Kevin Drum Is Another Dudebro

I haven’t written much about the latest NSA revelations because what was fairly obvious from the start is now blindingly obvious: Snowden’s leaks are authentic, the NSA program of surveillance is widespread and some of it is almost certainly illegal, and we’re writing huge checks to the NSA without much meaningful oversight. It is also true from the start that Greenwald is is generally right on this topic, but he’s also great at trolling a fair number of people, so some of the worst knuckleheads in the comments here and elsewhere call him “dudebro” and “traitor”, unlike almost every other journalist who writes on this topic. For most reasonable people, then, Kevin Drum’s observation today about Greenwald and the Snowden leaks is more of the obvious. For others, I guess it puts Drum in the ever-expanding dudebro club:

There’s more at the link, but it’s worth noting that although Greenwald himself is the subject of routine suggestions of treason-esque behavior, very rarely is the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman given the same treatment. But Gellman has been responsible for some of the biggest stories to date based on the Snowden documents.

Why the difference? Obviously Greenwald has placed himself in the public eye more than Gellman has, but that’s hardly sufficient explanation. What matters is what gets published. And the truth is that, as near as I can tell, nearly every single document that Greenwald has published so far would also have been published by the Post or the New York Times if they had gotten to it first. He hasn’t done anything that these pillars of American journalism haven’t done too.

The latest revelation, published in the Times, is that the NSA has penetrated the networks of Huawei, the huge Chinese manufacturer of networking equipment. I guess that makes the Times dudebros, too.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






227 replies
  1. 1
    different-church-lady says:

    …but he’s also great at trolling a fair number of people…

    And based on how this post is going, I’d say you’re a tad bit jealous.

    He hasn’t done anything that these pillars of American journalism haven’t done too.

    Other than spin every element into a paranoid tar ball that nobody can dissect, no, not a thing different.

  2. 2
    🍀 Martin says:

    Kevin lives up the street from me. I really, really don’t see the dudebro.

    Greenwald may have published the same documents, but he didn’t deliver the same analysis. Greenwald has on some occasions been wildly off on his analysis, and when his readers point out that he’s wrong, he attacks them. Punching down makes you a dick, end of story.

    Gellman doesn’t do that. His analysis has been better (but not perfect) and he lets his critics have their voice as well.

  3. 3
    Baud says:

    @different-church-lady:

    And based on how this post is going, I’d say you’re a tad bit jealous.

    Nail. Head.

  4. 4
    different-church-lady says:

    @🍀 Martin: Absolutely. I mean, Jesus, why is this so damn hard for people to see?

  5. 5
    MikeJ says:

    You mean the intelligence agencies are spying on foreign countries? Wow. Shocker.

    Greenwald may leak legit info, but he is almost always either lying or wrong about what it means. For any story he publishes, wait a few day before setting your hair on fire. It will usually be at best something trivial.

  6. 6
    Baud says:

    What matters is what gets published. And the truth is that, as near as I can tell, nearly every single document that Greenwald has published so far would also have been published by the Post or the New York Times if they had gotten to it first.

    Drum is being obtuse or dishonest here. Who has criticized Greenwald merely because of his choice of documents to release?

  7. 7
    Gin & Tonic says:

    So instead of hoops we get another 200+-comment Snowald thread?

  8. 8
    slag says:

    I don’t see what the NSA thing has to do with gender, and I perceived “dudebro”-ness to be particularly gender-related. Similar to old boy’s club. Chest bumps all around!

  9. 9
    Baud says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Feel free to threadjack. It’s a BJ tradition.

  10. 10
    patrick II says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Snowden has documents showing that NSA was spying on Duke which lead to the Mercer upset.

    There. Everyone should be happy.

  11. 11
    Cervantes says:

    dpm:

    If you go through the first sets of comments on the Greenwald/Snowden stuff at Balloon Juice, you’ll find some otherwise sane people sounding in retrospect like 9/11 truthers.

    Has it gotten appreciably better? I guess so, maybe a little.

  12. 12
    Tripod says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Obummer tweeted congrats to Dayton for their win over Syracuse.

    Worst university ever?

  13. 13
    Baud says:

    @Cervantes:

    MM is bad-mouthing us on other blogs? What a dudebro thing to do.

  14. 14
    kindness says:

    Kevin Drum is frequently ObviousMan who becomes very perplexed and amazed at the obvious.

    I do read him though.

  15. 15
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Tripod: I would’ve thought Duke-Mercer conspiracy theories led back to Warren Buffett

  16. 16
  17. 17
    Morbo says:

    The latest revelation, published in the Times, is that the NSA has penetrated the networks of Huawei, the huge Chinese manufacturer of networking equipment.

    In other words, the NSA did what it’s mandated to do.

  18. 18
    Cervantes says:

    @Baud: “Us”? No, I don’t think he was generalizing to the whole commentariat.

  19. 19
    Sly the Knucklehead says:

    It is also true from the start that Greenwald is is generally right on this topic, but he’s also great at trolling a fair number of people, so some of the worst knuckleheads in the comments here and elsewhere call him “dudebro” and “traitor”, unlike almost every other journalist who writes on this topic.

    I love the impressive wrongness of this statement.

    Glenn Greenwald isn’t a dudebro, (or “brogressive” in this context) for writing about the Federal surveillance apparatus. He’s a dudebro for writing bullshit like this (and much more like it):

    “Wednesday night’s debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney underscored a core truth about America’s presidential election season: the vast majority of the most consequential policy questions are completely excluded from the process.”

    First, know that that sentence was written before the debate in question even took place. Second, to assume that the “vast majority of the most consequential issues” overlaps entirely with “the only issues I personally care about” is, without hyperbole, a tacit admission of monomaniacal narcissism.

    Gellman and Drum et al either don’t have the same thick set of blinders, or they’re better at concealing them from their readers. That’s why they don’t get the same treatment.

  20. 20
    RandomMonster says:

    I don’t consider Greenwald a traitor, he’s doing what journalists do. But I think he repeatedly sensationalizes his reporting to sell copy.

    MM, you believe Greenwald “generally right”. A genuinely thoughtful and nuanced analysis would start with parsing how far “generally” extends — if it’s not “totally”, where does he fall short? Many of his critics make genuine points about how he characterizes things and aren’t slinging “dudebros”.

  21. 21
    Roger Moore says:

    @🍀 Martin:

    Greenwald may have published the same documents, but he didn’t deliver the same analysis.

    This. My biggest complaint about Greenwald isn’t that he’s publishing stuff that’s factually false, but that he’s doing his very best to give everything the most sinister possible interpretation. A huge amount of the stuff he’s complained about, including essentially everything involving the NSA’s role in overseas spying, is well within the legitimate scope of an intelligence agency. There is some legitimately troubling stuff in the Snowden documents, including both the bulk collection of US data and in the NSA’s attempts to weaken cryptography so they can break it more easily, but it gets lost in all the hype about stuff that is clearly the NSA’s job.

  22. 22
    Baud says:

    @Cervantes:

    I’m just having a little fun. FWIW, and for the sake of balance, I agree that some of the conspiracy theories I’ve seen with regard to Greenwald go too far for my taste.

  23. 23
    Pooh says:

    Dudebro does not mean what you think it means.

    And speaking of trolling commenters, nice job!

  24. 24
    geg6 says:

    I’ve said it a number of times, but I’ll say it again for clarity.

    The NSA is a spy agency. Unless you are willing to give up one major component of our security network, you can’t just shut it down and you have to expect that they are doing actual, you know, spying. I just don’t have a big problem with the concept. Do I think it’s been out of control since 9/11? Yes, I think that is established and to the extent that Snowald has done anything worthwhile, it’s been exposing that. I think Snowden is also a very shady character and had better options than he or the conspiracist paranoids here and elsewhere would ever cop to. The fact that he’s in Russia, of all places, does not speak well for him. Greenwald is an ass of the first order: he lies, he’s a thin-skinned bully and he will do or say anything to make a buck and burnish his massive ego. All these things are true at once.

    I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to understand that the world isn’t black and white and the good guys aren’t all good or the bad guys all bad. I can be glad to know some of the stuff that’s come out about the NSA and support changes to it without changing my mind that Snowden is, if not a traitor, then the next best thing to it, that Greenwald is a lying grifter and that the NSA’s mission is needed.

  25. 25
    pzerzan says:

    “Has placed himself in the public eye” is an understatement if I ever heard one. Greenwald tried to pick a fight with Time Magazine when they picked Pope Francis over Edward Snowden for Person of the Year. Not since Keith Olbermann was on MSNBC has there been as big of an ego in the media…

  26. 26
    Anton Sirius says:

    @Baud: Especially considering that if this thread stays on topic, no one will say anything that hasn’t been said ad nauseum and the signal to noise ratio will plummet to zero in no time.

  27. 27
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Morbo: The hacker, hacked.

    Huawei is a spinoff of the People’s Liberation Army, anyways. Like T-Mobil and Deutsche Telekom.

    Which is why we hacked Angela Merkel.

    I think.

  28. 28
    JPL says:

    @Gin & Tonic: Raven went to the Illini/Clemson game and since he’s a fan of Illinois, he will have a long trip home.
    Personally, I’d like to see more upsets.

  29. 29
    Baud says:

    @Roger Moore:

    While I’d like to see the bulk data collection gone, part of me finds some difficulty faulting the NSA for engaging in an activity that was specifically approved by federal judges.

  30. 30
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    So let’s concede, as I have many times, that Greenwald a pain in the ass, an exaggerator, over-pimps his stories, etc.

    The question is why is his right to publish constantly being questioned, while the right of the Times and post, and individual journalists like Gellman, is not? Why is it that Greenwald is called a traitor when Gellman is not?

    That’s the question that doesn’t get answered. Nothing that Greenwald has done (some exaggeration, some slippery argumentation, a lot of nasty remarks about commenters) rises anywhere near the level of “traitor”. So he’s wrong sometimes, so what? If you view his whole body of writing on the Snowden stuff, he’s far more right than wrong, however you slice it.

    My theory, as I posted in the Drum thread, is that he’s trolled a group of Obama supporters, including some who post here, into the red zone.

  31. 31
    Violet says:

    @Pooh:

    Dudebro does not mean what you think it means.

    What does dudebro mean? Who’s a dudebro? I thought it was supposed to be fratty college guys and the same guys as they age up to around 40 or so. After that you can’t be a dudebro. Guess I’m wrong.

  32. 32
    Belafon says:

    LG, which definitely uses dudebro a lot when writing a lot about this, correctly points out that the pattern of Greenwald’s writing style has been outrageous headline and then a buried paragraph stating “well, they can do this but they have to get a court order.” And then there’s the revelation that we spy on other countries, which isn’t a revelation.

  33. 33
    Joey Giraud says:

    Other then pointless pissing matches with the likes of Cassidy, for me these threads are just fascinating studies in the various techniques of denial.

    “Shoot the messenger” is still the winner.

  34. 34
    the Conster says:

    As a woman and mother, NSA revelations are somewhere way down my list of things to give a shit about – behind peak oil and before alien abduction. At this point I just wish every white male, dudebro or not, would just shut up about basically everything.

  35. 35
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @🍀 Martin:

    Gellman doesn’t do that. His analysis has been better (but not perfect) and he lets his critics have their voice as well.

    What does it mean, in practice, to let “critics have their voice”? Does it mean you don’t disagree with them? Then the critic has stifled the object of criticism. Does it mean that you’re not as nasty as Greenwald because being mean on Twitter is like throwing a punch?

    Greenwald is nasty as hell, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong or a traitor.

  36. 36
    srv says:

    @Violet:

    dude bro
    White suburban males, usually 16-25 years of age, hailing from anywhere, USA. Characterized by their love of College football, pickup trucks/SUVs, beer,cut off khaki cargo shorts, light pink polo brand shirts (with collar “popped”), abercrombie & fitch, hollister gear, and trucker hats. Favorite bands include, but are not limited to, O.A.R., Jack Johnson, Dave Matthews Band, Avengened Sevenfold, The Fray, and often crappy radio rap (i.e. Nelly, Dem Franchize Boyz, D4L, etc.). Dude bro’s are incredibly insecure in their manhood, which makes them: insanely jealous of their girl friends, overly macho, and laughably homophobic. currently, there is no cure for being a dude bro.

    We dudebros need to stick together against Obamabots.

  37. 37
    Joey Giraud says:

    @Violet:

    What does dudebro mean?

    It’s only a put-down with no semantic relevance whatsoever.

  38. 38
    Joey Giraud says:

    @the Conster:

    Followed closely by

    “So what? This doesn’t really matter.”

  39. 39
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Joey Giraud: It’s a portmanteau word composed of interjections. That alone makes it interesting….

    A: Dude!
    B; Bro?

  40. 40
    Belafon says:

    Actually, the one group that doesn’t think it has to follow the rules is the CIA and that’s the cold war relic that needs to be dissolved or seriously curtailed.

  41. 41
    Anton Sirius says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    So let’s concede, as I have many times, that Greenwald a pain in the ass, an exaggerator, over-pimps his stories, etc.

    You mean that point you failed to concede in your OP?

    It is also true from the start that Greenwald is is generally right on this topic

    You can’t be “generally right” and simultaneously exaggerate and over-pimp your stories. Either you are reporting truth, or you’re spinning bullshit.

    By your logic, Bill Kristol was “generally right” when he said we’d win the Iraq War.

  42. 42
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @Pooh:

    Dudebro does not mean what you think it means.

    If you want to see correct usage of the term, check out the post by Kathleen Geier that I linked to earlier today. My point in this post was that it’s become meaningless namecalling used by Snowden/Greenwald haters.

  43. 43
    Violet says:

    @srv: Yeah, that’s what I thought a dude bro was. Some guys continue that way of living and acting into their 30’s, but by the time they hit 40 if they’re still acting like that it’s just sad. It’s the rare guy who can continue to be a dude bro past 40.

  44. 44
    Joey Giraud says:

    To be fair; there’s no rule book or “handed down through the generations” common wisdom about how to roll back, get under control, and shutdown a hyperactive security state in a nominally Democratic country.

    So I suppose people must feel frustrated and helpless and not at all certain what to do.

    Under those circumstances, messengers must be hung.

    It’s a human tradition.

  45. 45
    cleek says:

    what the fuck is a dudebro?

    and what the fuck is up with the constant moaning about other bloggers and journalists around here?

  46. 46
    srv says:

    @Violet: Actually, it’s also too a sexual thing here, as comenters context has sometimes included John’s “bro” and/or “butt” buddy, GG. And since womynfolk don’t value Civil Liberties like Real Men do, the whole NSA thing is simply beyond their sensibilities like most dude stuff is.

  47. 47

    what was fairly obvious from the start is now blindingly obvious: Snowden’s leaks are authentic, the NSA program of surveillance is widespread and some of it is almost certainly illegal

    Blindingly obvious, sure. Actually what Snowden’s leaks say, no. It’s ‘obvious’ because you’ve been spun deceptive misinterpretation after deceptive misinterpretation until they became a narrative, which leads to…

    @Roger Moore: and @MikeJ: and@🍀 Martin:
    This. Mix, we don’t like Greenwald because he’s a liar. With the enthusiastic help of the Guardian, he releases stories like ‘The NSA knows about the security failures in all the major types of routers’ but writes the story as if it was ‘The NSA has planted backdoors into all router hardware without the company’s knowledge and is spying on you right now.’ And a whole lot of people fall for it.

  48. 48
    Joey Giraud says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    Yeah :) I knew that much anyway.

    But it doesn’t make any sense except as a scurrilous suggestion of closeted homosexuality.

    And I thought that was deprecated in the enlighted BJ community.

  49. 49
    Baud says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    My theory, as I posted in the Drum thread, is that he’s trolled a group of Obama supporters, including some who post here, into the red zone.

    I have never called Greenwald a traitor. That said, if he’s trolling Obama supporters, then I see no basis for complaining when Obama supporters hit back. We would do that with anyone else, and I don’t see any reason to give Greenwald a pass.

  50. 50
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Joey Giraud:

    there’s no rule book or “handed down through the generations” common wisdom about how to roll back, get under control, and shutdown a hyperactive security state in a nominally democratic country.

    We know how to do it. It’s simple.
    Vote for my candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    The rest is just technique….

    (You may also apply this approach to any other intractable, institutional problems you’ve got lying around…)

  51. 51
    Cervantes says:

    @MikeJ:

    You mean the intelligence agencies are spying on foreign countries? Wow. Shocker.

    @Morbo:

    In other words, the NSA did what it’s mandated to do.

    Here’s Jack Goldsmith at Lawfare:

    The Huawei revelations are devastating rebuttals to hypocritical U.S. complaints about Chinese penetration of U.S. networks, and also make USG protestations about not stealing intellectual property to help U.S. firms’ competitiveness seem like the self-serving hairsplitting that it is. (I have elaborated on these points many times and will not repeat them here.) “The irony is that exactly what they are doing to us is what they have always charged that the Chinese are doing through us,” says a Huawei Executive.

  52. 52
    srv says:

    @cleek:

    and what the fuck is up with the constant moaning about other bloggers and journalists around here?

    I’ve really reached the end of my rope with all this Brooks hate. I heard him on NPR this week and he sounded totally reasonable.

  53. 53
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @Anton Sirius:

    You mean that point you failed to concede in your OP?

    That point is irrelevant to my OP. The question that Drum is raising and I’m raising is why Greenwald gets called a traitor when Gellman doesn’t. Being a pain in the ass doesn’t make you a traitor.

    By your logic, Bill Kristol was “generally right” when he said we’d win the Iraq War.

    Wrong on two counts. First, that’s a prediction, not reporting. Second, you’re missing the difference between the facts and the conclusions drawn from the facts. Kristol’s conclusion that we should invade Iraq, for example, wasn’t based solely or mainly on the idea that we’d win (he thinks we’ll win any war,we’re the USA!), but was also based on a non-fact/lie (Saddam has WMD).

    Greenwald may make incorrect conclusions, but his facts are right. The qualifiers “generally” or “mostly” are because he’s written a lot and I’m sure some of it wasn’t quite right, as is true of any journalist.

  54. 54
    Violet says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: From that article:

    Timothy B. Lee, the latest libertarian dudebro to join Ezra Klein’s new Vox journalism outfit.

    How does this answer the question of what a dudebro is? They’re libertarian? They’re all working for Vox? They don’t value women? Or, looking at the picture of this guy, they’re white?

    I found this article, which makes it pretty simple:
    Dude or dude-bro: ten ways to tell

    The short answer is that the dude-bro is a sexist, homophobic douche.

  55. 55
    Joey Giraud says:

    So the real question is:

    What are we going to do about this problem, this bunch of asshole Barney Fifes getting billions in Federal money to spy on us?

    Will we spend all day calling journalists nasty names?

    Or pretend it’s not important?

    Leave the problem for our kids to fix after it’s gotten much worse?

  56. 56
    different-church-lady says:

    @pzerzan:

    Not since Keith Olbermann was on MSNBC has there been as big of an ego in the media…

    At least Olbermann was somewhat self aware.

  57. 57
    Tripod says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I like it!

    The strangest bit was Krzyzewski wandering in into the Mercer locker room afterwards. He’s lost interest or the plot. Parker should have been run in isolation every trip down the floor – if not, then what’s the point of him playing NCAA ball?

  58. 58
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @Baud:

    I have never called Greenwald a traitor.

    Good, then I wasn’t talking about you.

    That said, if he’s trolling Obama supporters, then I see no basis for complaining when Obama supporters hit back.

    And I wasn’t complaining about that. I was saying that some of them are baited into calling him a traitor and questioning his right to publish, which they’d never say about the Times or Gellman.

  59. 59

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:
    His facts being right is meaningless when his entire schtick is to convince people that those facts actually mean something that isn’t true, then run with that lie.

  60. 60
    different-church-lady says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: Who the fuck called Greenwald a traitor? Snowden’s the one who gets labeled a traitor.

    Every single thing gets stuck to the tar ball. It’s like you’ve taken the gag of the “Snowald” portmanteau literally.

  61. 61
    slag says:

    @cleek: Kay’s gone. No one to fill the void.

  62. 62

    @different-church-lady:
    There have been a few comments that since Greenwald actively recruited Snowden to take a job for the deliberate purpose of stealing government secrets, his hands are legally anything but clean. It’s mostly a refutation of the ‘heroic whistleblower’ meme.

  63. 63
    Baud says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    which they’d never say about the Times or Gellman.

    Because they’re not trolling Obama supporters. Have you thought that maybe you have your cause-and-effect backwards? That Greenwald is reaping what he sowed?

  64. 64
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @Violet:

    The short answer is that the dude-bro is a sexist, homophobic douche.

    Then how can Greenwald be the ur-dudebro? He’s gay.

  65. 65
    Joey Giraud says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    Yeah, that’s what they told us in high school civics class.

    But we’ve gotten to a “doctor, heal thyself,” stage.

    The democratic-republic system isn’t self-correcting. It can break.

  66. 66
    different-church-lady says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: It’s just kind of amazing how all this stuff that isn’t about Snowden or Greenwald keeps coming back to Snowden and Greenwald.

  67. 67
    Joey Giraud says:

    These threads really remind me of “Life of Brian.”

  68. 68
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Who the fuck called Greenwald a traitor?

    Isn’t someone accused of committing treason generally considered a traitor? The accusation is that Greenwald’s publication of the Snowden leaks should be prosecuted under national security statutes.

  69. 69
    Anton Sirius says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    The question that Drum is raising and I’m raising is why Greenwald gets called a traitor when Gellman doesn’t.

    Because Gellman is an actual journalist who mostly reports actual facts, and Greenwald is a propagandist who writes deliberately deceptive columns to advance his personal agenda.

    Oh, and as you point out, GG trolls people and invites those sorts of attacks – witness his Twitter dance re: Russia.

    SATSQ

  70. 70
    Violet says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: You are not quoting me, you are quoting the woman who wrote the article–the one I quoted. I have never called Greenwald a dudebro, so I have no idea how he’s being called a dudebro. You used it in your post and called Kevin Drum the dudebro. Is he gay? I have no idea.

    I would think that a gay man could be a homophobe. See: Republican party. Also, plenty of gay men are sexist. See: Andrew Sullivan.

  71. 71
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: Why do you care? If the issue is the NSA and not Greenwald, why bring him in to it? If the NSA hacking in to Huawei bothers you, how about you explain why? Why do you double down on the trolling? I genuinely don’t understand the point of this post.

    For the record: I think (and thought for a long time before I heard of Snowden) Greenwald is an asshole (PITA doesn’t begin to cover it), not a traitor. I’m inclined to think Snowden should be granted some kind of immunity as part of an agreement to testify, but people like Fred Kaplan make a good counter argument. Also James Clapper should be grateful to only be fired, and not allowed the fig leaf of resignation. I don’t think the Feinstein revelations are a “Constitutional crisis”, yet, but I do wish MSBC had devoted a fourth of the time they spent on Chris Christie to talking about them. If you care about these issues, why start the discussion by flinging cow pies about fucking Greenwald? Because four commenters on a blog called him a traitor?

  72. 72
    different-church-lady says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    Vote for my candidate for the Democratic fantasy third party presidential nomination.

    Get with the times.

  73. 73
    Red Apple Smokes says:

    Apologies for going off topic, but I was hoping that my fellow Juicers might be able to help me out. I’m currently trying to get signed up for health insurance before the end of the month deadline (my fault for waiting until the last minute), and I was under the impression that Michigan expanded its Medicaid program. Maybe it was wishful thinking on my part, but I thought that a person that was currently unemployed and who made less than $8,000 last year would be eligible. From what I’m seeing, this isn’t the case. I know that Michigan pushed its eligibility back a few months. Might that be the reason I’m having problems? Can anyone provide me with some information or point me in the right direction? Any help would be incredibly appreciated.

  74. 74
    Sloegin says:

    A proper slam of Kevin Drum is that he’s a center-left version of David Brooks.

    Dudebro iz weaksauce.

  75. 75
    Joey Giraud says:

    Hey Everybody!

    Care about the deficit? Care about your children?

    Do you like paying billions so dickheads can lay down the reinforced foundations of the next Nazi state, with American flavor added?

    That’s money that your local schools can use to pay the heating bills.

    That’s money we could use to keep bridges from falling down.

    Not to mention that fascism, with or without American flavor, really sucks.

  76. 76
    Baud says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    The accusation is that Greenwald’s publication of the Snowden leaks should be prosecuted under national security statutes.

    I ask this honestly. Do you have an example of someone making this argument? I think it’s wrong, but I can’t recall anyone making it. (The traitor accusations I’ve heard involve an alleged conspiracy with Snowden prior to his taking the docs.)

  77. 77
    ericblair says:

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    he releases stories like ‘The NSA knows about the security failures in all the major types of routers’ but writes the story as if it was ‘The NSA has planted backdoors into the router hardware without the company’s knowledge and is spying on you right now.’

    Yes, since the US government uses a whole lot of commercial networking equipment in its own networks, you bet your ass the NSA gets a pile of money to figure out their security vulnerabilities, deliberate or not.

    As far as I’ve seen it, it’s gotten spun into a story that the NSA convinced Huawei, a Chinese company, to secretly put backdoors in its products for NSA use. I have no idea how anybody with any sort of idea about international politics could believe this. Could the NSA be exploiting unintentional weaknesses, or deliberate backdoors meant for Chinese intelligence, um yup. But to say that Huawei is conspiring with the NSA is Bilderberger/Illuminati stuff.

  78. 78
    Cervantes says:

    @pzerzan:

    “Has placed himself in the public eye” is an understatement if I ever heard one.

    Yes, I suppose it is.

    Greenwald tried to pick a fight with Time Magazine when they picked Pope Francis over Edward Snowden for Person of the Year.

    He wasn’t the only one to complain about that selection. Plus, he’s hardly the first person to complain about a Time selection; it’s a long tradition.

    Not since Keith Olbermann was on MSNBC has there been as big of an ego in the media…

    I have not known many media figures to be shrinking violets. It’s the nature of the beast.

  79. 79
    different-church-lady says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: And you seriously believe that idea has any traction beyond the fringe?

    This entire hero/traitor debate is idiotic, and I can’t understand why you’ve decided it would be fun to further it.

  80. 80
    different-church-lady says:

    @Red Apple Smokes:

    Apologies for going off topic…

    Apologies? Hell, in this context you should get a medal for it.

  81. 81
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Joey Giraud: Let me know into which mountain range you and your intrepid band of guerrillas have withdrawn. I’ll send parcels.

  82. 82
    different-church-lady says:

    @Anton Sirius:

    Because Gellman is an actual journalist who mostly reports actual facts, and Greenwald is a propagandist who writes deliberately deceptive columns to advance his personal agenda.

    We should make this a rotating tag line™.

  83. 83
    Spankyslappybottom says:

    Glenn Greenwald is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

  84. 84
    cokane says:

    Well there is a difference that Greenwald has written stories that greatly exaggerate what the NSA programs are doing. He’s written misleading headlines and dubious leads, only to contradict those same headlines with caveats buried in his stories. As far as I know Gellman hasn’t done this yet.

  85. 85
    different-church-lady says:

    @Cervantes: Holy fuck, someone please cue up the Mumia T-Shirt rant…

  86. 86
    Anton Sirius says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: Sorry, there’s no difference between “Saddam has WMDs” and “the NSA is doing unspeakable things to American civil liberties”, when the truth buried 20 paragraphs in to GG’s column says something completely different than what he claimed in paragraph 1.

    I don’t understand why you continue to defend a serial liar and propagandist, other than the thrills you get out of trolling people. How about a post discussing Gellman’s latest column about the NSA, instead of this bullshit linkbait wankery about what Kevin Drum thinks about what other people think about Greenwald, Mr Front Pager?

  87. 87
    pzerzan says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: Aren’t we approaching “something is wrong on the internet” territory? Greenwald likes to troll. Trolls bring out the worst in people. There are probably some normally level-headed Obamabots who said some really dumb things about Greenwald. What does that mean beyond a lot of people are wasting their time on Twitter?

  88. 88
    different-church-lady says:

    @Anton Sirius:

    Sorry, there’s no difference between “Saddam has WMDs” and “the NSA is doing unspeakable things to American civil liberties”, when the truth buried 20 paragraphs in to GG’s column says something completely different than what he claimed in paragraph 1.

    Other than all the deaths as a result of it, no.

  89. 89
    Joey Giraud says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    You’re a funny guy. Yeah, pretty funny indeed.

    No, this crowd is largely too “sophisticated” to give a shit.

    Anyone likely to actually do something isn’t going to be reading, much less writing here.

  90. 90
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @JPL: Like Stanford beating Kansas?

  91. 91
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @different-church-lady: It depends on how far back you want to go. Let’s start with Fluffy last June:

    “To the extent that you have aided and abetted [Edward] Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?”

    http://www.thewire.com/politic.....tor/66524/

    I agree the hero/traitor debate is idiotic. That’s not the question here. It’s “journalist/traitor”.

  92. 92
    Sly says:

    @Cervantes:
    Greenwald not only complained about the selection, but went on to say that it didn’t really matter anyway because TIME’s Person of the Year was, in his words, “a meaningless award from a meaningless magazine.”

    This food is terrible… and such small portions!

  93. 93
    Xantar says:

    It’s almost as if mistermix has been saying “dudebro” and “traitor” a whole lot more than the actual Greenwald critics.

    Also, I don’t know why mistermix has keeps arguing about whether the leaks are “authentic.” Nobody has ever denied that the documents are real. The issue is the interpretation. Once again, you keep using that word and it does not mean what you think it does.

  94. 94
    kc says:

    @Cervantes:

    If you go through the first sets of comments on the Greenwald/Snowden stuff at Balloon Juice, you’ll find some otherwise sane people sounding in retrospect like 9/11 truthers

    Or like Bush-era torture apologists.

  95. 95
    srv says:

    @Joey Giraud: You aren’t going to change any votes here.

    There are a few million “democrats and republicans are the same” Millineals on Reddit that you could help.

  96. 96
    different-church-lady says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    That’s not the question here. It’s “journalist/traitor”.

    No, the question here is journalist/polemicist.

    Fuck Fluffy McMoron and he didn’t even use the damn word.

    You’ve had your question answered at least five times. The answer’s not going to change just because some fucking moron on the Sunday Morning poiti-porn shows made an insinuation.

  97. 97
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @Anton Sirius:

    don’t understand why you continue to defend a serial liar and propagandist, other than the thrills you get out of trolling people. How about a post discussing Gellman’s latest column about the NSA, instead of this bullshit linkbait wankery about what Kevin Drum thinks about what other people think about Greenwald, Mr Front Pager?

    Please point out outrage towards the Google machine and dig up a few examples of a lies told by Greenwald about the Snowden leaks, and by “lie” I don’t mean exaggerated headline or questionable conclusion. I mean a misstatement of fact.

    And, by the way, your frothy rage seems to have blinded you to the fact that I linked to the Times Huawei story in this very post. It’s not a Gellman piece, but it wasn’t written by Greenwald, and it’s about the NSA.

  98. 98
    different-church-lady says:

    @Xantar:

    It’s almost as if mistermix has been saying “dudebro” and “traitor” a whole lot more than the actual Greenwald critics.

    Personally I don’t even comprehend the whole dudebro slur to begin with — doesn’t make any sense to me even as trash talk. Snowden’s champions don’t act anything like what I understand a “dudebro” to be.

  99. 99
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Joey Giraud:

    Anyone likely to actually do something isn’t going to be reading, much less writing here.

    Could I note, in passing, that you would fall into both of those groups…

  100. 100
    Poopyman says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    Greenwald is nasty as hell, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong or a traitor.

    If someone has covered this between mm’s comment and here. I apologize.

    I may be working from old information, but didn’t GG and/or Snowden says specifically that Snowden coordinated with GG prior to being hired by Booz, and that he took the job specifically to “whistleblow”?

    Quotes around “whistleblow”, because your latest revelation about Huawei contains nothing relating to spying against Americans, reveals pretty important information to our, um, “competitors”, and significantly impacts the US’s ability to continue to perform its covert operations.

    So yeah, Snowden is a spy and a traitor, and if Greenwald helped him to either get the info or to get the info out of the country, he’s an accomplice to acts of espionage.

  101. 101
    Tripod says:

    @ericblair:

    You’re over thinking it. It’s low grade trolling. They’re dropping the Huawei “revelations” on top of a positive media cycle FLOTUS visit to China. Because they are that petty and ham-fisted.

  102. 102
    Anton Sirius says:

    @different-church-lady: Right. I should have been more specific: there’s no difference in relative truthiness. If I had to pick one or the other to suffer in full from the pain, misery and anguish their bullshit helped create, I’d obviously pick Kristol.

  103. 103
    geg6 says:

    @Sly:

    That’s Greenwald in a nutshell. He’s not the story but he sure makes sure he gets star billing. Every.single.time.

  104. 104
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @different-church-lady:

    You’ve had your question answered at least five times. The answer’s not going to change just because some fucking moron on the Sunday Morning poiti-porn shows made an insinuation.

    So then your answer is “Glenn Greenwald is not a traitor. He should not be prosecuted for his actions in the Snowden case. From the perspective of the law and criminality, his actions are indistinguishable from those of the Times and Post.”

    Did I get that right? Because you never said it clearly.

  105. 105
    different-church-lady says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    …and by “lie” I don’t mean exaggerated headline or questionable conclusion.

    If you’ll excuse me, my desk wishes to violently caress my forehead.

  106. 106
    Anton Sirius says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    And, by the way, your frothy rage seems to have blinded you to the fact that I linked to the Times Huawei story in this very post. It’s not a Gellman piece, but it wasn’t written by Greenwald, and it’s about the NSA.

    No frothy rage here, d00d, just bemused aggravation at your antics, at best. You are being played, and you haven’t wised up to it yet. It’s kind of sad.

    You mean the link that showed the NSA doing its job? That link? Yeah, that really advances your case.

  107. 107
    different-church-lady says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: Deliberately obtuse: ur doin it rite.

    I am bored with you now.

  108. 108
    Red Apple Smokes says:

    @different-church-lady: I seek no personal glory, but some health insurance would be nice.

  109. 109
    Ash Can says:

    Obviously Greenwald has placed himself in the public eye more than Gellman has, but that’s hardly sufficient explanation.

    Actually, yes, it is. When Greenwald makes himself the lightning rod in this whole affair, why should it be a surprise when he’s the one who draws the flak?

    Of course, there’s also the fact that, by simply going about his work and avoiding histrionics, Gellman gives the impression that, if asked to compare the actions of the US and Russian governments regarding journalists and freedom of the press, he’d actually answer the question.

  110. 110
    Cacti says:

    Mistermix, are you just a troll or a complete ignoramus on the role of the NSA.

    Is your point that the NSA isn’t supposed to do foreign intelligence gathering either? Do you even have one other than waving your ass around?

  111. 111
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @different-church-lady: @Poopyman:

    Poopyman, by calling Greenwald “an accomplice to an act of espionage”, which some of us would think means he’s a traitor, you have officially been relegated to the fringe by different-church-lady. Enjoy your stay.

  112. 112
    geg6 says:

    @Tripod:

    Yup. Of this, I have no doubt whatsoever.

  113. 113
    Baud says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    That’s my answer, in case my prior comments weren’t clear enough.

  114. 114
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @geg6: He’s not the story but he sure makes sure he gets star billing.

    He has a lot of help with that, for reasons that, again, utterly escape me.

    @kc: Or like Bush-era torture apologists.

    Because the collection of metadata is just like water boarding!

  115. 115
    Anton Sirius says:

    @Xantar:

    It’s almost as if mistermix has been saying “dudebro” and “traitor” a whole lot more than the actual Greenwald critics.

    You need to read more LGF. Charles added a whole Dudebro font to the comments, to pair with the Wingnut font they use.

  116. 116
    different-church-lady says:

    @Anton Sirius:

    You need to read more LGF.

    Nobody needs to do that.

  117. 117
    kc says:

    @Violet:

    It’s sarcasm. If you’ve been reading these NSA threads since the beginning, you’d surely notice the handful of commenters who throwing the epithet “dudebro” at anyone who expresses concern about NSA overreach.

  118. 118
    geg6 says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    by “lie” I don’t mean exaggerated headline or questionable conclusion.

    Where I grew up, a synonym for exaggerating and twisting facts to manufacture a conclusion was “lying.”

  119. 119
    JPL says:

    @Gin & Tonic: Well as I always say What’s the matter with Kansas?
    @Red Apple Smokes: Make sure you post again. I have no idea what the Michigan law is but you might try to write to Richard also.

  120. 120
    Baud says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Who can get passed the pop-ups?

  121. 121
    Ruckus says:

    @Spankyslappybottom:
    Glen! How’s it hanging?

  122. 122
    Joey Giraud says:

    @srv:

    Put my efforts where they will do the most good?

    You’re probably right. But partisan voting won’t do help, it’s a bit deeper then that.

  123. 123
    Cacti says:

    @geg6:

    Where I grew up, a synonym for exaggerating and twisting facts to manufacture a conclusion was “lying.”

    Mistermix’s messiah gets his own special definition of lying.

  124. 124
    JPL says:

    @Red Apple Smokes: fyi.. Richard’s contact info is in the top right corner of this page. The reason I mentioned posting again on another thread is because someone familiar with the law in MI might be around later.

  125. 125
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @kc: That’s correct. Thank you.

  126. 126
    Joey Giraud says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    True. Time for a break.

  127. 127
    Morbo says:

    @Cervantes: Hypocrisy in IR? Say it isn’t so!

  128. 128
    Cacti says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Because the collection of metadata is just like water boarding!

    It was endlessly amusing to see John Cole do a front page post on “Find your first Tweet” as often as he and the Greensnow fan club have waxed righteous about “how dare you look at my metadata!”.

    Collecting metadata is wrong…except for when it’s good fun.

  129. 129
    Red Apple Smokes says:

    @JPL: Thank you, I posted without going through the thread first. I’ve been trying to multitask all day (dishes, dinner for my folks, vacuuming, laundry, sign up for medicaid, etc.), when I hit a snag I thought I would take a flyer on someone being able to point me in the right direction. I’ll definitely try to contact Mr. Mayhew after dinner this evening.

  130. 130

    I’m not fond of Greenwald because the man’s agenda and politics seem less interested in reforming the United States or improving in in achievable degrees and more interested in casting the US as the worst government on Earth even when it’s simply doing things we would (and should) expect it to do like, for example, keeping tabs on China and its technology (and probably trying to learn how much of that technology is based on designs they’ve stolen from our tech companies.)

  131. 131
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @Morbo:

    In other words, the NSA did what it’s mandated to do.

    You certainly don’t see the Chines spying on American businesses! /sarcasm

    So why can’t we discuss the NSA domestic spying which is the issues and instead always bring up this bullshit, oh my god the NSA is being naughty for us, about the NSA??? The very reason I think Greenwald and Snowden are tools of the Russians is because they are always trying to drum up outrage over the NSA spying on foreign governments.

  132. 132
    srv says:

    @Joey Giraud:

    it’s a bit deeper then that.

    Nothing that a nice draft would not fix.

    I mean, the NSA is the worst thing since the holocaust when a woman can’t get an abortion in the entirety of the Rio Grande Valley. IDK why these old fats just don’t get their priorities straight.

  133. 133
    🍀 Martin says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    The question is why is his right to publish constantly being questioned, while the right of the Times and post, and individual journalists like Gellman, is not? Why is it that Greenwald is called a traitor when Gellman is not?

    I don’t think anyone has questioned his right to publish. I think we’re questioning why anyone takes him seriously when you are conceding that he is an exaggerator, and cites him as a factual source rather than as a pundit.

    Greenwald is called a traitor because he does not appear to be objective. He doesn’t appear to just be publishing information from people like Snowden but aiding and abetting them in their acquisition of that information, which is illegal (whether it is moral is a different, debatable matter).

    Now, I wouldn’t call him a traitor, but Greenwald, from his behavior doesn’t try very hard to dispel the charge. He fled the US (for reasons that no longer apply). He’s used his partner to transport documents (I didn’t realize his partner was a journalist now, and subject to shield laws). His ‘exaggerations’ are uniformly against the US government, while excusing worse behaviors from other governments. None of these are damning in and of themselves, but it suggests that GG is more than an objective critic of the US, rather he is looking for excuses to denounce the US. Its reasonable to suspect that he’s personally angry at the US for his need to go to Brazil. I don’t blame him for that, I’d be angry as well, but he’s made no effort to detach that from his current crusade. And his other behavior towards his critics make him look like a guy that is simply pissed off at the US and looking for every reason to attack the US, whether it’s factually true or not, and now doing it with the backing of a billionaire that has his own rather transparent agenda.

    It’s incredibly difficult to call GG objective in any sense. And that’s due entirely to actions that GG has taken. That’s why Gellman gets a pass – Gellman at least gives the appearance of an objective reporter.

    And I’ll note that the FPers have been beating up on journalistic hires from Nate and Ezra in most cases without even seeing a single piece of work published under their new bylines. We’re not tarring GG in absentia. We’re attacking his work directly, demonstrating that it’s shit, being attacked by GG directly for questioning him, and then being attacked by the very same front pagers. GGs piece on social media sites giving direct access to the NSA was obviously complete bullshit. We called it out as such, and we were attacked for it. Did the people attacking us apologize now that it’s been determined to be bullshit? No, they accuse us of attacking GG personally when we were attacking his work, and ignore the fact that they were defending shitty and partisan reporting, and we’re still called shills for the NSA simply because we went after bad journalism.

  134. 134
    Gin & Tonic says:

    To take your mind off this crap, here’s a flashmob playing “Ode to Joy” (which is the hymn of the EU) in a market in Odessa, Ukraine.

  135. 135
    taylormattd says:

    @MikeJ: “You mean the intelligence agencies are spying on foreign countries? Wow. Shocker.”

    I mean seriously. What the fuck is wrong with people? *This is literally the purpose of the NSA*

    Really? We are supposed to be upset that the NSA was spying on a Chinese company? Are you fucking kidding?

    And if you’d like to know, mistermix, why people bitch and moan about Greenwald and his cultists, all you need to do is look at this stupid fucking post.

  136. 136
    Cacti says:

    @🍀 Martin:

    He fled the US (for reasons that no longer apply).

    His flight from the US likely had as much to do with the six-figure unpaid tax bill that he owes. Brazil didn’t extend full marriage rights to same sex couples until 2013.

  137. 137
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Violet: @kc: “Dudebro” is a snarky epithet for libertarian. It is used to suggest that worrying about surveillance issues is on the same spectrum as worrying about barber licensing and motorcycle helmet laws and fiat money.

  138. 138
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @kc: I’ve expressed concern about NSA overreach and nobody has called me a “dudebro”. I haven’t set my hair on fire over it, but that’s not my nature.

    What I haven’t done is fetishized this issue at the expense of all others, or claimed that the (very real and troubling) potential for abuse inherent in these programs is a greater abuse of power than actual and on-going infringement of rights taking place in this country, from stop-and-frisk to voter ID to shutting down abortion clinics to the legal, journalistic and financial harassment of groups like Planned Parenthood and ACORN.

  139. 139
    ruemara says:

    What are you even getting at? You do realize that you can discuss the issues without this butthurt that people aren’t calling Snowden and Greenwald heroes, right? Who gives a fuck about them? It’s also ridiculous that we’re supposed to be upset that an agency that is all about spying abroad is spying abroad. What do you think they were doing, waiting for naughtyspy.com to come up so they could finally have someone to go spy on? Jesus, discuss what you want, but stop being stupid about it. Greenwald is an asshole, because he says assholish things, trolls, does not present the facts but large doses of his biases laced with a few facts and generally is a walking saint of confirmation bias. Gellman just talks about the facts and doesn’t act like a complete douche if you raise a contrary question.

  140. 140
    raven says:

    zzzzzzzzzzzzz

  141. 141
    Mnemosyne says:

    The latest revelation, published in the Times, is that the NSA has penetrated the networks of Huawei, the huge Chinese manufacturer of networking equipment. I guess that makes the Times dudebros, too.

    Sorry, why am I supposed to be shocked and outraged that the United States is spying on foreign companies inside foreign countries? Explain it in small words. I guess I’m just not getting why you’re so outraged that the US is not respecting the constitutional rights of foreign governments.

  142. 142
    guachi says:

    The first comments nailed it. Greenwald exaggerates and lies. People like Gellman and Marc Ambinder work hard to get the facts correct.

    At least Greenwald trolls better than mistermix does.

  143. 143
    Hill Dweller says:

    As an aside, I think the Huawei story was meant to undermine the US and embarrass the First Lady.

  144. 144
    Joel says:

    Why the difference? Obviously Greenwald has placed himself in the public eye more than Gellman has, but that’s hardly sufficient explanation.

    Why is this an insufficient explanation? Just because it’s not justifiable doesn’t mean that it isn’t the answer. People aren’t rational. I mean, America gave its tacit consent when it overwhelmingly embraced the Patriot Act only a little more than a decade ago.

    I also think you’re picking a fight with the wrong people. It’s not the balloon juice commentariat that provides the bedrock of support for the surveillance state.

  145. 145
    Violet says:

    @kc:

    If you’ve been reading these NSA threads since the beginning

    Well, that’s probably the problem. I have not.

  146. 146
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @🍀 Martin:

    I don’t think anyone has questioned his right to publish. I think we’re questioning why anyone takes him seriously when you are conceding that he is an exaggerator, and cites him as a factual source rather than as a pundit.

    Greenwald is called a traitor because he does not appear to be objective. He doesn’t appear to just be publishing information from people like Snowden but aiding and abetting them in their acquisition of that information, which is illegal (whether it is moral is a different, debatable matter).

    This is an argument I see a lot. Essentially you’re saying that Greenwald was a co-conspirator (“aiding and abetting”) instead of a journalist. This would seem to imply that Greenwald in some way encouraged Snowden to take documents from the NSA, or somehow arranged his escape into Russia.

    If this were at all true, why hasn’t any effort been made to charge and extradite Greenwald? He’s a much easier get than Snowden, isn’t he?

    Now, if what happened was that Snowden took some data with him to Hong Kong and Greenwald met him there and got some of that data, then that’s a different story. In that case, GG didn’t take the documents from the NSA, he took them from Snowden. Just like the NYT and WP didn’t take the Pentagon Papers from the Pentagon, they took them from Ellsberg. That’s generally accepted journalistic practice.

  147. 147
    Botsplainer says:

    some of it is almost certainly illegal

    Assumes facts not in evidence, Mixie.

    Here’s a hint to squealing dudebros, pure progressives and teatards – a program that you don’t like isn’t unconstimatooshinally tromping on your cherished rights as a privileged white person to commit acts of domestic terror, launder money gained from criminal enterprises or swap out kiddie porn pics just because that program exists.

  148. 148
    Botsplainer says:

    Snowjob and Griftwald need to share a cell after being waterboarded about exactly when the FSB made its first approach.

    They can bring in Pollard to be the third player at the Wednesday euchre game in the can.

    Discuss…

  149. 149
    Cervantes says:

    @Ash Can:

    When Greenwald makes himself the lightning rod in this whole affair, why should it be a surprise when he’s the one who draws the flak?

    What meaning does this question have beyond the notion that it’s easier to attack Greenwald than deal with revelations about the NSA?

  150. 150
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Cervantes: It’s also easier to attack Gellman or Risen than deal with revelations about the NSA. Yet people don’t. I think that’s the whole point of this thread.

  151. 151
    Botsplainer says:

    And that, my friends, is how a Number 1 seed is supposed to play.

  152. 152
    Emma says:

    So when Valerie Plame gets outed by the Republicans and it hurts American interests it is a crime, but when Greenwald and Snowden out NSA operations in other countries and it hurts American interests it isn’t?

  153. 153
    Doc Sportello says:

    @Violet: Yup. A little clarification would be appreciated. I checked Urban Dictionary, but that definition does not seem to apply.

  154. 154
    ruemara says:

    @Emma: Shhhhh, let’s not discuss that inconsistency. Nor the fact that the bulk of the outrageous spying has been timed and selected to embarrass the administration during key negotiations or events and largely, have not met the criteria of “illegal”. My suspicions of Snowden & Greenwald have a lot more to do with failing to see how their state goals are matching up with their actions, than any sort of desire to see the NSA et al continue.

  155. 155
    Ash Can says:

    @Cervantes: The meaning is that it directly addresses what MM insists is his (and Drum’s) real question, that of why Greenwald and Gellman are treated differently. It has nothing to do with the NSA issue you raise because that wasn’t the original point.

  156. 156
    Cervantes says:

    @Gin & Tonic: Does Risen have access to the Snowden documents?

  157. 157
    Cervantes says:

    @Emma:

    So when Valerie Plame gets outed by the Republicans and it hurts American interests it is a crime, but when Greenwald and Snowden out NSA operations in other countries and it hurts American interests it isn’t?

    Can you re-phrase your question without referring to “American interests”?

  158. 158
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @Emma: I believe the journalist who was convicted of a crime in the Plame case was named “Nobody Ever”, but I could be mistaken.

  159. 159
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Cervantes: I have no idea. I’d be surprised if he didn’t, though. If you know he doesn’t, then s/Risen/Sanger.

  160. 160

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:
    Small world. Isn’t that the journalist who was convicted in the Snowden leaks?

  161. 161
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @Frankensteinbeck: Actually nobody was convicted of any crime related to the leak, just of lying to the grand jury (Scooter).

  162. 162
    Emma says:

    @Cervantes: No. It is impossible in this case. I am not speaking of the VERY dubious NSA work in this country. I am speaking of operations in other countries.

    A number of you sound like those 19th century English gentlemen who were so squeamish about the idea of espionage, both political and commercial. We are gentlemen and gentlemen do not soil their hands. Even if we agreed on the immorality of espionage, that boat sailed a very very long time ago.

  163. 163
    chopper says:

    someone on the internet called GG a ‘traitor’? quick, to the front page of my blog!

  164. 164
  165. 165
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @MikeJ:

    You mean the intelligence agencies are spying on foreign countries?

    Yes, I’m shocked, shocked that the NSA is actually trying to spy on the Chinese! Round up the usual suspects!

    Anyone who has been paying attention for the last, oh, I don’t know, 60 odd years knows something about the NSA’s capabilities. The problem is that they’re turned domestically, illegally, with little or no oversight from Congress. This is true of the CIA and every other intelligence apparatus at the command of the Executive branch.

    The solution is to kick Congress’ butt to do their fucking job, which is to monitor these agencies and scream bloody murder (hello, DiFi!) when they cross the lines.

  166. 166
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @Emma:

    So when Valerie Plame gets outed by the Republicans and it hurts American interests it is a crime, but when Greenwald and Snowden out NSA operations in other countries and it hurts American interests it isn’t?

    That the first part of your assertion was false. It was not a crime when Valerie Plame was outed, as judged by an extensive investigation. The only crime committed was lying to the grand jury by Libby.

    You’re also wrong to couple Greenwald and Snowden as the only “outers”. It was Snowden and a number of journalists, most recently those writing at the Times who did the “outing”.

    But other than that, please continue.

  167. 167
    Pooh says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: who’s called snowden a dudebro? This is some seriously poor argumentation.

    I think I’m paying you a compliment in saying that you know perfectly well that GG brogressiveism has fuckall to do with the meat if the NSA story, and has further fuckall to do with with people who are calling him a traitor. In fact how much overlap is there between people calling him dudebro and traitor? You’re eliding crucial differences to troll the fuck out of us, or you don’t know the difference yourself. Which is it?

  168. 168
    🍀 Martin says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: If you note in my comment I said ‘appears’, with that highlighted for emphasis. I don’t believe he has broken any laws, but I must say, he’s nudged closer to that line than any other journalist I can think of. That doesn’t mean he’s crossed it, but I’m not so sure. And again, his willingness to analyze things he admits he knows nothing about, and his sole focus on this one subject, and refusal to criticize countries like Russia in any way (and Snowden’s similar refusal to criticize Russia who now harbors him) means it is not unreasonable to question.

    And of course, if the govt were to investigate this, there would be howls of jackbooted thuggery.

    Let me put it another way: Is there anything that GG could do that would be deserving of question or criticism? Because there doesn’t seem to be any room for that. I’m of the opinion that we’re all at least marginally shitty at what we do. We all fuck up. We’re all deserving of criticism when we’ve earned it. That’s what a meritocracy is about. GG seems above that.

  169. 169
    Weasel says:

    Please add Dudebro to the Lexicon file. I’m vaguely aware of the connotations of that label but was hoping to refine my understanding. Sadly, no dice there…yet!

  170. 170
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: It was a crime when Plame was outed. The investigation ran into a dead end when Libby refused to cooperate. Libby was then prosecuted for and convicted of obstruction of justice.

  171. 171
    Cervantes says:

    @Gin & Tonic: Same question re Sanger: does he have direct access to the Snowden cache? (Or in this case did he obtain access via Der Spiegel?)

  172. 172
    Cervantes says:

    @🍀 Martin:

    Is there anything that GG could do that would be deserving of question or criticism? Because there doesn’t seem to be any room for that.

    Of course there is room for criticism. Is there some you’d like to discuss?

    One simple form of criticism: here is what Document D says; here is so-and-so’s analysis of it and recommendations therefrom; and here’s why that analysis is wrong and those recommendations inappropriate.

    Are there other useful forms of criticism? There must be at least a few others, right?

    Whereas ad hominem abuse is not criticism worth a tinker’s damn (I’m not saying you engage in it).

  173. 173
    Cervantes says:

    @Emma:

    No. It is impossible in this case. I am not speaking of the VERY dubious NSA work in this country. I am speaking of operations in other countries.

    If you’re not willing or able to dissect “American interests” in the two cases to see how they might differ, then I don’t follow your (opaque) argument.

    A number of you sound like those 19th century English gentlemen who were so squeamish about the idea of espionage, both political and commercial. We are gentlemen and gentlemen do not soil their hands. Even if we agreed on the immorality of espionage, that boat sailed a very very long time ago.

    Interesting but not germane.

  174. 174
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Cervantes: I neither know nor care.

  175. 175
    Mnemosyne says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    It was not a crime when Valerie Plame was outed, as judged by an extensive investigation. The only crime committed was lying to the grand jury by Libby.

    Er, no. Libby’s obstruction of justice was the only crime that could be proven. When George Zimmermann was acquitted, did Trayvon Martin magically come back to life because legally no crime had been committed?

    But other than that, please continue.

    You dodged Emma’s question without answering it. Why was outing Valerie Plame’s overseas activities a bad thing to do, but outing the NSA’s overseas activities a good thing to do?

    And if you try and say, We’re not talking about the NSA’s overseas activities, then why did you bring up the latest revelations about NSA activities in China?

  176. 176
    rikyrah says:

    Red Apple Smokes:

    Did you email the FPer that has done all the posts about healthcare?

  177. 177
    Cervantes says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Holy fuck, someone please cue up the Mumia T-Shirt rant…

    And while you’re at it, you might relate all that nonsense to anything I said (thanks).

  178. 178
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mnemosyne: he brings that up because he thinks it means that the NSA is tampering with Chinese-built equipment that gets exported to the US, where it can then be hacked by alphabet-agency spooks doing illegal domestic surveillance.

  179. 179
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    And if you try and say, We’re not talking about the NSA’s overseas activities, then why did you bring up the latest revelations about NSA activities in China?

    Good question. Why is the revelation of the NSA’s activities in China, which is fully within its mandate, not a crime?

  180. 180
    Mnemosyne says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    And the proof that that’s what’s going on and it’s not the US trying to prevent the Chinese from installing their own equipment that would allow the Chinese to spy on people in the US is … ?

  181. 181
    TG Chicago says:

    @Cacti: Brazil’s stance on marriage equality is irrelevant. GG and his partner lived in different countries. If marriage equality existed in the US, they could have married and the partner would be a US citizen and could move here. Since that was not an option, but it was possible for GG to move to Brazil, they went that route

  182. 182
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mnemosyne: The Chinese would never do that. Nor would the Russians.

    They’re both as pure as the driven snow right near a coal fueled power plant.

  183. 183
    Emma says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: If the only worthwhile judgment is that of the courts, then let’s have the Snowden case decide.

  184. 184
    Emma says:

    @Cervantes: It is the same damn thing. Believe it or not knowing what the Chinese are up to behind close doors commercially is as important as the political angle. But keep trying to split the baby.

  185. 185
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Er, no. Libby’s obstruction of justice was the only crime that could be proven.

    Exactly.

    Snowden was indicted, in secret, in May. The indictment became public in June. For all we know, there might be a secret indictment of Greenwald (though I doubt it).

    National security / intelligence cases are different. The government knows that if they go to trial they may be forced to put forward other secret information, or the holy grail of “sources and methods”, in order to get a conviction. They may decide in advance that those risks are too high and thus choose not to pursue an indictment.

    That’s part of what makes arguments about Snowden and Greenwald so fervent. We never see the entire PPTs or memos that get reported on – we only see the seemingly salacious bits. So, we miss the context. Is the context important? Usually. Is it in this case? Dunno. All we see are snippets and the reporters’ take on what it means. If you have developed a visceral dislike of Greenwald for advice like electing more Republicans, well, it can be easy to dismiss his interpretation of evidence that is incomplete and in shades of gray.

    FWIW.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  186. 186
    SectarianSofa says:

    @Joey Giraud: As far as I can tell, that’s exactly right. The fuck does this have to do with Drum or ths NSA? Most actual conversations or arguments I’ve had involving ‘dudebros’ has involved the nastiness of the tech workplace to women (in some cases and places), or in tech /science undergraduate education.

  187. 187
    Cervantes says:

    @Sly:

    Greenwald not only complained about the selection, but went on to say that it didn’t really matter anyway because TIME’s Person of the Year was, in his words, “a meaningless award from a meaningless magazine.” This food is terrible… and such small portions!

    I happen to agree that it’s a meaningless thing.

    You think Greenwald’s complaint was a case of “sour grapes”? I’d have to look at the actual complaint to be sure but it’s certainly possible!

  188. 188
    Glocksman says:

    I don’t read Greenwald and have no opinion on whether or not he’s an asshole peddling bullshit or a crusading seeker of truth.

    However, I do have real problems with the continual leaks of NSA operations that fall squarely within the NSA’s legal mandate.
    Revealing such operations goes far beyond legitimate whistleblowing on illegal NSA activity and borders on espionage.

    Should GG be prosecuted?
    No, journalists will do what they do and unless it can be proven that he conspired with Snowden to obtain the documents prior to Snowden’s theft, GG’s committed no crime.

    Should Snowden be prosecuted?
    Damn straight, as he’s crossed the line from exposing illegal activity to exposing legal espionage activity and harming the interests of the United States.

  189. 189
    Cervantes says:

    @Emma:

    It is the same damn thing.

    Sorry — what “is the same damn thing”?

    Believe it or not knowing what the Chinese are up to behind close doors commercially is as important as the political angle. But keep trying to split the baby.

    I am not following your argument.

    My loss entirely, I am sure.

  190. 190
    SectarianSofa says:

    Is the point of this post that MM can’t figure out that people who disagree with him aren’t necessarily dishonest?

  191. 191
    LT says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix: “Please point out outrage towards the Google machine and dig up a few examples…”

    Yeah no. You will not get this.

    Good post. You gots to replace the roach motels now and then.

  192. 192
    TG Chicago says:

    @🍀 Martin: You claim that GG excuses bad actions done by other governments. But your link does not support that claim. Ricks’ demand for GG to denounce this or that is ridiculous at best, McCarthyite at worst.

  193. 193
    LT says:

    @Glocksman:

    However, I do have real problems with the continual leaks of NSA operations that fall squarely within the NSA’s legal mandate.

    Can you think of anything the NSA could do that would by your definition would “fall squarely within the NSA’s legal mandate” that would still be wrong, and worthy of exposure?

  194. 194
    Sly says:

    @Cervantes:

    I happen to agree that it’s a meaningless thing.

    So do I.

    You think Greenwald’s complaint was a case of “sour grapes”?

    Who fucking knows except Greenwald? Stating your preference for who should win an award and then describing that award as meaningless is absurd. Either Snowden should have gotten it, and the award has some meaning, or the award has no meaning and it doesn’t matter if he got it or not.

  195. 195
    Glocksman says:

    @LT:

    Possibly.
    That said, hacking Huawei and tapping Merkel’s phone is neither wrong nor illegal and exposing both inflicted harm on the United States.

    I’ve come from regarding Snowden as a whistleblower to someone who needs to see the inside of an 8X10 cell at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary for the next 50 years

  196. 196
    Carolinus says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    You’re also wrong to couple Greenwald and Snowden as the only “outers”. It was Snowden and a number of journalists, most recently those writing at the Times who did the “outing”.

    I’m not sure I get the distinction. Snowden bulk leaked a massive, unvetted trove of state secrets to Greenwald & Poitras and a smaller subset to Gellman. If he had wanted to do something at all resembling whistle-blowing he’d have only given them access to what he found objectionable, instead of leaving national security vetting at the whims of “newsworthiness.”

    Further, let me address your root question. The difference between Gellman and Greenwald / Poitras is the latter two are operating as Wikileaks style gatekeepers of the Snowden document trove. They cherry pick documents, write the story and usually partner with papers in the affected countries to maximise damage/impact. Timing also seems to frequently follow that pattern. One of the first Snowden-leaked stories coincided with & undermined the US-China cyber summit last year, and this story nicely aligns with the Michelle Obama’s state visit and the President’s coming meet with the Chinese President.

    Any time you see Greenwald or Poitras’ name on the by-line of a story in a major paper like Spiegel or the NYT, this is what you’re actually getting:

    http://www.politico.com/story/.....03120.html

    Greenwald said he has worked with news outlets around the globe to publicize newsworthy aspects of the documents Edward Snowden copied while working for the NSA in Hawaii. …

    “We do the reporting first… I vet the stories,” Greenwald said. “We come with the story already formed. We work on drafts of the story. We always edit the story. We have approval rights.

  197. 197
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @LT: You want someone else to come up with a (hypothetical) justification for your righteous outrage?

  198. 198
    LT says:

    @Glocksman: If your answer is “possibly” then you are bound by honesty to admit that revealing the Huawei hacking story might fall within the definition of wrong and worthy of exposure. Because you do not know the full story yet. Why do you – and so many others – constantly pretend you know everything about things you clearly know the thinnest veneer of? This particular story is about an NSA operation against a Chinese telecom company. It is a story about hundreds, maybe thousands, of NSA and other government employees, including elected oficials, doing things over periods of months and years – and YOU pretend to know the extent of it, and can casually comment on its legality?

    It’s just funny, sad, stupid, and tiring.

    P.S. Former DOJ bigshot Jack Goldsmith – who normally defends the NSA – on one very big *wrong* about this perfectly legal (maybe) NSA action:

    U.S. Hypocrisy. The Huawei revelations are devastating rebuttals to hypocritical U.S. complaints about Chinese penetration of U.S. networks, and also make USG protestations about not stealing intellectual property to help U.S. firms’ competitiveness seem like the self-serving hairsplitting that it is.

    Just mindboggling.

  199. 199
    LT says:

    Arg – JOHN: can’t edit my own comment. Within time period and all. Just to note.

    Last comment I should have been more clear on this: “and YOU pretend to know the extent of it, and can casually comment on its legality?”

    That should have added things to “legality,” like “on its legality, on its overall rightness or wrongness, or legitimacy.” Etc.

  200. 200
    Mnemosyne says:

    @LT:

    This particular story is about an NSA operation against a Chinese telecom company.

    And you are in China? A Chinese citizen? Work for the Chinese government?

    Why are you upset with the US spying on China? And are you equally upset when China spies on the US, or is that A-OK?

  201. 201
    Glocksman says:

    @LT:

    If you want me to say US complaints about Chinese spying are hypocritical, I will because they are.

    That said, every nation is hypocritical when it comes to spying so I’m neither surprised or upset at the hypocrisy.

    As for the Huawei story being newsworthy, it is, which is why I’m not calling for GG’s head on a platter.

    It’s also a story that’s resulted in very real harm being done to US interests and the person who leaked the documents should be sitting in a prison cell instead of a Moscow hotel room.

  202. 202
    Mnemosyne says:

    @LT:

    Last comment I should have been more clear on this: “and YOU pretend to know the extent of it, and can casually comment on its legality?”

    “Legality” in what way? Under US law? You may be surprised to find out that US law does not apply in China. Perhaps you can tell us specifically which Chinese laws you feel the US violated with this action.

    Or are there some international treaties or agreements that you feel the US has breached with these actions? If so, which treaties or agreements are they?

  203. 203
    LT says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    And you are in _____? A ______ citizen? Work for the ______ government?

    Why are you upset with the US doing perfectly legal things regarding foreign countries?

  204. 204
    LT says:

    @Glocksman:

    As for the Huawei story being newsworthy, it is, which is why I’m not calling for GG’s head on a platter.

    Jesus fucking Christ. Why even bother?

  205. 205
    LT says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    You may be surprised to find out that US law does not apply in China.

    You are an idiot.

  206. 206
    Glocksman says:

    @LT:

    That comment reflects Greenwald’s role as a journalist reporting on the news.
    If Greenwald had stole the documents about the Huawei story himself instead of being handed them by Snowden, I would be calling for his metaphorical head on a platter.

    It’s the difference between journalism and espionage.

  207. 207
    Mnemosyne says:

    @LT:

    Yes, because infiltrating a computer factory to get information is exactly the same as torturing prisoners. Oh, those poor servers and CPUs, so horribly violated by the NSA! We must stop tormenting poor, innocent computer components whose only crime is being assembled in another country.

    ETA: Now we know why LT was so upset that Greenwald’s laptop was confiscated last summer — I bet the British tortured the poor thing! Applied electrodes to its motherboard! Threatened to break its screen if it didn’t give them the information they wanted! Oh, the horror of computer components being tortured!

  208. 208
    Red Apple Smokes says:

    @rikyrah: Yes, I just sent the email.

  209. 209
    LT says:

    @Glocksman:

    You’re really not worth the time, but just for the unholy fuck of it: Greenwald didn’t write the Huawei story. He had nothing to do with that story. Why are you commenting on something you are obviously almost completely ignorant of?

  210. 210
    Mnemosyne says:

    @LT:

    Greenwald didn’t write the Huawei story. He had nothing to do with that story.

    And by “nothing” you mean “provided the documents to the New York Times,” right?

    The agency pried its way into the servers in Huawei’s sealed headquarters in Shenzhen, China’s industrial heart, according to N.S.A. documents provided by the former contractor Edward J. Snowden.

  211. 211
    LT says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Yes, because infiltrating a computer factory to get information is exactly the same as torturing prisoners.

    You are hilarious. Before it was just about the legality and rightness of any X thing done in foeign country – now it’s about what exactly that thing is. Brilliant.

    P.S. The “black sites” story was not just about torture. That you said that is revealing of either ignorance or desperation.

  212. 212
    Mnemosyne says:

    @LT:

    Before it was just about the legality and rightness of any X thing done in foeign country – now it’s about what exactly that thing is.

    You’re the one who decided it was about the “legality and rightness” of the US spying on China inside China.

    Again, for some reason I’m not seeing this huge amount of moral outrage that China spies on the US inside the US. Why are you not morally outraged at that? Is it fine for other countries to spy on the US, but morally wrong for the US to do the same thing?

    P.S. The “black sites” story was not just about torture. That you said that is revealing of either ignorance or desperation.

    Tell us all about the poor computer components who had their privacy violated at those black sites. I’m sure we’ll all share your moral outrage at the inanimate objects whose privacy was violated there … oh, and maybe some bad things happened to humans, too, but won’t someone please think of the computer components and their feelings?

  213. 213
    LT says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    And by “nothing” you mean “provided the documents to the New York Times,” right?

    Yeah there’s you being wrong, again. It’s like a tattoo for you, isn’t it?

    And even if he had – the whole point of Drum’s and this post – why isn’t outrage directed at writers of NYT story, and editors and publisher of NYT?

    I’ll tell you why: because the outrage isn’t really about the story. It’s *something else*.

  214. 214
    Mnemosyne says:

    And, yes, I am more concerned about actual human beings being held prisoner and tortured than I am about servers being breached at foreign computer companies. I’m just funny that way, I guess.

  215. 215
    Mnemosyne says:

    @LT:

    Yeah there’s you being wrong, again. It’s like a tattoo for you, isn’t it?

    So Greenwald saying he gave the NYT the documents months ago is him denying giving them the documents at all?

    You may want to work on your reading comprehension there, dude.

    ETA: Oh, wait, “The Guardian” gave the NYT the documents. Because those documents showed up magically on The Guardian’s doorstep with no action by Greenwald. Nuh-uh.

    And even if he had – the whole point of Drum’s and this post – why isn’t outrage directed at writers of NYT story, and editors and publisher of NYT?

    Because, as far as we know, Snowden didn’t contact the NYT before starting his job with Booz-Allen and offer to obtain documents for them?

  216. 216
    tybee says:

    @Poopyman:

    I may be working from old information, but didn’t GG and/or Snowden says specifically that Snowden coordinated with GG prior to being hired by Booz, and that he took the job specifically to “whistleblow”?

    i, too, find that particular bit of data from some months ago (and to my knowledge never denied) very interesting.

  217. 217
    Cervantes says:

    @Glocksman:

    US complaints about Chinese spying are hypocritical

    That’s true.

    That said, every nation is hypocritical when it comes to spying so I’m neither surprised or upset at the hypocrisy.

    This is a worldly view — no one would call it naïve. Meanwhile, the field is not level: because the two societies are set up so differently, Chinese spying in/on the US is a lot more difficult to block than US spying in/on China. (I’m talking about governmental and industrial espionage, although with regard to the Chinese system, the difference between the two is not always obvious.)

  218. 218
    Carolinus says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    So Greenwald saying he gave the NYT the documents months ago is him denying giving them the documents at all?

    Considering Greenwald & Poitras control access to the entire Snowden archive, and the Guardian lost access when Greenwald left, it’s a fair assumption that Greenwald was part of that decision. It was the British subset of the files stolen by Snowden that were shared w/ the New York Times and Pro Publica.

    Greenwald:

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosieg.....owden-docu

    Only Laura and I have access to the full set of documents which Snowden provided to journalists.

    As the Guardian reported, the New York Times and ProPublica have only the portion of the archive relating to GCHQ. That is a small subset of the documents.

    [The Washington Post’s] Bart Gellman also has only a small subset of the documents, though the number is substantial and relate to NSA.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23898580

    Today we have learnt a little more about the electronic files seized from David Miranda – but a lot more about why the UK authorities are so concerned about it.

    There are 58,000 documents, many marked “Secret” and “Top Secret”.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....81082.html

    Information about the project was contained in 50,000 GCHQ documents that Mr Snowden downloaded during 2012. Many of them came from an internal Wikipedia-style information site called GC-Wiki. Unlike the public Wikipedia, GCHQ’s wiki was generally classified Top Secret or above.

  219. 219
    Cervantes says:

    @Ash Can:

    The meaning is that it directly addresses what MM insists is his (and Drum’s) real question, that of why Greenwald and Gellman are treated differently.

    Your explanation of this difference, then, was that Greenwald (and I quote) makes himself a lightning rod — in other words, you attack him because you think he deserves it? Sure, why not?— but this explanation explains nothing — unless you or others have documented his transgressions. If you feel that’s a good use of your time, please feel free to do so, or point out where you or others have done so.

    Meanwhile, I focus on actions (and transgressions) funded by my tax dollars and carried out in my name.

  220. 220
    lol says:

    @evolved beyond the fist mistermix:

    Encouraging someone to leak classified material is a crime and Greenwald, by his own admission, was working with Snowden before he even took the job at Booz Allen.

    (And yes, Rosen should have been arrested since he unambiguously crossed the line into criminal territory. He should be thanking the Obama administration for giving him a pass instead of throwing a tantrum.)

    @Poopyman:

    You’re not supposed to mention of that because shut up that’s why.

  221. 221
    Ian says:

    @geg6:
    Enhanced truth establishing techniques.

  222. 222
    Ian says:

    @LT:
    This is starting to remind me of the South Park episode where Michael Jackson walked around saying “everyone is so ignorant”. Find moar synonyms for ‘you don’t agree, therefor you are stupid’.

  223. 223
    Cervantes says:

    @Tripod:

    You’re over thinking it. It’s low grade trolling. They’re dropping the Huawei “revelations” on top of a positive media cycle FLOTUS visit to China. Because they are that petty and ham-fisted.

    Who is “they”? Who is “that petty and ham-fisted”?

    Snowden gave whatever NSA materials he had to a small number of journalists, and he gave it to them last summer in Hong Kong. The NYT story about Huawei came out yesterday, and the decision to publish it yesterday was not Snowden’s decision. It was the NYT’s decision.

  224. 224
    LT says:

    @Cervantes:

    Who is “they”? Who is “that petty and ham-fisted”?

    David Sanger and Nicole Perlroth, and their research team, and the copyeditors and editors, and publisher, of the New York Times.

    By which I mean Greenwald.

  225. 225
    Cervantes says:

    @lol:

    [1] Encouraging someone to leak classified material is a crime and [2] Greenwald, by his own admission, was working with Snowden before he even took the job at Booz Allen.

    Good example of innuendo, if it was intentional (which I doubt, because it’s so obvious).

    [1] may be true but you have not explained how it’s connected to [2]. The latter, by itself, does not indicate that Greenwald did anything wrong.

    As I understand it, Snowden first contacted Greenwald anonymously in late 2012 but was pretty much ignored. A month later, in January, 2013, he contacted Poitras instead, who did not ignore him. In March, he got the job at Booz Allen; and he has said that he took the job in order to obtain access to classified materials.

    What makes you think any journalist encouraged Snowden to leak classified material? Is there any evidence or even someone’s bald statement to this effect (other than your veiled attempt)?

  226. 226
    Cervantes says:

    @Poopyman:

    I may be working from old information, but didn’t GG and/or Snowden says specifically that Snowden coordinated with GG prior to being hired by Booz, and that he took the job specifically to “whistleblow”?

    Again: Yes it’s true that (1) Snowden had contacted Greenwald and, more to the point, Poitras, prior to being hired by Booz Allen. And yes, it’s true that (2) Snowden has admitted to having taken the job at Booz in order to obtain access to classified material.

    (1) and (2) are, as far as I know, both true. And as far as I know, there is no causal connection between them.

  227. 227
    Cervantes says:

    @tybee:

    @Poopyman: I may be working from old information, but didn’t GG and/or Snowden says specifically that Snowden coordinated with GG prior to being hired by Booz, and that he took the job specifically to “whistleblow”?

    i, too, find that particular bit of data from some months ago (and to my knowledge never denied) very interesting.

    You find it “very interesting,” do you? Why?

Comments are closed.