what Greenwald said with a broad brush in an attempt to discredit him entirely rather than be concerned about us being a step away from/or already in a police state?

Why does that concern you more than our constitutional rights?

[randome]

26. Neither do NSA employees or journalists.

We do NOT know that mass spying exists. If it did, then why do we still have crime? Why hasn't one political party completely overwhelmed the other?

I don't see how anyone can sleep at night not trusting anyone,

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[questionseverything]

33. fisa court says the goverment spys

This important case—all the more relevant in the wake of this week's disclosures—was triggered after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, started crying foul in 2011 about US government snooping. As a member of the intelligence committee, he had learned about domestic surveillance activity affecting American citizens that he believed was improper. He and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), another intelligence committee member, raised only vague warnings about this data collection, because they could not reveal the details of the classified program that concerned them. But in July 2012, Wyden was able to get the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify two statements that he wanted to issue publicly. They were:

* On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

* I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

[randome]

40. I have no problem with the law or our legislators shutting the whole thing down.

But I'm not going to take the word of a guy who ran to Hong Kong to hide and says 'I have nothing to hide'.

And 'once' and 'sometimes' does not mean that all Americans are being routinely spied upon.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[questionseverything]

62. the gov't admits the programs exist

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-memo-4th-amendment-92416.html

Americans learned about one upshot of NSA’s philosophy this week when Washington acknowledged two of its subsequent surveillance programs: One that tracks the phone records of millions of Americans and one that accesses the servers of several major Internet companies, including Facebook, Google and Apple. The revelations were first reported by Britain’s Guardian newspaper and the Washington Post.

[randome]

63. The link seems to be about the 2001 memo or am I perusing that incorrectly?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[questionseverything]

64. washington acknowleged

is the point i want to make to you....from the current pres to clapper,no one is denying these programs exist

maybe the right word is not spying but collecting

collecting every e-mail,every personal chat...if you do not see this situation is ripe for abuse,i have a bridge to sell ya

btw ur tag line,stop looking for heroes is ironic

[questionseverything]

67. more from amy goodman and another x nsa guy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022985946

[bvar22]

28. You are really going to use the speculations of Internet Blog "The Daily Banter"

...to support you screams of "LIAR"?


I wet to The Daily Banter and found this
pathetic attempt at spin and damage control.

Despite the 13 bullet points of speculation, interpretation, innuendo, and just plain Name Calling,
only one bullet point was wasted in a failed attempt to provide documentation for the hyped up claim in the article's title,
and here it is from Bullet Point #5:

"On Twitter, Greenwald defended his reporting by reiterating that the NSA said within the PRISM document that there has been “collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook…” But this [font size=3]could[/font] mean that the data was drawn from the servers, vetted and handed over to the NSA per Google’s stated process of legal vetting. And [font size=3]if[/font] the data was made available, [font size=3]it’s possible[/font] that the tech companies posted it on a server for the NSA analysts to download, just as you [font size=3]might[/font] download a file from work or a friend via Dropbox or an FTP server. Regardless, [font size=3]it seems[/font] as if Greenwald’s entire story hinges on a semantic interpretation of the PRISM language. And his mistake was to leap from “collection directly from servers” to “direct access.”

"Could", "if", "it might", It's possible", and "it seems" does NOT make a very strong case for anyone with a capacity for critical thought.

The bloggers speculations about what "could" be hardly justifies a title of :
"NSA Bombshell Story Falling Apart Under Scrutiny; Key Facts Turning Out to Be Inaccurate"

Seizing on the minute parsing of the phrase "direct access",
is FAR from a debunking, and certainly NOT up to any standard necessary to scream LIAR!
It isn't even a valid rebuttal of what we have learned so far.
This is a desperate attempt to Poison the Whole Well by grasping at anything that may possibly be a minor point of disagreement in the meaning of a phrase,
like a Clinton parsing the meaning of the word "is".

I encourage everyone reading this thread to go to the linked article,
read the 13 Bullet Points and the blogger's summary,
and then decide for himself or herself whether this blogger's opinion merits a headline of "LIAR!"

To me, this reeks of desperation.

---bvar22


You will know them by their WORKS.

[avaistheone1]

30. k&r

[Luminous Animal]

44. +1

[truedelphi]

61. Thank you for adding yoru analysis to the discussion.

Amazing and excellent thinking - must be all those homegrown garden edibles keeping your brain alert.

[CakeGrrl]

31. He's at least on a Dem divide and conquer mission

Greenwald: "Obama spies on Americans!"

Dowd: "Peeping Barry"! (to hell with her)

Greenwald believers: "Obama can't be trusted! I'm leaving the Dem party!!!"

Just in time to make already skittish/fair weather Dem participation even more uncertain for 2014

Libertarian mission accomplished. The chest puffing about righteousness is bullshit coming from someone who had so much trust in GW Bush. And to whomever excuses Greenwald with "he's evolved", spare me the crap unless President Obama is afforded the same.

[questionseverything]

36. i am still a dem

but some of us dems believe in the truth and the Constitution,ya know,secure in our persons and papers..ring a bell?

[MannyGoldstein]

34. You should be as careful with your accusations

as the companies' mentioned were at picking there words:

Parsing PRISM Denials: Could Everyone be Telling the Truth?

[Luminous Animal]

38. Your quoted text is a LIE.

[rhett o rick]

41. Your attempts at trying to kill the messenger doesnt change the facts. We know that our

beloved government is collecting massive data on Americans. And we know the government is telling us to trust them that they are being good. Transparency is essential for a democracy. Lynching whistle-blowers does not make the problem go away.

[KittyWampus]

42. LOL! It's not the messenger. It's the MESSAGE. It is a lie.

[rhett o rick]

46. So are you saying that our government isnt collecting massive data on American citizens?

Or are you saying that you are aware they are but it's ok because you trust your government?

[Luminous Animal]

66. Then take it up with the NSA because Greenwald was reporting what was in the

documents and allowed the tech companies to rebut. He did not editorialize but did straight reporting.

He said the NSA claims... claims. And that was the truth. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

[neverforget]

76. So are those documents that were released lies? That's the message.

[Luminous Animal]

91. The NSA lied in its own documents? Because Greenwald correctly reported what the NSA said.

[JDPriestly]

45. Have you read the court order attached to the first Greenwald

article in the Guardian? It instructs Verizon to save all of its records on calls. If something similar has been issued for telecoms, then they are all implicated.

Would the government actually have to obtain this data from Google, etc.? Would they just have it at the central internet processors? To what extent is the government relationship with the internet similar to its relationship with the Post Office?

[jeff47]

50. That's not the same program.

Doesn't matter what the order to Verizon said. It's not part of the same program.

Would the government actually have to obtain this data from Google, etc.? Would they just have it at the central internet processors?

There really isn't "central Internet processors". But there's something similar.

There's a relatively limited number of fiberoptic cables that connect the US to the rest of the world. Since the goal of Prism was to gather intelligence on non-US people, they could just copy off the data from these cables. No need to ask Facebook, Google or the other Internet companies for help.

[JDPriestly]

56. Thanks. That is my understanding.

[Marr]

48. God, give it up. This is pathetic. /nt

[burnodo]

72. I don't think there's any room for debate

the tent's just not big enough I guess

[GoneFishin]

53. This is just another hit piece to make people think it is totally acceptable for the government

to spy on all US citizens and collect and permanently store all of their personal data.

It's nonsense. They have been churning out desperate regurgitations of this same post over and over for the last day or so.

The HUGE inaccuracies cited never mitigate the fact of the spying.

[Enrique]

55. GREENWALD IS LYING!!!!

And when we find out that what he reported is true, the argument will shift to "OLD NEWS!!! EVERYONE ALREADY KNEW!!!!"

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. The President did not deny

This is going on, why are you?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

74. So busy trying to bring the black Muslim from Kenya down that he got messy.

[Luminous Animal]

93. But he was totally clean when he wrote 3 books and millions of words against the faux Texan.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

103. I can't speak for others but I was under no illusions

about Greenwald. He had little credibility with me based on his background. Working for CATO is all I needed to know.

[Luminous Animal]

104. Did you know that Al Gore invented the internet?

He no more worked for the CATO Institute than did these people:

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas (Writing for CATO's Unbound: here and here);

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (speaking about surveillance issues at CATO in January, 2011, speaking again at CATO in July, 2012 about FISA, and favorably citing CATO);

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis (defending CATO as "a leader in fighting to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and helping to end the War on Drugs&quot .

the ACLU's Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson (speaking at the CATO Institute's 2011 event on FISA);

Brown University Professor Glenn Loury (writing for CATO's Unbound);

liberal blogger and Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong (writing for CATO's Unbound);

Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig (writing for CATO's Unbound);

liberal blogger and GWU Professor Henry Farrell (writing for CATO's Unbound); and

Wall Street critic and securities professor William Black (writing for CATO's Unbound).

In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.

I not only disclosed those writings but wrote about them and featured them multiple times on my blog as it happened: see here and here as but two examples. In 2008, I spoke at a Cato event on the radicalism and destructiveness of Bush/Cheney executive power theories.

That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees. Those payments are a miniscule, microscopic fraction of my writing and speaking income over the last 7 years. I have done no paying work of any kind with them since that online surveillance debate in 2010 (I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization).

I have done far more work for, and received far greater payments from, the ACLU, with which I consulted for two years (see here). I spoke at the Socialism Conference twice - once in 2011 and once in 2012 - and will almost certainly do so again in 2013. I'll speak or write basically anywhere where I can have my ideas heard without any constraints. Moreover, I'll work with almost anyone - the ACLU, Cato or anyone else - to end the evils of the Drug War and the Surveillance State. And I'll criticize anyone I think merits it, as I did quite harshly with the Koch Brothers in 2011: here.

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

78. Greenwald is on Larry O's show right now.

[DirkGently]

80. Actually we don't know whether it's legal. DOJ was operating illegally in 2011.

... and the administration says the order saying that is "classified."

[pnwmom]

89. What proof of that do you have? n/t

[DirkGently]

108. Interesting, no?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/justice-department-prism_n_3405101.html

WASHINGTON -- Mere hours after President Barack Obama said Friday morning that he welcomes a debate on the federal government's highly classified surveillance programs, his Department of Justice tried to squash the release of a secret court opinion concerning surveillance law.

A 2011 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruling found the U.S. government had unconstitutionally overreached in its use of a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The National Security Agency uses the same section to justify its PRISM online data collection program. But that court opinion must remain secret, the Justice Department says, to avoid being "misleading to the public."

The DOJ was responding to a lawsuit filed last year by the Electronic Frontier Foundation seeking the release of a 2011 court opinion that found the government had violated the Constitution and circumvented FISA, the law that is supposed to protect Americans from surveillance aimed at foreigners.

(snip)

The part of the FISA law addressed in the opinion in question, Section 702, is the same one the NSA is now using to scoop up email and social media records through its PRISM program.

[pnwmom]

109. That 2011 decision was based on a case that happened during the Bush era. n/t

[DirkGently]

115. Not the point nor even slightly relevant. n/t

[pnwmom]

116. Of course it's the point. nt

[DirkGently]

117. This administration protecting that administration is okay how?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

81. PERIOD does not mean all of the things you apparently think it means.

Besides, it's much more trendy to use the declarative SEMICOLON in conversations these days. Aside from that, you shouldn't go saying Glenn Greenwald is lying, and say it so vociferously, when you're not able to provide a shred of evidence for the claim.

[morningfog]

82. So cute. Watch as this thread is tugged.

[Luminous Animal]

94. Yeah. Totally cute watching Democrats pull Republican shit. Al Gore invented the internet...

John Kerry wasn't a war hero.

[Savannahmann]

90. OK, so all those programs that came before, from the Bush Era, that could do that are now gone?

Does anyone remember Carnivore? Or the follow on with even more power NarusInsight?

Now let me get this straight. Every car company works to improve their models, and introduce new models with those improvements. Disk anti lock brakes, back up cameras, and all the bells and whistles that are standard today. Cell phone manufacturers are constantly improving the technology they can offer. Hell, coffee makers are damned near internet ready now. But I am supposed to believe that they haven't improved the technology for internet data packet snatches at all? Or, if they have, that they wouldn't use it because the Government said so, you can trust me.

The Fourth Amendment is being trampled. What probable cause do they have that the information they are getting will lead them to criminal activity? What criminal activity is being investigated? Who is the subject of the investigation? Apparently we are all subjects of the investigation. We are all guilty just as soon as they can get around to proving it. I know, the faith in President Obama is that he would never allow such a thing.

Does anyone remember Dr. Wen Ho Lee? You see, that is my problem, I have a fairly good memory, and I remember injustice. They kept him in solitary confinement for 278 days without bail. This was before the PATRIOT ACT. When the investigation was over, they agreed to a plea bargain of the equivalent of a parking violation. We paid Dr. Lee $1.6 million. But even after the case fell apart, the FBI continued the investigation, keeping 60 agents on it going over everything Dr. Lee ever said, or would ever say to prove he really was a Chinese Spy.

So yes, our Government does things wrong. Yes, we screw up and we should admit it. But even when the evidence is overwhelming, they keep looking because the FBI can't be wrong about anything. So I have a long memory, and I remember all the screw ups our Government has made, and I know, I know in my bones, that if given a chance, they'll screw this up too. Remember the idea and the test the FBI offered on matching the lead in bullets where there was no way to compare ballistics?

Hundreds of defendants sitting in prisons nationwide have been convicted with the help of an FBI forensic tool that was discarded more than two years ago. But the FBI lab has yet to take steps to alert the affected defendants or courts, even as the window for appealing convictions is closing, a joint investigation by The Washington Post and "60 Minutes" has found.

The science, known as comparative bullet-lead analysis, was first used after President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963. The technique used chemistry to link crime-scene bullets to ones possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique elemental makeup.

In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences said that decades of FBI statements to jurors linking a particular bullet to those found in a suspect's gun or cartridge box were so overstated that such testimony should be considered "misleading under federal rules of evidence."

So once it was clear, and it was clear long before 2004 that the test was seriously flawed. Why didn't they go back and admit that the test was flawed? Because there is no way that the FBI will admit it made a mistake. That goes back to the bad old days of Hoover, and it is yet another reason we as a nation should limit that organization. They are more worried about image that truth, and that is an anathema to any investigative branch.

[alarimer]

95. Bull fucking shit.

You are pissed because the Obama is a proven liar, now so you shoot the messenger.

[Hissyspit]

100. Actually. I've reread all three articles yet again

- Verizon, PRISM, and Boundless Information - and I don't see anything that can be construed as lies.

The PRISM program one is the most problematic, because of interpretation of the documents, but it does make clear that "the document says."

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. Indeed: 'said PRISM enabled "direct access from the servers of these US service providers..."'

The top-secret NSA briefing presentation set out details of the PRISM program, which it said granted access to records such as emails, chat conversations, voice calls, documents and more. The presentation the listed dates when document collection began for each company, and said PRISM enabled "direct access from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Paltalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/prism-tech-giants-shock-nsa-data-mining

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

110. Your partisan slip is showing n/t

[limpyhobbler]

111. Bullshit

NSA didn't have "direct access" because the access was given to NSA's private contractors.

They outsourced it.

Also it wasn't "direct access" because instead of being connected directly to the servers, they were connected indirectly through a series of tubes.

Nitpicking on minor points while ignoring the overall abuse of authority to invade the privacy of hundreds of millions of people.

[ucrdem]

112. Glenn Greenwald, like a Koch:

Brought to you by catoinstitutevideo, uploaded 4 days ago:

Coincidence I'm sure.

[shawn703]

114. Did you see anywhere on what was leaked that these companies were participating voluntarily?

Maybe I didn't see everything yet, because what I recall was a PowerPoint slide with a list of companies and what date they joined PRISM. I didn't see anything about them knowing that they joined willingly.

[hughee99]

118. Exactly, if you can't trust the government, at least you can trust a giant corporation

when they say it didn't happen.