Greenwald Lashes Back At Critics Who Call Snowden A Russian Propagandist

[Capt. Obvious]

Edward Snowden's appearance on a televised call-in show with Russian President Vladimir Putin prompted renewed questions Thursday over the National Security Agency leaker's relationship with the Russian government. Journalist Glenn Greenwald didn't let those questions go unanswered.

David Frum, the former George W. Bush speechwriter and senior editor at The Atlantic, tweeted a photo of Joseph Stalin and a little girl and mockingly described it as a "[h]eartwarming photo of Edward Snowden speaking to Vladimir Putin."

....

Greenwald, the newly minted Pulitzer Prize winner who has reported extensively on the NSA disclosures, has spent months staving off criticism of Snowden's temporary asylum in Russia.

On both Twitter and cable news, Greenwald has mowed down those who have accused Snowden of being in cahoots with Putin.

....

Greenwald didn't respond to TPM's request for comment on Thursday, but he took to Twitter to mock the "brave patriotic critics" going after Snowden.

TPM

[blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"][p]Snowden should storm the Kremlin, take their surveillance docs & demand to be sent to the US: just like his brave patriotic critics would do— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) [link:http://|https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statuses/456787575207124992|April 17, 2014][/a]

[Blue_Tires]

1. I'd said a long time ago

that Greenwald had essentially painted himself in a corner and with nowhere to go, he was going to implode sooner or later...But even I wouldn't have dreamed of an implosion this outrageous...

Greenwald is defending the indefensible, and he's setting himself up for a huge fall...

[MADem]

8. That's how I see it, too--Eddie is either a puppet or a prisoner.

Is Greenwald's little book even OUT yet?

Not much fanfare there...!!!

[Blue_Tires]

52. Not only that...

Last edited Thu Apr 17, 2014, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)

But all those months of Greenwald's dickish snark, the ducking, the misdirection, the strawmen arguments and snide insults whenever anyone asked why he hasn't written a single word about Russia all this time are about to bite him in the ass like a shark...

Now that Snowden has 'officially' put the issue out there, Greenwald has to jump off the fence one way or another and land in someone's yard...His "It's not newsworthy/But the NSA is worse" -excuses have just hit a dead end -- If he still tries to stay neutral or ignore the issue, his credibility is reduced to zero and fuels the critics who say this whole scandal was just an Obama-targeted vendetta...If he attacks the Russian government, he knows he's jeopardizing the well-being of Snowden, himself and a lot of sources/friends in Europe (contrary to popular belief, 'targeted assassinations aren't unique to the U.S.)...If he tries to mitigate the extent of Russian surveillance, he's a hypocrite of the highest order and giving the Russian citizenry a big "Fuck You" since they clearly aren't deserving of any electronic freedoms...And as much as he would probably like to, it won't exactly look good to sever ties with Snowden and hang him out to dry while his Pulitzer prize still has that brand new factory fresh smell... Which way will he go; which way will he go??

Like I said from the start, THIS is what happens to activists masquerading as journalists who are very loud, vocal and impulsive in their cause, while at the same time being very myopic, selective and arbitrary on where the outrage gets directed...Not to mention the news of the recent unsettling antics going on at Google (and other brazen corporate mass data-grabbers), which for some strange reason can't get ANY traction on DU or in the general public for discussion...



For the record, his book was due at the end of March but hasn't been released yet, afaik -- I'm pretty sure most of it is already written; he's just unsure of what kind of ending to tack on to it...

[MADem]

56. Activists masquerading as journalists....it never ends well, does it?

It is tough to be a good journalist; but the good ones stick to the Who/What/When/Where/Why, and if they include opinion, they provide all POVs, even if they need to note that this opinion is getting traction and that one is being pooh-poohed (hopefully using survey results and not a "gut check" either). They usually don't get much glory, at least not in the short term, but they also have a much longer shelf life.

He may need more than a new ending for that book--he may need another five or ten chapters, and a revision from the git-go as well...particularly if he's been led down the garden path.

[Whisp]

60. He could always publish a Sarah Palin type book:

blank pages, for a mere 39.99! The NSA with Obama's personal help stole all the woids! It's not his fault, honest, it's always someone else!

[MADem]

61. I think this Due Out in March...No...APRIL!!! book is going to be interesting, if he can ever make

it work, for how it's framed perhaps even more than what it does, or does not, say.

If he's thrown in the towel, it'll be just a rehash of his newspaper stories.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. +1000

[sabrina 1]

103. Looks like you are a small minority. Greenwald has a Pulitzer Prize for his work. He started out as

a smallblogger, like so many of the rest of us.

He attacked the Bush War Criminals and the Crooked Banks on a regular basis earning the hatred of the Far Right, which to his credit, he appeared to enjoy and was adept at smashing their moronic defenses of War Criminals and Wall St crooks.

The 'left' discovered him and enjoyed immensely his smackdowns of Right Wing morons, considering at the time, our Corporate Media appeared to be terrified of them. It was like water in a desert at the time.

Greenwald of course has not changed one bit, he still enjoys and still does so adeptly, smacking down Right Wing morons, who still hate him. At least they are consistent.

But oddly, something happened on the 'Left' re Greenwald. At least among a small section of the Left.

While the Right remains consistently anti Greenwald, (he always allowed the morons to post on his blog then appeared to enjoy smacking them around like rag dolls which of course we on the Left totally cheered him for), a few on the Left appear to have 'changed'. HE, otoh, didn't change.

So considering that his main issue was ALWAYS the abuses by the Bush gang of our rights, using 9/11 to do so, and STILL IS, curious people have been wondering, why have a few on the Left joined the morons on the Right in their hatred for Greenwald?

HE enjoys the battles.

He was just a small blogger like everyone else, but it was his willingness to tear apart the moronic attempts from the right wing moronic Bush supporters, to try to defend the indefensible that attracted the Left, to sort of watch the show. He was doing something our corporate media 'stenographers' never had the guts to do.

Lol, having watched all this for years now, I KNOW he is enjoying the 'battle' as he picks up Pulitizers while the Right Wingers still seethe that rather than destroy this 'lieberal moron' which they threatened to do, he has USED them to earn a far larger audience, now worldwide.

Who would have though back in 2006 that this blogger would be where he is today?

I imagine he smiles at the 'outrage' and the attempted 'smears' (most likely paid for as we learned by one of the 'security contractors' who probably got that contract they were bidding on) by the permanently disgruntled on the Right now joined by a few on the Left.

It's been quite a ride for him and us. I imagine the last thing he wants is for his 'enemies' to stop attacking him. After all, without them, he would STILL be writing his thoughts on a little blog somewhere in cyberspace.

Rock on Glenn, you got all the 'right' people upset! Lol!

[arely staircase]

105. "like the rest of us"

Maybe you will be the next Greeneald. Ever thought of that?

[sabrina 1]

107. Don't know much about him, do you? By 'like the rest of us' I was referring to the fact that he

started out posting OPs on Daily Kos, like we do here. Interesting that you didn't know that. He was just another poster on DK then started his own blog.

So no, I have never thought of that. I doubt he did either, but he had the guts to take on the right wingers and to post under his own name, when most of us simply wanted to know we weren't the only ones who thought something terribly wrong was happening to this country.

He had more gut than most of the rest of us. And he was and still is being targeted by some pretty powerful people. I remember rec'ing some of his OPs, as I do here for some of the 'rest of us'.

As I said, he was just a blogger, but he had courage most of us do not have.

Still wondering why some on the 'left' have joined his right wing attackers. Most have not of course. But it is curious, don't you think, considering he is exactly the same person, writing about exactly the same issues he always did.

[ucrdem]

111. Greenwald did not win a Pulitzer, but claims he did on his wiki page.

The Pulitzer site says otherwise:

http://www.pulitzer.org/node/8501

So you're right about that much at least: Greenwald has not changed one bit. He's still shamelessly dishonest.

[Union Scribe]

114. He wrote his own wiki? nt

[ucrdem]

115. Who do you think writes it? nt

[Union Scribe]

116. Could you cite something to show

that he wrote his own wiki entry to claim he won a Pulitzer?

[ucrdem]

117. The point is his wiki is dishonest. The info is false. Not true. Whopper royale.

Capiche?

[Union Scribe]

118. Not true? Like the claim you're making

about him writing his wiki about him winning the Pulitzer? Funny.

[ucrdem]

120. Greenwald did not win a Pulitzer. Pulitzer link here:

http://www.pulitzer.org/node/8501

Don't shoot the messenger.

[Union Scribe]

121. Perhaps you could just admit you erred

in attributing the wiki claim to Greenwald. I'm not arguing he won a Pulitzer.

[ucrdem]

122. Greenwald did not win a Pulitzer Prize. Sorry. nt

[Union Scribe]

123. Can't even own up to it, can you.

Just a simple "I was mistaken" would have ended this subthread after my first post. But you're so dead set on attacking these two people that you can't back down an inch even when it's so glaringly obvious you've crossed over into falsehood...which I can only now assume to be deliberate. Very telling. And you call Greenwald dishonest. Yeesh.

[ucrdem]

124. I'm not the one claiming GG won a Pulitzer. nt

[Union Scribe]

125. Neither, apparently, is Greenwald. nt

[ucrdem]

126. Great, we've established that Greenwald didn't win a Pulitzer.

That only took what, ten posts?

[Union Scribe]

127. That wasn't in question.

Though doubtless you think you've somehow won by my accepting something I wasn't arguing about in the first place. I think anyone reading this subthread can tell what my problem was with your claims and the recalcitrant wall I've met getting any clarification on it.

[ucrdem]

128. Glad to hear it. nt

[Blue_Tires]

132. Hey -- If you want to excuse Greenwald's shameless spin

Last edited Fri Apr 18, 2014, 11:37 AM - Edit history (2)

for that circus yesterday, be my guest...I personally want NO part of it...Maybe you're the one who is so deep in this you can't tell which way is up...If you want to admit that you believe the significance of the NSA story outweighs all of the subsequent unsavory bullshit and turning a blind eye to everything else, then please do so...

But like I said in another thread; up until now it's all been a game, but quite soon we'll see how many journalistic stones Greenwald really has...Putin on national TV threw down the gauntlet and said there is NO domestic surveillance abuses...And we all know how Glenn loves to pounce on official government statements and pick them apart word for word -- Or does he only care if that statement comes from Washington or London? He's being kind of arbitrary in his unilateral crusade for individual liberties, journalists' rights and internet freedoms, isn't he? Or does he not want to further upset the boat on that cozy Russia Today relationship?

We'll see if his keyboard can back up his ego and he starts investigating Putin's claim; or we'll see him turtle and evade all manner of professional responsibility...I can't wait to see what happens, either way...

And for the love of god please get the record straight -- Greenwald didn't "win" the Pulitzer anymore than a placekicker "wins" the Lombardi Trophy...Not only was it a fully collaborative effort, Greenwald wasn't even the biggest contributor, and you damn well know that...

[theboss]

2. What does that tweet even mean?

"Snowden should storm the Kremlin, take their surveillance docs & demand to be sent to the US: just like his brave patriotic critics would do"

I don't get the point of it.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. He's just babbling incoherently now. nt

[theboss]

6. We need to separate Snowden's information from Snowden

This site - and other political sites like it - have a dangerous tendency to equate ideas and information with people. Snowden's information is powerful. Snowden, himself, is a disaster.

At this point, Snowden as a cause needs to be cast aside. He can rot in wherever Soviet Era highrise Putin decides to stash him in. It's what Snowden provided us that is important.

[arely staircase]

17. snowden is like someone who steals your stereo

and in doing so reveals some faulty wiring. you are glad to know about the danger but the dick still stole your stereo. But I guess he is now a stereo theif who has been kidnapped by his boss.

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. +1000

[treestar]

54. brilliant!

[brush]

59. That's good! I like the analogy. nt

[Whisp]

62. now that is just Perfect.

[SidDithers]

69. Great analogy!...

Sid

[Cali_Democrat]

18. I can agree with this. nt

[Vashta Nerada]

24. + a million

[99Forever]

15. Might sound like "babbling incoherently" to those that ...

... who continue to make excuses for the surveillance/police/MIC state.

To the rest of us, it makes perfect sense, in a wonderfully satirical way.

[MADem]

28. Maybe you'll be so kind as to lay out what he means, here, then.

Because to me, it sounds like GG is flopsweatting.

[JDPriestly]

102. It means that there are a number of people who ridicule and criticize Snowden because Snowden

has not taken steps to criticize and out the Russians as he criticized and outed the NSA. Those people suggest that if Snowden were sincere and truly courageous Snowden would go into the Kremlin, grab the Kremlin's "secret" surveillance files and present them to journalists for publication.

Greenwald is pointing out that those who criticize Snowden for failing to "out" the Russian government the way he did the NSA would not have the means or courage to do so if they were in Snowden's shoes, and would be no more likely to out the Kremlin's secrets than Snowden is.

Snowden does not have access to the secrets of the Kremlin. Nor do those who ridicule Snowden for not getting those secrets out to the world.

That is what I understand Greenwald to be saying. Just my interpretation.

[MADem]

104. Naaah. Greenwald is in a bit of a fix.

He's flailing. I think he's not able to control his source anymore, and that is worrying to him.

Of course Snowden doesn't have access to the secrets of the Kremlin, unless he got them while he was working in Hawaii or Japan.

It's starting to look, though, like Snowden is WORKING for the Kremlin, with his sweet little softball questions to the Fearless Leader. Glenn Greenwald must be shitting; his superhero source is looking a lot like a patsy at best and a collaborator at worst.

[JDPriestly]

119. I didn't think that the question Snowden asked was all that soft.

If Putin answered falsely, Snowden has set the example to encourage a Russian in the position that Snowden held in the US to come forward and set the record straight. This would be the perfect time for a Russian equivalent of Snowden to come forward.

[theboss]

131. Do you think Snowden came up with that question on his own?

That was a staged event and there was probably a man with a gun behind the camera.

[JDPriestly]

135. I think the question put Putin on the spot. I think Putin lied big time, and everyone in the

intelligence sector probably knows it. I also think it is probably just a matter of time until Putin is exposed as a huge liar.

How do you think that the conversation between the US ambassador to the Ukraine and Victoria Nuland in our State Department was recorded and released? Wouldn't that have been most likely the Russian intelligence service? I am of course guessing, but I assumed that was the source.

So there is no doubt that Russia has as intrusive a surveillance system as ours but probably without the top-quality analysis capacity that ours has. Of course, I could be wrong. Russia's analysis capacity could be quite advanced. They certainly would have the mathematicians to create such facility.

[MADem]

133. IF Putin answered falsely?

Good grief, it helps to read the news every so often.

Putin's Latest Dirty Trick: Leaking Private Phone Calls
The same government that gives asylum to NSA outlaw Edward Snowden is intercepting and leaking the private phone calls of its adversaries.

In the last seven weeks, intercepted phone conversations between Western and Ukrainian officials have mysteriously surfaced on the Internet. U.S. intelligence officials tell The Daily Beast these phone recordings are part of a deliberate Russian strategy to collect and publicize the private conversations of their adversaries.

It started in the first week of February. As Ukraine’s political elites were scrambling to form a new government, a recording of a cellphone call emerged between Victoria Nuland, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. The intercept featured Nuland privately saying, “Fuck the EU,” and disclosed the preferences of two senior U.S. diplomats for who should serve in Ukraine’s interim government.

A month later, a phone call between European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Estonia’s foreign minister Urmas Paet appeared on the Internet. In the conversation, Paet discussed a theory that the snipers who fired on demonstrators in Ukraine may have been anti-Russian provocateurs.

This Monday, a third private phone call suddenly appeared on the Web. This time it was Yulia Tymeshenko, the former Ukrainian prime minister, saying, “It’s about time we grabbed our guns and killed those damned Russians together with their leader.” 
....Moscow has been aggressively spying on Western officials for years. But the pattern of intercepted and then leaked conversations casts a new light on how far Russia is willing to go in its information and intelligence war over Ukraine....

The "Russian Snowden" will have a much harder time leaving the country than ES did.

[JDPriestly]

134. Absolutely. That is why Snowden asked this question. He put Putin on the spot.

Everyone, including Putin, knows Putin was lying.

I commend Snowden for embarrassing Putin in this way. He could have asked whether Putin planned to plant more daisies in the Ukraine. Instead, he asked the one question to which many Russians already know the answer and forced Putin to tell an obvious lie on a prominent TV platform.

We all know that Putin lied. Had he not lied, he would have invited someone to come and examine what Russia is doing. He would have opened up his surveillance program to the public or to international entities. Since he did not invite inspection of his program, we have to assume he lied.

Hopefully some Russian will dare to come forward and expose Putin's lie. Some Russian who cares about privacy as does Snowden himself.

I don't think Snowden would have asked that question with the voice and inflection that he used had he not suspected strongly that Russia has such a program.

In my view, it is now that the fun begins with regard to Russia's spying program.

[MADem]

137. He didn't put Putin on the spot. He played slavish dog to Putin's prancing pony, in a propaganda

program of stunningly blatant proportions. That kind of shit makes Kim Jong Un look subtle!

You do know that, since Putin snatched up the last opposition media outlet and put the whole mess under RT, that Putin is King of All Media in Russia Today....there is NO opposition press, so anyone listening in Russia had to take Pootie's response at face value.

[JDPriestly]

138. Except those who know. And there are those who know.

There are those who will look at their TV and say, ah, yes, and I am part of that. But there are others who will look at the TV and say, Edward Snowden had the courage to come forward. i will too.

I knew a man from an Eastern European country whose job it was to censor foreign newspapers. He was among the most disillusioned with his country. It is just natural that a person involved in hoodwinking or snooping on innocent people for no good reason will feel disillusioned and come forward to tell their fellow countrymen what is going on.

In fact, I would expect the US to come forward with evidence (perhaps not directly coming forward but just releasing any evidence they have) that Russia spies on the internet usage of its people.

And, I realize that the Russian press may be manipulated. But our news is pretty narrowly confined to that which is acceptable to our oligarchs and corporations.

We have a few news reporters who represent liberal points of view and try to address all the news without censorship by sponsors or the government. But still, our news is mostly one-sided and censored through subtle or not so subtle means. We have nothing to brag about when it comes to a truly free press. On the internet we think we are free, but then the government is always looking over our shoulder. Or should I say the NSA is always looking over our shoulder.

[MADem]

139. Edward Snowden, by playing Abbott to Putin's Costello, gives people reason to

wonder about him. He has, by his participation in that charade, identified himself now as part of Putin's Propaganda Machine.

There's just no way around that. He blistered his credibility terribly with that foolishness.

I don't know about you, but I have no trouble finding good sources for news. I read newspapers from all over the world in more than one language, and I have access to news broadcasts from all over the world as well. I don't see the USA censoring Google, or Twitter, or any of those other social media sites.

You can't force people to get up off their asses, turn off TMZ and watch the BBC or RAI or some other media source instead. But it's possible to do that here, even for those without a computer.

[JDPriestly]

142. Yes. I too have good news sources, read languages and, when i am able, foreign newspapers.

But the fact that I can access those sources makes me more critical of the American news sources. One of the reasons I stopped subscribing to my hometown newspaper was that I realized that it was simply publishing slightly edited versions of wire stories. And of course, that was back when the Iraq War was the issue. I felt my newspaper had lied to me and then under-reported the truth when it came out.

By the way, I like Pacifica and Thom Hartmann as sources of information in addition to foreign news sources. Due to health problems, I have not been able to read as many foreign newspapers as I used to.

We will have to agree to disagree. Time will tell which of us is right about Snowden. I think Snowden is far shrewder than people give him credit for. I also think that he is not smitten with the Russians. I think maybe they are more smitten with him than he with them.

The question to Putin was direct. Snowden knew the answer before he asked it. So die Putin. Putin tried to avoid lying by using weasel words like saying that Russia doesn't have as strong a program as the US and then adding that is because Russia doesn't have the technology we have. That's a joke. Even without technology, East Germany was able to control and terrorize its people. Russia did not throw away its surveillance tools when it became and oligarchy rather than a communist state. So, I think Putin just used words that will permit him to deny he said that Russia does not spy.

[MADem]

143. We will have to agree to disagree.

Of course, if Snowden knew the answer to before he asked the question, he also knew that Putin was a lying hypocrite--as one secret agent to another, of course.

Putin doesn't even remember his old bullshit! From the history files:

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2006/03/putin-signs-russia-anti-terror-bill.php

JURIST- Russian President Vladimir Putin (official website, English version)Monday signed into law new anti-terrorism legislation giving the Russian police and military broad authority to tap telephone conversations and control electronic communications in the vicinity of counter-terror operations, shoot down hijacked planes threatening public places or strategic facilities, and deal with the aftermath of terrorist attacks. The legislation passed the Russian Duma [JURIST report] almost unanimously late last month and was approved by Russia's upper house, the Federation Council, on March 1. While al Qaeda terrorism is not a major problem in the country, Russia has been shaken by bombings and hostage-takings by supporters of Chechen independence, most recently including the 2004 Beslan siege (JURIST report) in which hundreds of children were killed when authorities stormed a school.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16261701

A prominent Russian opposition figure, Boris Nemtsov, says the Kremlin was behind the publication of private phone calls in which he insulted other opposition activists.

A news website close to the government, Life News, published tapes in which Mr Nemtsov seems to call opposition supporters "hamsters" and "scared penguins".

Mr Nemtsov alleges illegal phone-tapping. He says the publication was part-truth, part-fabrication....


"They are brazenly and unforgivably violating my constitutional right and the right of my interlocutors to private communications and telephone conversations," he said, accusing them of "criminal activities".

And then, there's this: http://nypost.com/2013/10/30/russia-used-goof-bag-gadgets-to-bug-g-20-delegates/

Crafty Russian operatives gave goodie bags to world powers at the G-20 summit with USB drives and phone chargers — but they were “Trojan Horses” designed to download info and send it back to the motherland.
The cloak-and-dagger spy game played out at last month’s conference in St. Petersburg, where Vladimir Putin and President Obama appeared to patch up their feud.
But little did Obama know that Putin’s henchmen were making sure every delegate at the G-20 walked out with equipment that could compromise state secrets.
The clever Boris-and-Natasha ploy was reported Tuesday by the major Italian newspapers La Stampa and Corriere della Sera as the US remains under fire for NSA spying on world leaders’ phone calls.

And Putin, coyly playing the "I don't know nuthin' 'bout surveilling people" game, is blatantly shopping a demonstrated untruth, as we saw quite recently:

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/25/the_sochi_olympics_putins_shiny_new_surveillance_state/

Sochi, in other words, is setting records the old-fashioned way: men with guns on the street. Generally, it’s the security you can’t see — facial recognition software, aerial drone surveillance, mobile phone interception, metadata — that forms the cutting edge of international event planning. That may be more intrusive than 60,000 armed guards, security checkpoints and sealed-off highways, but it will certainly be less visible.

And last but not least... we KNOW Putin was behind this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26072281

He's just not credible, and Snowden has to know that.

[JDPriestly]

144. Putin is a conceited jerk. Snowden is no fool. He knows that. But Snowden is clever.

Whether someone will come forward as Snowden did remains to be seen. But I knew and you knew and a lot of people knew that Putin was lying. Surveillance of your own people should be done only with a warrant based on probable cause. It is simply due process and every government owes its people that small thing -- due process.

It's a question of human rights. It is not so difficult to get a warrant if you have probable cause.

As for spying on other nations, I'm less critical of that although it appears that we have not shown much trust and confidence in some of our allies, the very ones that probably rely the most on us and in whom we should have the most confidence.

Any nation that trusts Putin is very foolish.

[MADem]

146. Putin is dictator for life. He counts the votes, he controls the media.

I don't know if Snowden is "clever," or "stupid" or "hubris-laden" or a patsy, partisan or Putin propagandist. He's a cipher, still. He's not coming off too well right now, I will say that. Is he playing three dimensional chess, or is he just a linear asshole who thought--because he's rarely been challenged--that things would go his way, but instead they've gone all pear-shaped on him? And now, he's STUCK, he's figured out that he's stuck, so he's making his bed and lying in it.

The time to cry about domestic surveillance was eons ago. The horse has left the barn on that score. We LOVE it when it catches the child rapist or the serial killer or the terrorist bomber, or the drone shows the anti-government supremacist trying to sneak up and kill the police; it's not so much fun for "someone" when it proves that "someone" wasn't where they were supposed to be.

It's not going away, in any event. Private businesses WILL surveille their property, and their cameras WILL pick up what happens around them. The highways WILL have cameras speckled across the system. Government office buildings will be surveilled as well. You can't go anywhere without your face being recorded, you should assume that anything you send out into the wireless "ether," be it email, text or a voice communication, CAN be intercepted, and act accordingly.

This whole idea that people can wag a finger and say "Agggh! Why, that's just WRONG, and you should not do it!!!" and then expect--on FAITH--that no one will do it, is well, NUTS. They will keep doing it and they will lie about it, or put it in a box labelled "national security" and say that's where we keep our exceptions to the rule. If our own government isn't "doing it," then China is. And Russia is. And Germany is. And UK is. And France is. And Germany, UK and France will share their "America listening" stuff with us, and we'll do the favor for them. It's all a big game. But hey, they'll be able to say that "they" don't do domestic surveillance. Yay!!! Big Win!!

Not. It's just subcontracting the work.

Privacy on the phone, or privacy on the internet, is like privacy at the food court at the mall. This IS--like it or not, and most do not like it--the new reality and no amount of railing or messenger-shooting is going to change that. Probably that guy at that food court, tucking into his burger at the next table, who seems to be listening to his Walkman (quaint reference), is not paying any attention to what you say...but ya never know.

[JDPriestly]

147. Here is where I disagee.

"Privacy on the phone, or privacy on the internet, is like privacy at the food court at the mall."

I do not expect privacy when I go to the food court at the mall or any other 'public' place.

I do expect privacy when I sit in my home and call my best friend.

The Constitution gives us certain freedoms. When we go to the mall we give up temporarily the right to eat with our feet on the table. But when we sit in our homes and talk to friends and family on the phone, we can have our feet wherever we want. The difference exists because when we leave our home and go to the mall we decide to enter an area that we clearly share with others. We do not expect privacy in the mall.

But when we stay at home and call our friends and family, it is in part because our homes are our safe places. We have an expectation of privacy. When James Madison published The Federalist Papers with his friends and they all used pseudonyms, it was because they were claiming and expected to have anonymity and privacy in their expression of their views on the proposed Constitution. They expected privacy.

It is incomprehensible to me that people are willing to relinquish their privacy with regard to phone and certain password-protected internet activity.

But then, most Americans have no idea what it is like to live in societies such as those that existed in Eastern Europe under Communism. I did not live there either. But for some years I lived right next door and talked to people from some of those countries. When you fear surveillance even if it is not really very intrusive, you stop talking as freely as you do when you feel free. The surveillance in the mall is expected. We don't talk as freely when we are at the mall as we do when discussing politics with our friends. I do not understand why so many Americans have difficulty understanding this.

[MADem]

148. Thing is, most people don't "sit in their home and call their best friend."

That's the old days. Most people "walk down the street and call their best friend," or "Push the cart in the grocery store and call their best friend," or my personal 'favorite' "Barrel down the freeway and call their best friend," which I suppose beats texting their best friend in the same situation. On the subway or train, in the airport waiting for a plane, you can't help but hear all these pointless conversations that people can't seem to help "sharing" with the victims surrounding them, even if they don't want to hear what the dog's poop looked like or how so-and-so is cheating on his girlfriend or what-have-you. They want privacy, but they don't have the decency to go somewhere "private" and spare the rest of us their pronouncements.

I have land lines but in my neighborhood there are maybe three or four old farts like me who have kept theirs. It's only a matter of time before Verizon tells us all to feck off and go cellular. Soon, no one will be "shouting down the line"---they'll be "shouting over the air" and that's always a more vulnerable situation.

Cellphones are easily hacked. Ask the ghost of Princess Diana. Ask Prince Charles and Camilla. Get the "how to" from Piers Morgan and the Murdoch crew. Emails are easily hacked. So are webpages. Ask those freedom loving Bad Boys at Anonymous (funny how it's all fun and games when THEY do it, innit?).

I spent years with a tapped phone in my house--I used to yell at the damn Savakh agent when he'd breathe down the telephone and I could hear him. It was especially irritating when I was trying to communicate across a half dozen time zones on a funky connection through several countries. They'd also toss my apartment on the odd occasion, sometimes so sloppily they'd leave things behind. One way to find out where those idiots might look when they came to call? Mop your way out of your house and be sure they see you leaving--they'll be in there searching in a flash, a quick in and out. If your curtains are pulled they won't notice that they leave footprints on the tile floor...then you know JUST where they've been. You can also make dust work to your advantage---there's something to be said for indifferent housekeeping at times.

The point I make is this--I have no expectation of privacy on a telephone. I never have. I also don't have an expectation of privacy on the internet--again, I never have. If it's hackable, one should assume the worst as a baseline. That's not the same as "fearing" surveillance--it's just realizing that it's entirely possible that it will happen, and maybe even likely.

I want you to tell me how "we" are going to stop this kind of thing. Pass a law? This is terribly naive. Fine, "we" won't do it anymore...but that doesn't stop the rest of the world, now, does it? The Marquis of Queensberry would approve, I am sure. It won't change anything--someone ELSE will still be doing it, and, assuming we don't get someone else to cover our asses (though of course we will), we'll be the fools with the great big honking blind spot--while the Russians and the Chinese laugh their asses off at our high minded foolishness. Those silly Americans, they are so intent upon their "individualism" that they'll flush their nation down the crapper, they will!

Society is changing right before our eyes. What constitutes privacy has changed, and many people are eager participants in redefining the frontiers. The incessant facebook posts, the detailed recitations of personal details on the internet, selfie after selfie, the willingness of parents (this particularly bugs me) to treat their children as property, and slap THEIR faces up on their "profile" pics while not having the stones to show their OWN faces--like the kid's privacy is meaningless, it's all part of this Culture of (OVER) Sharing. And photo after photo after photo, no permissions asked for the pics to be taken OR displayed, slapped up for all the world to see...most people can't go a day without taking a pic with their "smart" phone and "sharing" it with everyone and their mother, while they opine about their deepest thoughts on everything from their lunch to the latest movie they've seen, while they proudly set their phone to record every frigging place they've "checked in" so that even a blind dullard could stalk them if they so desired.

People who really want privacy need to move to the country, get off the grid, and live in the past--something like pre-1950 in terms of technology would probably do it--no need to go back to the days of the founding fathers (who didn't have phones to worry about, to say nothing of email accounts). Otherwise, they've got to adjust their definitions of privacy, and their expectations of it as well. We can rail/fight/complain all we want, but--like it, or not-- someone is going to be listening in; if it's not us, it'll be the Chinese, the Russians, or someone else.

[JDPriestly]

149. Privacy is utterly essential to the human condition.

Even if they are walking down the street and talking on a cell phone, people expect privacy in their communications. That is eternal. Always has been that way and always will be.

I hope the US comes forward with evidence that China and the USSR are spying on individual, ordinary Americans and our businesses. We need an international protocol that grants to each of us a sphere that is clearly ours and private and not subject to government intrusion.

They will be in our bedrooms before we know it.

[MADem]

150. Privacy is essential in the home, sure--but don't expect it outside your door.

Some guy walking down the street yammering about his hemorrhoids is polluting the public square with his particular medical issue; he's not expecting privacy and he's unlikely to get it. If you want privacy in communications, the only way you can be reasonably sure of that is face to face.

Phones have ALWAYS been vulnerable to tapping--the only difference is that it was a bit more physical and direct before, absent an "in" at the switchboard, of course. Some "electrician" would have to shimmy up a pole, some "tree trimmer" would have to trim the lines by that junction box, some "plumber" would have to go in the basement and look at a leaky pipe near where the phone lines come into the building. It has always been thus. And emails--heck, you can buy password crackers online. But most people--the younger generations, particularly-- vomit out their every thought in excruciating detail anyway--on facebook, on twitter, etc. They WANT to share every damn thing. They've lowered the bar, and they don't mind showing it all to all and sundry.

If China and the former (and soon to be new and 'cough' improved) USSR are spying, you know what they'll do if someone finds them out? Laugh like hell, deny it maybe, and keep on doing what they're doing. They'll pay as much attention to your "international protocol" as Al Qaeda pays to the Geneva Conventions.

The paradigms have changed. About the only hope to fight the technology of the hack is with MORE technology--but even at that, you can never be absolutely sure that your safeguards are foolproof and won't one day be vulnerable.

It used to be, before the discovery of the simple "bump key," that people foolishly felt secure with a deadbolt or two on their door. But now, hell, anyone with a file and some time can get into your deadbolted home. And if you don't know how to do it, some shit on the internet will helpfully post a YouTube and show you how...!

As I've said, people who need absolute privacy can get it if they go deep into the countryside and eschew modern life. We're just too interconnected and "wired up" these days; being on the grid/in the system/on the net means that we give up a chunk of our privacy, and we do it willingly to participate in this bigger thing. There's no going back without eschewing the modern toys.

Thomas Jefferson didn't have these problems; he didn't have a cell phone, a GARMIN, or a computer, either.

[tritsofme]

38. LOL, good stuff.

[Whisp]

63. Can you 'splain then?

Because I have no fricken idea what the guy is saying. I'm glad someone does.

Please proceed, Mr. Forever.

[99Forever]

64. If you don't get it...

... that's for you to deal with. Night classes maybe, Mr. Whisp?

[Whisp]

65. LOL. Your answer was better than I expected!

Thank you! I bow toward your... erm, whatever it is you have!



becuase you have no fucking idea what he meant either, but you will question my 'intelligence' with that night class thing.

Absolutely freaking perfect. Thank you again!

[99Forever]

66. And you are a mindreader too!

Impressive! Yet you can't "get it" when someone is being mocked for being ridiculous.

Full of contradictions, you are.

[Whisp]

67. so what did GG mean?

why are you avoiding answering something you say you know and should be so obvious to everyone?

[99Forever]

68. Good grief.

He's saying that Snowden getting the same evidence of Russia's intelligence spying on its own citizens, as he has PROVED the NSA did to us, is about STUPID as the freakin' clowns saying Snowden should throw himself in to the blackhole that is the "intelligence justice system."

He is calling NSA apologists, dumbasses. Get it now?

[Whisp]

70. No...

:lol:

E for Effort tho!

[99Forever]

72. You claimed you "don't get it,"...

... yet now, you claim to "get it?"

Which is it, Mr Whisp?

(It's actually quite evident, the first is true.)

F for fail.

[Whisp]

82. not even with your 'splaination (of sorts), I still don't understand what the hell GG means.

and your 'Mr. Whisp' thing, I suppose it is to be insulting to me, or at least annoying? Well, it is not, sorry! I am not insulted at all by being mistaken for a man from somebody behind the keyboard, somewhere.... or anywhere.

I did call you Mr., if that insults you and you are a Ms or a Mrs I apologize. But we all know that is Richochet Rabbit stuff because YOU GOT NOTHING and now want to make it about me, and my intelligence and my gender and my my, how amusing.

[99Forever]

83. You called me, Mr. Forever.

I was simple giving you exactly the same respect you are showing me.

I answered your query, the fact that you don't like the answer is, quite frankly, irrelevant. I have nothing to apologize for.

[Whisp]

87. I take no offense at being called Mr., I don't understand why you would

but of course, that has got nothing to do with the topic. Except you are avoiding the topic.

ok, I'm done.

[Dragonfli]

94. Off topic, I wonder which one of these clowns is Frum and which one is Yoo?

[Maedhros]

5. Critics have harped on Snowden (and Greenwald) for not criticizing Russian surveillance

with the same fervor as U.S. surveillance.


Which is ridiculous, since:

a) Snowden and Greenwald are American citizens, not Russian citizens, and therefore have much more at stake in revealing U.S. surveillance state abuses than Russian activities, and

b) Snowden did not have access to huge amounts of Russian security documents detailing mass surveillance activities.

Critics have also stated that Snowden should return to the U.S. to make his case in court.

Greenwald is pointing out the ridiculousness of the critics' demands.

[theboss]

7. Should he be defending Russian surveillance though?

Or helping Putin deny its existence?

It's one thing to not criticize Putin. It's another to prop him up.

[Maedhros]

34. He asked a question; Putin responded with typical security-state boilerplate.

Same as our apparatchiks do.

It's a PR stunt, as pointed out by Greenwald. I don't place that much importance on it.

[arely staircase]

41. it is a PR stunt that Snowden agreed to participate in

for the benefit of Putin and regarding the Russian security state.

[MADem]

9. It's not ridiculous at all.

If Snowden had access to the material--and I'll bet he did, and really cares about "freedom of information," he shouldn't pick and choose.

Of course, if he's supporting one team in particular, he's gonna back that team and make that team's opponents look bad. That's what cheerleaders do, after all.

[joshcryer]

43. Wikileaks is sitting on the oligarch files.

Wonder why.

[MADem]

98. Pootie's probably paying Julian's "rent" since the donations to Wikileaks dried up.

He can't order take-away from Harrod's on his charming personality, and he has to send out his laundry and have toiletries and other sundries delivered in ...otherwise he'd stink up that little Embassy flat in rather short order!

[MADem]

14. It sounds like it means "Shit, shit....he's doing stuff that is outside my control, he lied to me,

he's got an agenda, he's not an honest broker, and my goddamn book isn't gonna sell fer shit now...damn, damn, damn!!! Maybe I shouldn't have taken a job with the guy who supported the Ukrainians! Maybe Pootie is getting back at MEEEEEEEE too??? SHIT!!!"

I really don't know what it means, to be honest...but my head hurts. Snowden playing Martin to Putin's Lewis is just terribly staged and not believable as a spontaneous event.

And as for Greenwald, what kind of "reporter" doesn't check to see what his boss's "affiliations" are? Someone who needs MONEY more than he needs a decent reputation?

I am still turning this over in my mind:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/03/03/glenn-greenwald-pandodaily-tussle-over-ukraine-editorial-independence/

FWIW, the "Mark Ames" quoted in that piece is the same Mark Ames who used to work with Matt Taibbi at the Moscow publication The eXile.

So much convergence....Walt Disney was right, in a creepy way. It's a small world, after all....

[joshcryer]

45. Propaganda pays.

[MADem]

95. VF has a new article out that we have to buy to read.

That said, someone who read the article has this take-away from it--it is a bit convoluted but here is the juicy paragraph...that Snowden was being "run" by the journalists, not that the journalists were receiving info from Eddie:

Again, it's my belief that this is part of a construction of the narrative to exonerate journalists from any charges that they gave him assignments -- and therefore they could look guilty of complicity in espionage, instead of being able to endlessly hide behind the Supreme Court protections for journalists who report on stolen classified documents...It's my belief that Snowden was guided in viewing this FISA document as "the most important" by the lawyer-blogger Greenwald and the others; at any event, even if he had some grasp of these issues before, he has never told the story this way.

And that he is only now telling the story this way is patently obvious, because the copy-pasters at Vanity Fair tell this story differently than Luke Harding, even though they copy Luke elsewhere (instead of Greenwald himself, for example, going with Harding's dates for their first real-life meetings, and not Greenwald's changing versions of the dates.)

When I see the dates "April 29th" and "expire July 19th," I also wonder if this gave impetus to Snowden to flee, or whether he was advised by the others that having the document "hot" while it was still in effect would be far more effective than exposing it after it expired and the NSA could always say it was only in the past and they wouldn't do it again. Snowden safely fled and on 16 July, the Russian government accepted his application for asylum. (That still wasn't getting formally the grant of asylum, but since none other than Putin himself had offered Snowden to apply for asylum in Russia on June 11, it was a done deal.)

Not everyone will be persuaded that this is a find, but you'll have to agree that whenever the stories are told differently, or suddenly something new is injected into the Snowden narrative, there are reasons and we should pay attention. Can you think of a better reason as to why Snowden is suddenly claiming he's the one who thought of, found, and retrieved the fresh April 29th FISA court order -- when he's never mentioned this before?

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2014/04/vanityfairnarrative.html

Just one opinion but as interesting as any, I'd say...

[joshcryer]

96. I like that theory.

I think it's certain both the CIA / NSA and KGB have infiltrated the Wikileaks circle of people. I think Russia got there first though and Russia runs the agenda, so I think the NSA decided to LIHOP Snowden's involvement.

Snowden does not strike me as a sophisticated hacker.

[MADem]

97. I don't know what the "real hoo hah" is with that guy, but I don't believe his cover story.

I don't think his version of events is either truthful or accurate. I just don't buy the bullshit he's selling.

I think there's more there than meets the eye; thing is, I can't be sure what is the truth. He could be a patsy, he could be a pawn, he could be a prisoner, he could be a collaborator--or he could be all of the above, depending.

He's not all about Truth, Justice and the American Way, though. When it came out that he was stealing stuff as far back as when he was working in Japan for Dell (and that's around the time that he first visited Hong Kong), I started to smell a large rat.

[joshcryer]

99. I think he did manage privilege escalation.

But other than that I doubt he did anything special but look around the CIA/NSA/GHCQ's internal wiki, which, btw, entities like freaking Stratfor have access to. That's why nothing ground breaking has been released. A huge chunk of the stuff was known about before, only in obscure articles, no one really "cared about." Most of the data he stole likely legitimized the NSA's existence in one way or another (and not necessarily against terrorists).

The only big deal is that the NSA admitted to spying on the entire world, keeping every plaintext communication it has access to and that Tor is safe (if proper procedures are used). That's about it.

I think it's very possible that Snowden was communicating to outside groups before he left Booz because it's way too coincidental that he fled literally a couple of days after getting the FISA report. I think the theory that he was sitting around waiting for a FISA report to be published is sound. Just search "FISA" on the wiki, skim the reports, when one comes out that's suspect, grab it, and as much else as you can, and bail.

[MADem]

100. Many years ago, before the internet....

I was talking about something I read about in a foreign publication with a group of people, and I got a little visit from some assholes from a three letter club who accused me of "talking out of turn." I directed them to the publication where I obtained the information and told them to shove it; and I was also able to demonstrate that I didn't have access to the area where the stuff they were sweating about was held. Pissed me off, I have to say, but I was able to resolve the matter in short order.

I can't get more specific than that, but I later went and looked around in FBIS and found the same "unclassified" material there--sometimes, the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing! And sometimes, when morons who have an inflated idea of their own importance start typing SSSSS and TS on every other paragraph they write, really dumb shit can get classified. We got a handle on that awhile back, but it's like a ping pong ball--you put it at the bottom of the pool and it pops right back up!

As for ES, I think you're right. I think he either took direction from outside people, or got ideas from them, or was led down the garden path by them. His movements, his comments, they don't come off as spontaneous. He's being stage managed. He obviously received guidance from "friends" and advisers. Who paid them to jolly Ed along, who knows? He may have been passing stuff along that we don't even know about, or stockpiling the lot of it, but we now know he wasn't just grabbing stuff at Booz, he was doing it at Dell too.

And if he was going to make a move, having a dramatic FISA document was just the way to go out with a bang.

I read, early on in this whole drama, that someone in the Booz personnel office essentially warned him that there was a problem with his clearance, specifically, his educational credentials. People have been fired for less. It could also be that fact--knowing that the boom was about to be lowered, that the clock was ticking, and when they sent the paperwork back through again that there would eventually be trouble--that caused him to take off like a shot. I just don't know, though.

One day, we'll get the full flower of this story. I think that arrogance and hubris played a not-small role in this business, myself.

[Cha]

76. Whadda ya mean?! Snowden threw the softball and Putin hit

it outta the Park! Whoosh! So Sunshine and Rainbows!

[MADem]

81. I LOVE that picture!!!

It's looking like Snowden threw a whiffle ball, or even better, he placed it gently on the tee and handed the bat to Pooty!

Thing is, no one invited GG to the doggone game...so he's spitting mad, he feels left out, no one clued him in that the game was tee ball, even... and he doesn't quite to know what to do about it!

[Cha]

88. Bet Chris Christy is jealous of the smoothness in that little setup!

I know the glenn/snowed fans say this isn't about them but.. here's a little something I found that said it's very much about what Eddie Leaks..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4837081

And, now it's also about who Eddie is propping up..

[Number23]

108. MADem, did you actually READ the TPM article on Putin/Snowden's tv appearances?

"Putin, a former KGB agent, set the tone by treating Snowden as something like an equal.

"Mr. Snowden, you are a former agent, a spy. I used to be working for an intelligence service," he said, according to RT's on-air translator. "We are going to talk one professional language."

What the hot, crispy, deep fried Hell??! When Vladimir FUCKING Putin considers you an "equal" and calls you a "spy," (with not one PEEP of a correction from Snowden by the way), how exactly is anyone supposed to take this any other way than YOU WERE A SPY despite the enduring protestations from Snowden's supporters that Snowden was just a guy upset about a thing and who wound up in Russia by mistake?? This is freaking huge.

[MADem]

110. I guess the "I'm just a sysadmin who saw stuff I didn't like" schtick won't play anymore.

Unless he was just a sysadmin for USA...and a spy for Vlad!

In any event, he went Palin-style rogue with this appearance; or someone other than Greenwald is directing his activities...

I smell toast. He'd be well advised to really lean into the Rosetta Stone. He'd better learn the nuances of the language because he's got himself a new home.

[chrisa]

22. His head is exploding from being wrong.

Despite doing his best to defend Snowden, Snowden turned out to be nothing more than Putin's puppet. Must be hard. Too much crow in one sitting.

[Cha]

75. It's greenwald doing his usual deflecting schtick.. hoping no one will notice what a tool

eddie is..

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Snowden just fucked Greenwald

hard.

Now Greenwald will always be associated with Putin's puppet who asked Putin staged questions on Russian state TV.

You just can't make this shit up!!

[MADem]

11. Could this be because Greenwald is working for that guy who supported the Ukranians?

It's getting so ya don't know the players without a scorecard, fa chrissakes!

[joshcryer]

47. Best angle in this thread.

I think Putin is sending a message to Greenwald.

"We got your boy and can have him do what we want, watch what you say."

Russia already admitted it tapped every phone at the Olympics.

[arely staircase]

12. yep

and just watch. A year from now this will be the least obvious example of Snowdens stupid human trick forbthe KGB. They have just begun to put him through his paces.

[theboss]

19. I think Putin is pretty smart though and will use Snowden sparingly

I think he is going to be on Putin's leash for a long time - possibly the rest of his life. But you are only going to see him occasionally. And they probably won't pull a stunt like this again - seeing as how it has gone over like a fart in church.

[MADem]

23. Supposedly, though, Snowden doesn't HAVE that info anymore.

At least that is what he claimed. It's in the hands of Glenn Greenwald, who is now working for the billionaire Franco-Persian Omidyar, who supported the Ukrainians in overthrowing their government...

If he manages to cough up more stuff, well, that makes him a liar. He repeatedly insisted that there was "no way" the Chinese or Russians could get that material.

I'm waiting for the ending of this convoluted story....will the last line of this saga be ''Which lay in the House that Jack Built" I wonder?

And who plays the part of Jack?

This is just getting stranger and stranger....

[arely staircase]

29. I think maybe he doesn't have a bunch of stuff and the Russians are trying to get something useful

from him. So it will be TV shows with all the subtle spontaneity of a Stalinist show trial.

[MADem]

31. I suppose he does have to earn his room and board...!

And I wouldn't trust him to swap out my hard drive!

[arely staircase]

10. mr. pulitzer prize sounds like a teenager

granted there really isn't much tio say about this situation. snowden isny even pretending anymore.

[Whisp]

13. at first I thought it was Snowden being taken for a ride by Greenwald and Co...

but now I'm thinking the opposite, Greenwald got snookered by Snowden!

Why did Snowden choose GG to leak to? Gee, could it be because of GG's lack of character and personality rather than his big investigative freedumb of his press thing? That he would be the best one to choose to make the biggest, stupidest noise?

LOL. Greenwald is the patsy! not Snowden.

[MADem]

26. Greenwald didn't know jack about computers and security, either.

He was a perfect patsy. Easily conned.

Why not leak to someone at some of the premier computer publications--they'd be able to cover the story from all angles, and do it authoritatively, too.

Now Greenwald is working for Omidyar, who supports the Ukrainians, and we know how Pootie feels about those guys.

Very odd--the ground is shifting, and no one can trust anyone else. How Pootie-esque!

[MADem]

30. Yeah, and Snowden, with this latest stunt, put that prize where the sun don't shine, as well.

He's got to feel well and truly played, but he cannot admit it.

[Whisp]

55. I wonder what the prize givers are feeling about now?

oh to be a bag full of flies on a multitude of walls now.

[MADem]

84. Not the first time they've fucked up...probably won't be the last, either!

Remember Janet Cooke and 'Jimmy's World?'

And they gave one to Walter Duranty, who shovelled Stalin's bullshit to beat the band, only to be later discredited (though the award was never returned).

[Renew Deal]

16. And Greenwald is his PR guy

[2banon]

20. I'm laying odds on that wasn't even Snowden in the first place..

Putin's PR gimmick is an easy one to craft together, it's kindergarten sleight of hand for a former KGB agent. .

[JaneyVee]

27. Its on video.

[2banon]

44. That would have been helpful, the video or link wasn't included in the op.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. His mockery of Snowden's critics was well deserved.

Put up or shut up.

[JaneyVee]

25. Maybe Snowden is going to reveal Russia's

Mass surveillance state and is getting Putin on the record lying. Or maybe he was being used as a pawn in Putin's mass surveillance state to take a jab at the US.

[2banon]

48. We all know Russia is a Police State. The Point is...

Why do you ignore the State Police Apparatus in the U.S. ???

That is the f**king point.

[JaneyVee]

50. I don't ignore it, I'm just not

overly concerned about it. I've taken up different causes.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

73. Are you saying that the USA is a police state? N.T.

[2banon]

74. That's exactly what I'm saying.. it's nothing new

but's it's mysteriously ignored when it's staring everyone in the face, except to the privileged class of course.

[BeyondGeography]

32. Glenn's got half a loaf of credibility and it's starting to get to him

Last edited Thu Apr 17, 2014, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

NSA overreach, and the ways in which we are free to criticize it, is nothing compared with the oppressive dynamic of Putin's police state. Now that Snowden is playing the role of a prop for Putin, the implicit irony of fleeing the U.S. for Russia (whatever the original plan, that's what happened) has become a full-blown farce.

[Aerows]

33. Oh my, here we go again

Anything to smear Snowden, Greenwald and the story that they broke to shield the Executive Office and Obama.

You guys realize you are ridiculous, right?

That's not directed at anyone in particular, just those that want to make this personal with Snowden/Greenwald.

You can smear them, verbally lash them, and completely dehumanize them. But it doesn't change the fact that they illustrated how deeply entrenched the surveillance state is, and how it affects not just our country, but the world.

But go ahead. Dehumanize Snowden. Dehumanize Greenwald. Because, hey, they are enemies of the Obama Administration, amirite?

When the fits and palls die down, you may just realize that this is an issue that also affects you.

[Skidmore]

36. No one has to do a darned thing to tarnish the images of these two.

They literally are self-destructing in full view of the world. And this has nothing to do with revelations but with their individual characters. The difference between these two and the Watergate whistleblower and reporting was that there was some inherent credibility there that people could track on.

[tritsofme]

39. lol, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...Should we just avert our eyes?

[randome]

40. No one said a thing about Obama until post #33.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

42. Nobody had to.

Raging against the surveillance state was very much in vogue until January 20, 2009.

If you care to deny that, I suggest you visit the archives of DU2.

[Cali_Democrat]

49. LOL. You didn't join DU until Feb 2011

Welcome back, I guess.

[Egnever]

58. +100000

[SidDithers]

71. Oops...

Sid

[Mojorabbit]

101. Still the poster's statement is correct. nt

[Cha]

78. Snowden and Greenwald make it about them.. nobody does that for them. And, your attempt to

shutdown discussion of this is as lame as greenwald's.

[MohRokTah]

37. How typical of Greenwald.

And notice he had to do a "LOOK AT ME" move, too.

[2banon]

46. Oh Good Grief.

[Cha]

80. It's greenwald's MO.. attack with some jibberish and his fans eat it up.

[gcomeau]

51. Making an idiot of yourself is "lashing back"?

His response was incoherent to the point of being embarrassing.

[MisterP]

57. a few twists of fate and they'd be saying he was a Hong Konger agent from the get-go

[grasswire]

77. this thread sounds like Saturday morning at the beauty parlor in Mayberry.

Gossip, gossip, gossip!

Whispers and giggles and ohoh, naughty words, and more gossip!

Each post more ridiculous and amateurish than the last, assigning motives and making things up just like a B grade TV sitcom -- no, rather a spoof of a B grade TV sitcom.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

79. It might just be about time to wonder how Snowden is coming along

learning to speak fluent coherent Russian as Putin may have a place for him on Russian state TV as a way to thumb his nose at the white house.Kind of like a Russian version of fox news. Putin is after all an opportunists,and propaganda goes with the territory.Imagine that.

[Cha]

85. I see snowden/greenwald fans are trying to persuade one and all to move along.. nothing to

to see here. It's only snowden being used as a world class tool/fool by Putin and greenwald tweeting some jibberish to deflect.

Only snowden and glenn get to talk.. everyone else has to stfu.



But what caught my eye in one of the unredacted slides was the mention of Al Qaeda in Iraq being a particular target of the NSA's efforts. The slide reads: "Visual Communicator – Free application that combines Instant Messaging, Photo-Messaging, and Push2Talk capabilities on a mobile platform. VC used on GPRS or 3G networks." The next five words were what the Times tried and failed to redact: "heavily used in AQI Mosul Network."

The aim as described in the documents is to target mobile phone apps that can give away a target's physical location. The utility of this in tracking terrorists hardly needs to be stated. The document describes a program focusing on clear security interests – Al Qaeda in Iraq, now calling itself Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) – killed thousands in Iraq during the US-led war there and continues to carry out suicide bombings and attacks on civilians there on a weekly basis. ISIS is also deeply involved in the civil war in Syria, and the groups ties to Al Qaeda make it an obvious security concern for the US.

MOre..
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0130/More-Snowden-leaks-and-this-time-Al-Qaeda-is-the-surveillance-target-video

[ucrdem]

86. "newly minted Pulitzer Prize winner," that's rich. Greenwald did not win a Pulitzer.

The Guardian and Wapo won Pulitzer prizes, not Greewald and not Snowden. The only "Greenwald" found on on the official Pulitzer website is a Gerald Greenwald, named incidentally in an award-winning 2001 article:

The ESOP's most ardent management champion, CEO Gerald Greenwald, retired in July 1999.

http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6443

Talk about shameless.

[Cha]

90. Check out this comment under the article at TPM..

"Greenwald is notoriously and obviously one of the most thin-skinned "investigative journalists" around. He can dish it out but cannot take it when the camera focuses on him or his protogees. Snowden is either the most naive geek around or his enjoying his moment in the sun a bit too much. To let Putin get away with statements yesterday that Russia doesn't spy on its own people is evidence that Snowden is nurturing and cultivating his Russian hosts in a very unhealthy and hypocritical way, in my opinion."

I don't think "naivety" has anything to do with it.. more like Putin's little lap dog.

[ucrdem]

91. LOL, could be.

I didn't see this clip but if Snowball is playing the role of Putin's personal fluffer that accords with my suspicion that he accidentally on purpose wound up in Russia to keep the friction up between PBO and Putin. Hostilities please the bomb-Iran crowd because Putin is their biggest obstacle and he's already getting China's support. If relations thaw between Putin and Obama thaw theres's no hope of wrecking Iran.

[Cha]

92. Hoping the best for Iran.. and grateful we have President Obama working it out..

Don't know the details on how snowden ended up in Russia but he was quick to babble pro-putin propaganda from the get-go..

"... These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.
http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

And, now.. it's just a love fest..



TOD

[ucrdem]

113. That was after his Hong Kong honeymoon with XI

engineered to embarrass PBO in his Palm Springs summit with Xi last summer. Worked, too.

[Cha]

129. Oh, yeah.. that, too.. ratfuckers from the get-go.

[flamingdem]

141. I need better glasses

thought it read Greenwald's properties not protegees!

[Number23]

109. According to some on DU, SNOWDEN won the Pulitzer or was at least vindicated by the award

We'll just add that to the list of 4,536,835,941 things that GD doesn't understand about the world.

[ucrdem]

112. Good luck trying to disabuse any of them of their fantasies.

Once a meme gets stuck in the hivemind it's stuck for good.

[muriel_volestrangler]

145. No; Greenwald is the author or co-author of most of the pieces cited

List here: http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2014-Public-Service-Group2
June 5, 2013 NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily - Greenwald
June 6, 2013 NSA Prism program taps into users data of Apple, Google and others - Greenwald & MacAskill
June 9, 2013 Web entry: Edward Snowden video - Poitras & Greenwald
June 11, 2013 Boundless informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data - Greenwald & MacAskill
June 17, 2013 Edward Snowden: NSA whistleblower answers reader questions (Q&A with Greenwald)
June 27, 2013 NSA collected US email records in bulk for more than two years under Obama Greenwald & Ackerman
July 24, 2013 NSA surveillance narrow defeat for amendment to restrict data collection - Ackerman
August 9, 2013 NSA loophole allows warantless search for US citizens' emails and phone calls - Ball & Ackerman
September 5, 2013 Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security - Ball, Borger & Greenwald
October 10, 2013 Patriot Act author prepares bill to put NSA bulk collection 'out of business' - Roberts
November 1, 2013 Web entry: NSA files decoded - MacAskill & Dance
December 17, 2013 Tech companies call for 'aggressive' NSA reforms at White House meeting - Rush, Lewis & Ackerman
December 18, 2013 Obama review panel: strip NSA of power to collect phone data records - Roberts & Ackerman

The cover letter from The Guardian lists Greenwald as a Guardian journalist, and puts him first in the list of the people leading the team.

Those articles are on the Pulitzer site, as a Google search would have showed:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Apulitzer.org+%22greenwald%22

[ucrdem]

151. Most Pulitzer prizes are awarded to individuals, and neither Greenwald or Snowden

were nominated for or awarded 2014 Pulitzer prizes for journalism or anything else:

2014 Pulitzer Prize Winners
Winning stories, photographs and cartoons, as well as bios and photos of winners, are available by clicking the links below.

Journalism

PUBLIC SERVICE - Two Prizes: The Guardian US and The Washington Post

BREAKING NEWS REPORTING - The Boston Globe Staff

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING - Chris Hamby of The Center for Public Integrity, Washington, D.C.

EXPLANATORY REPORTING - Eli Saslow of The Washington Post

LOCAL REPORTING - Will Hobson and Michael LaForgia of the Tampa Bay Times

NATIONAL REPORTING - David Philipps of The Gazette, Colorado Springs, CO

INTERNATIONAL REPORTING - Jason Szep and Andrew R.C. Marshall of Reuters

FEATURE WRITING - No award

COMMENTARY - Stephen Henderson of the Detroit Free Press

CRITICISM - Inga Saffron of The Philadelphia Inquirer

EDITORIAL WRITING - The Editorial Staff of The Oregonian, Portland

EDITORIAL CARTOONING - Kevin Siers of The Charlotte Observer

BREAKING NEWS PHOTOGRAPHY - Tyler Hicks of The New York Times

FEATURE PHOTOGRAPHY - Josh Haner of The New York Times

http://www.pulitzer.org

So the claim that Greenwald won a Pulitzer is simply untrue, or if you prefer, inaccurate.

[Thinkingabout]

89. Does anyone truthfully think GG wants Snowden to return to the US? Doubt it, if he is back in

the US then GG just might have to share some of the funds with him. Snowden has been set up, plain and simple. Set him up to meet GG in Hong Kong, then for whatever reason Snowden flew to Moscow. Can't say if GG was aware passports could be revoked but it is sort of common knowledge but after all GG is just an attorney, might not have access to find the information. Snowden, the patsy, GG just used him.

[MADem]

106. I think he wishes Snowden would stop pitching softballs to Pootie.

I think he would prefer that Snowden only speak when he's covering it. And he doesn't want Snowden to look like Putin's accomplice, because that makes HIM look like a tool; he wants him to appear to be a flag-waving libertarian patriot who doesn't like government intrusion--a champion of "privacy" if you will. Not Abbott to Putin's Costello.

It's looking right now like GG can't control Snowden--maybe Putin used GG and Snowden was in on it all along...!

[Thinkingabout]

130. Maybe you have tagged the scene. Don't think GG, Putin or Snowden will get an Oscar for their

performances.

[Dragonfli]

93. I think Frum posts here

In any event he certainly sounds like the conservative here that hate whistle blowers and enjoy our extra-Constitutional antics. Also I wonder what name Yoo uses here.

[stevenleser]

136. Greenwald to fans: "Are you going to believe me and Snowden or your lying eyes and ears?"

Nice try Glenn.

[flamingdem]

140. Excuses, excuses

Eddie can come home and face the music. He'd do a few years and then sell a book. He's not willing to do so even with his dad's high priced Libertarian lawyer willing to take on his case.