I don’t know if I hate the pro-Greenwald or anti-Greenwald forces more. I just know that I actively dislike them both. And I don’t care if they quote me accurately.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
95 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Amen.
Although I kind of tilt pro-Greenwald being more annoying.
Your Mumia sweatshirt…
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/02/25/your-mumia-sweatshirt-wont-get-you-into-heaven-anymore/
I don’t think it matters much, as the fall and all of it’s battles will take over the twitter and media talk. Greenwald timed his media blitz perfectly and it has come to a bitter end with this treating his partner as a journalist or comparing him to the young Brazilian man gunned down in London.
This Greenwald thing will pass and all anyone will remember is Julian Assange promoting Rand Paul and Drudge and wonder why Greenwald did this. I think most of Greenwald’s fans are late-comers and don’t remember that he supported the Iraq war or that he didn’t really get into politics until he thought he had an opening.
Does Greenwald live in Germany?
Well Rachel Maddow just went over to the pro-Greenwald side tonight.
Meaning?
This was a last big push.
Before you know it, everyone will be talking about the money situation again.
Like I said, Greenwald et al timed this perfectly — or purposefully.
This was not orchestrated to encourage talk, rather it was orchestrated to encourage hype.
Sorry you bought in.
LOL!! Like you, or 98% of the other O-bots, have ever read any of Greenwald’s books.
Like I said, Greenwald et al timed this perfectly — or purposefully.
This was not orchestrated to encourage talk, rather it was orchestrated to encourage hype.
Do you say the same about Charles Johnson’s(of LGF fame) conversion to DFH?
Sorry Calvin, I read Greenwald and commented on his blog back when he argued with Mona/Haptia (which was all fake. If you don’t know what I am talking about then sorry.
Unfortunately, I bought two of his books and read them both. I gave them to Sand Dollar.
I don’t care for Charles Johnson because I remember when he called Rachel Corrie “pancake” and I am not so forgiving as most.
Just like I don’t forgive Greenwald’s support of the useless war in Iraq.
Who was Mona/Haptia? Booman’s joint is one of the few places that I read comments regularly/thoroughly. And re: Iraq does that mean you don’t read most other “liberal pundits” as well? Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Chait and many more supported the war.
Calvin, Greenwald thanked Mona in his second book. I thought you read them.
I know that many supposedly liberal pundits supported the war in Iraq. You know who didn’t? He’s the president now.
I disagree that Maddow went over to the “Pro-Greenwald” side.
I think she went over to the side of the Constitution and Law & Order.
What the Brits did was a complete warp of any interpretation of any ‘terrorism’ law. Did the Brits really need any excuse to detain Miranda? No!
Just ‘stop and frisk’ and take away any electronic toys.
I tend to be more for open government but am not necessarily a devotee of Greenwald. IMO, what the brits did was inexcusable, a blatant display of power and does not fall on the pro/anti spectrum.
Boo:
What’s the author’s point of the anti-Greenwald piece you linked to?
F-me Martin. Lurching to Sally Field impression here in Blighty (tis late).
To answer Calvin, if i don’t make point in my lengthy screed I am an obvious #fail … but here’s my lede >
‘A libertarian assault on the notion of government lies behind the reporting of the NSA ‘revelations’. The left needs to step up, expose the con and defend government as a force for good.’
I go into why, needless to say.
Just so you know, I read your post and understood it. Sorry I didn’t comment. Perhaps tomorrow. But just to say, you laid out clear points. No reason to ask for clarification.
The NSA is a force for good? You do realize that most of the security state is a massive grift, right? The government is a force for good when it defends the little guy, not when it colludes with the rich and powerful to crush the middle and lower classes.
That’s not what I said, that’s a characterisation of what I said. My point is looong but hear it at minimum before you call me ‘nsa goon’ or whatever comes next.
I’ll defend the defensible parts and criticize the indefensible parts. And detaining someone for 9 hours in revenge is indefensible.
True, on both counts, but I’m at loss why they needed to use terror law to detain someone suspected of transporting state secrets.
In long line of state messaging #fail
Today, they apparently responded with:
I remain skeptical.
Revenge? However vengeful Big Brother is, it remains the case that Greenwald is in contact with a man who defected to Russia with a large trove of classified material belonging to the US government. Oh, and that Greenwald and Snowden have been talking about how they have enough dynamite to bring the US government to its knees. So if a courier representing Greenwald travels to Berlin to exchange thumb drives holding encrypted information, how are the authorities not supposed to take an interest in that?
Especially when fucking Vladimir Putin is involved. I’m just waiting for the day when people start enshrining him along with Assange and Snowden as an eternal champion of liberty.
You’re still waiting for Putin’s nomination as champion of human rights?
Well I’ll be damned.
Snowden has to say that, because Russian protection is the only thing saving him from the “standard whistleblower treatment” of being thrown in jail for decades, like…um…oh, you know who I mean…that guy who was thrown in jail for decades…someone help me out here.
Give it a day or two. I’m sure it will come to you when it’s in the news then.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57599183/prosecutors-recommend-60-year-sentence-for-bradley-mann
ing/
Bradley Manning? A man who we happily violated laws to treat badly.
And we don’t know what he’s told Russia. Might be nothing might be a lot. And what’s wrong with bringing the US government or rather it’s intelligence apparatus to it’s knees? It definitely needs it and right now, before they make it even harder to go after them. Do I feel the US is a greater threat to liberty than Russia long term? Yes. I’m not going to be lining up to cheer for Putin but enemy of my enemy is my friend is not a foreign concept to this country. You need to be able to take a step back here and look at things through a bigger than lens than Pro Obama.
And here’s the thing. They still haven’t given him back his stuff and they didn’t charge with anything. So why did they hold him 8 hours and 55 minutes? You think it takes that long for them to send the data to the US and have someone there see what they’ve got? You think if he’s really holding some dynamite secrets they’re not going to charge him with something? The law itself says that a judge can extend the period. Why didn’t they?
Because it’s an attempt at intimidation.
Pro Obama? Could you point me to where I said or implied that everything the NSA is doing is fine with me because Barack Obama is awesome?
Mind you, I will admit to trusting Obama a hell of a lot more than I do Vladimir Putin. But I figured that’s just common sense.
Then why are you fine with what the CIA is doing?
Actually, I didn’t say I’m fine with everything the NSA is doing, either. In fact, I said (somewhere in this thread) that I think the secrecy is excessive, the security has been horribly inadequate, and the idea of using private contractors is insane. However, I do think the government has a role to play in internet security, and I think some of the NSA’s capabilities are appropriate for that reason.
It may be that we need to abolish the whole NSA and create a new agency that’s responsible for cyber security, but I do want my government in the cyber security business.
And detaining someone for 9 hours in revenge is indefensible.
So now we’re pretending he wasn’t busted with stolen documents?
We’re still sticking with the “It’s all about screwing with my head” claims?
If their goal was to get him for being in knowing possession of classified secrets why didn’t they charge him?
There’s no dispute he was duped.
Do you ever just sit there and try to come up with a plausible outcome which annoys both sides equally so that you can root for it to happen?
Greenwald is not the story.
Keeping the debate about him alive keeps his story in the background, where the NSA wants it.
Make of that what you will.
Keeping the debate about him alive keeps his story in the background
Say what?
If you’re talking about Greenwald, you’re not talking about the NSA abuses he has reported. The NSA would much rather have everybody focused on Greenwald and Snowden than on them.
That’s all.
Sorry but it looks more like Greenwald wants the focus to be on Greenwald.
Prove me wrong.
Michilines, both you and Britain will be sorry for that remark. Real sorry.
Threats to commenters should be a bannable offense.
He wasn’t threatening, he was mocking Greenwald.
Zoom. Right over my head.
Nicely done, then.
You’re missing the punchline, Joe: By explicitly using leaked materials to settle personal scores, Greenwald is justifying the focus on himself. Bob’s playing off of that.
Does it matter what Greenwald seems to want? Is that really the story here?
Sadly, yes.
I wish it wasn’t, but here we are.
Keeping the focus on Greenwald (and Snowden, et c.) keeps the focus on the rather frightening-yet-stupid overreactions of the US and Europe’s state security apparatuses to the leaks–first the Evo Morales thing, and then this bush-league shakedown targeting Miranda.
That story is much bigger, and more damaging to the national security state, than the actual leaked material that Greenwald has been reporting. The revelations regarding the NSA have a pretty consistent pattern of turning out to be much less than meets the eye. If you want to highlight “War on Terror” abuses, I really can’t imagine why you’d rather focus on them than the action the UK has taken against Greenwald, Miranda and The Guardian.
Can I ask how you know what the NSA wants?
I mean, you may well be right, and I absolutely agree that the NSA is where the focus should be, but I’m not nearly so certain that I know what the NSA wants. The first thing that needs to happen is that we need to have a proper understanding of just what the fuck the NSA is doing, and why.
Personally what I think is scandalous is not the existence of programs such as XKeyscore and PRISM but the way the NSA has been operating. Having it all run by private contractors is an atrocious idea, and their security is obviously woefully inadequate. To my mind the fact that they gave a schmuck like Snowden so much access is the best possible proof of that.
But data mining is not surveillance. I don’t know how many people imaging all these tens of thousands of NSA employees spend all day scrolling through people’s emails, but that’s just not what they’re doing. It would be a complete waste of time.
And I would also call attention to the total number of individuals who are known to have been tyrannized by the NSA in any way beyond having their metadata indexed, which is zero.
So yes, let’s keep the focus on the NSA, but let’s not shift into Big Brother mode until we have a clear picture of what’s going on here.
Oh, and I also agree there’s been way to much secrecy about the whole thing. And I do give Snowden and Greenwald credit for forcing use to have the conversation.
Is there any room for “pro Greenwald’s facilitation of Snowden’s revelations but otherwise not a reader of Greenwald or of people who are perpetually really angry at Greenwald”?
Perhaps. If you admit that Greenwald has left out a lot in his “reporting.” As I remember when I used to read him, he leaves a lot out.
Now that he has threatened both the U.S. and the U.K., he’s given his last blast. It’s over at this point.
Perhaps. If you admit that Greenwald has left out a lot in his “reporting.”
What has he left out? I’m curious to hear what you think has been.
What has he left out? I’m curious to hear what you think has been.
Er, it’s in my post :0
Hard to pick out the actual points from among all the spew.
I don’t care one way or the other about Greenwald himself.
I care that the NSA has been conducting domestic surveillance on innocent Americans, and no one will do anything about it.
It’s not about Greenwald.
It’s not?
How can you tell?
more from the NC Voter Suppression front:
Chill Chad Stanton @chadstanton9m
So Winston-Salem State University is having its polling place closed on a rumor because …voter fraud
Winston-Salem St. polling place next on GOP hit list
2013-08-19 17:26
The newly appointed Republican chairman of the Forsyth County Board of Elections says he plans to eliminate an early voting site at Winston-Salem State University, the Winston-Salem Journal reports.
Chairman Ken Raymond said he will move Tuesday to shut down the voting site at the historically black campus after hearing talk that a professor had offered students extra credit for going to the polls, which he said was a violation of the law. He offered no proof.
Last week, the Watauga Board of Elections voted to close the voting site on the campus of Appalachian State University in Boone.
Republicans on the Pasquotank County Board of Elections also voted last week deny an Elizabeth City State University senior from running for city council, ruling that that his on-campus address couldn’t be used to establish residency. The county chairman said he planned to challenge the voter residency of other students at the historically black school.
http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/winstonsalem_st_polling_place_next_on_gop_hit_list
So nice to see these idiots recruiting for the Moral Monday resistance and the 2014 GOTV movement. This is so orchestrated that folks are beginning to see the agenda and there are a whole bunch of white folks who think it is unfair and will stand with the NAACP in this fight.
Burnsville NC Moral Monday — 500 people
Manteo NC Moral Monday — 500 people
Charlotte NC Moral Monday — 2000 people
It is just beginning. And the August 28 50th anniversary of the March on Washington should be a humdinger event on the way to other Moral Monday events in the fall–one in each of NC’s 13 Congressional districts.
The Watauga Board of Elections YouTube has gone national.
Rep. Ellie Kinnaird of Chapel Hill has resigned her Senate seat to work on turning the voting suppression moves around.
This nonsense will not stand.
What does all this have to do with being pro or anti Greenwald? This thread makes him the story. It´s basically a gossip column with hardly an inkling about the substance. Curiously in Britain they´re not taking this thing so casually: editorials in at least The Times, Guardian and Daily Mirror ask for an official explanation, add a government watchdog agency and parliamentarians. Just close your eyes and it will all go away. And by the way, Greenwald is despicable! Could someone please thell me why his books and journalism are so objectionable? And could that same person suggest who I should read to get a better hold of myself.
.
Preferably read my earlier diary about the issues – Bloggers pro-Obama and anti-Greenwald – A Distraction on Issue.
Do read recent comments @European Tribune – How 2 GCHQ members dropped by at the Guardian’s office and smashed computers to bits.
Nevertheless, here about the non-issue everyone is talking about in the US.
I just posted my new diary – So Canning and Greenwald Don’t See Eye-to-Eye.
I’m actually more interested in something else Greenwald has shone some light upon. Al Jazeera has just blocked all distribution of Al Jazeera English in the US (including streaming from their website) and is replacing it with an “americanized” version called Al Jazeera America.
More at a dailykos diary:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/20/1232515/-Al-Jazeera-America-A-New-News-Channel-or-Same-Old-
Same-Old
Gigi is not the progressive’s friend.
he’s playing your dumb asses.
He’s a Defending White Supremacists kind of libertarian.
that folks continue to pretend like he’s some progressive hero is delusional.
He’s a First Amendment lawywer!! So the ACLU should be banished from the face of the earth, too? It sounds like you really don’t understand what a lawyer’s job is. I never heard any O-Bots rip Holder for clients he used to have. And he had a number of awful ones.
John Adams defended the British soldiers who committed the Boston Massacre.
The ACLU has defended the Ku Klux Klan’s freedom of speech.
Lawyers are crazy like that.
I don’t think she’s talking about his law practice per se. At least when I read it I thought of his literal defending of The Paul’s.
Alan Rushbridger, editor of the Guardian, wrote this:
The state that is building such a formidable apparatus of surveillance will do its best to prevent journalists from reporting on it. Most journalists can see that. But I wonder how many have truly understood the absolute threat to journalism implicit in the idea of total surveillance, when or if it comes — and, increasingly, it looks like “when”.
From Kevin Drum
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/08/snowden-wars-episode-v-surveillance-state-strikes-back
.
Part of my new diary @BooMan – Toobin, CNN’s Shill for the Establishment/NSA.
Greenwald’s campaign has been pretty successful in leading a segment of Obama’s coalition towards Randpaulistan. Whatever is motivating your feelings of personal annoyance — that’s not at all clear — when government is categorically demonized, it’s bad for Democrats and the country, and it could have negative repercussions in 2014 and 2016. This is a bad time to play the “pox on both of your houses” card.
Glenn Greenwald is a good polemicist. He’s a shitty unethical reporter. The NSA needs to be reined in. Greenwald is doing a terrible job reporting on why the NSA needs to be reined in.
Is this too difficult to understand?
Yes, the nuanced position that you outline is proving too difficult for many people to understand. Greenwald is enthusiastically and effectively muddying the water so I don’t think it pays to affect a neutral position about his role in the debate.
I don’t care to be enlisted by either side of this debate. That doesn’t mean that I support Glenn Greenwald in any way.
I know you don’t want to be co-opted, but most would consider what you said to be pretty damn anti-Greenwald. Which is a separate issue from being pro or anti-NSA.
It’s only a separate issue for people who aren’t morans.
Groklaw: Forced Exposure
No it won’t. The NSA doesn’t have nearly enough employees to read every email sent to or from the US.
Honestly, there’s something strikingly narcissistic about some people’s reactions to the NSA’s data mining operations. Oh no! They’re reading MY email! Really, they don’t give a damn about your email. Like Oscar Wilde said, “There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”
Absolutely. You have nothing to fear unless someone at the NSA or Booz Allen Hamilton is mad at you.
The quote is from the guy who invented Pretty Good Protocol encryption and shut down Silent Circle encrypted email services as a result of a some communication (likely a national security letter) asking for information on everyone using his service.
Encryption itself has now become probable cause for NSA investigation according to Phil Zimmerman.
The NSA is separating streams of telecommunications at switches and processing them through NARUS processors to produce some sort of stream that is sent to NSA data centers. This we know from 2005 when an AT&T engineer blew the whistle on warrantless wiretapping. That stream of data is being preprocessed in some way before going into NSA databases. This is one of the diagrams published a month ago by the Washington Post. There is processing of data in the databases that generates alerts based on 300 types of “selectors”. That’s from an early Guardian article and the attached NSA documents.
Human data searches pull up data based on a phone number (Russel Tice), use the 300 selectors (NSA document), pull up not only the number searched but numbers three-hops away minus universally frequently called numbers (like various commercial callcenters), and that information is used to create a request for specific information on all of the folks identified. (Combination of NSA testimony to Congress, Guardian reports, WaPo reports, and NY Times reports).
Those requests apparently are created in PRISM and issued as the equivalent of specific national security letters to various content holders, including email providers.
If you are using an encrypted email service like Lavabit or Silent Circle email, you obviously have good reasons to pay a fee for encryption. Journalists are continually receiving scoops, whose exposure could lead to retaliation against their sources. Lawyers expect confidential email communications with their clients. Medical care providers are required by HIPAA to treat patient records confidentially and patients often have records and other diagnostic information emailed. There is a huge breakdown in professional trust if all emails are subject to the NSA’s determination of what they look at. Especially after a NY Times report that DEA and IRS are using NSA data pulls and a parallel systems of recording them to avoid exposing the fact that they are violating the law.
OK. Then what? I still don’t see where anyone is being tyrannized here, and it still isn’t that hard to think of legitimate uses for all of these capabilities. Of course it would be naive to assume that they’re only being used for legitimate purposes, but it really isn’t much less naive to assume they’re only being used for illegitimate purposes.
The phrase that Edward Snowden used was “turnkey tyranny”. He said that the only thing preventing abuse was policy. He said that abuses had occurred without saying how prevalent. An audit report that was disclosed show 2776 auditable errors. The structure the report and the rules for queries in another document make it difficult to determine how many actual abuses occurred or what the NSA internal understanding of abuse is. Likely for NSA “abuse” is when an individual conducts queries on numbers that have not been assigned for search just based on whims. But a management-order query of politicians, just to name a hypothetical, would likely not be classified as an abuse by NSA but as a mistake, a reverse lookup that incidentally turned up a politicians’ name, which they then held and pursued because of ….There is no evidence yet that such abuses have taken place in the last 7 years; prior to that, there is the report of Russell Tice of abuses in the satellite communications surveillance area.
The main reason to be concerned is because it is contrary to the Constitution and Wyden and Udall say that what they are actually doing is contrary to the law and that it is more widespread than the audit report would indicate. But Wyden also says that the metadata collection powers are not needed to deal with terrorism. Which raises most people’s main concern. If the NSA is does not need this information to deal with terrorism, what exactly is it using it for?
There needs to be an independent investigation very much like the Church committee but with the ability to actually hold these agencies to account and consider the possibility of a total reorganization of the way the US does its management of those things that are legitimately secret and the obtaining of intelligence required for national security. Which means a broader discussion of what exactly we really want to see regarding national security. Sixty-eight years of this system after World War II has not made the US measurably safer. Indeed, it has increased the security risks for much of the world, compromised the integrity of the UN, and weakened the legal framework of international law.
The NSA has other responsibilities besides dealing with terrorism. It is also (according the Wikipedia) responsible for protecting all US government communications and information systems. And I see that the head of the NSA is also the commander of the US cyber command.
The thing is, when you’re talking about cyber security, terrorists barely even register. They’re mosquitoes compared to other countries that have organizations doing the same sorts of things the NSA does, like China and Edward Snowden’s gracious hosts. I don’t know how big Russia’s operations are, but China’s are big.
And this isn’t just speculation, because we already know of several large-scale cyber attacks that most likely came out of China. And we know the kinds of things that can be done, like planting logic bombs on people’s hard drives and turning computers into zombies.
And one way to do that kind of thing is to sneak it in using metadata. If you’ve got enough time and enough server capacity, you can gradually smuggle all kinds of stuff through the various firewalls that protect the internet.
For instance, here’s a hypothetical that’s entirely within the reach of current technology. The thumb drives that were exchanged in Berlin–where did they come from? How certain are we that they’re free of malicious code? I don’t know the details, actually, but if Snowden is communicating with anyone via thumb drive, then it’s safe to assume that the Spyetsviaz could find an opportunity to put whatever they want on there. If the thumb drive were to make its way to Glenn Greenwald, then he could wind up with some zombie code on his computer, and then if the NSA is monitoring him, the code could even find a way into the NSA’s network.
Hypothetical, but entirely possible.
No it won’t. The NSA doesn’t have nearly enough employees to read every email sent to or from the US.
You do realize what they do, and have done, right? Or do you forget how the NSA(or other intelligence) was listening in to soldiers calling home during the height of the Iraq fiasco? They don’t read every email, just stuff that’s of interest to them via query searches(among other things).
What they do and have done doesn’t change the fact that they don’t have enough resources to monitor more than a tiny fraction of all internet activity. It doesn’t sound like you’re even disagreeing with my claim that they couldn’t possibly read everybody’s email, so everything turns on how they decide what to look at. If the stuff that’s of interest to them has a legitimate relationship to national security, what’s wrong with that? That’s no more than they themselves would tell you they’re doing.
The point is .. a lot of the stuff they’re listening to/searching has no bearing to national security. Also, too, a lot of it is farmed out to private corporations. You, and pretty much every one else here, really need to read Tim Shorrock’s book called Spies For Hire
I will always be more sympathetic towards the side that responds to stories by digging into the details than the side that responds to stories by holding forth on their grand theories and gut checks.
Andrew Bacevich, Carroll County Times: Andrew Bacevich: Manning and Snowden made secrecy impossible
That is straight-up Reason magazine rhetoric.
I know, I spent years as a regular there.
What if someone leaked the IRS’s security keys? How would you feel about that?
I would feel that the IRS did a poor job of computer security and personnel management. And I would ensure that the keys were quickly changed and motives for the leak established well-enough to make necessary changes in policy.
There is no evidence yet that Snowden leaked the NSA’s security keys, however. And that would not be something a whistleblower would do anyway.
There are differences among what documents are secret and why that is very important in looking at classified documents, leaks and whistleblowers. It is why strict legalists are not very good at managing security.
Oh, and by the way, what if the interests of the state DO align with those of the country? Has that never happened?
I suggest you direct that question to Andrew Bacevich.
But, I think that on a lot of issues, indeed probably most issues, the interests of the state do align with those of the country. And on those issues IMO you find the least secrecy and subterfuge.
I’m not altogether sure that Bacevich is advocating a secretless state, just pointing out the fact that the technology that allows communication and surveillance is not totally under government control. And Bruce Schneier would argue that a part of the reason for that is that the government has required security vulnerabilities to be build into the design of hardware and software to enable law enforcement access.
Because Bacevich tends to write about international issues, his assertion about the alignment of interests of the state and the country applies to all nation states. And in general that means that other nations have the same disadvantages to one degree or another.
Andrew Bacevich (Wikipedia)
I don’t see any time at Reason magazine here, but I might have missed something.
And please stop attributing to me the views of the people I post links to. Sometimes a agree with them. Sometimes I don’t but post because they add something to the thread.
What I’m seeing is that old categories in the political landscape are getting scrambled right now. IMO that’s a good thing and probably a good thing for the Democratic Party because the folks most eager to defend the old labels are the Republicans.
Never said he was at Reason, but that he – and you – have adopted their rhetoric.
What I’m seeing is that old categories in the political landscape are getting scrambled right now.
Indeed. Alex Witt had a great piece on it IRT Alex Jones and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
Hopefully, I can say that without a certain hysteric having his ninth heart attack.
You do love to sling those labels around don’t you. As if labels alone discredit thinking. Who the hell is Alex Witt, and why did you not link to him if it is important to your point?
Go have a beer and settle down. I’m not trying to defeat the Democratic Party.
It is not a label to say that someone’s rhetoric is similar to someone else’s rhetoric.
Go have a beer and settle down.
You don’t think writing this makes you look silly? Given your behavior recently?
Your concerns are touching. Go troll someone else.
.
He does!
ACLU: NSA Documents Released to the Public since June 2013
TechDirt: Feds Threaten To Arrest Lavabit Founder For Shutting Down His Service
I agree with you, Boo. However, I happened to be in Europe at the time this all broke out and what I can tell you is, in Europe people were vitally interested in the issues involved (not surprisingly, because European governments were/are being spied on a well). Nobody gave two shits about Greenwald or who was pro- or who was anti-Greenwald. They didn’t know or care who Greenwald was.
They were and are interested in Snowden, and mostly had a very positive view of him. His personal motives, whatever they might or might not have been, were also not being speculated upon.
I think there may be a lesson here.