Wherein Glenn Greenwald throws Snowden under the bus...

[Blue_Tires]

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2017, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)

You know what I like about binary, absolutist minds? It is so goddamned easy to lead them into an argument where they go full-circle...

A little further digging in his TL will also reveal numerous rants on why leaks about Trump's incompetence is bad... Irony has officially been killed...

[Dr Hobbitstein]

1. Zero integrity. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

2. For credibility, Greenwald should've added: in a REPUBLICAN government. It's a-ok to "go rogue" and

undermine a democratically elected Democratic Gov't.

They guy is a Republican no matter what he claims to be. If he acts like a Repub, spews as a Repub, and defends Repubs, he ain't no liberal.

[LaydeeBug]

3. I can't see the meme

[randome]

4. He is as clueless as they come to have stepped into that one so readily.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[betsuni]

5. What an idiot.

How could he have even typed that out without ... yeah, never mind. Idiot.

[stevenleser]

6. He has been desperately trying to defend that tweet too. Saying doesnt include whistleblowing

its a riot to see it all.

[OregonBlue]

7. In his desperate bid for attention, there is NO ONE he wouldn't throw under the bus.

[truebluegreen]

8. Beg to differ.

Wording was awkward (and plays into binary, absolutist minds) but a whistleblower on illegal activities is a different kettle of fish from an official who thinks--without proof, or where is it?--that his elected superior can't be trusted. Note that Snowden went public and provided said proof, while this individual or individuals are not doing the same.


Oh yeah, I'm sure you will say " proof" and nuance are for Trump/Putin supporters and shills. Save yourself the effort; I won't be listening.

[PDittie]

14. +1

[msanthrope]

15. Um, no..."going public" isn't whistleblowing.

And Snowden provided proof of what, exactly?

[truebluegreen]

18. Proof of what?

Of the NSA's unprecedented surveillance program which was not authorized to spy on Americans without cause but, of course, did. Also plans by the NSA to expand that/those programs. But I'm sure that's not a problem 'cause you have nothing to hide, right? And nobody in power would ever exploit these programs and capabilities 'cause that's not how we roll, right? We'd never have to worry about some delusional asshole with twitchy, snubby fingers getting his mitts on the NSA's programs designed to "Collect it All," "Process it All," "Exploit it All," "Partner it All," "Sniff it All" and "Know it All." Not a problem, right? Buehler?

Um, yeah, "going public" is whistleblowing. By definition.

Whistleblowing

The disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Whistleblowing

[msanthrope]

20. I'm sorry, but those of us on this board who were paying attention

were not surprised by any public revelation of what the NSA was doing. What, precisely did he reveal that was not already known by anyone awake during the Bush Presidency? Can you name anything specific? No? Name a single person who was wronged? I think Larry Klayman sued the government, you can start there.

And while your Internet sourced definition of the law is cute, I, like most people, prefer the US Code. I am sure you can point to an actual statute that defines whistleblowing, yes?

Hell, for shits and giggles, the professor in me begs you to show the class precisely which Code section you would apply as a defense to:

1) 18USC 641
2) 18USC 793(d)
3) 18USC798(a)(3)

I'll wait.

[truebluegreen]

21. Not surprised and OK with it.

Gotcha. Enjoy your police state.

[msanthrope]

22. That's rather binary. I, on the other hand, multitask.

It is perfectly possible to abhor the NSA's grievous faults and assaults on liberty, whilst stating that Mr. Snowden is a traitor and a coward. See? There are consequences for choosing not to follow the law.

I note you didn't take up my challenge. Pity.

[truebluegreen]

23. Y'know, sometimes this shit just irritates me.

So I will respond in more depth.

I've been around this board long enough to know that there is no statute that protects whistleblowers at the federal level. Is it your position that there should not be?

Are you OK with the treatment of Russ Tice, William Binney or Thomas Drake? Are you OK with the use of the Espionage Act, as employed by Obama (and anyone who comes after him)?

I've been around long enough to remember the derisive glee with which we pointed out the hypocrisy of Republicans getting their panties in a wad when Democrats dared to do what they did all the time: IOKIYAR! I have also been around long enough to remember that much of the opprobrium directed at Snowden was based, not on the program per se but rather on the fact that he blew the whistle on Obama, not Bush. Is it your position, as it seems it is of some on this board, that IOKIYAD? Or IOKIYAO?

Is it your position that this/these programs are OK, regardless of who does them or that "we all knew about it at the time?" I note you didn't answer that question. Pity.

"Snowden is a traitor." Funny, he hasn't been charged with that, let alone convicted, even in absentia. Are you his prosecutor, judge and jury now? I'm pretty sure that is not how this shit works.

Having been on this board for a while, and eddimacated thereby.
Ciao baby.

[msanthrope]

24. The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 Doesn't Exist?

That's your answer?

The CRS made up a whole brief about a law that does not exist?

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R43765.pdf


For shits and giggles, here's a whole list of federal Whistleblower protections:

http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=816&Itemid=129

The professor in me must give you an "F."


Snowden is a traitor, and has been charged under The Espionage Act. He is a coward, too.

[truebluegreen]

27. You should climb down from your ivory tower, "Professor" and get out in the real world.

There's laws and there's laws, aren't there? I mean, these are on the books: it is illegal to fish for whales in Nebraska; it is illegal to serve beer and pretzels at the same time in North Dakota, you can be arrested and fined for harassing Bigfoot in Washington.

But those are just some of the silly ones right? Real laws are what we're talking about, real laws that actually impact our society, our security agencies, our business climate in modern life. Real laws like, say, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. It is still on the books but since the 1970s the courts have construed it very narrowly, requiring a plausible conspiracy before allowing discovery--which makes it hard to show a plausible conspiracy.

And then there's the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, which has also been construed very narrowly: "In 2006 Thomas Gimble, Acting Inspector General, Department of Defense, stated before the House Committee on Government Reform that the ICWPA is a 'misnomer' and that more properly the Act protects the communication of classified information to Congress. According to Michael German with the Brennan Center for Justice, the ICWPA, “provides a right to report internally but no remedy when that right is infringed, which means that there is no right at all.”

And the Espionage Act of 1917, of which you are so fond. From an article in the Guardian, "Only ten people in American history have been charged with espionage for leaking classified information"...these prosecutions (have) "chosen to ignore the legal definition of whistleblower – any person who brings to light evidence of waste, fraud, abuse or illegality *– and has prosecuted truthtellers."
*How odd: same definition as mine.
True, the author has an ax to grind, specifically with Obama, but it is a fact that of the 10 (at the time) prosecutions, 7 of them were under Obama. You can read up on the details and draw your own conclusions.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/obama-abuse-espionage-act-mccarthyism

So I urge you, Professor, to investigate the real world aspects of your whistleblower protection laws before simply assuming that they actually provide "protection." I suggest you start with the three individuals I named above, and which you have pointedly ignored: William Binney, Russ Tice and Thomas Drake.

correction: you are right, Snowden has been charged under the Espionage Act, which is not the same as being a traitor, accept in some people's minds--I would have thought a professor would be more precise but there you go. We will just have to disagree on whether he is a coward.

[msanthrope]

28. So, thanks for proving me corrrect.......the law does exist.

Which means Snowden could have gone to either Bernie or Warren and been protected. That's the rule.....and if you want to work in the IC, you accept the rules.

Binney, Tice, and Drake? Again....thanks for proving my point. Patriots don't run. They are vindicated heroes who did not turn tail and run to the Chinese and Russians....they stayed and fought. I have respect for those men and none at all for Putin's pet.

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. Thank you

It's tough enough to accept the authoritarian anti-free speech sect in the Republican community but to have to read it on a so-called Democratic site is sickening.
The usual band of anti-privacy anti- whistleblower chicken littles all come flocking into these threads to hate on not only whistleblowers, but award winning actual jouralists that speak truth to power - something so rare in the American MSM.

[msanthrope]

29. I quite like whistleblowers. But Snowden isn't one.

An Glenn is a failed Wall Street attorney who used to work for the Koch Brothers....not exactly speaking truth to power.

[Blue_Tires]

17. I've repeatedly dismantled Snowflake's whistleblower defense

so that won't fly...

And since you tried to insult me by dropping a challenge and leaving, onto the ignore list you go, tough guy...

[truebluegreen]

19. Went to bed. It was way late here.

Apparently you did too.

[pbmus]

9. Greenwald is just another pundit...not a big deal like he has been portrayed.

[JI7]

10. Greenwald and ASsange are such low class sleazy scumbags

and i don't even care for snowden.

[rpannier]

11. That would be funny

Were it not so pathetic

[4lbs]

12. Fuck Glenn Greenwald. I stopped caring years ago about anything that dipshit has had to say.

The fucker serves only himself. Even if it proves him to be a hypocrite. He will throw anyone under the bus if it serves his purpose.

[joshcryer]

13. I'm sure that guy got blocked quite quickly, too.

[Cha]

16. Wow.. But, it's ok if it's President Obama.. just not that wuss trump

who needs all his little protectors out en force for the lying pos.

wth does greenwald see in trump? never thought I would see him throw snowden under the bus.

[AJT]

26. I've wondered that too.

How does Greenwald equate 45's administration with openess and freedom? What is wrong with him? Where did all of this craziness come from? Has he become a fascist?