Even if Greenwald ate puppies, the National Security State is excessivly intrusive

[Armstead]

It's really hard to look at these posts that are trying to discredit Glenn Greenwald.

What's the point of that?

Even if he ate puppies for breakfast, Greenwald was a messenger who helped to bring to the public attention the excessively intrusive practices of the National Spy Apparatus in the collection of private data.

That's it. All you need to know.

This is not a "he said she said" situation, where the information he and Snowdon brought out has been denied on any meaningful level.

They revealed it. Now deal with it.

Defend the Big Brother State if you want to. But in terms of the issue Greenwald's personal history, his character or foibles are irrelevant.

[randome]

1. What's the point of saying he is the 'face' of the 1st Amendment?

Isn't that bringing personality into it instead of 'just the facts'?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Armstead]

2. The point (my poinbt anyway) is that he's just a messenger

The basic problem that he and Snowdon brought to the attention of the public are not in dispute. This is not a situation where whether something is true depends on his character or personality.

He helped bring that to the attention of the public. Personally I think he deserves credit for that. But ultimately, he as a person is irrelevant.

We now know something that needed to be known. That's all that matters to me.

[randome]

4. But...but 'they' started it!

I get you, you're right, the facts should be of primary concern. But the facts also are that we knew metadata was being collected since 2007 and we knew our country spied -and continues to spy- on other countries so I don't see much of import in these 'revelations'.

But obviously others disagree. S'okay, it's what makes DU an interesting place.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Armstead]

5. We get complacent unless periodically reminded....er, well we're complacent anyway, but less so

[questionseverything]

3. so that's what is bothering you?

Justice Department had a policy to conceal such evidence from defendants.







Muhtorov’s challenge has its roots in the case rejected by the Supreme Court last year. In deciding to dismiss, the Supreme Court relied upon the assurance by the U.S. solicitor general that the government would notify criminal defendants when it had used evidence from the surveillance.

But the solicitor general at the time did not know that the Justice Department had a policy to conceal such evidence from defendants. He learned of it only after some criminal defendants sought clarification of remarks that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) made in late 2012 that the government had used evidence from warrantless monitoring in certain cases. The department reversed its policy last year.
/////////////////////////////////////////////

so the solicitor general presented false info to the supreme court????? because he did not know that justice department was (illegally) concealing evidence???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/terrorism-suspect-challenges-warrantless-surveillance/2014/01/29/fb9cc2ae-88f1-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

[randome]

7. Sure, the evidence wasn't obtained in a purely legal manner.

The T's were not dotted and the I's were not crossed. It didn't change the outcome of the case. I agree with you, the practice needed to stop. And it has. It still had nothing to do with the outlandish claims that the NSA is spying on us all. And if that's what Snowden was all about, he could easily have revealed that specific bit of information anonymously.

But he didn't know about this. He simply stole as much as he could and then started reading it and handing it out to other countries.

Two wrongs don't make a right in my book.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[questionseverything]

8. consealing the beginnings of an investigation

especially when those beginnings are illegal is more than t's not crossed

we have no way of knowing if the outcome of cases would of been different as defendants were denied their right to a FAIR TRIAL

yes now that they have been caught ,they say they have changed

greenwald/snowden are no more "wrong" that the publishers of the pentagon papers were wrong

//////////////////////////

ya know I thought you were a big Obama fan...I would think you would be pissed that the pres sent his top lawyer to the supreme court with bad info because someone at justice was acting illegally....did you ever consider the last regency lawyers hired to civil servant positions maybe actively working against the pres and he needs support finding out exactly what is going on?

[randome]

10. The evidence was obtained because of Muhtorov's communications off our shores.

The NSA had all the legal standing it needed to monitor off-shore communications. Yes, that should have been presented during the trial. It wasn't. I understand it can set a dangerous precedent but since the practice was stopped, hopefully that's the end of it.

And, no, I don't think Obama is anyone's patsy. I think he's doing the best anyone can with an enormous bureaucracy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

17. How do you know the NSA isnt spying on all of us? I know you want to believe it soooo bad. But you

really dont know. A number of people are claiming they are. But you want sooooo bad to believe that your authoritarian leaders wouldnt do such. Can you spell naive. And why do you dismiss "meta-data" as if it were useless? And arent you worried that if Snowden could get his hands on a lot of data, that someone else might also. Someone that quietly sells it to Russia or China or Google? Blind loyalty is naive in this day and age. Think for yourself.

[randome]

18. I don't know that YOU aren't spying on me, rhett.

That doesn't concern me unless I have evidence you are. Even then, I probably wouldn't give a damn. But that's just me because generally I've found that honesty and forthrightness are the perfect antidote to busybodies, government sponsored or not.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

21. You have claimed from the beginning that the NSA was not spying on Americans.

Your certainty without any real knowledge mean to me that your mind was not open to any evidence. Instead you choose to attack the messengers. To me that is not the behavior I would expect from an open-minded Politically Liberal posters. Not only do you guys attack the messengers but you openly mock and ridicule those that want to learn the truth.
I dont claim to know the truth and those that do are naive and foolish. If that's what they need to do to get by day to day, I have no problem with it. But when they turn to bullying others that want to know more then that's when I object. And the use of ridicule and mockery to shut down discussion is IMO bullying.

Our freedoms and liberty depend on our vigilance. Blind trust has no place in a democracy.

[ljm2002]

20. No it is not bringing personality into it...

...it is using an idiom to point out that Glenn Greenwald represents the First Amendment issue as it applies to journalists, due to his reporting on the NSA story and the huge amount of publicity that has resulted.

It really should not be a controversial statement. Like him or loathe him, right now he is the most public representative of that issue. It may be annoying to those who loathe him, but that does not alter the truth of the matter.

Meanwhile, practically every day at DU there is a spate of posts saying he's a Libertarian Paulite and/or a racist bigot and/or a GW Bush supporter and/or a sellout and/or ... etc., etc. These posts are designed to discredit him due to some asserted PERSONAL failing, and they NEVER address the substance of the stories he has published. Those posts are the ones that CONSTANTLY keep PERSONALITY issues front and center. Those who insist on keeping this constant barrage going, then are offended when others chime in defending his right as a journalist to publish what he has published regarding NSA spying. Then they turn right around and accuse those posters of being Libertarian Paulites and/or racist bigots and/or GW Bush supporters and/or sellouts and/or ... etc. And then whine that others are bringing personality into it.

Ha. Ha. Ha. What a pantload.

[randome]

23. The reason personality and past political inclinations keep getting brought up...

...is because none of the information Greenwald has published has been all that interesting to those with an objective viewpoint.

The metadata collection has been known since 2007. The 'revelation' that we spy on other countries means little to most people. His need to make us believe that PRISM meant the NSA is basically downloading the Internet on a daily basis was ludicrous in the extreme.

Lacking a 'smoking gun' of some sort, one starts to wonder why Greenwald keeps making public statements of disapproval of President Obama and the NSA. A true journalist, IMO, would simply print the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

But Greenwald seems to be pushing an agenda. Eventually, some start wondering what that agenda might be and then personality does come into the picture.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[ljm2002]

25. Well at least you are honest enough...

...to admit that one side tends to bring personality into it.

Thanks.

[Armstead]

28. If it were dull common knowledge it wouldn';t have raised such a shitstorm

yes, perhaps people who closely follow the issue weren't surprised.

But how many people fall into that category?

I'll admit that I have been one of those people who goit lulled into complacency inn the period after 9-11 Initially I was very worried and angry at the amount of power that was being given to the security state. But over time, I let it slide into the background of my attention.

But the information from Snowden and Greenwald did wake me up again. It illustrated just how far the state has gotten into rolling through the corners of everyone's private life -- and how the ideas of privacy and the ideas of "presumption of innocence" have been tossed out the window.

And the idea that some people who supposedly care about democracy and civil liberties are now willing to trash one of the people who exposed that is rather disconcerting.

[Adrahil]

6. Agree... but also...

... exposing some Bad Things(tm) does not make him immune to criticism.

[Armstead]

9. In my view he isn't worth criticizing if his facts are correct

In situations where the actual facts are in dispute, say the Trevon Martin case, then yes, it matters.

But where the basic facts have been acknowledged (although admittedly complex and debatable in the details), I don;t believe the messengers should be subject to harassment and scrutiny of every facet of their lives.

Partly because that is a sure way to stifle whistleblowers and dissent. Such witch hunts will help to prevent other people who have important information about abuses and bad institutional behavior from coming forward, if they feel like they are going to personally vilified.

[Adrahil]

14. I'm specifically talking about his actions related to the Snowden case.

It's one thing to expose domestic activities which may violate the Constitution. It's another to expose perfectly legitimate foreign intelligence operations.

[Armstead]

15. Okay you have somewhat of a point there

perhaps I should amend to say that it may be a legitimate point to question some of what was leaked/published...... personally, I think its better to reveal too much than to allow everything to remain secret....But that's an issue that is open to debate.

But whether Greenwald has said bigoted things in the past, or is not an exemplary person in other ways, is beside the point, and falls under the "shoot the messenger" category.

[11 Bravo]

11. If Greenwald ate puppies he'd be in Sochi making a few bucks and ...

getting a little face time with Pootie.

[WillyT]

12. K & R !!!

[iandhr]

13. You can think the NSA mass surveillance is unwarranted

… and think Greenwald is friends with bad people.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Armstead]

16. If the information revealed is true, that's all that matters

and in all fairness, if he were shown to be making shit up, that would be a valid point of discussion.

But whether he is a wonderful person or a schmuck, or if he did it for the "glory" or had bad views ion immigration in the past or any other kinks, is of no importance compared to the larger issue he revealed.

[Iggo]

19. NO!!!

If I don't like the messenger, the message is false!!!!

[stevenleser]

22. The Russians themselves just proved you wrong.

We just had evidence put right into all of our faces that the Russians do exactly what many of us have been trying to tell you. They have an aggressive surveillance apparatus out there spying on everyone and everything.

The Chinese do too, they just aren't immature enough to put it out there for everyone to see like the Russians just did.

If two countries like the Russians and Chinese, who often do not have our best interests at heart are out there doing this, it would be a mistake for us not to do it as well. That would mean the Russians and Chinese would be armed with all kinds of information about business and political things about to happen and we would not.

[Armstead]

24. So we should be just like Russia or China? Great.

Hardly anyone is claiming the US should never engage in espionage, and policing has always involved some measure of surveillance.

Duh.

The issue is how extensively, and -- in a supposed democracy -- the level of accountability those programs should have.

There are many degrees of that, and peopel can certainly have legitimate differences of opinion on that. But by their very nature, such programs are subject to abuse -- and by their very nature, the people and agencies who engage in that do not want anyone to know what they are doing.

Unless we want to become a totalitarian state like Russia and China, there have to be people who are willing to step up and bring these issues into the public square, to make sure those programs do not cross the lines.

[stevenleser]

30. You chose a superficial and incorrect analysis of my point

This is like making the suggestion that because in WWII the US and Japan both had prisoner of war camps, we necessarily both treated prisoners of war the same way.

Of course that's wrong. You can have large and secure POW camps without mistreating prisoners. We didn't mistreat POWs but the Japanese most certainly did.

If your standard is that the US cannot conduct foreign intelligence or foreign intelligence surveillance, we might as well end this conversation because we will not agree on anything.

If you are asserting I think the US should be just like Russia, the burden is in you to prove that. Of course you cannot do that. I never suggested any such thing. My assertion is on the level of having the information, not being abusive. Just like the POW example. My suggestion is on the level of keeping the prisoners from escaping and you are making the incorrect logical leap to suggest we should abuse them like the Japanese did.

[Armstead]

31. You did a supoerficial and incorrect analysis of MY post

If I distorted unfairly your point, I apologize. Sometimes hyperbole can get the better of me.

I made a point of saying that i realize the need for espionage and some degree of surveillance.

But that does not mean the state should be given carte blanche. Continual debate and oversight is necessary.

And my basic point originally, is that trying to personally discredit someone who brings necessary information into the public domain to stimulate debate and oversight is IMO misguided. It serves to further entrench the notion of "Don't Look Citizen. There's Nothing to See Here."

[stevenleser]

32. Since your post completely mischaracterized mine, you can't really say that.

The Constitution affects US citizens and residents. We can bug the phone and apartment/house of every non-US national living overseas and not run afoul of the Constitution. We have fourth amendment rights here in the US affecting search and seizure. A judge has to sign off on search warrants.

Russia does not have that. In Russia, if the police and federal officials think there are documents or electronic information pertinent to a case, they have the inherent right to search for and get them. At worst, only the prosecutor has to give permission (gee, how many times do you think that is refused since the prosecutors interest is to convict you) http://www.fas.org/irp/world/russia/docs/wfbcjrus.htm

You have no rights to privacy at all in these cases. No, I do not think we should be like Russia and nowhere have I ever implied such.

[questionseverything]

33. he did not mischracterize your post ,you said

If two countries like the Russians and Chinese, who often do not have our best interests at heart are out there doing this, it would be a mistake for us not to do it as well.

///////////////////////////////////////

look at "parallel construction" used by the dea illegally after receiving nsa tips...prosecutors ,judges and even the solicitor general did not know about this until recently

and simply collecting the info w/o an individual warrant is illegal

[stevenleser]

34. Yes, he did. That does not mean "To be just like China and Russia" except in the most superficial

constructs.

[Armstead]

35. Your very unsubtle post didn't leave much wriggle room

"The Russians just proved you wrong"

"If two countries like the Russians and Chinese, who often do not have our best interests at heart are out there doing this, it would be a mistake for us not to do it as well. That would mean the Russians and Chinese would be armed with all kinds of information about business and political things about to happen and we would not."

You yourself implied that it is "wrong" to raise the issue of what the US is doing in terms of surveillance because of the need to do the same things the Russians and Chinese do.

There is much room for legitimate debate over how far the US should go in these matters. You, by saying it is wrong to raise such concerns, implied that it is fine for the US spy system to go as far as they want and emulate those nations without being challenged.

I was just going by what you wrote.

[Laelth]

26. Hear, hear! k&r n/t

-Laelth

[DCBob]

27. If he ate puppies I probably wouldnt take everything he has claimed as fact.

[Armstead]

29. Well you can relax then, because I don't think he really eats puppies

[TheMathieu]

36. Pointing out how despicable a person Greenwald is doesn't mean one is 'defending Big Brother'

His fan club can try to equate the two all they want, but nobody is buying it.

[Armstead]

37. Shoot the messenger -- I'm not a Greenwald "fan" but those who focus on bringing him down....

are implicitly supporting the idea that we should know nothing and question nothing