The Top 5 Exaggerations By Glenn Greenwald On NSA!

[Galraedia]

I have analyzed Glenn Greenwald’s writing many times over the years. His slick use of rhetorical devices, and his propensity to exaggerate, jump out at me and smack me upside the head when I read his writings. I’ve compiled what I think are the top 5 exaggerations by Glenn Greenwald since the NSA story broke. These are mostly from his appearances, where he apparently feels more free to exaggerate than when he commits something to paper.

Before I get to the list, I feel it is my duty to point out Glenn’s incredible hypocrisy about the right of privacy.

In his one big case as a lawyer, defending the white supremacist Matt Hale, Glenn Greenwald was smacked down by the judge for unethically recording witnesses without their knowledge. Mr. Privacy, Glenn Greenwald, invaded the privacy of witnesses in order to defend that vile creature.

Seizing the opportunity, Defendants’ counsel (Glenn Greenwald) hit the record button and commenced surreptitiously taping the conversation with Dippold. The conversation lasted for some time, covering in detail Dippold’s contacts with Hale, the WCOTC, and various other parties having an interest in the underlying litigation. Dippold never asked if Defendants’ counsel was taping the conversation. Nor did Defendants’ counsel make any representations to Dippold suggesting that the conversation was or [**4] was not being taped. [...]

Approximately one month later, Plaintiff discovered the existence of another tape. This tape pertained to a conversation between Defendants’ counsel and Ian Sigel, another witness in the case. [...]

Plaintiff moved to compel disclosure of these tapes, arguing that this conduct was unethical and therefore vitiated any attorney work-product privilege that may have attached to these recordings, and sought a protective order prohibiting any further recordings. The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel’s conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;” and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating “a lawyer shall not … use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of [another] person.”

Read more: http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/the-top-5-exaggerations-by-glenn-greenwald-on-nsa/

[Turbineguy]

1. Oh noes

not the collapse of another scandal? Now somebody will have to invent a new one!

[railsback]

2. All this was just a bunch of hair of fire bullshit

Luckily, the SCOTUS reminded everyone here who is actually trying to take our rights away, and they're doing it in broad daylight.

[OnyxCollie]

3. Luckily, the SCOTUS reminded everyone here who is actually trying to take our rights away

You got that right, but not in the way you intended.

Supreme Court Lets Stand Telecom Immunity In Wiretap Case

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is leaving in place a federal law that gives telecommunications companies legal immunity for helping the government with its email and telephone eavesdropping program.

The justices said Tuesday they will not review a court ruling that upheld the 2008 law against challenges brought by privacy and civil liberties advocates on behalf of the companies' customers. The companies include AT&T, Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.

Lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation accused the companies of violating the law and customers' privacy through collaboration with the National Security Agency on intelligence gathering.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_WARRANTLESS_WIRETAPPING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-09-09-58-20

[railsback]

4. Well, that's just common sense

How can you fault a company complying with court orders? I know it sounds crass..

[OnyxCollie]

5. That's amazing.

You have just said that a law that gave retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies which aided an abetted the Bush administration in violating the constitutional rights of millions of US citizens is not worthy of judicial review by the Supreme Court.

It's not crass. It's servile.

[railsback]

6. Well, that may be amazing to you

but the Hepting case is so full of nuances and grey matter that the only chance of success would be for ATT to come out and volunteer information as to wether they voluntarily helped Bush spy illegally, which of course they won't. The EFF and ACLU will continue their pursuit, but by now, the i's have been dotted and the t's crossed. In this day and age, with so many leaks, our government is making sure what they do is legal within the laws granted to it.

Its amazing this has been going on so long, and to watch people go into shock mode when Snowden basically reiterated what everyone should have known already, which makes me skeptical of him. If he has hard evidence showing the U.S. operates outside the bounds of PAA/FISA, then he should release it and change a lot of minds, like mine. But he's done nothing of the sort, and nobody knows what he lifted off those servers, except maybe the Russians now. To me, right now, he's just a fugitive from the law.

[Ash_F]

8. ahh 'nuance'

A great place for liars and crooks to retreat to.

[railsback]

9. It is a court of law

where 'doubt' reigns supreme.

[fasttense]

7. Shoot the messenger much?

Just because you don't like Greenwald does NOT mean what he did was wrong.