Like It or Not, Glenn Greenwald Is Now the Face of the 1st Amendment

[Titonwan]

Freedom of the press will be weakened if his critics succeed in branding him a traitor or a thief as opposed to a journalist.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/like-it-or-not-glenn-greenwald-is-now-the-face-of-the-1st-amendment/283606/

"Among the dozens of reporters, editors, and commentators who have worked on articles sourced to Edward Snowden, just one, Glenn Greenwald, has been subject to a sustained campaign that seeks to define him as something other than a journalist. NBC's David Gregory asked him why he shouldn't be prosecuted for aiding and abetting a felon. Representative Peter King declared that "legal action should be taken against him." Representative Mike Rogers charges that he is a thief who sells stolen material. The New Republic published a piece alleging that he has a nefarious, secret agenda. Why this unique effort to discredit him in particular?" (From Article)

Edit: Glenn's new joint is coming together-
https://www.firstlook.org/#/home
I wish Glenn, Laura and Jeremy (among others) the best of luck in this new endeavor!

[closeupready]

1. I completely agree. As Rachel Maddow said, journalists are not terrorists.

K&R

[RC]

101. They are terrorists to various governments around the world - including ours.

But only those governments that are subverting the will of the people.

[kelliekat44]

103. They do as much damage as terrorists when they fail to tell the truth and spread misinformation. nt

[closeupready]

114. So wait! Are you saying, you think journalists can be terrorists?

Because by drawing that flawed analogy as a counterpoint, that's what you seem to be trying to do - argue that journalism is, in some cases, terrorism, but without actually making that argument.

[Titonwan]

2. There are precedents for smear campaigns of this sort.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/10/when-journalists-are-called-traitors-from-the-spiegel-affair-to-snowden.html
The traitors are the elected ones attempting to smother the 1st Amendment and the press.

[merrily]

3. Only Greenwald, not Snowden?

Was the New York Times reporter who first published the Ellsberg story the face of the First Amendment?

I don't even now that reporter's name, but I know Ellsberg's. And I knew it before the Snowden matter.

[Titonwan]

11. Because the point is about journalism, not whistle blowing.

And even though Barton Gellmon has published more incendiary information (from the governments point of view) they go after Glenn because of his inherent differences than other journalists. They view him the 'weakest' to attack.
You might read the article...

[merrily]

14. What does Gellmon have to do with my post?

I was going to say thank you or good point, until I got to the gratuitous last line of your post, then I thought better of it.

[Titonwan]

21. I'm not here for thanks.

It sounded like you haven't read it from the line of questioning, that's all. Gellmon has written more embarrassing stuff, but Greenwald's gettin' the most heat. That's the whole jist of the article.

[merrily]

31. Good. Then I won't disappoint you.

"That's all." Yeah, right. Just helping me out. No gratuitous swipe at the end of the post about not having read the article before posting. Just simply letting me know that I could click on a link and read the article, if I wished. Because, obviously, posters don't know that.

[MADem]

73. How much money did the Ellsberg journalist make from the Pentagon Papers?

How much is GG making off Snowden?

Face of the First Amendment?

Face of profiting off idiots who don't know how to use the available whistleblower procedures, maybe...! And that's Best Case Scenario....

[Titonwan]

76. And yet Daniel Ellsberg thinks what Glenn and Ed has done

is more courageous than what he did. Odd, that.

[MADem]

86. Gee, maybe he likes Nutella and the Beach Boys, too?

People have opinions--that's his. It's not controlling.

I can't wait to see how well GG's book--dropping on Amazon soon, mind you--will sell!

It's profitable, this First Amendment stuff. Pity that poor NYT journalist with the Ellsberg story didn't know how to market himself like GG does.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

123. Here. You can buy the NYT reporter's book on the Pentagon Papers:

Neil Sheehan is his name, BTW.

http://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-Papers-Published-York-Times/dp/0812903412
































Have one to sell?

Sell on Amazon




















The Pentagon Papers As Published by the New York Times: The Secret History of the Vietnam War Hardcover – July 8, 1971

by Neil Sheehan (Author) , Fox Butterfield, Hedrick Smith E.W. Kenworthy (Author)

[MADem]

187. I remember reading them for free--before the internet!

In the NEWSPAPER!

And when they released the full version, they put it on the internet...also for free.

Gelb estimated that the Times only published about 5% of the study's 7,000 pages. The Beacon Press edition was also incomplete. Halperin, who had originally classified the study as secret, obtained most of the unpublished portions under the Freedom of Information Act and the University of Texas published them in 1983. The National Security Archive published the remaining portions in 2002. The study remained formally classified, however,[8] until 2011.

But that's not what GG's book is about--it's not going to be a dry, edited regurgitation of government documents, near as I can tell.

He's going to tell us a story, in which he's a featured player.

[merrily]

127. "Gee, maybe he likes Nutella and the Beach Boys, too?"

Is that said to suggest that Daniel Ellsberg cannot assess fairly accurately whether the act of Daniel Ellsberg was less risky than the act of Snowden?

[MADem]

190. It's said to suggest that opinions are like opinions--everyone's got at least one.

Ellsberg was dealing with an historical document; he was, in fact, writing a history about our rather ill-advised activities in a specific nation, along with his counterparts.

He wasn't revealing the same sort of intel that Snowden continues to leak every time his name leaves the headlines.

[George II]

97. He wouldn't have thought so 20 or 30 years ago.

[Titonwan]

146. Because you actually live in Daniel's head.

And know his waking (and dreaming!) thoughts. Always because can. Gotcha.

[MADem]

192. Like YOU do, of course....

Irony, thy name is Titonwan!

[Luminous Animal]

83. Ellsberg wasn't the reporter.

But he's likely made a good living from speakers fees.

[MADem]

88. My reference was to the NYT "Ellsberg journalist"--not Ellsberg.

But yes, Ellsberg made a fair living speaking. He was, for some time, a top tier "get" on the circuit.

[2banon]

100. "idiots who don't know how to use the available whistleblower procedures"

It's really hilarious that you repeatedly assert that old meme, which has been repeatedly proven that it "no longer applies" .

It's sort of like the California EDD contact numbers - the phone numbers exist, you can call it, it even rings! It's answered by a pre-recording that says "hello, welcome to California EDD.

But the pre-recorded outgoing msg ultimately tells you "there is no one here to take your call, good bye" .

click.

dead end.

but you keep insisting in promulgating this myth, that whistleblower procedures are anything more meaningful than the paper the "procedures" are printed on. Once upon a time maybe, but not anymore.

[MADem]

183. Just because you insist otherwise, it DOES apply.

Rand Paul would have been THRILLED to help young Snowden out of his little fix.

But that's not what he wanted, apparently.

[reusrename]

115. What is this magic procedure?

Who do you go to if not the free press?

[MADem]

186. Love how people praise the "free press" when it suits the argument, but calls 'em the

"corporate media" when it doesn't.

Snowden wanted to fix the problem--so he said--NOT reveal national secrets (which he ended up doing, and continues to do). His hero, Rand Paul, was ideally suited to help him do that fixing, AND protect him as well. He never even tried to approach the guy.

Had he so done, he'd probably be enjoying the sunshine in Hawaii rather than the snows of Moscow.

He's got his freedom loving Pootster to keep him warm, I suppose, and all his FSB "buddies," too. I'm sure they make sure there's always someone available to answer his questions and smooth his way.

He either miscalculated badly as to how his revelations would be perceived, or everything has gone exactly to plan for him.

We won't know what the truth is for a long, long time, most likely.

Wonder if GG will give Snowden a cut of the take from his book about to drop?

[reusrename]

202. Let me try this again. What is this magic procedure?

Who do you go to if not the free press?



You don't have to respond, you know. But if you do, try to focus on an answer to the question.

[MADem]

203. I just told you. If you choose to not read what I write, that's your issue.

He could have gone to Rand Paul, with whom he is ideologically aligned. Snowden is a supporter of his views, and he was perfectly positioned to assist the guy in resolving his issues with "government overreach." And Rand could have made some hay, too.

Of course, Snowden wouldn't have made the papers in that case, if he played it right.

[reusrename]

204. I'm sorry, I totally missed that. But what could Rand Paul do?

I don't think you are watching the same movie as the rest of the folks in the theater.

A real senator, one with many years of seniority, has been squealing for years about how Congress is gagged from speaking out on this subject. Of course I'm talking about Senator Ron Wyden.

I honestly don't understand why you think Rand Paul could do anything. I guess that by law he would have to have Snowden arrested or something, and it would legally have to be done in total secrecy, or at least in a manner that protected the classified information from being made public.

I don't get what you think would have happened if he were to have gone to a senator with this. Even had he gone to a senator such as Wyden, who already knew all this stuff and was legally cleared to have this information, there's nothing that the senator could do. Is there?

Senator Wyden was forced to watch administration officials commit perjury right to his face, and still he was barred from mentioning it to anyone publicly. The actual fact that these guys were publicly lying to Congress WAS the classified information that they didn't want to be made public. Snowden saw the exact same thing and decided to do his duty. And yes, it was his duty. It's not even a close call.

I don't think you really understand what Snowden accomplished. That would certainly explain why your opinions seem so strange to me.

[MADem]

207. They BOTH are cleared to access most if not all of the information ES possessed.

There is a thing called "closed session." There are hearings We, The People never see.

The point is, he did not even TRY.

He took a bunch of stuff, and ran to China. Then he ran to the Russian Consulate, and next thing you know, he is in Russia, travelling on a letter out of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London where Assange is holed up. Then he's paired with Assange's ex-lover while he farts around in Russia, trying to do a hop-skip-jump through Havana (only they refuse to play ball-how interesting). For months. And his father said that Assange and Company were making a bad situation worse.

There's more to this than meets the eye. What that is, I've no idea, but I do not believe Snowden's "I had a moment of clarity and felt compelled to speak out" story is the whole tale, here.

We're not the only crew busy at this sort of thing, either. We've got the French press saying that France does the same damn thing. We know that the Brits do it better than we do--they can be quite ruthless, and of course we know the Russians are pros that make us look like pikers at this kind of thing. The Chinese are coming along quite nicely, too. Brazil has admitted that they spy as well. The Germans, too. So it's really down to the question who IS NOT spying?

What surprises me is that people are so naive as to believe that nations don't spy, and that governments will eschew this kind of conduct because it's "ungentlemanly" or something on those lines. The bottom line is, they do spy and they always have--and, like it or not, they always will. Even if they say "Oh, we won't do THAT anymore" it would be foolish to believe them. And by "them" I mean every nation on this earth. The leadership, if they have to answer to the people (and in places like Russia and China that's not a problem) will just sign some sort of "lettre de cachet" (like a National Security letter) that serves as cover. If anyone becomes aware of it and it wends its way through the courts, well, as the old military saying goes "Forgiveness is easier to obtain than permission."

And then it's lather-rinse-repeat, all over again. If you don't want to be spied upon, you have to limit your exposure. That IS--like it, and most won't, or not--the new reality we live in. No shooting the messenger. It is what it is.

[reusrename]

209. I hate to admit it, but I sort of agree with what you just said there.

I'm not sure that there's any practical way for us to limit our exposure though. Not any more. Perhaps 10 or even 5 years ago that might have been a legitimate option, but I don't think it is now and it certainly won't be in another 10 years from now.

Our social networks are being mapped. By lots of folks. It's mostly nations that do it now, but anyone can do it. I think we must come to terms with the technology itself.

And, as far as nations go, the line is blurring more and more every day about who "we" are and who "they" are. It's beginning to look like the oligarchs are owning the whole shooting match, here, China, Russia, Europe, and the Middle East.

Interesting times, to be sure.

[MADem]

210. You're seeing the nuance in my argument--thank heavens!

I don't particularly "like" this reality, but it is what it is. Fist shaking or saying "Obama BAD....now stop!!!" is not gonna cut it. Yet some see that as the solution.

When I try to point that out, I get accused of being an "authoritarian" or an "apologist" or other names that start with the letter A....!

The horse left the barn back in the eighties, I'm afraid. We simply have to find a way to adapt to a new paradigm. That's the challenge ahead. We may be able to shield our information to some extent, but more realistically, we're probably better off regarding the internet or the telephone as a "public" place, not a locale where we have an expectation of privacy.

The toothpaste simply won't go back in the tube.

[Pholus]

152. Oh my god. Yes, someone other than the MIC might be cashing in.

Seems like a perfectly good reason to completely ignore the substance of the issue.

At least after a few drinks. You must be ahead of me tonight.

[Titonwan]

154. Not the thread winner

but close!

[MADem]

182. Lots of people are cashing in--and the MIC will get their taste, too.

You don't think Snowden's tattling has created a growth industry in MIC counter-espionage and counter-surveillance 'business opportunity' enthusiasms around the world? How many mini-Snowdens will market themselves as the answers to governmental prayers ? How many Blackwaters-of-the-Internet will be created and flogged to nations around the world?

FWIW, I wrote that post during the day, around the luncheon hour (do check those time stamps, now), and I don't post-n-drink morning, noon or night.

Best, really to not project behaviors from your imagination or personal experience on others, it never works well, ya know, and reflects poorly on you! Makes it sound like you're resorting to personal disparagement or excoriation as a substitute for reasoned discussion-- never a sharp move IMO.

[Pholus]

189. Accusations of projection....

a sure sign you had no actual comeback of value.

BTW since you are so wise let me clue you in. For every idealistic nutbag like Snowden there are at least 100 others quietly using their access to line their pockets.

Such a wonderful clusterfuck you defend here.

[MADem]

191. You're the one that tried to suggest I must be drunk or something--and that's projection.

It's not an "accusation"--it's a factual observation.

I wasn't looking for a "comback" -- of value or otherwise.

I was just pointing out your pisspoor behavior so that there would be no mistake as to how you approach people on this board.

If you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you'd have no need to "clue me in." What did I say about the MIC getting a taste? Reading is fundamental.

You have a nice day, now, sport.

[Pholus]

200. I always do. Thanks.

I guess I hit close to the mark. Sorry.

You can get back to hating on Snowden cause he makes the President look like someone who did a 180 on a pre-election position now.

[MADem]

201. You missed the mark entirely! Don't be "sorry"--at least not for that reason!

[Pholus]

220. Oh yes, I missed the mark.

Says the poster who just knows I'm projecting -- without evidence. Just that truthiness thing Colbert talks about.

Who just got done asserting for a fact that Snowden and Greenwald are working from base motivations. Without evidence.

I love rattling cages like yours. Pretty much cause you got that fundy vibe going. You just KNOW you have to prove the people saying things you don't like must be biblically evil somehow so you twist yourself in knots trying to make that argument.

Instead of, you know, actually confronting the base situation.

Personally, I am interested in finding out why the President continues to fund a jobs program for Republican fuckups that misses huge things like Putin's maneuvers in the Ukraine cause they're too busy collecting domestic data.

[ljm2002]

16. The First Amendment is much more applicable to Greenwald...

...than to Snowden. What Snowden did was against the law. No one disputes that, not even Snowden himself. What Greenwald did was NOT against the law, it was what journalists do: talk to sources, obtain information from sources (however that information was obtained by the sources), vet the information, and write about it to inform the public.

Greenwald is (or should be) protected by the First Amendment in this case; Snowden is not. Whatever arguments we might make about what Snowden did being for the greater good, and it being a moral act -- has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Snowden is not a journalist and was not functioning as such. Greenwald is a journalist and has functioned as such for many years.

BTW Ellsberg was not protected by the First Amendment either. What he did was also illegal (even if it was morally right).

[mimi85]

45. I am not a fan of GG

but I have to agree with you. And Ellsberg's action were illegal, but he didn't jump ship. I have no sympathy for Snowden at all. And I won't be checking out Greenwald's magazine.

[merrily]

136. Ellsberg said himself that, if it were today, he would have "jumped ship."

It's a very different time now. To name only two huge differences, the Supreme Court is very different and the entire nation and its officials have a post 911 mentality now.

Snowden is not asking anyone for sympathy. He said that all he wanted was for something to happen after his disclosure. And he very soon said he was happy that people were talking about it.

He has my gratitude, though.

[Titonwan]

151. Ed knew full well the possible consequences...

... and did it anyway. He has shaken the world no one anticipated. He is a game changer- I realized that in June and it shocked me with the potential implications.
We are witnessing high stakes chess playing at it's finest. I hope my boys (and girl) win.

[merrily]

66. Thank you very much.

I agree that Snowden would be a very tough case for First Amendment protection. Additionally, I don't think that this Court in this time would give him that protection, even if Obama had been able to replace Kennedy or Scalia. I am no


The First Amendment issue in general is dicey, though. Overclassifying is illegal and we have a government that overclassifies. Is it always going to be unprotected speech to disclose classified info that is important for the populace to know?

For example, is it illegal to disclose an attack on a faraway village or place of worship that has already been attacked, simply because the government has classified the information? It's no secret to people in the other locale that the place has been attacked by US, only escaping the attention of people in the US.

Also, sadly, I think that the Supreme Court of Ellsberg's time might decide my hypothetical case very differently that a post-911 Supreme Court, "originalist" or not.

[Titonwan]

70. We've seen these 'conservative' Supremes at work.

These are the most radical revisionists in recent history. I bet Scalia daydreams about legalizing slavery again... oh wait, they're doing it now! They're just politically correct Equal Opportunity Slavers™ now.

[bravenak]

84. +1000

[merrily]

138. +1

I usually put "originalist" inside quotation marks for that very reason.

[grahamhgreen]

89. Yes.

[TheMathieu]

4. Westboro too. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Westboro is the negative side of the Religious Freedoms of the 1st Amendment, not of the

Free Press aspects being discussed in this thread. Are you unsure of the difference?

[TheMathieu]

131. All freedoms have instances of people taking it to the extreme.

Or distorting one of the so-called freedoms to fit their needs.

[Bluenorthwest]

137. Really? Wow! But Westboro is not protected by press freedoms, but by religious freedoms in

the 1st Amendment. That was my point, that you conflate the two areas of Constitutional rights.
But you knew that.

[ZombieHorde]

181. Fortunately, the US Government seems to be leaving them alone.

They don't need to be smeared because they're message and tactics are what people hate about them.

[frazzled]

5. I agree ...

He's the face of the 1st Amendment in the way that Wayne LaPierre is the face of the 2nd Amendment: absolutist, admitting to no limitations ... in short, a first amendment zealot.

[closeupready]

10. Yes, and the Constitution is the last refuge of scoundrels,

claimed Pat Buchanan once.

[frazzled]

12. Yeah, and extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice

claimed Barry Goldwater once.

(And for the record, Greenwald, as a libertarian, follows in the mold of Goldwater; while I have despised Pat Buchanan for many many decades. )

[Titonwan]

20. "Greenwald, as a libertarian"

Last edited Fri Feb 7, 2014, 03:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Yeah, a civil libertarian (as so am I) but you'd be hard pressed providing a link to such an assertion. Glenn is a Constitutional lawyer and tries to remain party neutral (e.g. He criticizes all of them, equally).
Edit 1: Glenn Greenwald doesn't fashion himself after Goldwater but Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl. You know that?

[frazzled]

26. Civil libertarian--that's what Rand Paul claims to be as well

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=7

The word "civil libertarian" does not impress me; and it does not change what I have said at all.

[Titonwan]

32. Yes, that's the one thing Liberals and Libertarians have in common.

Personal freedom is pretty much a generic value amongst folks. Your logic suggests anyone that prefers privacy loves them some Ayn Rand Paul. Uhm, no. I make Hugo Chavez look like Ronnie Raygun.
1st Edit: Also, too also, you didn't provide that link that states Glenn is a Libertarian. You merely deflected and argue by association. That's like saying the ACLU is a white supremacy group because they've defended them in the past.

[frazzled]

35. Whoa whoa

Glenn Greenwald is not a liberal. You established that yourself in your previous post. He takes no "political" affiliation. He is only about civil liberties. That makes him a libertarian, small "l." He is, as I said, a libertarian. As a liberal, I have as little in common with him as I do with Rand Paul.

But there is no discussion to be had with us here. So let's end it.

[Titonwan]

40. "Glenn Greenwald is not a liberal."

I never said he was! Still no link showing Glenn is a Libertarian. I'd like to read Glenn's stating that for I have been reading him quite a long time and haven't discerned that.
BUT, even if he was, does that change what he reports? He's doing something right- Izzy Award, Polk Award and I predict the Pulitzer Prize in the not so far future. Not bad for a narcissistic, money grubbin', glory hound. /sarc

[Maedhros]

107. Although I applaud your efforts, I don't think you'll make headway with Frazzled.

You can't reason him out of a position he didn't reason himself into.

"Greenwald is a Libertarian" is an empty pejorative smear. Part and parcel for the propagandists - keep smearing the messenger so we don't pay attention to the real problem.

[merrily]

125. Bill Maher is a Libertarian. Seems well-liked here.

IMO, being a Libertarian has nothing to do with it. It's about Greenwald gadflying Obama and Maher dropping a million bucks on him.

[MADem]

208. I think that ship sailed nearly a year ago....

There's a video:

Bill Maher wound up his New Rules segment on this Friday evening's Real Time by going after today's crop of Ayn Rand worshiping Libertarians in a rant where Maher basically said he didn't leave Libertarianism, it left him. As he noted, even though he's expressed support for the philosophy in the past, it was because it "meant he didn't want big government my bedroom, or my medicine chest and especially not on the second drawer of the nightstand on the left side of my bed."

[Luminous Animal]

193. Right (snort) because libertarians raise money for Democratic candidates ALL the time!

I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:

* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);

* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);

* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);

* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);

* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);

* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);

* criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);
* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);

* using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;

* co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardim [sic], JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);

* co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);

To apply a "right-wing libertarian" label to someone with those views and that activism is patently idiotic. Just ask any actual libertarian whether those views are compatible with being a libertarian. Or just read this October, 2012 post - written on Volokh, a libertarian blog - entitled "Glenn Greenwald, Man of the Left", which claims I harbor "left-wing views on economic policy" and am "a run-of-the-mill left-winger of the sort who can be heard 24/7 on the likes of Pacifica radio" because of my opposition to cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
There is no doubt that I share many views with actual libertarians, including: opposition to a massive surveillance state, support for marriage equality for LGBT citizens, restraints on government power to imprison or kill people without due process, opposition to the death penalty and the generally oppressive US penal state, contempt for the sadistic and racist drug war, disgust toward corporatism and crony capitalism, and opposition to aggressive wars and the ability of presidents to wage them without Congressional authority. It's also true that I supported the Citizens United decision on free speech grounds: along with people like the ACLU and Eliot Spitzer (the only politician to put real fear in the heart of Wall Street executives in the last decade and probably the politician most hated by actual libertarians).

Liberals and libertarians share the same views on many issues, particularly involving war, civil liberties, penal policies, and government abuse of power. That is why people like Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich worked so closely with Ron Paul to Audit the Fed and restore civil liberties.

But "libertarianism" has an actual meaning: it's not just a slur to mean: anyone who criticizes President Obama but disagrees with Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who applies this label to me in light of my actual views and work is either very ignorant or very dishonest - or, most likely, both.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#

[merrily]

140. Gee, who'd think that a paleocon, xenophobic racist would view the Constitution that negatively?

[closeupready]

141. Well, truth IS stranger than fiction.

[merrily]

142. Pat Buchanan is stranger than fiction--and a lot of other things.

[Titonwan]

153. I like to laugh at him on the McLaughlin(g) Group

Plus all the other political wannabes. I'd buy him a beer though (and look nervously for the exit).

[EOTE]

13. Yeah, what a loony 1st Amendment zealot.

To think that he believes that he has the right to speak out about what our government is doing in secret! I mean, secret government programs don't do Uncle Sam much good if they've got rats like Snowden blabbing their mouths about them. Thinking that the government doesn't have the right to collect, store and analyze our personal information en masse without probable cause or permission, what a loon. Next thing you know he's going to become one of those 4th Amendment wackos and suggest that we have a right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Can you believe these fucking idiots who actually believe that rights mean something? It's like, hello, if you don't have anything to hide, you don't really need rights in the first place.

[frazzled]

15. He's free to speak about whatever he wants

as a journalist. His interpretation of the First Amendment is an entirely different thing.

Who said anything about his right to speak? I refer you to his career before last Tuesday ... and draw your own conclusions.

[EOTE]

28. He spoke about unconstitutional activities our government is engaging in

entirely without our knowledge or permission. And for that, the authoritarians think he's a traitor. He is the very definition of a whistleblower. Our government can't simply make up its own laws regarding what it does with us while having zero input from us. What the NSA has been doing is undoubtedly authoritarian. No surprise, then, that DU's authoritarians are so fucking outraged over what Snowden did. Can't have naughty little whistleblowers like Snowden making things difficult for Uncle Sam, can we? Who will protect us if the NSA no longer has the ability to spy on everyone with impunity?

The authoritarians who are so intent on continually slamming Snowden are scared, little children who piss themselves at the thought of actual freedom. I know it makes them upset, but the truth hurts, doesn't it?

[Titonwan]

44. This. !

[zeemike]

72. Yep...you get it.

[Adrahil]

98. So, you create a strawman, hurl insults and claim it as the truth?

Yeah, that's gonna help.

Setting up a false dichotomy is always problematic. People can have a problem with what Snowden and Greenwald are doing and not be some foaming at the mouth authoritarians. In the same way, people who LIKE what they did don't have to be hippy dippy anarchists.

I recognize that in the REAL world, there is some necessity for a state intelligence apparatus. And I recognize that there will always be a tension between the right to privacy and the desire for more and better intelligence. It's not an either/or proposition.

[EOTE]

110. You might want to look up the definition of a strawman.

And while you're at it, look up the bulk of those other words whose definitions clearly escape you.

No one is saying that there should be no government surveillance. We ARE saying that we should know what is being done in our name to others and ourselves. If they thought we'd have been okay with the destruction of our civil liberties, they would have TOLD US they were going to do it. The government doesn't get to create a hydra-like organization dedicated to infringing on our rights without our knowledge and then upon our discovering of that, try to assure us that they'll only infringe upon our rights in the most delicate of manners. What is it that the authoritarians don't understand? Is this REALLY that difficult? Do I get to make up my own laws to follow in secret as well or this that a power solely given to our government by idiot authoritarians?

[Adrahil]

122. Dude, you're creating a false argument then attacking it. STRAWMAN.

[EOTE]

124. Dude, like, I did no such thing. Totally.

It's not a false argument to suggest that people here have called Snowden a traitor and far worse things, dude. It's also not a false argument to suggest that those who are attacking him don't really give much a fuck about freedoms or liberties. If they did, they wouldn't be attacking him because of where he's hiding out while trying to avoid Chelsea Manning's fate. Authoritarians suck, dude. Maybe you should realize that they're not your friends and you're not going to get a cookie by playing the part of their lap dog, dude.

[Adrahil]

132. Again you do it!

You ascribing motives and points of view that people may or MAY NOT hold. You're making crap up out of whole cloth. Not to mention, you're just being nasty.

[EOTE]

133. Again you do it!

Making baseless accusations while providing nothing in terms of reference! Dude, you do know that words mean things, right dude? You can continue to make idiotic assumptions, but people might take you a tad more seriously, dude, if you could actually defend your arguments with actual points, dude. It's pretty damned clear that quite a few panties are in bunches simply because Snowden had the audacity to be a whistle-blower during the Obama administration (which has been pretty fucking awful in its treatments of whistle blowers, dude). So, if you'd like to be taken seriously dude, you might want to say something of actual substance, dude.

[Maedhros]

108. Daddy will protect us!

And Snowden says bad things about Daddy!

Bad Snowden!

[Titonwan]

19. I know, hunh!

Mikey Rogers (R-Who-ville) sez unless we find out our privacy has been invaded that no invasion took place! Perfectly logical in a nutty sort of lyin' way.

[EOTE]

33. You can't miss what you don't know you don't have, right?

And the government should be given free reign to pickpocket... so long as they're really sneaky about it. I'm amazed at how casually some around here dismiss our freedoms.

[merrily]

22. Thank heaven for First Amendment zealots.

We've been so cowed in this country we forget it's our money that runs it and we have a right to know what the fuck the people we pay, who are supposed to represent us, are doing in our name and on our dime.

[EOTE]

34. Can you believe the type of crap you hear around here?

"First amendment zealot"? That's what we call whistleblowers nowadays, I guess. He sacrifices any chance at a normal life to bring attention to the awful things our government is doing without our permission and he's called a zealot and worse by those who should be most appreciative. Doesn't give me much hope for the Democratic party that so many only give a fuck about rights when a republican is in office. When a Democrat is in office, anything goes.

[merrily]

39. I'm getting used to it.

The only thing that keeps me sane is that I remember that some posters are paid, or have govt jobs that require them to post. (The US government has always propagandized Americans, but, under Obama, a law was passed expressly saying it's legal so to do.)

I don't know who they are, so I find it easier and more fun to pretend to myself that certain posters are paid posters. Then I don't feel as though I somehow got to a rw board by mistake.


I thought the poster meant Greenwald. Doesn't matter. I'm grateful as hell for both Greenwald and Snowden.

[Titonwan]

50. "I'm grateful as hell for both Greenwald and Snowden."

Most definitely. Agreed.
EOTE: You are on fire! Reminds me of the old days here. Now you can't shake a stick without hittin a dozen goose steppers. Geezus.

[merrily]

134. No, not on fire, just hot flashes.

Reminds me of the old days here.

Given that you have under 800 posts, I was just about to pm you to ask which old days you were talking about. Then I saw that you registered in 2008. Lurked a lot?

[QC]

62. Remember when people here were denounced as "peace purists"

for opposing military action against Syria?

You're right, it's amazing what we hear around these parts lately.

[EOTE]

69. Yep. Because if a Democrat does it, it's good.

It's amazing how some can embrace the Orwellianism when it's coming from our side. Some are completely oblivious to how similar the two parties have become. As if our wars are the just ones. As if our attacks on social safety nets are justified, not theirs. Some people just need to have a team to root for.

[QC]

77. For some, it's all about personalities.

What is worse, they can't imagine that anyone else might think any differently, hence their belief that they can make you stop caring about blanket surveillance, for example, if only they can convince you that Ed Snowden is a big ole meaniebutt who made a ballerina cry.

That there might be something at stake here bigger than who is cool and who is a poopiehead is just too far out there to imagine.

[merrily]

102. Or money.

Always the possibility of paid posters. We know they exist. And, this being, I think, the largest Dem board, this would be a good place to have them post.

[QC]

104. So true, though we are supposed to believe that no such thing

has ever happened around here, that commercial entities might pay people to promote their products on discussion boards, but political entities would never dream of doing such a thing.

[merrily]

118. An admin said that we are supposed to believe that?

Or only one of the paid posters?

I posted on another leftist board, a much smaller one. In the lead up to the 2012 election, two very vocal posters, very obstreperous (sp?) posted a lot. Posted OPs about Obama and only Obama. Did not reply to anything but negative posts about Obama. Defended Obama and only Obama. Got personally insulting sometimes, even if no one had attacked them personally first.

The DAY of the election was the very last time I saw either one, to this day. One blatantly broke TOS--and it was a very tolerant board--and got himself or herself banned that day. The other one simply disappeared.

[QC]

126. The poster you describe sounds very familiar.

We saw a lot of that kind of behavior back here in 2007-2008, when a whole bunch of new posters showed up at the same time, ran in packs, and dispensed all the very same talking points and insults in unison--thank you for your concern, you just want a pony, it takes a long time to turn a big ship around, etc.

But I'm sure what looked for all the world like carefully choreographed behavior was pure coincidence.

[merrily]

129. Turning a big ship

Despite his physical condition, FDR accomplished so much in his first 100 days, that, ever since, media and other analysts have assessed the first 100 days of a President. Two massive new securities regulation statutes, a new bankruptcy statute, etc. And when the Supreme Court blocked him at every turn, he found a way to get around that, too.

Obama could have turned a ship a lot faster--still can--if he had been willing to create federal job programs. FDR created them even for writers and painters. Obama went the "help the job creator" route instead. When FDR switched to that, he undid most of his success. This is not a mystery. It's all in the history books. Hell, a lot of it is online. And Bernanke was supposedly a Great Depression scholar.

I don't do a whole bunch of off board communication, but I have posted on boards where it is obvious that occurs. On a least one of the boards, there was near constant pm'ing about strategies to use on the board. I know because I got dragged into it at some point--not all of it, but some. There was also emailing and even telephoning. I know because it was mentioned in some of the pms to me. I couldn't take it.

dispensed all the very same talking points and insults in unison-

Hmmm. On another thread, I made a joke only today to a poster who made pretty much the same post as someone else had made about 20 posts earlier.

Anyway, I have very little doubt it happened on the other board and I enjoy thinking it happens here. Seems like the only rational explanation for some posters and some posts.

[EOTE]

105. That's it exactly.

The immaturity of that crowd utterly amazes me. Attacking the messenger is bullshit in general, but the way they do it makes me think they're still in middle school (or their mental development stopped around that same time). As you note, is that REALLY supposed to make me care less about blanket surveillance?

[QC]

109. It's like, "I used to think that the Fourth Amendment was important,

but then I found out that Edward Snowden's garage used to be real messy, and that put it all into perspective for me."

[Titonwan]

116. Thread winner!

[merrily]

130. You saw that sloppy garage, too? What a loser Snowden is!

[Maedhros]

112. I'm proud to be both a "Peace Purist" as well as a "First Amendment Zeaolot." [n/t]

[QC]

170. You must be wunna them there malcontents I keep hearing about. n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

6. Release the :ROFL: smilies*

*The is trademarked by the BOG. Any use of the without expressed written permission and implied permission is prohibited.

[MineralMan]

7. There are so many journalists who write unpopular things.

All are examples of why the First Amendment is so important.

Greenwald is just one of them. That's what journalism is about. I disagree with Greenwald, often, but I would not restrict his right to publish his words. He's welcome to them, as long as I'm free to criticize them.

[Titonwan]

17. Glenn has defended some surley characters as a trial lawyer.

Just like the ACLU. We either have 'rule of law' or we don't. (Glenn wrote a book about it- "Liberty and Justice for Some"- the two tiered justice system).
I am complete agreement with you.
I was a vet and swore to serve and protect the Constitution, not corrupt politicians trying to cover their own dumb asses for letting the NSA get out of control and off the range.
And there's far more worse news coming, thanks to Edward Snowdens revelations. Worse for the criminals, that is.

[msanthrope]

91. No...not just like the ACLU. He represented a white supremacist in a patent dispute with other Neo-

Nazis. Perhaps you can tell us all how that case embodied the First Amendment.

Then he represented the same white supremacist when he was sued under Anti-Klan statutes. The opposing counsel was the Center for Constitutional Rights, and they beat Glenn to a bloody pulp. Glenn managed to violate his client's own privilege, and the white supremacist settled.

Perhaps you can tell us how Glenn embodied the First Amendment there.

[Malteil]

85. Power fears a well informed populace.

I forget who said that first.

[blue neen]

8. According to Conor Friedersdorf?

Nah.

[snooper2]

9. you mean the pasty white guy in undies?

[merrily]

24. What does skin color have to to do with it?

[snooper2]

29. Huh?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

51. Remember the Asian Woodcarver?

Maybe it was before your time.

[tridim]

18. Greenwald has every right to speak twice at the Cato Institute.

And the Cato Institute has every right to post his bio on their website.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/glenn-greenwald

[merrily]

23. Of course a journalist has a right to speak at an institute.

Just like Obama had a right to speak on Fox News. (And I don't mean that sarcastically. I think it was a good thing that Obama was on Fox, so the viewers could hear something beside the FOX version of their President.

[Titonwan]

30. You mean about the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal?

Yeah, I know about that. He organized the study and then reported on it. He also happens to lecture at colleges country wide, goes on all MSM (FOX, MSNBC, CNN etc), writes books on civil liberties and has an Izzy Award and a Polk Award. Next stop- the Pulitzer Prize.
Nice try, but no cigar.

"The Izzy Award is named after maverick journalist I. F. Stone, who launched I. F. Stone's Weekly in 1953 and exposed government deception, McCarthyism, and racial bigotry. Presented by the Park Center for Independent Media annually for "outstanding achievement in independent media," the Izzy Award goes to an independent outlet, journalist, or producer for contributions to our culture, politics, or journalism created outside traditional corporate structures. The judges are communications professor and author Robert W. McChesney; Linda Jue, executive director and editor at the G.W. Williams Center for Independent Journalism; and Jeff Cohen, director of PCIM."
http://www.ithaca.edu/rhp/independentmedia/izzy/

"The Polk award will also be a direct rebuke to critics of Greenwald who have accused him of trading on Snowden’s secrets for personal gain. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said today after a hearing that Greenwald is a thief, “For personal gain, he’s now selling his access to information, that’s how they’re terming it…. A thief selling stolen material is a thief,” he told reporters according to Politico."
http://www.occupy.com/article/glenn-greenwald-fellow-snowden-reporters-expected-win-top-journalism-award#sthash.jM6q88WM.dpuf

[tridim]

55. Yes, that is one of the speeches he gave at the Libertarian Cato Institute.

Not sure if it was before or after he praised Ron Paul.

[Titonwan]

65. Were you for the wars of opportunity?

Because if you were not- then by your reasoning- you love Ron Paul and want to have his babies.
Many people knew these wars were bullshit schemes for corporate greed. If Sarah Palin was against these global occupations for plunder, I'd agree with her silly wolf huntin' from helicopters ass. On that one particular point. Doesn't make us BFF's or of similar mindsets (if you call what she has a mind).
Hell, I like Ron Paul. He's honest. I'll let him anywhere he chooses to scamper as long as it's not anywhere near the damned oval office (unless he's cleaning the joint).

[tridim]

67. No, and I'm not a Libertarian like Greenwald.

[Titonwan]

74. Assertions require citation. Provide link, please.

[PoliticalPothead]

143. You should really...

Read some of Greenwald's writings and make your own judgments instead of blindly believing what people say about him.

Here's a good place to start:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

[Titonwan]

158. Thanks for that- haven't read it as of yet.

[PoliticalPothead]

160. You're welcome. It's a brilliant response...

to all the ridiculous attacks that have been thrown his way.

[Titonwan]

164. boy yo

and he's gotten more than his share. That tells me he's on to something! Wouldn't you have an 'attitude' when people try to tear you down at every turn? That's me in spades, brudda. Peace.

[Titonwan]

149. No, and I'm not a Martian who breathes methane for sustenance like you.

"I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the Cato Institute. Nor have I ever been affiliated with the Cato Institute in any way. The McCarthyite tone of the denials is appropriate given the McCarthyite nature of the lie.

In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#
Oh Stewie, and I had such high hopes for you, son!

[Hissyspit]

52. About the failure of the "War on Drugs."

[RufusTFirefly]

68. And at the Socialism 2013 conference as well

Other than attempting to smear him, I'm not sure what your point is.

[MADem]

78. And be paid a stipend from them for months at a time to prepare "papers" for them.

Every right in the world...

[Titonwan]

144. What?

Maybe Glenn ought to moonlight at a McDonalds so he doesn't have to depend on his reporting to support his writing? *Laughter ensues*

[MADem]

199. GG was paid by CATO for quite some time.

Hey, I always thought that when you reposed with dawgs, you got up with fleas.

Surely he could have found a cleaner place to earn a living from his keyboard..? But maybe not one that PAID quite so well...!

*Laughter ensues* indeed.

How amusing that you would suggest a dichotomy consisting of "Either work for CATO...or McDonalds!"

I suppose the same amount of talent is demanded of either assignment, that must be it!

[Luminous Animal]

196. Papers? Plural papers? Could you point me to the other papers other than drug decriminalization that

he wrote?

While you're at it, perhaps you could find out how much Democrat Ron Wyden got paid by CATO.

[MADem]

214. What, you don't want his personal appearances, CATO podcasts, and conference attendances?

He's been paid by the Koch Cato crew more than once. He's been on their payroll off and on since 2007. Maybe earlier...?

And Ron Wyden isn't my rep--if you're interested in his ties, go look them up yourself.

But here's some stuff for you to chew on...

They even helped him flog his second book:
http://www.cato.org/blog/hat-tip-glenn-greenwald

They tout his POVs continuously:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/digitalized-smart-constitution-vs-obama-maybe-romney

Every time he turned up on tv, radio, or wrote a piece for another publication, the CATO Institute put up a little blurb about it, directing their readers to his articles. Go use their search engine and have a look--PAGES...! And the number of commenters writing ABOUT GG will blow your mind--he's decidedly a CATO fair-haired lad!

These links are just the tip of the iceberg--he's constantly on their radar:

2007: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/glenn-greenwald-discussing-president-bushs-legacy

2009: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/radio-highlights/glenn-greenwald-discusses-drug-decriminalization-portugal-wnycs-take-away

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies

2010: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/08/09/glenn-greenwald/digital-surveillance-state-vast-secret-dangerous

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/08/26/glenn-greenwald/surveillance-state-thrives-fear

2011: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/revisiting-drug-decriminalization-portugal

http://www.cato.org/events/ending-global-war-drugs

2012: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/glenn-greenwald-catos-ending-global-war-drugs-conference

His brand and "fame" came to no small extent as a consequence of the touting that CATO gave of every word he spoke or wrote--that's apparent from their own website. He's praised routinely, and readers are given a link and urged to go read his stuff--it's not even subtle.

[Luminous Animal]

215. You've provided me nothing. He wrote one paper for CATO. That was a try.

[MADem]

216. You obviously didn't click the links, so have a nice day!

Far be it from me to disabuse you of your fantasies, but he's been associated with them since at least 2007.

[Luminous Animal]

217. I did. He wrote one paper for CATO. And it is a very good study.

[MADem]

219. And he wrote a couple of essays for them on surveillance, and they publicized one of

his books and they touted EVERYTHING he wrote in any venue on their own website, AND a number of columnists wrote articles for the Cato Institute ABOUT him, and he participated in conferences and meetings with them...

But oh! NOTHING to see here....move along!!!

And of course, no one is saying shit about his new partnership with the owner of PAYPAL...

You remember PAYPAL...those were the guys who CUT OFF Julian Assange, allegedly cooperating with government entities, so people couldn't donate to his little wiki send-me-money thing.

Sybil Edmonds has said in her blog that GG's new partner's business, PAYPAL, has ties --ironically--to the doggone NSA.

So why is GG working with/for the guy who owns the company that has ties to the NSA? What sort of deal did he cut with this guy? Amazing how he left the Guardian so quickly, almost in a rush.

Very strange, indeed.Sounds to me like someone is getting double-crossed. Someone named Ed, maybe.

I just can't figure it out!!!!

[SidDithers]

25. ROFL...

Sid

[uponit7771]

27. An overt winger like bigot is the face of the 1a? ... ok... if conservatives say so

[merrily]

36. I forgot the First Amendment protects only people who vote like you do.

[uponit7771]

41. 1a protects peoples rights to recognize an opportunistic bigot and call him on it too

[Capt. Obvious]

46. You keep saying bigot

Does that make it true?

[uponit7771]

61. Nah, but this might - link

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

.. and the "due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom" doesn't fly because he had access to REAL info just like anyone at that time.. had nothing to do with "conventional wisdom" He's just a racist PERIOD

glad some here love em

[Capt. Obvious]

64. Thanks for the link

That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I've discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time - due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I've written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I'm 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country - not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and - like so many things I thought were true then - has nothing to do with what I believe now.

That's why Obama cultists have to dig back 6 years into my archives to try to find things to discredit me.

[uponit7771]

71. What difference does it make if it was 6 years or 6 mins... he's a racist bigot who said he changed

... based off of stopping the ingestion of "conventional wisdom"?!?!?!?!

BULLSHIT!!!

That "wisdom" was conventional among the racist and that's not his ONLY racist rantings either

[Capt. Obvious]

75. I'd like to read his other racist rantings

[uponit7771]

79. Google "greenwald racist"... plenty... and his bullshit ass'd excuses of having different

...thinking at the time.

I don't see too much difference now, just a change of a shirt still funky ass'd smell of wingerism about him

[Capt. Obvious]

87. I did before you responded

Plenty of hits from The Peoples View, DU.. and one from Daily Kos. Which has a most delightful first reply:

THIS IS A TEST OF THE EMERGENCY PIE FIGHT SYSTEM IF THIS HAD BEEN AN ACTUAL PIE FIGHT THEN YOU'D SEE PIE EVERYWHERE.

Seriously this is pure trollery. Just erase it and move on. No one who agrees with Greenwald is going to change their mind because you twisted some words to try and make it look like Greenwald endorses slavery or whatever it it is you attempted.

It's good advice.

[Luminous Animal]

99. And truly. It is the only "example" they've got.

[uponit7771]

117. This is false, and you really only need one without a change of heart which Greenwald has had NONE

... NONE example of change of heart just change of "conventional wisdom" as if MOST people thoughts were as racist as his

They weren't, he had info then and now

[riderinthestorm]

166. Then Hillary is a racist too. Same with Obama. Who cares if their positions evolved right?

6 years or 6 minutes?

Racist bigots both of them.

Hope you continue your smear job of them too. I'd love to sit on that jury.

[Titonwan]

168. Some people can change

others, not so much. I don't hold the same exact beliefs I held 30 years ago. I have evolved. Yeah, it can be skeery, but that's life. Thanx.

[Titonwan]

82. Ah hahaha!

So, Obama can 'evolve®' but Glenn can not! If you are not evolving all the time, something is wrong with you. Good catch!

[uponit7771]

119. Glen hasn't "evolved" he excuses his racism with "conventional wisdom" as if EVERYONE thought like

... he didn't

Everyone wasn't a racist.

He never says I was wrong in any way just that he's got better information as if said information wasn't available at the time.

Fuck that..

He's a jerk, no one is falling for that shit

[Titonwan]

169. With an Izzy Award and a Polk Award, soon to be a Pulitzer Prize recipient.

And I'm to believe you?

[markpkessinger]

184. So the President is allowed to "evolve" on the question of gay marriage . . .

. . . but Glenn Greenwald isn't allowed to "evolve" on the subject of immigration? Got it.

[merrily]

49. Sure. No one said otherwise. But that's not what you did in your prior post.

[sabrina 1]

37. Yes that is a good way to describe him. He exposes hypocrites just by his

very existence too, which is a bonus.

[Titonwan]

58. Ha!

You gotta admit, few sit on the sidelines when it comes to GG They either admire him or loathe him with a hate reserved for spiders! Amusing, really. I just knew when this bombshell hit last June that a new day had dawned. Change, regardless how hard big brother tries to smite it, is coming. It's the outcome that might be troublesome. Interesting times.

[Progressive dog]

38. Kind of like La Pierre is the voice of the 2nd amendment,

and they're both 1%'ers. It must be profitable.

[Capt. Obvious]

42. You need to coordinate better

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024459254#post5

[uponit7771]

43. +1

[merrily]

47. No fair copying from Reply # 5 or the OP

will be forced to give you an F.

[great white snark]

59. Yes, and pay no mind to the ankle biters.

I guess elitist 1%ers are given a pass if they dump on Democrats.

[Cha]

162. Thread Winner. Just ask GG how profitable his little

1st Amendment business is.

[Titonwan]

167. Of course! Glenn and Jamie Dimon have lunch, daily.

You didn't know that? Sure, Glenn has a little house up on a hill of Rio along with a herd of homeless dogs and works for animal abuse causes, but that's all a ruse, you see. While we sleep, Glenn and his man lover are scheming the markets- cashin' in on all that lucrative 1st Amendment Rights hedge funding. Sell! Sell!
I can hear them now, counting their ill gotten 1st Amendment Rights loot, cackling madly, as their dogs howl in unison! Gads, them filthy first amendment pirates are at it agin! Aargh.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. ... Better him than Porn ...

[warrior1]

53. bullshit

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. He USES his sources and then tosses them away like used kleenex.

[Titonwan]

145. Jilted much?

Wow, now we got ripping bodices and hankies flyin' around. The drama. Oh my.

[VanillaRhapsody]

195. yeah..."the drama" is right!

also....there are other uses for Kleenex besides THAT you know!

[VanillaRhapsody]

197. and I didn't say hankie...I said kleenex...

you know that box of tissues in your grandmother's bathroom!

[Cha]

178. "used kleenex" has more class than mr profiteering fuckface.

[VanillaRhapsody]

198. gotta hand it to ya Cha...you have a way with words!

[ReRe]

57. No argument here...

I agree that GG is the face of the First Amendment.

[stevenleser]

60. I think if you agree with someone, they are not the 'face of the 1st Amendment.' for you.

The 'face of the 1st Amendment' is a personal issue and it is whomever you disagree with the most or find most ridiculous. They are the face of the 1st Amendment for you and if you can defend their speech, you perhaps have the moral platform to preach 1st amendment to other people.

Taking your favorite journalist and holding them up as 'the face of the 1st Amendment' is something anyone can do, even the worst totalitarian.

[Fumesucker]

81. Oh that would be a fun argument to have, who do you hate the most

Friends come and go but enemies accumulate, there would be some brilliant and hilarious ideas I'm sure.

FWIW I agree with you..

[Titonwan]

92. The title of this artcle came from the article itself.

Upon reading it- I agree.
Glenn is the one singled out for spurious accusations and subtle threats from elected government officials and military spooks- televised and in print form. They haven't called out Barton Gellman, nor Laura Poitras or staff at the Guardian, Der Speigel , the NYT's or anyone else that reports or publishes Snowden documents. Why? Because the others are affiliated with powerful groups (Gellmon by a news org). They have singled out Glenn because of his 'inherent weakness' in which the above article fully explains if you bother to read it.

[stevenleser]

94. And it is wrong, as I pointed out. It's completely wrong and self-serving. nt

[Titonwan]

120. How is it self serving?

I happen to believe the author makes a good case that Glenn is indeed the (current) face of the 1st Amendment since they're zeroing in on him instead of everyone else that has Snowden documents. Rogers, Clapper and others don't mention Barton Gellmon or Laura Poitras, even though they've spread news on this subject (with Barton's being more scathing and embarrassing to the government). Why is that?

[NobodyHere]

63. To me it's Roger Shuler

The face of the first amendment is currently jailed blogger Roger Shuler. I have no idea if he was making stuff up or not but I do know that he shouldn't be sitting in jail.

[treestar]

80. Bolded sentence is self contradictory

We can't be free to say certain things about a person.

[WillyT]

90. K & R !!!

[bvar22]

93. DURec for Greenwald, Snowden, and all the Whistle Blowers.

*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. No more so than the kkk. eom.

[stevenleser]

96. Defending Free Speech isnt about defending speech you like, its about defending speech you hate.

[Titonwan]

111. I'm sure Mr. Greenwald would agree.

[stevenleser]

113. I'm sure he wouldn't, not as much as he whines about his detractors. He's no free speech advocate

If he could, he would silence them. He cares about HIS free speech. He doesn't care about his detractors free speech.

[Titonwan]

121. I see you now.

Good to know. Your argument fails.

[PoliticalPothead]

150. His detractors are using baseless smears and ridiculous strawman arguments against him.

What is he supposed to do? Just ignore it? Of course not, he's going to address them and discredit their baseless accusations. That's what any good journalist would do.

EDIT: Also, how is addressing and discrediting baseless accusations the same as trying to silence someone? If anything, his detractors are the ones trying to silence him.

[Titonwan]

157. I want what yer smokin'

[stevenleser]

180. And you prove my point. Everyone who attacks free speech has what they think is a reason to silence

people. Greenwald and his supporters are not interested in Free speech. They are interested in THEIR speech.

[PoliticalPothead]

188. I care about free speech.

What I don't care about are the ridiculous straw man arguments that have been thrown at Greenwald by partisan Obama supporters. Free speech doesn't mean free to spread lies and misinformation without being called out on it. And when Greenwald calls them out (like he did here) he's not trying to silence them. He's just correcting factually incorrect information.

[reusrename]

211. This "all opinions are equal" argument is a real pantload.

And it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the First Amendment.

Greenwald hasn't condoned silencing anyone. You're just making shit up again.

[stevenleser]

221. You make a great argument against something I never posited. Try again.

I never argued "all opinions are equal", but I am guessing that is a favorite thing of yours to rail against so you trot it out as often as possible.

[reusrename]

222. Sure you are. You are arguing that propagandists should be defended.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024459254#post60

You just got done saying it in THIS freeking thread!

It's a complete pantload.

[stevenleser]

223. Nope, that is your strawman. In no way did I say that "all arguments are equal".

In a sense, I understand wanting to create that strawman as its an easy one to beat up. It's still not the argument I made.

[leftynyc]

106. Bullshit

Stop any 10 people on the street and frankly I'd be surprised if 1 knew his name. And then there are those who know his name and think he's an asshole (I fall into that group).

[Titonwan]

147. Well,

If you're to ask ten homeless guys, I'd agree, but lots of people- world wide- know of Glenn Greenwald's reporting on Edward Snowden's defiance of the surveillance police state machinations. They happen to be cheering these revelations!
Reporting as a whole is a lot more real, adversarial and factual- in other more progressive countries- than the American public receives. I take it you're in that lot.
Never too late to research this and learn. Cheers.

[leftynyc]

205. They know who Snowden is

but not Greenwald. And that people cheer whenever the US gets embarrassed is not exactly news. Your assertion that I don't know about situation is 100% wrong, I don't need an education from a poster on the internet. My post was strictly about Greenwald being the face of the 1st amendment - you're 100% wrong on that. The VAST majority of Americans don't know who he is.

You seem to be tying the Snowden charges with worshiping at the feet of Greenwald - the two are very different subjects. Greenwald is a narcissist who used Snowden and now couldn't care less what happens to him - apparently that's okay with you - as long as he continues to embarrass the US.

[reusrename]

212. The vast majority of Americans are clueless about the First Amendment.

Just sayin'.

[leftynyc]

213. No - they're not

They're quite clear on the freedom of the press. What they seem to be confused about is the concept of censorship - and that the first amendment only protects you from the government - not from corporations who are free to fire their employees for say, trashing the company all over the internet or finding out their employee has heinous views about minorities and not wanting to have anything to do with them. That's the only part of the first amendment I see confusion on.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

128. The attacks on Greenwald are classic examples of "Shoot the messenger".

Paralleled by the similar attacks on Snowden and other whistleblowers who embarrass our Glorious Regime.

[markpkessinger]

185. +1! n/t

[phleshdef]

135. I find Greenwald to be a real prick. I don't like him. I don't think he is a good person.

But I also do not believe he should be charged with anything in regard to Snowden.

[merrily]

139. Very fair post.

[Gothmog]

148. I am not now and have never been a fan of Greenwald

The First Amendment is alive and well.

[Titonwan]

155. If you say so.

I happen to disagree, badly.

"I am not now and have never been a fan of Greenwald"

Damn, that sounds like testimony from a McCarthy subcommittee. (Is Glenn a Commie!1!!?)

[Gothmog]

159. Not a commie, just over-rated

Greenwald is a legend in his own mind

[Titonwan]

163. Obviously you haven't stepped outdoors in months.

Glenn Greenwald is known the world over. You don't read them 'newspapers' or watch the picture box? Really?
You're right about the legend part. In time, he will be

[Gothmog]

165. I am very aware of Greenwald

I am a lawyer who keeps up on the First Amendment and other issues. I am simply not a fan of Greenwald.

[Titonwan]

171. Geez, we wouldn't accept you anyway!

I'm not requiring you to be a 'fan' of anyone. This isn't a game. This capable lawyer is reporting on the most important issue regarding civil liberties in our entire lifetime and you get all barrister with your pithy opinion on whether he's likable or not. A word of advice, counselor, don't try that in court. Inadmissible.
Next case. Whack!

[Gothmog]

172. Your advise is amusing

Forgive me if I ignore your words of wisdom.

I have my opinion. I have been following Greenwald for a very long time. Greenwald cares about Greenwald and issues like the First Amendment are secondary to him. I am not alone in not believing that Greenwald is a saint.

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to my opinion.

[Titonwan]

174. Granted

But if you have read Greenwald as long as you have, then you've witnessed first hand the way he wins arguments. Facts go a long way in that feat. As a matter of fact, a lot of good lawyers inhabited his comment section at Salon (even a very good JAG lawyer who gave splendid interpretation of military law). Let's just say you're a bit under the quality of argument these fine people possess.

[Gothmog]

176. Neither you nor Greenwald are going to impress me

Forgive me but you are not going to impress me. I have been practicing law long enough to recognize crappy arguments and there a large number of crappy arguments/straw man claims on Greenwald's posts. I am not the only lawyer who is not impressed with Greenwald.

BTW, I also looked at your profile and saw the number of posts you have hidden. Have fun. I have other things to worry about.

[Titonwan]

177. I will. You do the same.

[Exciting Trip]

156. Kicked and rec'd! nt

[Titonwan]

161. Summary.

Well, it's been fun. You got people in denial and refuse to change their minds because it upsets them that way (crainio-concretus). You have your party apologists that defend anything their team's leader deems legal or moral- even when it's clearly not (Sis Boom Bah!).
And then you have your straggly group of motley characters that still, somehow, through their pot hippy justice days still remember there is a thing called the 'alleged' Constitution of the United States of America- with all them pesky Bill O' Rights and such. Dayam Yankees.
I saved a Rottweiler once, before some bikers would gonna put one in em. He was crazy bad. I chained him up in my lower level garage and just came down and hung out with him. What a difference a change can make. He was walkin' around about a day later and never caused a problem again. I guess kickin' the shit out of him wasn't good therapy, I dunno, but I do know this- If anyone cares about their freedom- which is right now at peril- then you should get more involved in this discussion. People actually have died over protecting these rights!
Peace- Out.

[ucrdem]

173. Libertarian tax cheat pornographers have a new hero.

Grand.

[ucrdem]

179. He is what he is, and it isn't pretty.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/greenwald-reporter-broke-nsa-story-lawyer-sued-porn-biz-article-1.1383448

And your post is a perfect example of why Mr. Greenwald no longer practices law.

[frwrfpos]

194. recommend

[Pretzel_Warrior]

206. because the everyone but the Greenwald cultists can smell a rat

that is why everyone is watching this and waiting for the real agenda be revealed.

I say he's already revealed it. He sucked as a lawyer so he started a blog and is parlaying his screed writing into a full fledged media venture along the lines of The Blaze backed by hundreds of millions of Libertarian venture capital.

[Scuba]

218. Not even.