That damn Greenwald is at it again

[stupidicus]

will his racist scaremongering ever end, and should the Guardian oversee his work more closely and print them in colors representing "error alerts"? His noting for example as I recall, that the NSA power point used "direct access", was a biggie.

That's why Democratic senators such as Ron Wyden and Mark Udall spent years asking the NSA: how many Americans are having their telephone calls listened to and emails read by you without individualized warrants? Unlike the current attempts to convince Americans that the answer is "none", the NSA repeatedly refused to provide any answers, claiming that providing an accurate number was beyond their current technological capabilities. Obviously, the answer is far from "none".

Contrary to the claims by NSA defenders that the surveillance being conducted is legal, the Obama DOJ has repeatedly thwarted any efforts to obtain judicial rulings on whether this law is consistent with the Fourth Amendment or otherwise legal. Every time a lawsuit is brought contesting the legality of intercepting Americans' communications without warrants, the Obama DOJ raises claims of secrecy, standing and immunity to prevent any such determination from being made.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy

[railsback]

1. Yes, Greenwald is a 'hero', too

And if you disagree with that, you win a 'WH crony' designation from the man himself.

[stupidicus]

3. I wouldn't call him a hero

are you sure you aren't a tad mistaken? I could see him maybe calling those that have described him in less than flattering terms something like that, but not for not thinking him a hero.

That would seem to require his thinking himself a hero. Do you have any quotes that might lead me to believe he sees himself that way, as opposed to one who might see himself as being unfairly persecuted in this matter?

[railsback]

6. Hero worshipping has been bestowed on both Greenwald and Snowden

without them having to self proclaim as much.

[stupidicus]

7. In other words

you have no evidence he'd admonish me in any way for not calling him a hero.

whatta shocker.

Is this due to an innocent exaggeration on your part, or justifiable lying since so many seem to think he's worthy of such defamations and worse around here?

[railsback]

13. Believe me, you are safe from Greenwald's wrath

You are doing a fine job defending implications without uttering the word 'hero', too.

[stupidicus]

19. thanks for condceding your dishonesty

but then given the obviousness of it, you really did reach the limits of denial

[Luminous Animal]

10. The world is not divided between heroes and villians. Someone can, you know, actually

do a job without being either.

I suggest a tad less TV.

[railsback]

11. Embellishing your work and then refusing to correct it

isn't exactly 'doing your job'.. unless you're in the business of embellishment.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Indeed. Some people say...

[Life Long Dem]

2. I could read the news Greenwald is showing us too

Repeating the news is not the leak Greenwald told us he has more of.

[stupidicus]

4. I'm so sorry for posting an article you'd already read or have no interest in

I take it news analysis and op/eds are something you don't find interesting or potentially important?

I think they often provide a perspective and/or insight the bare facts alone don't.

[uponit7771]

5. This is YCHDT, the "direct access" could mean anything. When Snowden was asked about it

...he bs'd is answer

There's no proof of VPN or dedicated B2B connection of anything just the words "direct access"

[stupidicus]

8. I'm sorry, I didn't realize he has to explain their use of it

maybe you can link me to their explanation of their use of it?

And how could you possibly know he "BSed his answer" when it "could mean anything"?

He can have an opinion, incorrect or not, just like the rest of us, which none of us will know the full truth of until the veil of secrecy http://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-black-hole-5-basic-things-we-still-dont-know-the-governments-snoop is lifted, which hopefully congressional investigations will provide. Reporting it as "direct access" pursuant to its presence in the power point presentation is no "sin" in and of itself, it's merely reporting the content of that presentation. ANd this is especially true given it was reported before any attempted clarifying of its meaning took place.

[uponit7771]

15. Computer engineering isn't about opinion, either it is or isn't "direct access" to information and

...in the context of what Snowden said the information was pulled from those companies servers the access wasn't superficial like from an http or some ftp server that anyone can get at via the internet.

Either way, outside the technical jargon there's nothing new in what Snowden is telling anyone...greenwald should know this

[stupidicus]

16. leave the goal post alone

taking the word of the NSA with their "direct access" and reporting it as such is not a crime. That puts the ball in their court, and that's it. And why would GG know more about the workings of all this than a hands on guy? WHat's next, Snowden should know as much or more about constitutional law/the legalities, etc of all this as GG?

All the after the fact stuff offered as explanations still has an element of uncertainty to it, as do a great many things about this issue http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/20/1217474/-Yet-Another-NSA-Program-Raises-Questions-About-Obama-s-Statements-to-Charley-Rose?showAll=yes

[Katashi_itto]

9. Damn! So now it's "racist scaremongering" to be slightly concerned, the govt

is spying on us.

[stupidicus]

17. that appears to be the case for many around here

eom

[backscatter712]

14. Your name is apt. n/t

[stupidicus]

18. my, that really hurts

coming from someone who doesn't stand a prayer of demonstrating the point behind it.

[stevenleser]

20. LOL: "the Obama DOJ raises claims of secrecy, standing and immunity to prevent..."

OMG, you mean lawyers are actually behaving like lawyers in defending their side in a lawsuit! They're actually making legal arguments!?!?

How is this possible in civil society!

I mean, an argument about standing?! Something so commonly part of legal pretrial determinations regarding constitutionality of law that wikipedia has a lengthy article on it?!?!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
Standing (law)
.
.
.
In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

[DevonRex]

22. LOL!! Does Glenn even know Congress deliberately wrote immunity into

the FISA amendments because of Bush and that telecom companies demanded retroactive immunity for what they did for him, and then immunity for everything going forward?

[ljm2002]

23. I think he may have a slight inkling...

...based on this paragraph from the story cited in the OP:

"That was the law which George Bush, in late 2001, violated, when he secretly authorized eavesdropping on the international calls of Americans without any warrants from that court. Rather than act to punish Bush for those actions, the Congress, on a bipartisan basis in 2008, enacted a new, highly diluted Fisa law – the Fisa Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA) – that legalized much of the Bush warrantless NSA program."

What else ya got?

[stupidicus]

25. my my, a little outta your depth are you?

anybody familiar with the history of all this at any reasonable depth and breadth would know (righttly guess) exactly what GG was talking about.

But I suppose if you're mired in bias...

Yesterday, the Supreme Court braved the effects of Hurricane Sandy and heard oral arguments in the case of Clapper v. Amnesty International. The lawsuit concerns not the constitutionality of FISA and the Protect America Act per se, but about whether groups who might be monitored have "standing" to even bring a constitutional challenge. In the American system, there is a legal rule that people must have standing—that is, they have to show a direct personal relationship with the case—in order to bring a constitutional challenge. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that organizations like Amnesty International lack the standing to challenge warrantless wiretapping because they cannot prove that they have been subject to the secret wiretaps.

Advertisement
The arguments offered by the government, of course, establish an obvious Catch-22: the primary potential defect of the legislation (the secrecy and lack of warrant requirements) are used to make it impossible to bring a legal challenge. Given this reality, groups that reasonably suspect that they have been monitored or could be monitored in the future should clearly be granted standing. Unfortunately, conservatives on the Supreme Court have been steadily eroding the ability of people to bring suits enforcing the religion clauses of First Amendment and environmental legislation, and it is entirely possible that the Fourth Amendment will be added to the list of laws the courts are indirectly refusing to enforce.

http://prospect.org/article/privacy-catch-22

[stevenleser]

26. LOL! Trying to claim standing is something new and nefarious!

[stupidicus]

27. in other words, you were ignorant

or love the Catch22 situation your Big Brother exploits uses.

the idea that GG was ignorant of what he was talking about or was merely baselessly whining as you seemed to be implying, is of course then undertandable.

nobody said this was just like me trying to sue someone for spitting in your eye, but apparently the distinctions escape you, or you simply don't care.

[Bake]

21. Attack the messenger all you will ...

But this Administration hasn't exactly been "progressive" in much of anything, including the NSA spy business.

And that's on our President.

As for me, I have no love for either Greenwald or Snowden. But if what they say is the truth, that's on the President.

Bake

[stupidicus]

24. a careful reading would show

I didn't