General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenwald's Timeline Problem
Glenn Greenwald says he was in touch with Snowden before he went to work for Booz A. Snowden says he went to work for said contractor in order to get access to clasified information.
It explains why he seems a little touchy these days. His response to David Gregory reminds me of the scene in Animal House when the Deltas are on trial for underage drinking and declare the whole thing to be an attack on America itself.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)If you were asked on national TV if you should be put in prison, you'd be touchy, too.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)if he was encouraging or even aware the guy was going to committ a crime he had a duty to report it - whether he knew the guy's name or not. he had the resposnibility to tell the authorities an anonymous person was contacting im and letting him know they were planning a crime.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)How would they ever get a whistle-blower to come forward.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)like mr. greenwald
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)acting as an officer of the court.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)is a lawyer, who performing the role of a journalist still an officer of the court? interesting 1st Amendment question.
This may be one that law students study in the future.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)A journalist willfully accepts information from a source without the slightest care as to the source's identity or bona fides. Then publishes said information trusting that he's not being scammed, set up, entrapped or used.
Happens all the time.
Actually, not so much. Even CBS, of all media, refused to take the bait. Only "journalists" with a dull axe would follow this path. And that's being kind to Greenwald. The more logical explanation is that he's lying his ass off.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I'll go with the first, thank you, but the second conforms well with his history.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)After the Rubiks Cube meeting, the three followed Mr. Snowden to his hotel room and spent six hours going over his life from start to finish, sort of like I was conducting a deposition, recalled Mr. Greenwald, who formerly practiced law. By the end, he was persuaded that Mr. Snowden was who he claimed to be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/how-edward-j-snowden-orchestrated-a-blockbuster-story.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)He knew their source.
He has not, BTW, produced even one more of those bombshells since his first story. Greenwald is well aware of the legal peril he already faces and, despite being an idiot otherwise, is not stupid enough to continue this pursuit. He's trying to shield himself, while lashing out at others. It's an utter embarassment for him, although well deserved.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Hong Kong.
Bart Gellman also received those same samples.
Greenwald has written or co-written the following articles:
1) The Verizon sweep of meta-data for the NSA
2) The Prism program
3) Boundless Informant
4) Warrentless data collection of US citizens.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Unless they were verifiable, they might as well have been pigeon droppings smeared on old plastic bags.
And if they were verified? How? If there was no attached ownership, no chain of ownership, then they were suspect at best. Otherwise, Greenwald knew at least where they came from - directly contradicting his protestations yesterday. OTOH, if he flew off to Hong Kong to meet an anonymous crank, dragging along another reporter and videographer, he was an idiot. Which is, of course, a distinct possibility, as I've suggested.
Either he's an idiot or a liar. I don't care which, and the distinction will be a mere footnote when, in the near future, those who do care reflect on his self-destruction and career flame-out.
As to his reportage, all of the above came from his initial document mini-dump. There's been nothing since and there likely never will be.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)sent them out there. Obviously, the Guardian, a well-respected news organization, saw merit and decided that, based on the samples, they needed to investigate further.
Greenwald did do due diligence and so did the Washington Post whose reporter Bart Gellman received the same 20 sample documents and made the decision to pursue the Prism story, as well.
I don't think you know what the word "dump" means.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Gellman, BTW, refused to take the bait from Snowden. That's why Snowden turned to Greenwald.
Gellman told him the Post would not make any guarantee about what the Post published or when. The Post broke the story two weeks later, on Thursday. The Post sought the views of government officials about the potential harm to national security prior to publication and decided to reproduce only four of the 41 slides, Gellman wrote in his story about their communications.
I don't think you understand the concept of "due diligence". Ask Gellman, who has an actual reputation to defend.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The dots that need to be connected are as follows--Did GG urge Snowden to take the job for the purposes of stealing information, i.e. was he a conspirator, an accessory before the fact, if you will?
Did GG (an officer of the court, after all, he is a lawyer) KNOW ahead of time that Snowden planned to do this, i.e. he had knowledge of a crime in advance of its occurrence, and did nothing?
If he didn't know the details, he's in the clear. However, if he did know the details (or even if he didn't, and Snowden claims otherwise in order to cut a decent plea deal), then he's in hot water--lumpity, bumpity, under the bus with him!
Time will tell, I imagine.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...whenever a source with classified info says, "I'll give you the information tonight," the journalist is committing a crime if he doesn't call the cops, since he knows that a crime is about to be committed.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Not all "information" involves a crime, first of all. And not all "classified" programs are fully classified. For example, drones are no secret, but the innards of them are. Ship movements are classified, but only until the ship gets underway--you aren't supposed to know (unless you have a need to know, and that's where exceptions are made) until they're already gone. Names of programs and their general goals often are less classified, or not classified at all, while things called "sources and methods" have a higher level of classification.
Here's where you logic fails, though--not all reporters are lawyers--i.e., officers of the court. GG is an officer of the court, his duty and his oath take precedence over his desires to get the big story.
A journalist could be considered a little shit if he didn't tell about a crime that had been committed, or even a crime that someone claimed they were going to commit, but he's not in hot water the way a lawyer would be. That said, if the reporter--lawyer or not--encouraged, advocated, or aided and abetted the commission of the crime, then he'd be an accessory.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)law ended with ethical counts against him....so I am of the opinion that Greenwald is no longer a practicing lawyer.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He is still an officer of the court. He still has an obligation to his oath.
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch#search_result
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Jarla
(156 posts)We've known since June 10th or 11th that Snowden first contacted Greenwald before he started working at BAH.
June 10th Tweet from Greenwald:
June 11th Press Release from BAH:
randome
(34,845 posts)It's certainly possible but I doubt it.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)with Snowden anonymously.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/how-edward-j-snowden-orchestrated-a-blockbuster-story.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
randome
(34,845 posts)I have no reason to doubt Gellman but Greenwald strikes me as defensive about the matter, which increases my suspicion.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)of aiding and abetting is acting defensive and thus deserves suspicion.
Nice.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Time to talk about drones or chained CPI
MADem
(135,425 posts)Jarla
(156 posts)Plus Snowden insinuated it in his live chat last week:
MADem
(135,425 posts)I will say, though, that those who are saying this could be problematic aren't making a mountain out of a molehill. This is a question that deserves a clear, unvarnished, no bullshit answer. It's a real "What did he know and when did he know it?" moment.
I initially took that "in the course of pursuing specific work" to mean that Snowden was working in an area where he wanted to gain more knowledge (silly me, eh?) or an area of expertise that he loved (double-silliness on my part!), and the money was less important than the gaining or exercising of skills.
I was thinking "professionalism," I didn't think it meant "I signed up IN ORDER TO STEAL." In retrospect, though, now it is pretty apparent that that's what he did, and why....and you have to wonder how much he said, and when he said it, to his journalistic handlers before that video was ever made.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)and all these loons out there are just making it up? So really, there is nothing to it?
We are now dealing with a vast intelligence-industrial complex that is largely unaccountable to its citizens. This alarming, unchecked growth of the intelligence sector and the increasingly heavy reliance on subcontractors to carry out core intelligence tasks now estimated to account for approximately 60% of the intelligence budget have intensified since the 9/11 attacks and what was, arguably, our regrettable over-reaction to them.
Today, the intelligence sector is so immense that no one person can manage, or even comprehend, its reach. When an operation in the field goes south, who would we prefer to try and correct the damage: a government employee whose loyalty belongs to his country (despite a modest salary), or the subcontractor who wants to ensure that his much fatter paycheck keeps coming? - Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/23/nsa-intelligence-industrial-complex-abuse
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)the two are not mutually exclusive.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I think, somewhere in the back of Greenwalds mind, the terms, Useful Idiot are coming into focus. Or, maybe it should.