Props to Greenwald and Poitras

Despite the fact that Glenn Greenwald is gay, doesn’t live in America, is a grifter, was once associated with Jane Hamsher, and generally is now public enemy number one around some of the blogosphere and with some of the more overly protective Obama voters here, actual journalists apparently recognize actual journalism:

Four journalists who revealed the National Security Agency’s vast electronic data mining operation were among the winners of the George Polk Awards in Journalism for 2013, announced on Sunday by Long Island University, which administers the prizes.

In all, 30 reporters representing 15 news organizations were recognized in 13 categories. Reporters from The New York Times won three of the awards, as did reporters from The Washington Post.

“In the tradition of George Polk, many of the journalists we have recognized did more than report news,” said John Darnton, the curator of the Polk Awards, referring to the CBS News correspondent who was killed while covering the civil war in Greece in 1948. “They heightened public awareness with perceptive detection and dogged pursuit of stories that otherwise would not have seen the light of day.”

The four winners who disclosed the N.S.A. surveillance were Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Laura Poitras of The Guardian and Barton Gellman of The Washington Post. Their articles, which won the Polk Award for national security reporting, were based on documents leaked by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden.

The question for the usual suspects is whether these awards were given because LIU hates America and Obama as much as Greenwald, or if they are just stupid and really don’t understand the law, or if they just don’t understand these issues enough to talk about them as vocally as a bunch of second rate bloggers who really only give a shit about hippy punching, website hits, and their own little cult of “Defend the Democratic President at All Cost.”

Never thought I would see the same sort of reflexive and intransigent pigheadedness and self-delusion on this side of the aisle, but we live and learn. In fairness, I did expect some of this, as front pager Tim F. and I were emailing back and forth as early as 2006 and 2007 that it was going to be funny watching Democrats turn on Greenwald if a Democrat becomes President. That doesn’t mean Tim and I agree with everything that Glenn has written (except to the morons, where it will mean precisely that because I didn’t spend every breath flaming Greenwald in this post), but we predicted that the biggest assholes when it came to the kind of journalism he was doing during the Bush years would be… Democrats. Again, just ask Tim F. He’ll tell you.

Also, too, in before the first “THE POLK AWARDS DON’T MEAN SHIT.”

331 replies
  1. 1
    Howard Beale IV says:

    Can’t wait to see Charles Johnson go into a seizure over this.

  2. 2
    Citizen_X says:

    This is part of the not-being-angry-and-bitter-all-the-time program, right?

  3. 3
    Narcissus says:

    Who doesn’t like Greenwald because he’s gay?

  4. 4
    LT says:

    @Narcissus: Some clearly hate him because he’s gay. Others – like Cesca and Johnson – constantly use the not-cleverly disguised homophobic “fanboys” thing regarding anyone who agrees with anything re. Greenwald – so they can included in a sidebar.

  5. 5
    Joel says:

    Off topic, but:

    Once is bad enough, but at least one of these police officers has quite a history.

    I hope that the victims sue the city of Hawthorne into the ground.

  6. 6
  7. 7
    John Cole says:

    @Citizen_X: I’m not angry. I’m joyously flipping the bird to a couple front pagers and a bunch of commenters. I am done being angry and bottling shit up. I have middle fingers for everyone and am letting them fly. If they can’t handle it, well, I have bought a number of computers, and never booted one up and had the browser immediately go to balloon-juice.com.

    People don’t like what I say, they can go somewhere else. Or argue with me and tell me that I am an asshole, but I am not sweating any of it from here on out.

  8. 8
    LT says:

    I haven’t had a reason to say this in way too long: Well played, Bob Cesca:

    Congratulations to @ggreenwald, @laurapoitras, @ewenmacaskill and @bartongellman.— Bob Cesca (@bobcesca_go) February 17, 2014

  9. 9
    Raught says:

    @John Cole: So, you’re going the Breitbart route?

  10. 10
    pluege says:

    Never thought I would see the same sort of reflexive and intransigent pigheadedness and self-delusion on this side of the aisle

    guess you missed all the misogynistic Hillary bashing on the left in 2007. No shortage of dolts on the left. No comparison to the pervasive proud to be a stupid prick on the right, but pretty big nonetheless.

  11. 11
    Mnemosyne says:

    @John Cole:

    Which front pagers disagree with you? So far, Anne Laurie, Tim F., mistermix, and Betty Cracker have completely agreed with you on the importance of the NSA stories.

    They haven’t all agreed with you about the personal wonderfulness and brilliance in all things of Glenn Greenwald, the smartest and bestest person who ever walked the face of the earth, so that seems to be your actual beef with them, not the NSA story.

  12. 12
    Violet says:

    Never thought I would see the same sort of reflexive and intransigent pigheadedness and self-delusion on this side of the aisle,

    Do not understand how you thought this. Tribal behavior is everywhere. Doesn’t matter what “side” you’re on. In fact, the very concept that there are sides is part of the problem.

  13. 13
    Jordan Rules says:

    @Mnemosyne: Was about to ask the same WRT which frontpagers.

  14. 14
    LT says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    @John Cole:

    Which front pagers disagree with you? So far, Anne Laurie, Tim F., mistermix, and Betty Cracker have completely agreed with you on the importance of the NSA stories.

    They haven’t all agreed with you about the personal wonderfulness and brilliance in all things of Glenn Greenwald, the smartest and bestest person who ever walked the face of the earth, so that seems to be your actual beef with them, not the NSA story.

    That last bit is especially precious.

    P.S. You are aware of the FPers he’s talking about. We all know that. That’s just shitty trolling.

  15. 15
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Just this.

    The importance of the NSA stories cannot be denied, and the NSA needs to be brought to heel. Unfortunately, we don’t have many in Congress who are willing to do so purely out of devotion to country and its ideals. Many who write about this DO want to damage the near sheriff, and this is a convenient bludgeon.

    Greenwald has some baggage, and it has nothing to do with his sexuality, but rather with his political leanings, which smack of glibertarianism, one of the most hideous of political philosophies. There’s also the somewhat distressing flirting of alliance with known racist assclowns like Paul pere et fils.

  16. 16
    Mnemosyne says:

    @LT:

    No, I genuinely do not know. If he’s going to call someone out, he should have the balls to do it by name rather than making us play guessing games. Does he mean DougJ or Tom Levenson?

  17. 17
    John Cole says:

    @Mnemosyne: I’m giggling. Archives, we have them.

  18. 18

    Good for those guys. Well earned recognition and it is a conversation we should be having. I don’t always like where the conversation goes, but that’s not a reason to not have the conversation.

  19. 19
    Joel says:

    In light of the comments, I guess this post is missing a “navel gazing” tag.

  20. 20
    Mnemosyne says:

    @John Cole:

    In other words, you want to call out your own front pagers and embarrass them in front of the whole blog, but you don’t have the balls to do it by name and want us all to play guessing games.

    Coward.

    ETA: It’s like being surrounded by passive-aggressive 5th grade girls all over again.

  21. 21
    NotMax says:

    Greenwald/Hersh 2016.

    (Not serious, just wanted to hear some heads ‘sploding.)

  22. 22
    srv says:

    I am done being angry and bottling shit up.

    At last.

    @John Cole: John, your most epic rants were when you were sober (well, withdrawal maybe) and angry. I know you are still struggling. You will always be struggling. It is the way.

    It’s noticed that the topics you avoid keeps growing longer. That’s ok, no problem, but when the majority of democrats on this site are to the right of Darrell & MacBuckets, then by all means stick that finger in their eye sockets.

  23. 23
    Suffern ACE says:

    So this is a discord post. I kind of like the current front pager mix, despite what mericafukya tells me.

  24. 24
    John Cole says:

    @Mnemosyne: I had a long comment, but decided it was pointless to engage. Would you like me to Weiner you a picture of my “balls” over twitter?

  25. 25
    gogiggs says:

    Last election I got asked by the Obama campaign (in a mass email) what I would say to friends to promote Obama. My response was, “he’s probably slightly less evil and he’s definitely less stupid”
    Look, I will never vote for a Republican as they are currently constituted, but holy fuck I’d like to be able to vote FOR something.

  26. 26
    John Cole says:

    @srv: I have not avoided anything, I’m just tired of writing about the same shit with the same reaction. Tedium will always bother me more than fear. Not to mention, what is there to fear? Someone saying something nasty on the internet?

  27. 27
    Hill Dweller says:

    @gogiggs: What concrete steps should Obama take to curtail the NSA? Can the proposed reforms get through congress? If not, should Obama publicly go to war with the NSA for appearances sake?

  28. 28
    gwangung says:

    @gogiggs:

    Look, I will never vote for a Republican as they are currently constituted, but holy fuck I’d like to be able to vote FOR something.

    Then you need to mortgage part of your soul and be part of the power structure.

  29. 29
    NotMax says:

    FYWP. Comment went into never-never land.

  30. 30
    Jordan Rules says:

    FWIW, I’m not trolling or trying to get into a guessing game. I thought I had a good sense of where all the FPers stood on this, and my assessment was the same as Mnem’s but maybe I do not. Oh well, not that serious.

    I’m wondering how Obama is supposed to dismantle something so entrenched that we agree preceded him and gives no fucks about which party is in power. It would likely take a very careful strategy that would require the make-up of congess change, the stomach of the electorate change and about 5 terms in office, at the least. I have no problem with it being a more open conversation now, but the framing should respect the history of the problem. I have no issue with people disagreeing over the gravity of the problem. I’m happy we’re not distracted by unjust wars and maybe if we keep pursuing saner governments which we all agree we got with Obama. Then we can begin to make inroads knowing how slowly the process will likely take and stop unecessary sniping which does call into question why this framing and why now.

  31. 31
    Mnemosyne says:

    @John Cole:

    You mean continue to avoid a direct question that you’re too cowardly to answer? Sure, if it makes you feel better.

    Or you could just man up, stop being so fucking passive-aggressive, and tell us which of your own front-pagers you’re so pissed off at that you have to write an entire angry post directed at them but can’t bring yourself to say it to that person’s face.

    (ETA deleted, because now I can’t tell if you had the front pagers you’re pissed off at in the original post and edited it or only referenced it in comments)

  32. 32
    srv says:

    @Mnemosyne: He gave them a platform, and you have been here a long time to know that he is an outlier who never fit in.

    It took a lot of courage for him to break with the old crowd. He found a new crowd that slathered him with praise, and thought this new tribe wouldn’t be a bunch of sanctomonious hypocritical fucks who swallow the kool-aide of another flavor.

    It amazes me that the old farts here grow ever more absolutist like glibertarian teens as they age and don’t see John as the guy who does shades-of-gray.

    If there’s one thing I’ve figured out, 1 in a million people get more progressive the older they get, and John Cole is one of a handful of bloggers that fits that mode.

  33. 33
    Yatsuno says:

    @John Cole: I just love you trolled the shit outta Durf.

  34. 34
    Mnemosyne says:

    @srv:

    He found a new crowd that slathered him with praise, and thought this new tribe wouldn’t be a bunch of sanctomonious hypocritical fucks who swallow the kool-aide of another flavor.

    Again, which front pager(s) are you talking about? Or do you actually believe that Anne Laurie, mistermix, Betty Cracker, and Tim F. have “drunk the kool-aid” about the NSA stories and are ignoring them? Are we even reading the same blog?

  35. 35
    Jordan Rules says:

    @srv: But many of the people disagreeing with John on this one issue are precisely the ones dancing in the shades of grey IMO.

    I’d hope he wouldn’t agree with your characterization of the new tribe, I think he gets that we disagree a lot and he’s cool with that knowing what undergirds us all is much more humane and just on the whole.

  36. 36
    Violet says:

    @srv:

    If there’s one thing I’ve figured out, 1 in a million people get more progressive the older they get

    Do you have data to support this statement?

  37. 37
    srv says:

    @John Cole: You do still care about what people think and say.

    As for tedium, your life and your animals have gotten you into a comfortable groove. As did the drinking. I predicted way back in 2008 or so you’d stop blogging.

    And then came Obama. Honestly, would you still be here if it weren’t for what you saw as a response to Obama? Here you are, fighting the fight and trying to stay true, and now you’re the enemy of the right and left. You’re either with us or against us? Heard that before?

  38. 38
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    Anyway congratulations to Greenwald, Poitras and the others, I second the motion. I think it’s probably fair to say that their actions have already had an impact and importance slightly exceeding the question of whether anyone at Balloon-Juice.com thinks that they “lean libertarian” too much or not enough or blah blah blah. I mean, it might be a close second, but still.

  39. 39
    Lil Lebowski says:

    I read this site several times a day, and I really don’t know who cole is talking about. Maybe some fpers who are gone now?

    Also too, this from Mnemosyne:

    They haven’t all agreed with you about the personal wonderfulness and brilliance in all things of Glenn Greenwald, the smartest and bestest person who ever walked the face of the earth, so that seems to be your actual beef with them, not the NSA story.

    In addition to being wrong, is also pretty sleazy. If I had written that and sobered up the next morning, I’d feel pretty bad about myself.

    Unless it was my intention to be a dick in the first place, of course.

  40. 40
    srv says:

    @Jordan Rules: Remember John being roasted alive for his opinions on the Courtesy Bombing of Libya? The drones?

    There’s a lot of stuff that pisses John off, and IMO, he avoids it because it’s a lose-lose scenario.

  41. 41
    Lil Lebowski says:

    I read this site several times a day, and I really don’t know which front pagers cole is talking about. Maybe some fpers who are gone now?

    Also too, this from Mnemosyne:

    They haven’t all agreed with you about the personal wonderfulness and brilliance in all things of Glenn Greenwald, the smartest and bestest person who ever walked the face of the earth, so that seems to be your actual beef with them, not the NSA story.

    In addition to being wrong, is also pretty sleazy. If I had written that and sobered up the next morning, I’d feel pretty bad about myself.

    Unless it was my intention to be a dick in the first place, of course.

  42. 42
    srv says:

    @Mnemosyne: John has let mistermix lead, and the commenters have been cruel to him. To a lessor extent, AL.

    And I’m probably the only old-timer here who doesn’t email John every week whining that my butt hurts because of what some FP’er said. Y’all are near family to him, it’s _personal_.

  43. 43
    Jerzy Russian says:

    @Mnemosyne: Mr. Cole mentioned Soonergrunt and ABL in the comment #24, which was edited.

  44. 44
    Mnemosyne says:

    @John Cole:

    So anyway, I have to take the cat to the cardiologist first thing in the morning and can’t really stay up half the night playing guessing games, but here’s the thing: if you want to electronically scream at all of the commenters (including myself) who disagree with you about the NSA, it’s your blog.

    But it seems like an intensely shitty thing to call out one of your own front pagers but not say who it is so they can defend themselves.

    This post is the blog equivalent of, If you don’t know why I’m mad at you, I’m not going to explain it to you. It’s passive aggressive bullshit.

  45. 45
    Violet says:

    The question for the usual suspects is whether these awards were given because LIU hates America and Obama as much as Greenwald, or if they are just stupid and really don’t understand the law, or if they just don’t understand these issues enough to talk about them as vocally as a bunch of second rate bloggers who really only give a shit about hippy punching, website hits, and their own little cult of “Defend the Democratic President at All Cost.”

    I don’t know anything about the Polk awards, but awards can be given for all sorts of reasons–to send a message, to reward behavior or work, to piss off people or organizations, to make up for one they didn’t get before when they really deserved it, whatever. Ideally they should go to the most deserving person or group, but in reality that is not always the case.

  46. 46
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Lil Lebowski:

    In addition to being wrong, is also pretty sleazy. If I had written that and sobered up the next morning, I’d feel pretty bad about myself.

    So you completely missed the part where Cole said he was pissed off at the other front pagers for not agreeing with him, and I pointed out the four (4) front pagers who agree with him on the legalities and wondered why he was pissed at them since they otherwise agree with him?

  47. 47
    Jordan Rules says:

    @srv: No, I remember the comments going both ways as they do most of time here. I don’t see him as an enemy of the left nor do I see proclamations that he must be with us or against us. More times than not we all aknowledge we’re fighting the same fight and differ on how to get there and who should be leading the charge. Maybe I’ve been reading this blog with some otherly colored glasses though.

    John Cole is a Democrat full stop; he’s not in some wierd political purgatory. Now let the NSA debate go on with that established.

  48. 48
    LT says:

    @Jerzy Russian: Is there a single commenter who is here on a more minute by minute basis than Mnenowassis? S/he knows exctly who Cole was talking about. Again: shitty trolling.

  49. 49
    Jerzy Russian says:

    @LT: Well, I did not know who Mr. Cole was talking about from the post itself. I was a bit curious, but would not have cared enough to go through the archives to find out. I find that if I want to convey information, it is usually more successful if I simply give out the information.

  50. 50
    srv says:

    @LT: IMO, he does not troll on stuff that pisses him off.

    @Jordan Rules: This place is an echo chamber, and yes, we’re all democrats. But there isn’t some going both ways on 95% of the topics unless you count Ben Franklin as 50%.

    Which, on some threads, he is. But then he’s probably DougJ anyway.

  51. 51
    LT says:

    @Jerzy Russian: I don’t think Cole is trying to be successful for ppl like Mnemo. Why should he or would he?

    The FPers he’s referring to know exaclty who he’s talking about. They can respond if they see fit, here on via email.

  52. 52
    Violet says:

    @Jerzy Russian: I didn’t know either.Still don’t. I’m here a fair amount but apparently not enough to know that bit of information.

  53. 53
    Mnemosyne says:

    @LT:

    S/he knows exctly who Cole was talking about.

    No, I genuinely do not know who Cole was talking about. And I think it’s extremely shitty to write an angry post about a front pager you disagree with and leave their name off so they don’t have an opportunity to defend themselves. Now if SG or ABL do post a response, they’ll look like whiners because, after all, Cole never said it was about them, so they’re just being paranoid if they think he was addressing the post to them, amirite?

    If you’re angry at someone, then tell them. Don’t be a passive-aggressive fucktard by posting an angry post and being coy about who it’s directed at.

  54. 54
    NotMax says:

    @srv

    Frankly, I’m operating on the thesis that all the front page posts are filler until the one reporting on the meet-up is posted.

  55. 55
    LT says:

    @srv: There is simply NO WAY s/he does not know who it is. Mnemo comments in their diaries ALL THE FUCKING TIME FOR YEARS AND YEARS. And on the NSA stuff.

    It is pure bullhist, and if it ain’t trolling – it’s trolling.

  56. 56
    Jordan Rules says:

    @srv: True indeed many times we do all agree cause we’re fighting a pretty stark fight. On the times we don’t, I don’t see John as standing against a unanimous tide of disapproval its more like 80 percent and its because of the grey areas we Dems live in most of the time. Nobody as hailing a security state in this debate.

  57. 57
    LT says:

    @Mnemosyne: “And I think it’s extremely shitty to write an angry post about a front pager you disagree with..”

    Oh EDIT EDIT EDIT. Get your own fucking blog and make rules about what’s shitty. What third gread weirdness.

    If you don’t actually know – well fuck. I apologize, but it is the skin of a legendary beast away from impossible to believe.

  58. 58
    Mnemosyne says:

    @LT:

    Look, you may have magical mind-reading powers and know which front-pagers Cole was passive-aggressively referring to, but I do not. The only hint I have is what Jerzy Russian said, and even that doesn’t make much sense since ABL posts here maybe once in a blue moon and I don’t think has ever posted here about the NSA stuff.

    Perhaps you should find employment as a psychic since you seem to be able to read Cole’s mind and deduce exactly who he was referring to.

  59. 59
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Jerzy Russian: yeah. ABL who left last year but came back to post a dog picture and sooner who is perhaps best described as ambivalent. This isn’t an issue that Kay or Richard write about. I could go into commentators, but there’s a lot of those. SPT and Betty fall where?

    I don’t like GG, and didn’t at Salon. The “anyone who hasn’t made up their mind about what I’m writing about already is a morally depraved soul” gets old. But it turns out that he has information now about an agency if government that prefers secrecy, has a huge budget, and whose existence in a democratic republic is problematic even if it may serve a necessary function. So he can publish away and win awards for that.

  60. 60
    Jordan Rules says:

    @LT: Why is it impossible to believe?? Like 3 other people have indicated they didn’t know either. If it was so evident then why didn’t you just say “duh, its such and such”?? Your ass didn’t know either, shit.

  61. 61
    patrick II says:

    Does Greenwald ever come to the States anymore? Could he? Or would he be arrested.

  62. 62
    Arclite says:

    I read Greenwald daily when Bush was prez, back when he was just a blogger at Unclaimed Territory. It was cathartic, and he was bringing up issues no one else was. After Obama got elected, I read him less, but he still continued to write about important things: the war on whistleblowers, drone strikes, continuing civil rights abuses, again, things almost no one was covering.

    Glenn is certainly acerbic and egotistical, but he performs a valuable service, none greater than helping organize and publish the Snowden cache. He’s unique, and just because he’s an asshole doesn’t mean his contributions haven’t been extremely valuable IMO.

  63. 63
  64. 64
    ruemara says:

    You’re being an ass. No one gives a shit about Greenwald being gay, the fanboys term has nothing to do with Greenwald being gay and for someone who’s focused on the issues of spying and not creating a cult of personality, you’re certainly all about fanboyism and personality.

    The press can call these people great journalists, but I reserve that judgement for when they uncover crimes. I do not see them uncovering crimes, I read what they write and for the most part, I see discussion of the “potential” of what the NSA can do. There may be things I do not like, or do not want them to do, but I have yet to see the legality, rather, the illegality, made clear. I see opinions. When things are in court, we have judgements both for and against aspects of the program. It is not easy to figure this out, because these are not clear things. It cannot be set in stone in a way everyone will like. There will always be a balancing act. Yet the massive ire of people who have not felt one lick of limitations to their personal freedoms trends towards fury that spying exists. Not everyone who disagrees with you is some jackbooted gestapo thug. Cesca and Johnson have a right to their opinions and for a bunch of people who insist that we should be able to review and understand the entirety of the spying programs, it’s hilarious how unquestioning you are and how angry you are that anyone dares to disagree with a sainted few. Fuck this noise. And fuck your anger. It’s not being caused by people on your blog or people who raise questions about the validity of the fear mongering and the overall consequences of whistleblowing that still hasn’t blown a real whistle. We were told they’re breaking the law and spying on Americans. That must be in the evidence, somewhere. Not the potential, not could be, not have the capacity-they are spying on Americans, and have done it for specific instances and these people and here’s the facts. I’m still waiting for the claims and the evidence to be revealed. Then, I’ll call it journalism. Right now, it’s a circle jerk of confirmation bias on both sides.

  65. 65
    KG says:

    @Jordan Rules: the most obvious thing that Obama can do is clear out the Agency’s appointed positions. That will look like doing something, but it’s akin to cutting the tail off a lizard. The rest of the organization will continue like normal. Plus, if the Senate decides to be stupid, it could make things worse by not allowing those appointed positions to be filled. He can also issue directives to curtain certain programs, but whether or not he’d do that publicly (“OMGZZZZ!!1! the Dems are soft on turrerism!”) and whether those directives would be followed (“you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall”) are also open questions. Most anything else would require Congressional action.

  66. 66
    LT says:

    @Mnemosyne: ABL hardly posts here, true. But she has been on the Cesca side of the NSA thing, as has Soonergrunt. Grunt does some here on BJ – although maybe more so in comments> – ABL – not at all sure. Maybe John does most of his back and foreth with both on Twitter.

    In any case – I honestly find it bizarre that anyone would even begin to think about scolding Cole – or any blogger – about what he has to do regarding naming someone in this or any post. It’s just too weird.

  67. 67
    Arclite says:

    @Violet:

    I don’t know anything about the Polk awards, but awards can be given for all sorts of reasons–to send a message, to reward behavior or work, to piss off people or organizations, to make up for one they didn’t get before when they really deserved it, whatever. Ideally they should go to the most deserving person or group, but in reality that is not always the case.

    Or simply because it was and continues to be one of the biggest stories of the year with a huge global politcal impact. There hasn’t been a day since this story broke where there haven’t been one or more stories about it in the major news services. I can’t think of another story this year that even comes close.

  68. 68
    Jordan Rules says:

    @KG: Appreciate that response. Its all tightly wound up in our system (as part of it) so I really do see the dismantling as something that could only happen incrementally and with a sustained push by several entities. And unfortunately its not in the interests of many of them.

  69. 69
    Suffern ACE says:

    @adepsis: drives me nuts it does. Now the governments involved in this crap have behaved heavy handedly. The Brits for detaining (and releasing) GGs partner, the Brits for surrounding Assange, and whomever it was who wouldn’t let the Ecuadoran President fly home. Was there an attempt to discredit GG by releasing the fact that he owes a lot of taxes? Yeah probably, but he kind of needed to pay those. He’s in the camp of government critics who don’t feel a government should ever fight back against its critics, and every time it does, it must be tyranny. That’s one of the things I came to find absurd.

  70. 70
    Arclite says:

    @LT:

    @srv: There is simply NO WAY s/he does not know who it is. Mnemo comments in their diaries ALL THE FUCKING TIME FOR YEARS AND YEARS. And on the NSA stuff.

    It is pure bullhist, and if it ain’t trolling – it’s trolling.

    I’ve been reading this site twice daily since 2006, and I don’t fucking know who he is referring too either. I remember that ABL had a tiff with GG when she wrote something unkind about him over at Raw and he whined about it, and she ended up leaving Raw. But that didn’t happen here. Did Erik Kain write some nasty stuff about him? I don’t recall.

  71. 71
    burnspbesq says:

    Greenie is almost certainly guilty of at least three felonies, and he can’t write for shit. Other than that, he’s a great guy.

    Fuck you right back, John.

  72. 72
    JoyfulA says:

    @KG: I’d like to see us get rid of all the contractors. We’ve seen how poorly they’ve performed in the Snowden case, beginning with the outfit that was vetting everyone for security clearances but didn’t actually bother to do so. And we know these contractors are making money hand over fist. I’d trust civil servants more.

  73. 73
    Fonzie says:

    Bullhist makes the world go ’round.

  74. 74
    Arclite says:

    @burnspbesq: Three felonies? Do tell.

  75. 75
    Arclite says:

    @JoyfulA: But, but, but the free market is the most efficient mechanism in all cases!

  76. 76
    Suffern ACE says:

    @JoyfulA: yep. What seems to have come out so far is that the NSA isn’t able to make a case for the effectiveness if it’s broad data collection activities. Those are the ones though I can’t get too worked up about and those are the ones that supposedly harm me. I can’t get worked up about the metadata because even if I did something wrong and had something to hide, my metadata apparently wouldn’t be how I’d be caught. But I can get worked up about the waste of money.

  77. 77
    LT says:

    @Mnemosyne: And just to get a feel about the depth of insipid ugliness we’re talking about here:

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2.....nt-4822313

    Shorter: Greenwald LOVED the NSA and George Bush before Obama! [Betty Cracker calls bullshit] But but but – HE OWES THE IRS MONEY!!!!

    He uses this article as his “source.”

    There’s more.

  78. 78
    burnspbesq says:

    @Arclite:

    Conspiracy, aiding and abetting violations of 18 U.S.C. 641 and 893, and unauthorized possession of classified material. I can probably find two or three more if I take a bit more time.

  79. 79
    JoyfulA says:

    @Arclite: Is that you, Tom Corbett?

  80. 80
    LT says:

    @burnspbesq: “Conspiracy, aiding and abetting violations of 18 U.S.C. 641 and 893, and unauthorized possession of classified material. I can probably find two or three more if I take a bit more time.”

    You should get a special Dem phone number.

  81. 81
    Suffern ACE says:

    @burnspbesq: ok. But as was posted above, why isn’t Gellman being prosecuted, since he has the same documents? This isn’t the same as Assange where it is possible to interpret some of the manning release as being encouraged by Assange himself.

  82. 82
    RandomMonster says:

    @LT:

    constantly use the not-cleverly disguised homophobic “fanboys” thing

    Um, “fanboys” is now a homophobic slur? Well I guess that deserves a big John Cole AMERICA FUCK YEAH “Any criticism of Greenwald is a gay-bash jamboree”. God I swear, comments on the internet is where rational discourse goes to die.

  83. 83
    burnspbesq says:

    I don’t condone what she did, and I especially don’t like that she was hung out to dry by people she mistakenly thought were her friends, but it’s possible to admire Chelsea Manning for standing in there and accepting the consequences of her actions.

    Greenie and Eddie don’t look good by comparison.

  84. 84
    Lil Lebowski says:

    @ruemara:

    Are you serious? You haven’t seen anything illegal here?

    Collecting the communications of “the people”, as the 4th amendment clearly says, without a warrant, is unconstitutional. It makes no differentiation between citizens and non citizens, so much of that distinction from the NSA is irrelevant. And even if you’re not with me on that, we also know they are collecting metadata and some communications of citizens too, without a warrant, contrary to assurances by our government

    James Clapper also committed perjury, and we know that he did because of reporters like the ones above.

    I’ll admit I’m not a judge so I’m not an official arbiter of what’s illegal and what isn’t, but honestly this seems so obviously unconstitutional and contrary to a free society that I can’t imagine why anyone would choose to die on this hill.

    If you don’t have a problem with what the NSA is doing, then that’s fine and the law and constitution itself should be changed. I’d fight you tooth and nail there, but that’s what a nation dedicated to the rule of law does. What we have now is something entirely different if the bastards keep getting away with this, which it seems like they will.

  85. 85
    burnspbesq says:

    @LT:

    I’m guessing you went for the incoherent ad hominem because you’re incapable of rebutting the substance of my comment.

  86. 86
    Anne Laurie says:

    @John Cole:

    People don’t like what I say, they can go somewhere else. Or argue with me and tell me that I am an asshole, but I am not sweating any of it from here on out.

    Good for you, John. (You are a bit of an arsehole, but that’s why most of us hang around here in the first place.)

    Poitras and Gellman and MacAskill and Greenwald all deserve the Polk Prize, just as President Obama deserved his Nobel Peace Prize.

    I’m glad they’re getting the recognition… and I’m glad you’re here to celebrate it with us, too!

  87. 87
    Suffern ACE says:

    @LT: Greenwald does owe back taxes. And Greenwald admits to being a supporter of Bush through the invasion of Iraq. That isn’t a dispute. And those are in fact reasons why people might not like GG. He also created a little PAC at one point to ostensibly raise money for candidates that never distributed all that much to any candidates. He has these documents, but he could still be a grifter.

  88. 88
    burnspbesq says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    why isn’t Gellman being prosecuted

    As of now, nobody is being prosecuted. And I will think quite a bit less of Holder if DOJ goes after Greenie but not Gellman; you either believe there is a Constitutional problem with prosecuting media actors under 893 or you don’t, but there’s no principled way of distinguishing Greenie for Gellman. I think they would make great cellmates.

    My view of the First Amendment is that the press can publish anything it gets its hands on; I am categorically opposed to prior restraints. But if you committed a crime to get it, you go to jail after you publish, and your supposed public service can be taken into account at sentencing, or by the President in the exercise of the pardon power.

  89. 89
    burnspbesq says:

    @Lil Lebowski:

    Did you cut your Con Law class the day the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy” was discussed?

  90. 90
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Mnemosyne: Who died and made you Hall Monitor?

    You don’t want to talk about people on your exhaustive list of “Not Allowed At OUR Lunch Table” being recognized for their professional achievements, all you have to do is find a different thread to post on. But you want to derail the conversation by throwing bitchfits over whether the debate-club ROOOOLZ! have been met, because you don’t have a decent argument otherwise, and the whole conversation makes you nervous.

  91. 91
    Socoolsofresh says:

    @Mnemosyne: You are ridiculous. Rather than admit that you might have been on the wrong side over this whole NSA thing, or whether GG deserves the Polk prize or not, you go into a faux outrage over some rules you made up on how John should write on his blog. At least you aren’t speculating about Snowden being a Chinese spy, so I guess there is a little improvement.

  92. 92
    Suffern ACE says:

    I do find it kind of funny though that the governments of the great English speaking democracies are so concerned about that powerhouse Indonesia getting the upper hand in trade negotiations about shrimp and cloves that they decided they needed to spy. It’s kind of control freaky. I know, first you ignore the clove cigarettes, then unspecified bad things might happen.

  93. 93
    burnspbesq says:

    @Arclite:

    I read Greenwald daily when Bush was prez, back when he was just a blogger at Unclaimed Territory. It was cathartic, and he was bringing up issues no one else was.

    False. Marty Lederman was writing about the same stuff at Balkinizaion from early 2005 until he left Georgetown Law to go to DOJ in early 2009. And his analysis and writing were both worlds better than Greenie’s.

  94. 94
    Anne Laurie says:

    @srv: Keep in mind, part of that is an artifact of when news like this breaks. New stories on NSA abuses and the erosion of privacy aren’t tornadoes or school shootings — they usually show up first thing in the Eastern-time-zone press morning, for the front page / TV “lead”. That means the Gellman/Poitras/MacAskill/Greenwald stories usually show up during the time frame when either MisterMix or I are most likely to be posting. And I admit that I don’t always want to lead the morning with “bummer” news — partially because I go to bed after posting my early-morning stuff & won’t be around to respond to comments. Since Cole doesn’t usually sign on until well into the afternoon, the odds are that MisterMix (or BettyC, or TimF, or DougJ, or TomL) will be first with the updates here.

  95. 95
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Suffern ACE: Nah. Indonesia, as its inhabitants will happily tell you, has the largest Muslim population of any country in the world. For the TruMericans, that’s gotta be a sign of some kind of evil intention, right there.

    (I wish I were kidding, but I’ve seen people make this argument.)

  96. 96
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Anne Laurie: I just have a narrow view of “security”, because I am not a great thinker who went to one of those great colleges and I don’t work in an industry selling “security”. If i did, spying on trade talks would make sense, since it would have learned that everything is security. If I were A Betting Man, I would bet that a lot if things that I would consider commerce are really national security.

  97. 97
    different-church-lady says:

    I had no idea they gave Polks for distorting the news.

  98. 98
    different-church-lady says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Greenwald has some baggage, and it has nothing to do with his sexuality, but rather with his political leanings

    It has nothing to do with his political leanings either. It has to do with his serial exaggerations, willful distortions, slights of hand, thin skined-ness, paranoia, and self-aggrandizement.

    Somebody handed the blind squirrel found a nut and the squirrel decided to fuck it.

  99. 99
    Jordan Rules says:

    @Anne Laurie: That link is rich. SMH

  100. 100
    kbuttle says:

    @Suffern ACE: But GG’s partner WAS in fact acting as courier, no? So detention legitimate?

    Greenwald’s doing important work, but he’s unbearably sanctimonious about it and prone to levels of self regard that make it harder to appreciate him for that work – particularly when it comes wrapped in language that suggests we’re lesser intellects or citizens if not in 100% agreement with every of Greenwald’s interpretations.

    It’s spirited here in the comments, and we can all latch on to portions of each other’s and FPers statements to find points for disagreement, but if there’s a lot of daylight between the above idea and anybody’s sense here of Greenwald I’ve missed it.

  101. 101
  102. 102
    Arclite says:

    @burnspbesq:

    False. Marty Lederman was writing about the same stuff at Balkinizaion from early 2005 until he left Georgetown Law to go to DOJ in early 2009. And his analysis and writing were both worlds better than Greenie’s.

    Really? You want to argue my statement? I have to find two things (“issues”) that no one else brought up, and my statement is true. Yes, Ledermen covered some of the same things, but honestly GG has been pretty consistent on his issues, and for a long time he was pretty much the only one.

  103. 103
    moderateindy says:

    First off, the left has always had it’s own orthodoxy, and intransigence on many subjects. Nuclear power being a fine example. What has bugged me is that they have slowly begun internalizing the proclivities, and tactics of the right more, and more. Fake outrage, and purity tests being just a couple.

    I really don’t get the reflexive, and virulent hatred for GG. So he is critical of Obama’s abuses, just like he was critical of Bush’s. Isn’t that kind of how we want journalists to act?

    Personally, I am ambivalent about the NSA scandal. I had plenty of outrage back when W was prez, and it came to light that the gov’t was tracking, and storing the numbers for every phone call that was made. Unfortunately, when there was very little pushback by the American people on it, I resigned myself that such programs were with us permanently. Because once the government has basically any power entrenched, it rarely gives it back. So, when the extent of the NSA spying was revealed, it was not shocking, or unexpected. I honestly feel that it is probably way worse, and more invasive than we know, and the only real privacy comes from the fact that the data is so voluminous that 95 % of it will never be examined.

  104. 104
    bago says:

    Yeah, weezer is spot on.

  105. 105
    Anne Laurie says:

    @different-church-lady: Gosh, if only your job didn’t require you to hang out with such unserious people as us!…

    Oh, wait…

  106. 106
    muricafukyea says:

    Wrong way Cole just cannot help but to show how naive he is. Whether it’s blowing wet kisses to fat bastard KhristieKreme or blowing wet kisses to Griftwald, or blowing wet kisses to Rand Paul when ever he trolls the left with his “dronezzz are bad” or more recently “NSA is bad” bullshit.

    Cole is the poster child for “once a Republican always a Republican”

  107. 107
    Cassidy says:

    So is this gonna be the new normal? A little advice Cole, while the virtual blowjob from your purity twits might feel the void your pets can’t, a real one usually runs about $20.

  108. 108
    Amir Khalid says:

    For such an opinionated and contentious crowd, we the Juicitariat don’t fight among ourselves over very much. It’s intriguing that Glenn Greenwald is one of the very few topics that can start the virtual fists flying. For my part, I’m neither a fan of his nor a hater.

  109. 109
    raven says:

    @Amir Khalid: I’m with you, I just don’t give a damn.

  110. 110
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Can’t disagree with you on those various carry-ons at all.

  111. 111
    A Humble Lurker says:

    Why is it that whenever there’s a post pertaining (even in the slightest) to Greenwald a bunch of new commenters show up? And then never post again until the next Greenwald thread?

    I find that interesting.

    Also:
    @Anne Laurie:
    Since when was voicing someone’s disapproval being a hall monitor? Last time I checked that was the sole purpose of a blog.

  112. 112
    JPL says:

    Good morning! It’s always interesting to read posts where there are passionate views on both sides. Now I have to go shower.

  113. 113
    Amir Khalid says:

    @A Humble Lurker:
    Yeah, Glenn Greenwald himself comments here more often than those guys do.

  114. 114
    The Thin Black Duke says:

    @A Humble Lurker: Yep. They’re not “commenters”, they’re “minions”.

  115. 115
    TheHalfrican says:

    Don’t fuck with a man who has lost his cat.

  116. 116
    Poopyman says:

    @raven: Like so?

    Reportage is one thing, but I’m a little curious about how much GG influenced Snowden before even applying to Booz for the job, given that Snowden admits his intent all along was to steal the data. Snowden running off to the US’s two top competitors with a ton of TS/SCI material doesn’t make his associates look too good, either.

  117. 117
    Poopyman says:

    @TheHalfrican: That may be more than half of us right there.

  118. 118
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @John Cole:

    I had a long comment, but decided it was pointless to engage. Would you like me to Weiner you a picture of my “balls” over twitter?

    Wow, that’s almost as bad as the shit Ted & Hellen pulled on Betty Cracker. How long will it take for you to apologize for this post?

  119. 119
    Botsplainer says:

    Because clearly, an award given out by our current rank of incompetent, whored out, poorly educated and ideologically blinded “journalists” (the group that still can’t get economic, social or defense reporting right) is awesome sauce.

    Well played, Cole, well played.

  120. 120
    Hawes says:

    I don’t think much of Greenwald as a journalist. He’s a polemicist and prosecuting attorney. Too often the breathless claims of the latest round of Snowden leaks unraveled under closer scrutiny. I’m not sure any criminality was exposed (beyond Snowden’s).

    But this was the biggest story if the year by far. It raises critical questions about how comprehensive a security state we want or need. And it was provocative in the best and worst meaning of the word.

    Of course they should win this award.

  121. 121
    JPL says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Love means never having to say you’re sorry.

  122. 122
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Just sayin’.

    http://crooksandliars.com/2008.....snt-really

    ETA: Meh. Need coffee.

  123. 123
    Poopyman says:

    @Hawes: Dude! If I wanted a thoughtful, reasoned response I wouldn’t be coming to Balloon Juice!

  124. 124
    Chyron HR says:

    Daily reminder that Mr. Greenwald claimed that Obama’s supporters fantasize about getting raped by him.

  125. 125
    cleek says:

    but remember, one must never say FPers troll commenters.

  126. 126
    NonyNony says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    It’s intriguing that Glenn Greenwald is one of the very few topics that can start the virtual fists flying.

    It’s because Greenwald is an asshole whose work has been both wildly good and wildly awful over his career (so people have strong evidence both that he’s a good journalist and that he’s a hack) and he’s personally a defensive asshole who, if you’ve ever been in a one-on-one confrontation with him, will twist and distort words and facts in such a lawyerly way that you feel like he’s lied when, in fact, he hasn’t.

    Some people appreciate that kind of thing, other folks don’t. I tend to think that the work he’s done that is good outweighs the hackwork he’s done, but opinions differ. He is an asshole though – I can’t believe that his most ardent defenders cannot see that as a human being, Glenn is an amazingly huge gaping asshole in his “public persona” at least. He easily reaches almost a 0.9 on the Bill-O-Reilly asshole scale on a daily basis, and most normal people in meatspace and outside of a TV/Radio studio can barely clear a 0.4 on the BillO scale. And he has done some really good work – and I can’t believe that his most vehement detractors cannot see that at least some of his work has merit, whether he’s an asshole or not.

  127. 127
    Cervantes says:

    @Botsplainer:

    Because clearly, an award given out by our current rank of incompetent, whored out, poorly educated and ideologically blinded “journalists” (the group that still can’t get economic, social or defense reporting right) is awesome sauce.

    Your tactics are no surprise. Here is a quick summary of the other Polk awards announced yesterday:

    * unsafe conditions and low wages in the garment industry in Bangladesh — and clothing manufacturers’ close political connections there

    * food-stamp recipients — “an indelible portrait of American poverty”

    * lane closings at the George Washington Bridge

    * girl named Dasani, one of 22,000 homeless children in New York City

    * relationship between Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia and a political patron

    * treatment of the mentally ill

    * use of false confessions and coercive tactics by the police

    * sports figures taking banned substances from anti-aging clinic Biogenesis

    * regulators and prosecutors had failed to hold major Wall Street figures accountable for decisions that contributed to the financial crisis in 2008

    * a U.S. Army Special Forces unit executed 10 civilians outside a base in Afghanistan

    * NFL “physicians” hid information about players’ concussions and brain disorders

    * a small change in a Florida state policy — reducing the time a yellow light took to change to red to less than the federally recommended minimum — had cost drivers millions in fines.

    * Pete Hamill won the Polk career award

    Oh, by the way, I’m still waiting for you to lead us in that campaign against Hitachi. How’s it coming along?

  128. 128
    Vince says:

    @Anne Laurie:

    Sorry, I have to be that guy. Indonesia does not have the largest Muslim population in the works, that would be India at over 300M. Indonesia is the largest Muslim-majority country in the world though.

  129. 129
    Botsplainer says:

    @A Humble Lurker:

    Why is it that whenever there’s a post pertaining (even in the slightest) to Greenwald a bunch of new commenters show up? And then never post again until the next Greenwald thread?

    Griftwald does have a history of sockpuppetry, one of his many loathesome qualities (his apparent racism being his worst).

  130. 130
    Cervantes says:

    @Anne Laurie: Australia spies on Indonesia for several reasons, oil being the primary one.

  131. 131
    Botsplainer says:

    @Cervantes:

    All too little too late. I’m talking 30 years of crap, and the hints of important items not getting wide circulation, or collaborations across multiple platforms.

  132. 132
    Botsplainer says:

    @Cervantes:

    Australia spies on Indonesia for several reasons, oil being the primary one.

    Oh, horseshit. It’s a hugely populous neighbor (something approaching 10X the population) resting astride Australia’s main northern trade routes and has ethnic and religious stress points.

    Damn straight they’re going to watch it.

  133. 133
    Cervantes says:

    @Jordan Rules:

    I’m wondering how Obama is supposed to dismantle something so entrenched that we agree preceded him and gives no fucks about which party is in power. It would likely take a very careful strategy that would require the make-up of congess change, the stomach of the electorate change and about 5 terms in office, at the least. I have no problem with it being a more open conversation now, but the framing should respect the history of the problem. I have no issue with people disagreeing over the gravity of the problem. I’m happy we’re not distracted by unjust wars and maybe if we keep pursuing saner governments which we all agree we got with Obama. Then we can begin to make inroads knowing how slowly the process will likely take and stop unecessary sniping which does call into question why this framing and why now.

    Nicely put.

    Thanks.

  134. 134
    Cervantes says:

    @Botsplainer: In other words, you were wrong.

    No problem.

  135. 135
    Cervantes says:

    @Botsplainer:

    @Cervantes: Australia spies on Indonesia for several reasons, oil being the primary one.

    Oh, horseshit. It’s a hugely populous neighbor (something approaching 10X the population) resting astride Australia’s main northern trade routes and has ethnic and religious stress points. Damn straight they’re going to watch it.

    Yes, as I said, Australia spies on Indonesia for several reasons, oil being the primary one.

  136. 136
    Cassidy says:

    So are any of the Cole fluffers gonna volunteer to go fuck him so he can at least get a hard on for something real?

  137. 137
    tybee says:

    @JPL:

    you win.

  138. 138
    Keith G says:

    The population of this society is better off because of Snowden’s efforts to give us a more complete understanding of what this government by, for, and of it’s citizens is up to, Greenwald has been uniquely instrumental in this process – good on him.

    From the start, I have been amazed at the twitchiness of those who actively sought to cast the disclosure of these activities as part of a pro/anti Obama narrative. Prior to 2009, Obama was more supportive of transparency than he has become since. That’s in line with what normally happens to leaders when they become president. That is why it is necessary for “outsiders” to force the issue.

    I think the aforementioned award speaks to the issue that we are arguably better off when there are reporters (of any stripe or ideology) who are willing to push back against governmental reticence and pump information into the public’s view.

  139. 139
    NCSteve says:

    If he were Bill O’Reilly, he’d tell us he got a Pulitzer.

  140. 140
    Cervantes says:

    @KG:

    the most obvious thing that Obama can do is clear out the Agency’s appointed positions. That will look like doing something, but it’s akin to cutting the tail off a lizard. The rest of the organization will continue like normal. Plus, if the Senate decides to be stupid, it could make things worse by not allowing those appointed positions to be filled. He can also issue directives to curtain certain programs, but whether or not he’d do that publicly (“OMGZZZZ!!1! the Dems are soft on turrerism!”) and whether those directives would be followed (“you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall”) are also open questions. Most anything else would require Congressional action.

    Nicely put, thanks.

  141. 141
    Just One More Canuck says:

    @Anne Laurie: Anne I enjoy most of your posts and comments, but many times you really come across as being thin-skinned, especially when it comes to certain commenters.

  142. 142
    Cervantes says:

    @burnspbesq:

    There’s no principled way of distinguishing Greenie for Gellman. I think they would make great cellmates.

    Yes, put Greenwald and Gellman in jail. That will help. Also close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears.

    I suppose we should be grateful you didn’t write the following:

    I find myself saddened that [Obama] didn’t announce the successful raid on the Miranda-Greenwald compound with footage of Greenwald whimpering about his rights as bullets rip into his body.

  143. 143
    Keith G says:

    @Just One More Canuck:
    Thin skinned? Possibly.

    The commenter in question has a well practiced shtick (as many do), and I think AL and Cole were responding in kind.

  144. 144
    Just One More Canuck says:

    @Keith G: Perhaps she does have a schtiick, however, the question she asked was legitimate (as evidenced by others asking the same question), but John responds like a 7 year old, and then Anne jumps in and does exactly what she accused Mnemosyne of doing.

  145. 145
    Cervantes says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    I do find it kind of funny though that the governments of the great English speaking democracies are so concerned about that powerhouse Indonesia getting the upper hand in trade negotiations about shrimp and cloves that they decided they needed to spy. It’s kind of control freaky. I know, first you ignore the clove cigarettes, then unspecified bad things might happen.

    Yes, it’s not about the shrimp or the clove cigarettes. There are four players in this story: Indonesia, East Timor, Australia, and the US. Our old friends Kissinger and Moynihan played their (shameful) roles. Mostly it has to do with oil and gas.

    Here’s an old article from The Independent that may give you some idea. (If you want more information about the roles played by Kissinger and Moynihan, you could look them up or ask here.)

    The origins of the maritime dispute lie in East Timor’s long and brutal history of [being occupied]. The oil and gas fields are located close to its coast; in fact, the richest field, Greater Sunrise, is just 90 miles away. But a boundary agreed by Australia and Indonesia in 1972, as 400 years of Portuguese colonial rule were about to end in East Timor, placed most of the reserves inside Australian territory. Canberra showed its gratitude in 1976 when it became one of the few governments to recognise Indonesia’s annexation of the half-island.

    The sea border was enshrined in a treaty in 1989, and Australia kept silent during a quarter-century of oppression of the East Timorese by Jakarta’s military forces. In 1999, it finally woke up to the atrocities being committed on its doorstep, leading an international force to end the violence that followed East Timor’s vote for independence.

    Nearly five years on, as the poverty-stricken nation struggles to build a future, Australia has decided that generosity has its limits. In talks that began in April, Canberra insisted on keeping the 1972 boundary. In vain, the Dili leadership invoked international law to support its claim for the border to be redrawn halfway between the two countries.

    There is much at stake. Greater Sunrise alone, as yet undeveloped, contains $25bn (£13.6bn) worth of deposits. If the boundary was set along a median line, East Timor would receive $12bn in tax revenue over the next few decades. Under the status quo, however, its share would dwindle to just over $4bn.

    That’s a ten-year-old article. Some things have changed since then. But if you ask why Australia would be running a spying program that targets Indonesia’s trade lawyers, oil is part of the answer.

  146. 146
    Cassidy says:

    So what’s the chance Cole throws his panties at the next Greenwald sighting? Maybe a little fainting with a girlish squeal?

  147. 147
    Cervantes says:

    @Vince:

    Sorry, I have to be that guy. Indonesia does not have the largest Muslim population in the works, that would be India at over 300M. Indonesia is the largest Muslim-majority country in the world though.

    Sorry, what makes you think India has a larger Muslim population than Indonesia? Here’s a Pew report that disagrees with you (estimated 1990, estimated 2010, and projected 2030).

  148. 148
    Keith G says:

    @Cervantes: Value-added commentary.

    Much appreciated.

  149. 149
    gvg says:

    Just one more vote for frequent reader who had no clue as to whom JC was referring to.

    I don’t agree GG was all that great nor have I seen anything that stood up that showed law breaking on the part of the NSA. For what it’s worth I’m not that up on computer/internets actual workings and it’s been darned hard to try and follow what exactly is going on. Now it has reminded me that I don’t like certain laws. Just because we think something is illegal (it should be so it must be thinking) doesn’t mean it actually is. What you do about it is change the laws not keep screaming it’s illegal. What’s been shown to go on is just updated modern versions of the things I was taught in Jr high about FISA and courts.
    I don’t think we’ll get any privacy until we get some serious laws about commercial entities prying into our lives, and leaving the data around to be found by anyone. The lack of regulation on that area actually seems more threatening than the government data collection to me. I won;t object to reforming the government but what I’ve understood so far has not impressed me.
    Sorry I disagree with you Cole. We both have a right to our opinion.
    I really think you are wrong about the attacks on GG being homophobic tho. For one thing it wouldn’t work. People on here or LGF wouldn’t be especially influenced by that kind of sneer. Being antiAmerican tho…yes that can work both places.

  150. 150
    Cervantes says:

    @Anne Laurie: Yes, in Australia as in the USA, the “scary Muslims” angle can be used to justify things that have whys and wherefores of their own.

  151. 151
    Vince says:

    @Cervantes:

    Shit. I remember reading/hearing somewhere that there were 300M Muslims living in India but your source says otherwise and I can’t find anything online where I would have gotten that number from. Thanks for correcting me.

  152. 152
    Bill Owen says:

    @Chyron HR: Link please.

  153. 153
    Cervantes says:

    @Anne Laurie:

    But you want to derail the conversation by throwing bitchfits over whether the debate-club ROOOOLZ! have been met, because you don’t have a decent argument otherwise, and the whole conversation makes you nervous.

    You may or may not be right about her motivations, but it’s not important. I do not think it’s fair to accuse her of wanting to derail anything. She had a question (one I consider unimportant) so she asked it. We are free to ignore it, yes?

    As for derailing, there are other ankle-biters here you might call to task. The fact that you don’t do it suggests to me you think there’s no need — and I completely agree.

    Enough (from me) about this nonsense.

  154. 154
    Cervantes says:

    @Vince: No problem. It’s not easy being that guy.

    Anyhow, Pew’s numbers are estimates. It’s not inconceivable that someone has more accurate data.

  155. 155
    El Tiburon says:

    Ha ha suck it BJ Geewnwald haters. You belong over at Little Green Footballs with the master of the absurd hatred of The Greatest Journalist That Ever Lived!

    Oh the sky is an awesome shade of
    Blue and my farts smell like jasmine.

  156. 156
    Cervantes says:

    @kbuttle:

    Greenwald’s doing important work, but he’s unbearably sanctimonious about it and prone to levels of self regard that make it harder to appreciate him for that work – particularly when it comes wrapped in language that suggests we’re lesser intellects or citizens if not in 100% agreement with every of Greenwald’s interpretations.

    My advice is to ignore everything but the substance. The Polk Awards committee managed to do it. Can you?

  157. 157
    Cassidy says:

    @Cervantes: Not a lot of substance in self promotion, hyperbole, and bullshit.

  158. 158
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    Congrats to Greenwald, MacAskill, Poitras, and Gellman. That team has indeed done important work.

  159. 159
    Rafer Janders says:

    @ruemara:

    The press can call these people great journalists, but I reserve that judgement for when they uncover crimes.

    What a…bizarre and stupid standard for journalism. 90% plus of what’s in the paper every day has nothing to do with uncovering crimes. With this view, hard-hitting investigative journalism about foreign policy, the economy, labor relations, cancer clusters, the dangers of tracking, the effect of budget cuts on the poor, etc. etc. wouldn’t actually be “journalism”?

  160. 160
    driftglass says:

    Congratulations to Mr. Greenwald and his colleagues on winning a Polk Award.

    Also, if you are sick and tired of people who keep dragging Mr. Greenwald’s personal dramas into the middle of the NSA story, I strongly urge you to take it up with:

    The Financial Times.
    TPM.
    CNN/New York
    The Atlantic.
    Salon.
    Democracy Now!
    And, or course, Glenn Greenwald.

  161. 161
    Rafer Janders says:

    @burnspbesq:

    I don’t condone what she did, and I especially don’t like that she was hung out to dry by people she mistakenly thought were her friends, but it’s possible to admire Chelsea Manning for standing in there and accepting the consequences of her actions.

    That’s idiotic. Manning didn’t “accept the consequences of her actions” — he released the material to Wikileaks secretly, didn’t do it under his name, didn’t want to be found out, and it was a shock to him when he was found out and arrested. Had he had a warning and been able to flee, I’m sure he would have.

    There’s some weird idea that’s developed in certain quarters that to be considered credible you have to be willingly arrested.

  162. 162
    geg6 says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Yes, this.

    And just to annoy Cole, always remember that Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd have Pulitzers and Henry Kissinger has a Nobel Peace Prize.

  163. 163
    Rafer Janders says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    And Greenwald admits to being a supporter of Bush through the invasion of Iraq.

    No, he doesn’t. That’s a lie that’s gotten into the public discourse, but Greenwald refutes it here:

    These claim [sic] are absolutely false. They come from a complete distortion of the Preface I wrote to my own 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act? That book – which was the first book devoted to denouncing the Bush/Cheney executive power theories as radical and lawless – was published a mere six months after I began blogging, so the the purpose of the Preface was to explain where I had come from, why I left my law practice to begin writing about politics, and what my political evolution had been..

    The whole point of the Preface was that, before 2004, I had been politically apathetic and indifferent – except for the work I was doing on constitutional law. That’s because, while I had no interest in the fights between Democrats and Republicans, I had a basic trust in the American political system and its institutions, such that I devoted my attention and energies to preventing constitutional violations rather than political debates. From the first two paragraphs:

    I never voted for George W. Bush — or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference. . .

    I firmly believed that our democratic system of government was sufficiently insulated from any real abuse, by our Constitution and by the checks and balances afforded by having three separate but equal branches of government. My primary political belief was that both parties were plagued by extremists who were equally dangerous and destructive, but that as long as neither extreme acquired real political power, our system would function smoothly and more or less tolerably. For that reason, although I always paid attention to political debates, I was never sufficiently moved to become engaged in the electoral process. I had great faith in the stability and resilience of the constitutional republic that the founders created.
    When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war – including Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – I had no platform or role in politics of any kind. I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I “supported” the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It’s a pure fabrication.

  164. 164
    Cervantes says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    That’s idiotic.

    Yes, I saw that one also. “Idiotic” is too kind.

    But whatever sedative you’re on, are you willing to share?

  165. 165
    geg6 says:

    @ruemara:

    Exactly.

  166. 166
    Rafer Janders says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Did you cut your Con Law class the day the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy” was discussed?

    What’s the problem? Seems that the NSA and US government doesn’t have any reasonable expectation of privacy then, does it? So it should be OK for anyone to publish anything about them that they can find?

  167. 167
    bystander says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    Not the least of which – the “discovery” phase of what potential crimes the NSA might have committed is continually thwarted by classified for national security reasons every time the ACLU or EFF or others try to bring the NSA’s (or others equivalent behavior) before the court.

    But, there’s no reasoning with folks who have decided that it’s all fine because the NSA, or the administration (don’t care what presumed ideological flavor), tells them it’s necessary to keep them safe. Believers are gonna believe, I guess.

  168. 168
    Joel says:

    @LT: I would probably scold Cole for being on the side of the Bad Guys when something could have been done to stop the rise of the modern surveillance state, but that would be pretty fruitless. Especially because a huge majority of my fellow democratically-empowered citizens felt the same way. And yes, this is an obvious trolling post, even if Cole wants to deny it. There are better ways to get the message across.

  169. 169
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I’m trying to think of a bigger story that broke over the past year or so, and I keep coming up with Miley Cyrus and wrecking balls. So, yeah, congratulations are indeed in order.

    That said, I’ll still be over here making bags of popcorn for when Greenwald starts handing out RAND 2016 signs to the allegedly progressive blogosphere.

  170. 170
    Rafer Janders says:

    @Poopyman:

    Snowden running off to the US’s two top competitors with a ton of TS/SCI material doesn’t make his associates look too good, either.

    (1) If you want to avoid being arrested by the US, do you run off to (a) the US’s close friends and allies or (b) the US’s top competitors?

    (2) In an Internet age, when you can email anything, it really doesn’t matter where you “run off to” in terms of releasing the documents. It only matters to the extent that you put your physical body beyond arrest.

  171. 171
    Rafer Janders says:

    @Cervantes:

    But whatever sedative you’re on, are you willing to share?

    Umm…..

  172. 172
    Jim says:

    I’ve read Greenwald since he first started blogging. For a long time under Bush, he was virtually a voice in the wilderness. I do think it is hilarious how Dems have done a 180 on so many issues just because a Democrat is in the White House, but it isn’t that surprising. I do second the claim that Glenn comes off as an incredible jerk, at least his public persona. He’s that guy who goes for the jugular no matter how petty the argument. He just comes off as a defensive, humorless asshole. He’s the worst stereotype of a lawyer who just CANNOT lose any argument. Unlike a lot of people, though, I seem to be able to distinguish between his work and his personality. I really don’t care that he is a jerk. In fact, it is probably necessary to do what he is doing.

  173. 173
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Rafer Janders: yeah. I don’t get this “he must have been a spy all along.” There are three or four countries big enough to tell the US to kiss off. Why wouldn’t you go there? Some sense of honor? Please.

  174. 174
    LarryB says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Greenwald has some baggage, and it has nothing to do with his sexuality, but rather with his political leanings, which smack of glibertarianism, one of the most hideous of political philosophies. There’s also the somewhat distressing flirting of alliance with known racist assclowns like Paul pere et fil

    this. Greenwald is important because he’s one of the few willing to cover this beat. But … this.

  175. 175
    Liberty60 says:

    @Jim:
    That’s pretty much my take.
    I’m not interested if GG is an asshole, or even that he can be over the top at times.
    Fact is, wrt NSA and the security state, he is right on target.

    And yes, the glibertarians, as destructive as their philosophy is, can be correct when attacking the security state.

    We forget sometimes that in any political battle- civil rights, the Vietnam war, gay rights- there are oftentimes insufferable assholes leading the charge.

  176. 176
    Belafon says:

    I’m going to state the pattern of Greenwald’s releases that Charles Johnson is fond of pointing out, which the NYT article also followed:
    1. Start without outrage: The NSA is stealing American’s kidneys!.
    2. Rant about the abuse.
    3. State near the end that the NSA actually hasn’t done it, but they have the ability to, but they have to go get permission.
    4. End with how they are violating our right to keep our kidneys.

    And because of that, I think the two groups are yelling past each other, because the GWOT and the security apparatus set up for it needs to end.

  177. 177
    Cervantes says:

    @Joel:

    I would probably scold Cole for being on the side of the Bad Guys when something could have been done to stop the rise of the modern surveillance state, but that would be pretty fruitless.

    When is it that “something could have been done to stop the rise of the modern surveillance state”? (Serious question.)

    Also: did you see the recent post (and comments) on Otis Pike?

  178. 178
    Cervantes says:

    @Rafer Janders: Oh, it’s one of those, is it?

  179. 179
    Cervantes says:

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-:

    That said, I’ll still be over here making bags of popcorn for when Greenwald starts handing out RAND 2016 signs to the allegedly progressive blogosphere.

    You seem bored.

    Anyway, in a putative democracy, it’s important to know what your government is doing in your name. That’s a separate question from asking what to do about it — or whom to vote for.

  180. 180
    Mandalay says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    There’s some weird idea that’s developed in certain quarters that to be considered credible you have to be willingly arrested.

    That is not an idea, and it is not weird. It is simply a deliberate and predictable tactic designed to shoot (smear) the messenger. Other approaches include asserting that Snowden has “obviously” given China secret information, or insisting out that he has “chosen” to live in Russia.

    It’s all just character assassination. Its goal is to distract from an examination of the rotten and ugly truth of what our government gets up to when nobody is looking.

  181. 181
    different-church-lady says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    There’s some weird idea that’s developed in certain quarters that to be considered credible you have to be willingly arrested.

    No. There’s some weird idea that in order to be MLK you have to be willingly arrested.

    This was in direct response to the weird idea in some quarters that Snowden = MLK.

  182. 182
    burnspbesq says:

    @Cervantes:

    Yes, put Greenwald and Gellman in jail.

    Isn’t that what we normally do with criminals?

    You can say that you don’t think they should be prosecuted. There’s a conversation there that is arguably worth having. But when you deny that they did what they themselves admit having done, that just makes you look silly.

  183. 183
    Rex Everything says:

    Mnemnosyne’s ability to construct a towering mountain of butthurt out of one tiny irrelevant molehill is a wonder to behold, but yeah, Mnem, you’re being disingenuous.

    ALL of the FPers were chickenshit enough to toe the party line for years with regard to GG; Cole was the only one who dared to rock the boat in the early years of the Obama administration. As we know, others have stepped out since, and they must feel a bit silly to have been intimidated for so long by … well … YOU.

    But your day is done. Your Gore/Lieberman t-shirt won’t get you into heaven anymore.

  184. 184
    Corner Stone says:

    Anyone who doesn’t know exactly who Cole was referring to may need to schedule a visit to their PCP.
    It’s quite telling that Capt Mnemo mentioned the same four FP’ers names several times during her baffling tirade of truthseeking, but mystifyingly did not mention ABL, Sooner or Zandar.

    and I pointed out the four (4) front pagers who agree with him on the legalities and wondered why he was pissed at them since they otherwise agree with him?

    One wonders why there was no mention of the three who most clearly and consistently *do not* agree with Cole? It’s almost like Capt Mnemo knew exactly who Cole was talking about.
    Hmmm…

  185. 185
    different-church-lady says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    (1) If you want to avoid being arrested by the US, do you run off to (a) the US’s close friends and allies or (b) the US’s top competitors?

    I rather think if you want to avoid being arrested by a certain country, your first move is to not steal their security secrets.

  186. 186
    Cervantes says:

    @Bobby Thomson:

    How long will it take for you to apologize for this post?

    The post or that particular comment? In any event, anyone holding their breath is not going to fare well.

    It’s known that he sometimes shoots his mouth off (so to speak) without thinking first. Most (if not all) people have made that mistake. Some see the mistake, and regret it, and say so. Others don’t, and don’t, and don’t. What’s the point of waiting around for an apology?

  187. 187
    Corner Stone says:

    @gvg:

    I really think you are wrong about the attacks on GG being homophobic tho. For one thing it wouldn’t work. People on here or LGF wouldn’t be especially influenced by that kind of sneer.

    I’m not sure how someone could actually state this and not append a /snark tag.

  188. 188
    Cervantes says:

    @different-church-lady:

    This was in direct response to the weird idea in some quarters that Snowden = MLK.

    You’ll provide a quote or a link, I’m sure.

    In the fullness of time.

  189. 189
    Mandalay says:

    @Jim:

    For a long time under Bush, he was virtually a voice in the wilderness. I do think it is hilarious how Dems have done a 180 on so many issues just because a Democrat is in the White House, but it isn’t that surprising.

    Indeed. The silence from most Democrats under the Bush Administration was both deafening and disgusting. Greenwald was sticking the knife in on that administration for years, while Democrats lay on the ground so that Cheney and Rumsfeld could walk all over them.

    All conveniently forgotten now. Discussing Greenwald’s ego and thin skin is soooooo much more important.

  190. 190
    Rafer Janders says:

    @different-church-lady:

    I rather think if you want to avoid being arrested by a certain country, your first move is to not steal their security secrets.

    Which is why Daniel Ellsberg never should have revealed the Pentagon Papers….!

  191. 191
    Cervantes says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Isn’t that what we normally do with criminals?

    For an alleged lawyer, you are surprisingly ignorant of what a “criminal” is.

    You can say that you don’t think they should be prosecuted. There’s a conversation there that is arguably worth having. But when you deny that they did what they themselves admit having done, that just makes you look silly.

    What exactly do you think I denied, and where?

  192. 192
    Rafer Janders says:

    @different-church-lady:

    No. There’s some weird idea that in order to be MLK you have to be willingly arrested.

    But Snowden was not trying to be MLK, was he? There’s no relation there.

    This was in direct response to the weird idea in some quarters that Snowden = MLK.

    Which quarters would those be? Could you please link to be them?

  193. 193
    different-church-lady says:

    @Anne Laurie: I’m only staying in this job for the health insurance benefits. Oh, wait…

    ETA: to be clear, the blind squirrel in this case in Greenwald, not Cole.

  194. 194
    Rafer Janders says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Isn’t that what we normally do with criminals?

    Unless they’re wealthy, powerful and/or committing their crimes under color of governmental authority.

  195. 195
    Cervantes says:

    @Mandalay:

    It’s all just character assassination. Its goal is to distract from an examination of the rotten and ugly truth of what our government gets up to when nobody is looking.

    I agree with your first statement.

    I also understand the position (maybe not yours) that revealing too much about government’s operations can severely hurt the interests being served. (It’s true.) What I don’t get is how any self-respecting politician or citizen can focus on irrelevant personal details in order to avoid discussing whose interests their government serves in the first place.

  196. 196
    Mandalay says:

    @Cervantes:

    You’ll provide a quote or a link, I’m sure.

    I doubt that anyone ever seriously equated Snowden to MLK. But many, including the MSM, chose to disingenuously go down the path of pointing out that Snowden was not MLK. A strawman. Just another smear tactic designed to divert from an examination of the information that Snowden revealed.

    Just keep shooting the messenger in the hope that the message gets overlooked.

  197. 197
    JoyfulA says:

    Nobody has yet mentioned that Greenwald privatized the Snowden leaks. Pierre Omidyar bought them from Greenwald, and whether you trust Omidyar is up to you. I trust EmptyWheels and hope for the best.

  198. 198
    Cervantes says:

    @Rafer Janders: Thanks.

    Greenwald:

    I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference . . . I firmly believed that our democratic system of government was sufficiently insulated from any real abuse, by our Constitution and by the checks and balances afforded by having three separate but equal branches of government.

    That was then. All I can say is, I’m glad he grew up and started looking more closely at the political world around him. More people should.

  199. 199
    Corner Stone says:

    @different-church-lady:

    This was in direct response to the weird idea in some quarters that Snowden = MLK.

    Who is making that assertion? And where?

  200. 200
  201. 201
    burnspbesq says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    That’s idiotic

    So, Ghandi, King, Ellsberg, and uncounted others that we commonly think of as heroes and heroines were also idiots. That’s good to know.

    There’s some weird idea that’s developed in certain quarters that to be considered credible you have to be willingly arrested.

    Weird idea? No, that’s the time-honored and commonly understood definition of “civil disobedience.”

  202. 202
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mandalay:

    All conveniently forgotten now. Discussing Greenwald’s ego and thin skin is soooooo much more important.

    It’s not forgotten. The same exact people will tell you they’ve despised GG for years and years and years.

  203. 203
    Cervantes says:

    @JoyfulA:

    Nobody has yet mentioned that Greenwald privatized the Snowden leaks. Pierre Omidyar bought them from Greenwald, and whether you trust Omidyar is up to you. I trust EmptyWheels and hope for the best.

    “Privatized”? Whereas publishing the material via the NYT, the WP, and The Guardian was … what?

    You’re not suggesting those are all intentionally non-profits, are you?

    Anyway, yes, Marcy is a good journalist. Omidyar as publisher? We shall see.

  204. 204
    burnspbesq says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    Unless they’re wealthy, powerful and/or committing their crimes under color of governmental authority.

    I’m sure it will come as a great surprise to the large number of wealthy, powerful people who have done or are doing time that we don’t go after wealthy, powerful people.

  205. 205
    Nerull says:

    You know, it is possible to simultaneously believe that the NSA stories are one of the most important stories in recent history and that anointing a Rand Paul supporter the new Progressive God is not a great idea.

  206. 206
    Corner Stone says:

    @JoyfulA:

    Nobody has yet mentioned that Greenwald privatized the Snowden leaks.

    That’s true, and it’s a distinctive fact in this whole matter. Just the other day I was reading the NYT, or was it WaPo…maybe The Guardian…huh, I guess it could’ve been that newspaper in Australia, or maybe Germany…dammit, I’m forgetting where at the moment, but I distinctly remember reading NSA reporting based on Snowden leaked info somewhere recently.

  207. 207
    Cervantes says:

    @burnspbesq:

    No, that’s the time-honored and commonly understood definition of “civil disobedience.”

    As I said yesterday (with regard to Ellsberg, but it applies to Gandhi and King as well, mutatis mutandis):

    Folks who complain that Snowden is ignoble for not doing everything the way Ellsberg did are somehow able to ignore Ellsberg’s own argument to the contrary. Compared to the early 70s, the entire legal infrastructure surrounding Ellsberg’s actions is different now, and not in any way that would advance justice. …

    What people forget (or never knew) is that, sometimes, defendants want justice! Daniel Ellsberg willingly faced trial not meekly and not in contrition but because he knew he was right and believed he would receive justice! It’s precisely to the extent he does not think justice is attainable these days that he supports Snowden’s chosen course of action.

    Comparisons between Ellsberg and Snowden that do not take into account this elementary fact [are] risible.

  208. 208
    Cervantes says:

    @Nerull: And when you find someone “anointing a Rand Paul supporter the new Progressive God,” you be sure to let me know and I’ll set him straight just for you.

  209. 209
    Corner Stone says:

    @Nerull:

    and that anointing a Rand Paul supporter the new Progressive God is not a great idea.

    I swear to Christ. Somebody better convince Rafer Janders to start sharing his supply or else thngs could get ugly up in this piece.

  210. 210
    slippytoad says:

    @Belafon:

    I think more than that it’s that Greenwald and Snowden are not acting like citizen journalists, they’re acting like cheap whores trying to get the biggest payday they can, and I don’t know anything new that I needed either of these assholes to tell me. But in the meantime, they’ve taken what they claim is my personal information and given it away to the Russian mob for all that I can tell, and have also been caught trying to re-sell it elsewhere. So, I’m way past the innocent whistleblower and into the I think these two guys are trying to pull a fast one and are so arrogant they think they can get away with it.

    I’d like to have little Eddie Snowden to punch the living fuck out of for being such a tool as to steal, again MY personal information and spirit it away to the Hacker-Controlled nation of Russia. Yea, I’d punch the fuck out of his dumb little face for that. He thinks that was HEROIC? Fucking little assshole.

  211. 211
    Cervantes says:

    @cleek: Thanks!

    But you already know what I think of Rand Paul.

    Is there someone respectable who has made the comparison?

  212. 212
    Corner Stone says:

    @slippytoad: This is really excellent parody. Nicely done.

  213. 213
    taylormattd says:

    The problem with you, John, is that although you have switched teams, you still use the same absolutely shitty “reading” “skills” you did when you were a full-on wingnut.

    My favorite was how you mindlessly jumped on Laura Poitras’ New York Times story. Did you read the article? What do you believe the article says, John?

    Because both the headline (“Spying by N.S.A. Ally Entangled U.S. Law Firm”) and the lede (“The list of those caught up in the global surveillance net cast by the National Security Agency and its overseas partners, from social media users to foreign heads of state, now includes another entry: American lawyers”) are complete bullshit.

    Read the article. Please identify where in the article it ever says that the NSA has ever once spied on American lawyers or American law firms. If you actually read the article, instead of simply scanning the headline, you would see that despite the deliberately inflammatory headline and lead, literally nowhere in the article is that allegation even made.

    http://www.lawfareblog.com/201.....wJANPldVVs

  214. 214
    Corner Stone says:

    @Cervantes: I’m not sure cleek was trying to futher DCL’s claim about the MLK business.
    Because if he was…he may want to stop trying to help.

  215. 215
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @Cervantes:

    Anyway, in a putative democracy, it’s important to know what your government is doing in your name. That’s a separate question from asking what to do about it — or whom to vote for.

    And when Greenwald is at his megaphone blaring out how RAND PAUL is the only one standing up to the Security State(tm), the usual suspects will hold their nose and support Hillary regardless? Can I get that in writing?

  216. 216
    Corner Stone says:

    @taylormattd: That’s a stunningly devastating critique by Wittes:

    Still, what appears to have happened here is that a foreign intelligence service conducting espionage against a foreign government asked for NSA’s guidance as to the incidental acquisition of material about U.S. persons, and NSA appears to have asked them to respect U.S. privacy rules that do not otherwise bind them.

    emphasis mine
    Speaking of shitty reading skills, is it your contention that NSA’s ally/partner the ASD did not monitor calls between American lawyers and their govt clients during trade negotiations?
    Because the headline and the lede that you state are “complete bullshit” very clearly use the word “ally” in the headline and “partners” in the lede.

  217. 217
    Corner Stone says:

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-: Even granting that your absurd statement is somehow related to reality, is it your contention that a Greenwald endorsement moves a significant voting bloc, or sources of funding?

  218. 218
    Cervantes says:

    @Corner Stone: My thoughts exactly.

  219. 219
    taylormattd says:

    @Corner Stone: “it your contention that NSA’s ally/partner the ASD did not monitor calls between American lawyers and their govt clients during trade negotiations?”

    LOL. I don’t give two shits what an Australian spy agency did.

    You see, my understanding was that we were all supposed to be crapping our pants about the NSA spying on Americans.

    In fact, that is what the oh-so-esteemed New York Times is lying to its readers about: “The list of those caught up in the global surveillance net cast by the National Security Agency and its overseas partners, from social media users to foreign heads of state, now includes another entry: American lawyers”

    However, there is *literally* not a single thing in that article indicating the NSA is spying on American lawyers. Nothing.

    Maybe for her next story in the Times, Poitras can write about Aluminum tubes in Iraq, or maybe she can co-author a piece with Jeff Gerth about Whitewater.

    You and John can mindlessly repost that shit on twitter.

  220. 220
    Mandalay says:

    @Cervantes:

    Thanks! But you already know what I think of Rand Paul. Is there someone respectable who has made the comparison?

    You just got suckered.

    The poster provided a link to Peter King making this allegation:

    ”When you have Rand Paul actually comparing Snowden to Martin Luther King or Henry David Thoreau, this is madness,” King said.

    Pretty awful, right? But you should see a red flag when someone is using Peter King as the source of what Rand Paul said.

    And it is obvious that King is lying when you look at what Rand Paul actually said….

    “On deciding when you decide to become a civil disobedient – we’ve had famous ones in our career, but some of them only had to serve, like [Henry David] Thoreau only had to serve one day in jail, Martin Luther King served 30 days in jail,” Paul said. “[Snowden] may be looking at life in prison. … People are saying, ‘Oh, he ought to just come home.’ But I don’t know if that’s a good or a bad idea if he’s facing life in prison.”

    Paul was contrasting the jail time that Snowden faces compared to that of MLK.

    And this is how lies become facts on the internet: folks like Peter King tell a lie on TV, someone on BJ links to that lie, and then others thank them for the link.

  221. 221
    Cain says:

    @srv:
    Yeah, sadly I do see a lto of rigidly in thinking.

    I can wander all around the political spectrum based on what my moral compass is and what I feel is right.

    Sadly, we always divide ourselves this way, like do in high school or whatever.

    It’s the nature of political discourse I guess.

  222. 222
    Cervantes says:

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-: No idea what you’re asking, sorry. Feel free to re-phrase.

  223. 223
    Cervantes says:

    @Mandalay: Even better.

  224. 224
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @Corner Stone: Well, no, hence why I’m making the popcorn.

  225. 225
    Rafer Janders says:

    @burnspbesq:

    So, Ghandi, King, Ellsberg, and uncounted others that we commonly think of as heroes and heroines were also idiots. That’s good to know.

    No, (a) your claim that Bradley Manning willingly faced the consequences, rather than make every effort to avoid detection, was idiotic (but you know that, and are just throwing up a straw man); (b) Gandhi and King were not whistleblowers; (c ) by your own lights Daniel Ellsberg was not a hero but a criminal; and (d) Ellsberg himself thinks that Snowden was right to do what he did and to flee the country.

    Weird idea? No, that’s the time-honored and commonly understood definition of “civil disobedience.”

    Snowden is not engaged in civil disobedience, so whatever the time-honored and commonly understood standards for it are do not apply to him. He’s a whistleblower.

  226. 226
    Corner Stone says:

    @taylormattd:

    You see, my understanding was

    Oh. Looks like the problem has been located. Thanks

  227. 227
    angler says:

    Thank you JC. This thread is hilarious.

  228. 228
    Corner Stone says:

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-: You’re making popcorn to eagerly watch something that most likely will not happen…and if it does you’re concerned about the disruption…because you anticipate it will have no measurable effect…
    Listen man. There’s nothing wrong with just liking popcorn. If it’s a snack you enjoy, then just enjoy it proudly! No reason to contort yourself into a pretzel over it.
    Mmmm, pretzels…man I could go for one of those about now.

  229. 229
    Rafer Janders says:

    @taylormattd:

    In fact, that is what the oh-so-esteemed New York Times is lying to its readers about: “The list of those caught up in the global surveillance net cast by the National Security Agency and its overseas partners, from social media users to foreign heads of state, now includes another entry: American lawyers” However, there is *literally* not a single thing in that article indicating the NSA is spying on American lawyers. Nothing.

    Here, I’m helpfully going to bold it for you since your reading comprehension is weak:

    In fact, that is what the oh-so-esteemed New York Times is lying to its readers about: “The list of those caught up in the global surveillance net cast by the National Security Agency and its overseas partners, from social media users to foreign heads of state, now includes another entry: American lawyers”

    There is a thing in that article that indicates an NSA ally

    is spying on American law firms.

    So, the US government finds out that a foreign spy agency is spying on an American business, and the US government doesn’t tell that American business, preferring instead to protect the foreign spy agency’s spying? Does that seem right?

  230. 230
    different-church-lady says:

    @Corner Stone: Sadly it was John Lewis who indirectly kicked it all off (with a rhetorical flourish from — who else? — The Guardian), and then the internet gnats ran with it.

    Admittedly “Snowden = MLK” is an exaggeration, but it was in reaction to the discussion as to whether Snowden was engaging in the ‘tradition of civil disobedience’. At a certain point, not only was he doing the good work of MLK and Ghandi, he was nearing founding father status.

  231. 231
    Rafer Janders says:

    @taylormattd:

    Ugh, trying again without formatting fail:

    In fact, that is what the oh-so-esteemed New York Times is lying to its readers about: “The list of those caught up in the global surveillance net cast by the National Security Agency and its overseas partners, from social media users to foreign heads of state, now includes another entry: American lawyers”

    Here, I’m helpfully going to bold it for you since your reading comprehension is weak:

    In fact, that is what the oh-so-esteemed New York Times is lying to its readers about: “The list of those caught up in the global surveillance net cast by the National Security Agency and its overseas partners, from social media users to foreign heads of state, now includes another entry: American lawyers”

    There is a thing in that article that indicates an NSA ally is spying on American law firms.

    So, the US government finds out that a foreign spy agency is spying on an American business, and the US government doesn’t tell that American business, preferring instead to protect the foreign spy agency’s spying? Does that seem right?

  232. 232
    different-church-lady says:

    @Corner Stone: My comment is awaiting moderation.

    My comment is very patient.

  233. 233
    Corner Stone says:

    @different-church-lady: I think your comment is trying to tell you something.

  234. 234
    different-church-lady says:

    @Rafer Janders: If I recall correctly,
    Ellsberg didn’t try to avoid arrest.

    ETA: in fact, he thought other people shouldn’t either:

    Ellsberg told U.S. Senators that they should be prepared to go to jail in order to end the Vietnam War.

  235. 235
    different-church-lady says:

    @taylormattd:

    You see, my understanding was that we were all supposed to be crapping our pants about the NSA spying on Americans.

    You have a mistaken understanding: we’re all supposed to be crapping our pants. Full stop.

  236. 236
    Peter says:

    What if we think that Greenwald doesn’t deserve the award because he’s been serially mismanaging the story? He got a huge automatic huge story dropped in his lap and has since done everything in his power to fumble it, from using it as yet another platform for easily disproved sensationalistic horse shit to orchestrating the comedy of errors that was Snowden’s flight to Russia.

  237. 237
    Corner Stone says:

    @different-church-lady: Now I see why your comment was in moderation.

  238. 238
    different-church-lady says:

    @slippytoad:

    I think more than that it’s that Greenwald and Snowden are not acting like citizen journalists, they’re acting like cheap whores trying to get the biggest payday they can

    I believe it’s a serious mistake to allow one’s views of Snowden’s motivations to be seen through Greenwald’s lens.

  239. 239
    Rafer Janders says:

    @different-church-lady:

    If I recall correctly, Ellsberg didn’t try to avoid arrest. ETA: in fact, he thought other people shouldn’t either:

    Daniel Ellsberg disagrees with you:

    Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree. The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago.

    After the New York Times had been enjoined from publishing the Pentagon Papers — on June 15, 1971, the first prior restraint on a newspaper in U.S. history — and I had given another copy to The Post (which would also be enjoined), I went underground with my wife, Patricia, for 13 days. My purpose (quite like Snowden’s in flying to Hong Kong) was to elude surveillance while I was arranging — with the crucial help of a number of others, still unknown to the FBI — to distribute the Pentagon Papers sequentially to 17 other newspapers, in the face of two more injunctions. The last three days of that period was in defiance of an arrest order: I was, like Snowden now, a “fugitive from justice.”

    et when I surrendered to arrest in Boston, having given out my last copies of the papers the night before, I was released on personal recognizance bond the same day. Later, when my charges were increased from the original three counts to 12, carrying a possible 115-year sentence, my bond was increased to $50,000. But for the whole two years I was under indictment, I was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures. I was, after all, part of a movement against an ongoing war. Helping to end that war was my preeminent concern. I couldn’t have done that abroad, and leaving the country never entered my mind.

    There is no chance that experience could be reproduced today, let alone that a trial could be terminated by the revelation of White House actions against a defendant that were clearly criminal in Richard Nixon’s era — and figured in his resignation in the face of impeachment — but are today all regarded as legal (including an attempt to “incapacitate me totally”).

    I hope Snowden’s revelations will spark a movement to rescue our democracy, but he could not be part of that movement had he stayed here. There is zero chance that he would be allowed out on bail if he returned now and close to no chance that, had he not left the country, he would have been granted bail. Instead, he would be in a prison cell like Bradley Manning, incommunicado.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

  240. 240
    Cassidy says:

    Leave it to emoprogs and Greenwald sycophants to come in and get everything all sticky. Even the guy who cleans the floor at porn theaters would quit.

  241. 241
    chopper says:

    stopped at “Despite the fact that Glenn Greenwald is gay”. not this stupid shit again.

  242. 242
    Rafer Janders says:

    @different-church-lady:

    If I recall correctly, Ellsberg didn’t try to avoid arrest. ETA: in fact, he thought other people shouldn’t either:

    More Ellsberg:

    As Snowden told the Guardian, “This country is worth dying for.” And, if necessary, going to prison for — for life.

    But Snowden’s contribution to the noble cause of restoring the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments to the Constitution is in his documents. It depends in no way on his reputation or estimates of his character or motives — still less, on his presence in a courtroom arguing the current charges, or his living the rest of his life in prison. Nothing worthwhile would be served, in my opinion, by Snowden voluntarily surrendering to U.S. authorities given the current state of the law.

    I hope that he finds a haven, as safe as possible from kidnapping or assassination by U.S. Special Operations forces, preferably where he can speak freely.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

  243. 243
    different-church-lady says:

    @Rafer Janders: Leaving aside Ellsberg’s theories of how things would have unfolded for Snowden, Ellsberg did what he did knowing he was likely to be arrested. So did Snowden. They dealt with that situation in two different ways, in two different eras.

    Neither one of them decided that what they were doing didn’t risk arrest. If avoiding arrest is your goal, don’t do the thing you’re going to get arrested for.

    Snowden’s flight makes perfect sense to me, and unlike others I don’t think it’s logical for him to have stayed and face the music. However, it does impact whether we should consider him a whistleblower or a spy-without-portfolio.

    People who focus on the flight miss the point — it’s not how Snowden left the situation that matters, it’s how he entered it. Ellsberg didn’t go to work at RAND with the intention of theft from the outset.

    In the end, all comparisons of this sort are specious. Every situation is unique. We shouldn’t be wasting our time trying to figure out what box to cram Snowden into.

    Unfortunately, we do have to waste our time trying to figure out whether the framework for the information Snowden has leaked is trustworthy. Snowden himself bears some responsibility for that, but his champions bear far more.

  244. 244
    Rafer Janders says:

    @different-church-lady:

    If avoiding arrest is your goal, don’t do the thing you’re going to get arrested for.

    That’s true if avoiding arrest is your ONLY goal. If you have multiple goals, including exposing governmental misdeeds and criminality, then you should do the one thing you’re going to get arrested for.

  245. 245
    Glocksman says:

    I had no real opinion either way about Greenwald prior to the Snowden leaks.
    Now my opinion is that while he’s done a service in revealing domestic surveillance, especially the sheer scale of it, he’s also damaged the country by revealing the size, scope, targets and methods used in foreign surveillance.

    It’s the NSA’s job to spy on foreigners to advance American interests, and I’d thought we’d left Henry Stimson’s ‘gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail’ attitude behind decades ago.

    Does the good he’s done outweigh the harm?
    We’ll see.

  246. 246
    Rafer Janders says:

    @Glocksman:

    It’s the NSA’s job to spy on foreigners to advance American interests,

    It’s not, however, the NSA’s job to spy on Americans. Or, as in the Australian/Indonesian case in the papers a few days ago, to abet foreign intelligence agencies when they spy on American businesses.

  247. 247
    Rafer Janders says:

    @Glocksman:

    It’s the NSA’s job to spy on foreigners to advance American interests, and I’d thought we’d left Henry Stimson’s ‘gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail’ attitude behind decades ago.

    In that case, we’re now reading the NSA’s mail, and they really can’t object, can they?

  248. 248
    Yatsuno says:

    Sheesh. Not even half a Tbogg.

  249. 249
    Glocksman says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    No, it’s not and I count any exposure of NSA skirting the laws by asking the GCHQ or ASD to spy on Americans as a good.

    @Rafer Janders:

    We aren’t entitled to know everything the 3 letter agencies do, and you damn well know it.

  250. 250
    Cassidy says:

    @Yatsuno: Give it time. CS likes to pad the stats since he doesn’t know how to use paragraphs.

  251. 251
    different-church-lady says:

    @Yatsuno: I’m telling you, 1 BJu = .6 TBu

  252. 252
    Rafer Janders says:

    @Glocksman:

    We aren’t entitled to know everything the 3 letter agencies do, and you damn well know it.

    Huh, I thought we’d left Henry Stimson’s ‘gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail’ attitude behind decades ago.

  253. 253
    Yatsuno says:

    @Cassidy: @different-church-lady: I blame the death of recent comments. When you could see where someone posted last, you could direct your poutrage appropriately. Without that threads just wither and die. I know why they got killed but still…

  254. 254
    Rafer Janders says:

    @Glocksman:

    We aren’t entitled to know everything the 3 letter agencies do, and you damn well know it.

    With less snark, the NSA also isn’t entitled to know everything, and yet they proceed as if they do. They aren’t entitled to read my mail, or access the Indonesian telephone network, or get into Angela Merkel’s cellphone. They do it because they can. So when the NSA is itself spied on, its cries that someone isn’t “allowed” to know something ring a little weak.

  255. 255
    different-church-lady says:

    @Yatsuno: It’s like Cole doesn’t even want to break into the big leagues!

  256. 256
    different-church-lady says:

    I gotta give you this, Cole: at least you’ll engage in some genuine red-blooded chest thumping, whereas others just continue on with the whiny butthurt.

  257. 257
    Cassidy says:

    @Yatsuno: I blame our FPers. They’ve become boring and predictable. What cycle are we on where Cole says he’s feeling better and rejuvenated, tries to write a rant, and them disappears? It’ll be back to cat pictures and “I hate myself” by 7pm tonight. We know what we’re getting from the other regulars. It’s just boring.

  258. 258
    Yatsuno says:

    @Cassidy: FWIW I’ve learned a lot from the Richard Mayhew posts and Kay covers stuff that tends to get ignored. But yeah, without the recent comments system it kinda falls flat. That and holding the idea that Snowden both started a conversation and is a law-breaking asshole is not cognitive dissonance. Greenwald I could give a flying fuck about.

  259. 259
    different-church-lady says:

    @Yatsuno:

    Kay covers stuff that tends to get ignored.

    It gets ignored because she has no interest in playing the button pushing game. She’s all signal and no noise. The fact that her stuff doesn’t whip up flame wars is a sign of health — it’s only through the lens of blogshpere values that it could be seen as a negative.

    Greenwald I could give a flying fuck about.

    You could?

  260. 260
    Cassidy says:

    @Yatsuno: I wasn’t really counting them. They post irregularly enough to be at “pleasant surprise” level. Agree about Snowden. At this point, I just enjoy making fun of people; guilty pleasure, I know.

  261. 261
    Cassidy says:

    @Yatsuno: Honestly, I come here more out of habit than anything else. Every time I read something from our regular FPers I feel like Moriarty when he was calling Sherlock boring.

  262. 262
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @geg6:

    Not to mention megahack Jeff Gerth, who gave us Whitewater and Wen Ho Lee.

  263. 263
    Glocksman says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    Foreign surveillance falls squarely within the NSA’s mandate.
    In other words I’m not upset that they tapped Merkel’s phone or asked the Aussies to continue to spy on the Indonesians.
    However, I *am* upset if they skirted US law on attorney-client privilege to do so.

    It would be hypocritical of me to get outraged over the fact that other countries spy on us, even allies such as Germany or France.
    Their national interests practically dictate that they do so.

    Which is why I’m neither outraged or shocked that the NSA tapped Merkel’s phone or helped the ASD to break the encryption on Indonesia’s phone network.

    Similarly, I wasn’t shocked or outraged about Israeli spying on the US when the Pollard affair came to light.
    What I was outraged about is that Pollard sold us out.

  264. 264
    different-church-lady says:

    @geg6:

    And just to annoy Cole, always remember that Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd have Pulitzers and Henry Kissinger has a Nobel Peace Prize.

    And Bill O’Reilly has a Polk.

    Whoops… Inside Edition got one after Billo left.

  265. 265
    Paul in KY says:

    @John Cole: Cool!

  266. 266
    Paul in KY says:

    @Violet: Most people seem to get more ‘conservative’ as they age. Just anecdotal evidence here.

  267. 267
    Paul in KY says:

    @Mnemosyne: I think you’re reading too much into that post.

  268. 268
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @Glocksman:

    However, I *am* upset if they skirted US law on attorney-client privilege to do so.

    Except that there’s no evidence that the NSA did that, and the evidence that the Australian counterpart did it also points to the probability that they minimized the information regarding the U.S. law firm that they passed along.

    Do the NSA guidelines relating to attorney-client privilege extend beyond protection for those indicted on criminal charges inside the U.S.? Do you think that that surveillance would have been illegal had the conversation been between the Indonesian government and an Indonesian lawyer specializing in American law?

  269. 269
    Paul in KY says:

    @Suffern ACE: You know I liked Glenn when I frequented Salon & I am glad he (and the others) received the award.

  270. 270
    Paul in KY says:

    @LT: I can assure you that Glenn Greenwald never loved GW Bush (the lesser). The old one, I don’t know, but he loathed Shrimpy Bush (and Cheney even more as it was apparent he was pulling the strings).

  271. 271
    Corner Stone says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):

    and the evidence that the Australian counterpart did it also points to the probability that they minimized the information regarding the U.S. law firm that they passed along.

    How would one arrive at that conclusion?

  272. 272
    Shared Humanity says:

    Snowden is an American hero and Glenn Greenwald is playing the role we use to expect of American journalists.

  273. 273
    Paul in KY says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Jeezus Bobby. We’re all adults here. I’m sure Mnemosyne can handle herself and respond herself.

    Balloon Juice ain’t for the weak & thin skinned.

  274. 274
    Paul in KY says:

    @NonyNony: If you come at the Glenn with a poorly reaoned argument, he will show you how poorly reasoned it was, in no uncertain terms.

    Has done it with me. Made me up my game when conversing with him.

  275. 275
    Glocksman says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):

    Which is why I included the word ‘if’.

    The NYT article was wonderfully vague on the subject of an actual breach having took place.

    Do you think that that surveillance would have been illegal had the conversation been between the Indonesian government and an Indonesian lawyer specializing in American law?

    I don’t know if it is illegal or not, but it shouldn’t be if the Indonesian lawyer wasn’t representing their client in a US court.
    If a foreign lawyer is representing a foreign client in a US court, it should be illegal.

  276. 276
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @Glocksman:

    I don’t know if it is illegal or not, but it shouldn’t be if the Indonesian lawyer wasn’t representing their client in a US court.

    You realize that what the article addressed was the Indonesian government consulting a US law firm about trade talks, not court proceedings, right?

  277. 277
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @Corner Stone:

    http://www.lawfareblog.com/201.....n-lawyers/

  278. 278
    Paul in KY says:

    @Rafer Janders: That’s certainly the impression (no love for Dubya at all) I had when I read Glenn at Salon.

  279. 279
    barry says:

    Whoa, John, way to go! Got the snake pit a-writhing for fifteen hours with just a little over 250 words and a block quote. Comments are fun! Seriously, this is good exercise. Now everybody go out and tangle with this much passion with people on the other side.

  280. 280
    Paul in KY says:

    @different-church-lady: We had that figured out once we saw your handle :-)

  281. 281
    Shared Humanity says:

    @Hill Dweller: There’s nothing we can do! (Wrings hands.)

  282. 282
    Paul in KY says:

    @Cervantes: Glenn was very, very naive prior to 2004.

  283. 283
    Shared Humanity says:

    @Jordan Rules: Leave Obama alone!!!!!!!!!!

  284. 284
    Paul in KY says:

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-: Well, yes. Just because Glenn might say something not-bad about Aqua Buddha doesn’t mean he would support him for Pres. Also, if he did, I would just say ‘Glenn needs to stop huffing glue’ and pull lever for Joe Biden or Hillary or whomever has the ‘D’ after their name.

  285. 285
    Corner Stone says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): That’s where I thought you got that interpretation from. Thanks for confirming.

  286. 286
    Glocksman says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):

    Yes, but the lawyer is an American, thus it should be generally be protected as a violation of his privacy.
    Foreigners outside of the US have no constitutional right to privacy from the US government.

  287. 287
    Paul in KY says:

    @Glocksman: I also don’t care about the spying on the foreign governments. It’s what they are doing to us (without any oversight, it appears) that I get a little riled up about.

  288. 288
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @Glocksman:

    The lawyer wasn’t targeted. The contact was incidental. There are procedures that protect those who are incidentally contacted. Whether those who are charged with enforcing those procedures are trustworthy is subjective- but that’s true with any relationship, be it me with my doctor or lawyer, or you with cops or…Anyone to whom you give your permission to access your cookies.
    .

  289. 289
    KevibNYC says:

    @LT: You don’t know what you’re talking about. In absolutely no way is fanboy homophobic. You can ba an Apple fanboy or Marvel comics fanboy or an Xbox fanboy. It’s a critique of obsessive nerd culture.

  290. 290
    Joey Giraud says:

    I love the new John Cole.

    Although this site reminds me more and more of Thidwick the Big Hearted Moose

    with Cole in the lead role.

  291. 291
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Paul in KY: I’m sure she can, too, but Cole whipping his dick out to get a woman to shut up is bullshit.

  292. 292
    nabsentia23 says:

    The lengths that Greenwald and his sidekick Snowden will go to wrap themselves in phony journalistic integrity is pretty laughable at this point.

    Sorry, guys, but you’re still not whistleblowers. Nothing you can say or do will changes that.

  293. 293
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @nabsentia23: The lengths they will go to? Do you think that they invented this award for themselves?

  294. 294
    nabsentia23 says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Greenwald and Snowden are trying to get journalistic acceptance so they can keep Snowden out of jail if he attempts to come back to the U.S. They are trying to cover up the fact that exposed their secrets to foreign countries (especially those hostile to the US) before even considering going to the press. This is a mistake that even Julian Assange avoided.

    All I know is that winning an award can be based solely on politics and not merit. Which is why, most of the time, I don’t pay attention to them.

    Greenwald’s and Snowden’s lame attempts to be this generation’s “All The President’s Men” have failed. But, hey, if you want to continue worshipping them, go right ahead. The good thing about living in the US is that we still have freedom of religion.

  295. 295
    Corner Stone says:

    @nabsentia23: You think the DoJ will give a Polk Award winner a break? Oh, wait…Snowden didn’t win the Polk Award, did he?

  296. 296
    Cervantes says:

    @nabsentia23:

    Greenwald and Snowden are trying to get journalistic acceptance so they can keep Snowden out of jail if he attempts to come back to the U.S.

    Do you have any evidence for this or is it true simply because it makes some sort of sense to you?

    Which is why, most of the time, I don’t pay attention to [awards].

    It’s a shame you had to break your winning streak on our account.

  297. 297
    Corner Stone says:

    @nabsentia23:

    All I know is that winning an award can be based solely on politics and not merit.

    Any thoughts on any of the other Polk Award winners?

  298. 298
    Cervantes says:

    @Bobby Thomson: I agree (again).

    But she did start it.

  299. 299
    different-church-lady says:

    @Cervantes:

    It’s a shame you had to break your winning streak on our account.

    Cookie full of win!

  300. 300
    different-church-lady says:

    @Paul in KY:

    Balloon Juice ain’t for the weak & thin skinned.

    True, but it also ain’t exactly for MENSA candidates either.

  301. 301
    Cervantes says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    It’s not, however, the NSA’s job to spy on Americans. Or, as in the Australian/Indonesian case in the papers a few days ago, to abet foreign intelligence agencies when they spy on American businesses.

    Not merely abet the spying, either, but abet in exchange for the data obtained via the spying.

  302. 302
    karen says:

    @pluege:

    Apparently you’re either a PUMA or totally forgot about all the code and dog whistles Hillary used about Obama (he CAN’T win, he’s UNELECTABLE, etc.)

  303. 303
    angler says:

    The Balloon Juice intramural liberal war comment thread is a thing to behold. I want to commend John for crafting this one, and for maintaining anonymity for posters because it really lets the id out in ways that naming yourself can’t. Beautiful and therapeutic.

  304. 304
    Joel says:

    @Cervantes: Opposing the Patriot Act would have been a great start. But the damn thing was so overwhelmingly popular, it probably wouldn’t have mattered much. I’ll give Shrub and company credit for knowing how to leverage the shit out of their power.

  305. 305
    Corner Stone says:

    @Joel: You mean the Patriot Act passed 98 to 1 in the US Senate in October 2001?

  306. 306
    David Koch says:

    Is this the same Griftwald who went on Bill Maher and said Benghzaaaaazi!11! is a scandal that needs to be investigated?

    Hmm. That’s some journalist.

    Want a good laugh, watch “journalist” Griftwald say the polls are skewed (the mythical enthusiasm gap) and predict Obama would lose the election because youth and latinos would stay home and swing states like Florida would flock to Mittens.

    Good times

    Maybe now the former failed corporate attorney, failed Klan lawyer, failed Hair-fetish pornographer, failed sock-puppet grifter, failed election handicapper, failed PAC founder, failed conspiracy theorist, failed Paultard, failed Iraq-invasion hawk, failed Bush supporter, failed blogger can pay his back taxes (rule of law for thee, but not for me).

    Moar better trolling, Cole.

  307. 307
    Joey Giraud says:

    @David Koch:

    That video is really stupid. Greenwald’s comments were standard issue, everybody-says-it punditry.

    Greenwald has never pretended to be Nate Silver.

    Your pseudonym fits you perfectly.

  308. 308
    David Koch says:

    @Joey Giraud: Glenn, chose a better sock-puppet

  309. 309
    Joey Giraud says:

    @David Koch:

    You’re just full of bullshit, ain’t cha?

  310. 310
    Cervantes says:

    @Joel:

    Opposing the Patriot Act would have been a great start.

    Yes, that was certainly one or more complete turns of the ratchet.

    I’ll give Shrub and company credit for knowing how to leverage the shit out of their power.

    They were waiting for an opportunity and were ready for it.

  311. 311
    Allan says:

    FYI, “[X] won an award!” is not an argument in favor of the correctness of X’s opinions. It’s an…

    appeal to authority.

    Have a nice day.

  312. 312
    Culture of Truth says:

    I am forced to wonder why Greenwald and others consider his position so weak (when it isn’t) they must constantly attempt to shut down what could be an interesting discussion by labeling any criticism, or indeed, questions, as coming from members of a mindless “cult”. It’s sad, and somewhat pathetic, really.

  313. 313
    Cervantes says:

    @Culture of Truth: Are you referring to something specific?

  314. 314
    Corner Stone says:

    @Culture of Truth:

    they must constantly attempt to shut down what could be an interesting discussion by labeling any criticism, or indeed, questions, as coming from members of a mindless “cult”. It’s sad, and somewhat pathetic, really.

    Such as?
    I’m not sure why you consider your position so weak that you continuously lie about others’ statements and perspectives.
    You recently did it when you baldly stated GG was apolitical during GWB’s terms (OBAMA!!) and then tried to parse out by using a bullshit distinction of Bush’s wars v Bush’s presidency.
    Now you’re trying this on for size and it’s just as much of an obvious lie as the other recent attempts.
    Maybe you should consider not lying. Change it up a little!

  315. 315
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @nabsentia23: I’ve never been accused of worshipping Greenwald or Snowden before. How novel.

  316. 316
    Rafer Janders says:

    @Culture of Truth:

    It’s sad, and somewhat pathetic, really.

    Hey, speaking of sad and pathetic, you never responded yesterday when I pointed out your several lies. Got time for that tonight?

  317. 317
    Rafer Janders says:

    @Culture of Truth:

    I am forced to wonder why Greenwald and others consider his position so weak

    Forced! Positively forced to it!

  318. 318
    David Koch says:

    Is this the same Griftwald who said Citizen’s United was correctly decided, saying multinational corporations pouring hundreds of millions into front groups like ALEC would have no impact on politics.

    Hmm. That’s some journalist.

  319. 319
    Joey Giraud says:

    @David Koch:

    Is there no end to your bullshit?

  320. 320
    David Koch says:

    @Joey Giraud: Glenn, you know you wrote a post at Salon supporting the Citizen United decision on legal and policy grounds, saying more corporate money (the decision was about corporate money) would not affect the political system. Doncha get tired of lying, Glenn?

    You’re transparent, Glenn. On one hand you support John Roberts and Antonin Scalia on Citizen’s United, on the other hand you opposed Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Just who do you think you’re kidding, Glenn?

  321. 321
    Rafer Janders says:

    @David Koch:

    Here’s the link below to the actual article for those interested in reading it. Rather than “saying more corporate money (the decision was about corporate money) would not affect the political system”, Greenwald acknowledged there’d be an effect, but that the decision was correct on constitutional grounds (something I partly disagree with myself). Money quote:

    In sum, there’s no question that the stranglehold corporations exert on our democracy is one of the most serious and pressing threats we face. I’ve written volumes on that very problem. Although I doubt it, this decision may very well worsen that problem in some substantial way. But on both pragmatic and Constitutional grounds, the issue of corporate influence — like virtually all issues — is not really solvable by restrictions on political speech. Isn’t it far more promising to have the Government try to equalize the playing field through serious public financing of campaigns than to try to slink around the First Amendment — or, worse, amend it — in order to limit political advocacy?

    http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

  322. 322
    Joey Giraud says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    Greenwald is wrong, we need to equalize the “playing field” by taxing the rich to the point where a billionaire is merely a millionaire.

    and change our damn laws to no longer support such ridiculous accumulation of unearned wealth.

  323. 323
    David Koch says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    from your link. the part you left out.

    I’m also quite skeptical of the apocalyptic claims about how this decision will radically transform and subvert our democracy by empowering corporate control over the political process. My skepticism is due to one principal fact: I really don’t see how things can get much worse in that regard.

    You have to be dangerously delusional to think predatory plutocratic multinational corporations pouring hundreds of millions of dollars every year into organizations like ALEC won’t make things (in Griftwald’s word) “worse”.

    Just ask Trayvon Martin if unlimited corporate spending by gun manufactures via front groups like ALEC won’t make things “worse”.

  324. 324
    Rafer Janders says:

    @Joey Giraud:

    Well, as I said, I partly disagree with him. But his support of the decision was largely on constitutional grounds, not on whether it was “good” or not. As he wrote: “Critics emphasize that the Court’s ruling will produce very bad outcomes: primarily that it will severely exacerbate the problem of corporate influence in our democracy. Even if this is true, it’s not really relevant. Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn’t. In general, a law that violates the Constitution can’t be upheld because the law produces good outcomes (or because its invalidation would produce bad outcomes).”

  325. 325
    Rafer Janders says:

    @David Koch:

    the part you left out.

    I “left out” 95% of the article, I only quoted the five sentence summary beginning “In sum”. That’s why you get the link, so you can read the whole thing for yourself.

  326. 326
    David Koch says:

    @Rafer Janders: Despite what Romney and Griftwald plead, corporations aren’t people.

    Corporations can’t attend high school, they can’t get pregnant, they can’t march in protests, they can’t even vote.

    Griftwald’s plutocratic kool-aid won’t change biology.

    Nor are cash contributions speech. McCain/Feingold restricted cash contributions, not speech.

    Griftwald’s blithering amateur reading of McCain/Feingold isn’t simply lightweight, it’s dead weight.

    That he sides with corporatists John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Scalia against Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the former General Counsel of the ACLU, tells you all you need to know.

  327. 327
    Paul in KY says:

    @Bobby Thomson: IMO, he wasn’t ‘whipping his dick out’.

  328. 328
    different-church-lady says:

    @Joey Giraud:

    Greenwald’s comments were standard issue, everybody-says-it punditry.

    Good god, you just said that like it was to his credit.

  329. 329
    Joey Giraud says:

    @different-church-lady:

    No, that Koch clown put up a link to a video showing GG doing some standard issue prognosticating, and then the video mocks GG for being wrong somehow, it’s not clear exactly how.

    People like the Koch clown project shit on GG to discredit him somehow. I doubt GG argues that corporations are people.

    To the extent that GG is a free-market-worshipping libertarian, he’s wrong. But I’ve met quite a few decent and generally smart people who buy that pile of bull, so ..

  330. 330
    Joey Giraud says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    My comment was more a proclamation of my values ( god what a stuffy phrase, ) then any criticism of your points, which I generally agree with.

  331. 331
    Corner Stone says:

    @Joey Giraud: The Koch clown does this with a lot of people, not just GG. He’ll put up a link or excerpt that might contain 5% relevancy or on-point info before it veers way into the weeds off whatever assertion he claims it was meant to bolster. And when called on it he’ll just keep spattering mud.

Comments are closed.