Since it's all the rage to complain about what people post (Greenwald)

[BainsBane]

How does whether or not Greenwald is a libertarian impact the issue of NSA surveillance? What if Snowden isn't a perfect human being? What if he is a so-called traitor? What if someone doesn't like some or many aspects of Snowden or Greenwald as individuals? None of that directly deals with what I see as the key issue: Is NSA surveillance an infringement on our civil liberties and constitutional rights? To what extent if any does national security justify giving up some of those liberties? Where do we draw the line between privacy and safety from terrorism? Those are issues I care about. What I do not care about is Glen Greenwald or Snowden individually. They could both be the biggest assholes on the planet, and it doesn't mean the information they played a role in making public is factually incorrect or unimportant.


I also find it funny how the issue of NSA surveillance rises and falls based on Greenwald when Bart Gellman of the Washington Post also published information he received from Edward Snowden, and the Post won a Pulitzer for it.

[bettyellen]

1. it's all like cheering your team (even when they suck) at a sporting event, isn't it?

[ucrdem]

2. "Information they made public": 1 FISA warrant, some random powerpoint presentations

of indeterminate status, and an ocean of swiftboaters doing what they do best, dog whistling. They both deserve the infamy that awaits them.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. The Pulitzer Committee says, "wrong answer, anonymous Internet Man".

[ucrdem]

10. Better check your facts, anonymous internet comrade.

Greenwald wasn't a 2014 Pulitzer finalist or winner, ditto Snowden, and is not currently associated with either of the papers that won those rather dubious "public service" awards:

http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/2014

[DisgustipatedinCA]

14. Oh, right. It was the Guardian's Personals section that must have won.

Thanks so much for setting me straight. Anyway, about the Pulitzer that Greenwald and Poitras won, they very much deserved it for shedding light on our spy state apparatus. I raise my coffee mug to both of them this morning in appreciation.

[ucrdem]

17. "Greenwald's Pulitzer" is a meme made for DU.

Enjoy your alternate universe.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

20. Looks like the cat is out of the bag.

Use the Google machine you have to search for Greenwald Pulitzer. You'll find that the notion has spread far beyond our small borders.

Maybe their crossword page was the real winner--what do you think?

[ucrdem]

22. The Google machine doesn't award Pulitzers. nt

[Luminous Animal]

29. The guardian won because of articles written by Greenwald with Smowden as his source

[Make7]

39. Speaking of facts, maybe you'll find this source acceptable:

 
[div style="display:inline-block; padding:5px; border:3px solid #99ccff;"]

[font style="font-size:0.8462em;"]  http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2014/public-service/guardianus/guardianusletter.pdf
  http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2014-Public-Service-Group2
 [/font]
 

[Thinkingabout]

3. The truth would be good, put the real facts about surveillance, what it is and what it isn't.

Lots of the information is not true and a big failure for many to understand. It has never been about phone calls to grandma, never was and never will be. When reality finally enters many will realize how very overblown this is and has been.

[pinboy3niner]

4. Do we really need another Greenwald thread?

There is a range of views here and this territory has been plowed over and over and over again. This is one topic on which I--and I suspect a lot of others--use the Trash Thread feature. You may want to reconsider stirring up the same old...stuff.

[BainsBane]

5. I was trying to discuss the NSA

rather than Greenwald. As I said, I don't give a rat's ass about Greenwald.

[pinboy3niner]

13. Well and good

But using his name multiple times (and adding Snowden) is likely to attract replies distracting from the discussion you intended. I could be wrong--and I hope I am. Good luck!

[randome]

11. Greenwald Forever! Long Live The Angry Libertarians!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[pinboy3niner]

21. Am I right or am I right? ^^^^^

[MohRokTah]

27. Praise His MIGHTY OMNISCIENT NAME!!!

[Broward]

7. This board is populated with many uncritical, blind partisans and

I suspect some paid operatives as well.

[pinboy3niner]

9. Speaking of which, I've had my eye on you for some time now

[MineralMan]

18. And your suspicions about paid operatives

are based on what, exactly? Can you provide more information so we can correctly judge your ability to spot paid posters? That'd be great!

[Maedhros]

23. By your command:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/14/944478/-HB-Gary-Federal-CEO-a-Daily-Kos-Member

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All

According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HBGary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated "persona management" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.

[Supersedeas]

38. sad but true

Last edited Sun May 11, 2014, 08:37 AM - Edit history (1)

[L0oniX]

8. I wouldn't complain if he was filthy rich and just got a PHD.

[BeyondGeography]

12. Because everyone is prone to fit the facts to their worldview

and most facts are open to interpretation. "Today is Saturday," based on a calendar, is not the same as, "the government can see thoughts forming in your head," based on Edward Snowden's say-so.

In the latter case, you'd like to know who's saying that. If it's a libertarian and you happen to find that crowd occasionally paranoid and prone to exaggeration re. gov't intrusion into our personal lives, skepticism results.

[rrneck]

15. Oh now that won't do.

Don't be bringing rational thinking up in here.

[Supersedeas]

40. the check is in

[MannyGoldstein]

16. K&R, dead on. nt

[myrna minx]

19. It doesn't. It's just a distraction from the real issues concerning the NSA and private

contractors. Making it about whether Greenwald is a nice guy or an asshole or if Snowden had boxes in his garage that miffed his neighbors as well as being a bad boyfriend sheer smoke an mirrors and just silly.

[frazzled]

24. Trying to ignore ...

Kidnapped girls, dismissal of human rights, support for Citizen's United, anti-immigrant rhetoric, support for the Pauls ... And all the other issues (I could list a lot more) that people find troubling about GG ... by playing the NSA card?

The NSA is not the only topic, by far, that is being discussed re:GG. And it is perfectly possible to be critical of the NSA and GG at the same time.

[BainsBane]

25. Are you saying I am trying to ignore those other issues?

Or other people here do?

I agree with your latter statement about the NSA and Greenwald not being interdependent. As for other topics regarding Greenwald, why do his views on those other issues matter more than any one else's? Why should I care what Greenwald thinks about Citizens United or human rights more than any one else, like my neighbor or some other person who writes for a well-known paper?

[frazzled]

33. Yes, pretty much

What I'm suggesting is: all the discussion of Greenwald these past days here has been about his comments about the kidnapped girls in Nigeria,and this has led to discussions of his libertarian positions and other non-liberal stances. There's been next to no discussion of NSA, and I don't think the NSA is even relevant to a general discussion of Greenwald.

My dislike for the man and his politics completely predates the whole current NSA contretemps. It goes back to 2006, when I bought and then threw away his first book, appalled by the introduction and realizing he was not my political cup of tea. It continued with his original libertarian blog, his less than honorable legal dealings in his defense of a notorious neo-Nazi, and other issues.

So, as I see it, starting a thread about the NSA has nothing to do with the real, tangible issues regarding GG. It's a red herring and a deflection of the issues. It's an entirely separate question with respect to the current GG dust up. Most everyone who has issues with GG has them completely independent of questions about the NSA. And it 's dishonest to suggest that people who hold these views are somehow NSA apologists.

[BainsBane]

35. Firstly, I made no suggestions about NSA apologists

I specifically said that Greenwald and Snowden as individuals say nothing about the actions of the NSA. I commented on talking obsessively about individuals rather than the issue. Isn't the only reason DUers even talk about Greenwald that he reported the Snowden revelations? I don't even look at most of those threads so I don't know what he said about the Nigerian girls. I gave up ages ago when the discussions quickly descended into the trivialities of Snowden and Greenwald's lives. I guess I glanced at something about that in the Asshole Greenwald thread but I didn't read the piece.

You haven't explained to me why I should give a fuck. Who the hell is he but some guy who writes for the Guardian? There are thousands of reporters, and many of them write books. What makes him more important than the others? We don't have hundreds of threads on other writers or journalists.

So the real issue is Greenwald is a jerk? Okay. Whatever. You don't like someone. Why that should matter to me, I have no idea. It appears this entire discussion is even more trivial than I thought. I figured it was at least a sort of proxy for an issue. It turns out is you and some others just don't like this one guy and consider that an issue in and of itself. If you want to post about human rights, post about human rights. But if you're going to expect me to take seriously threads entitled "asshole Glen Greenwald" or the converse about how great he is, I can't do it. Unless he declares himself a candidate for federal office, none of that matters to me. He's just one guy out of billions on the planet, no more. Why would you even want to give so much attention to someone you think so poorly of?

The fact you accuse me of not caring about human rights because I don't share your obsession with this one man only convinces me that those discussions are nasty for the sake of it. You talk about my being dishonest when you make those kinds of absurd charges? What if I accused you on not caring about racism or rape because you don't denounce them here or participate in threads on those subjects? It is hard for me to believe anyone would actually seriously make an allegation like you did against me based on my indicating that I don't care about Greenwald. It is beyond bizarre.

[frazzled]

37. No

The NSA is not the only reason people talk about Greenwald. People were talking about him and his various positions well before the latest round of NSA revelations and the Snowden incident. He had a blog presence and then wrote his opinion column on Slate, on many differenent subjects, back in the Bush administration. So no, pure and simple, no.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. It shouldn't. Messenger isn't message.

As one of the religion group people posted a day or two back, deep thinkers discuss ideas, regular folks discuss events, petty minds discuss people.

And while one discuss all three at different times, getting hung up on the individuals involved rather than focusing more on the widespread problems to which they brought attention is pretty petty.

[BainsBane]

28. I agree completely nt

[LeftishBrit]

30. Exactly!

[Fumesucker]

31. Who are you and what have done with BainsBane?

[BainsBane]

32. I've thought this siame thing since shortly after the NSA issue arose

I've even written a couple of posts within threads, but they got no attention. Nothing has changed about me. I just decided to express my view in an OP.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. It's like blaming the 911 caller for the fire he reported rather than going after the arsonists.

[Supersedeas]

41. now that is an anology

[stevenleser]

36. Simple answer: It impacts it just the same as which pundit is discussing Benghazi

If I discuss Benghazi, I'll tell you it is a complete waste of time to have another investigation, and I think I am right about that.

If a conservative pundit discusses Benghazi they would say there is new information now thanks to the emails and technically, they would be right. There is some minute piece of new information.

So there are two completely opposite yet true viewpoints, such as they are.

Obviously, I think that the conservative pundit is leaving out a lot of information and slanting it because they want to get to a certain conclusion. That is exactly what I think Greenwald does and has done.

[treestar]

42. Eddie committed a crime, or at least he is charged with it

instead of facing up to it he flees to a country without any protections from spying. That's worthy of discussion. He did not go by the whistleblower laws. Assuming he did a good thing is a big leap. We should be able to discuss the fact he was not supposed to do it. He also seems to be a drama junkie and attention hog.

Glenn is a bad journalist, using this to get attention and making judgments about it, not just letting us know about it.

Thus the discussion of the actual issue is muted and that's the way these two want it. They don't want us actually discussing it. They want us agreeing with their takes on it and praising them with attention.

That metadata was what they didn't have that meant they could not track down Almidhar and the other 911 terrorist who was in the country in spite of being on the terrorist watch list. Everyone was all for it. And Obama got a warrant from the proper place as described in the law. Thus real discussions about it would not have all the hyperbole about "spying on Americans" and the "end of freedom" and how evil our government is. The claims Eddie would not be tried fairly under our system for what he's been charged with. All of that shows ill will and no desire to really discuss just how much surveillance the government can/should/should not be able to do.