= new reply since forum marked as read
To the apologists & 
, shame on you.
...I had to apologize earlier today for completely misreading someone's post in response to one of mine. I just got caught up in the back and forth, and emotion clouded my faculties.
Oh well, another day at DU, eh? 
I just brought this up in another thread. This is the "big deal" in the big deal.
PB
PB
...regarding the story being "something that someone stole for him": that is one of the methods that investigative reporters use. Sometimes they go out and actively try to find stuff out; other times, someone comes along and dumps it in their laps.
Does the Pentagon Papers ring any bells? There are some definite parallels: everyone knew the broad outlines of what was revealed in the Pentagon Papers, at least if they were paying attention they did. The things revealed were approved by people in all branches of government. And yet, it caused a huge outcry, in part because it made it all undeniable. Perhaps the reporters he handed those papers to should have just rejected them outright, and instead should have gone off and interviewed some generals somewhere, who would no doubt have given them all of the same information.
Similarly, in this case, we all knew there was massive surveillance going on; this just makes it undeniable. So far the government's spokespeople on this (including POTUS) have not denied the content of the story.
You say he "could easily have written articles without the stealing". Really? How? Since he himself had no first hand knowledge of how all of this works, and since it was a SECRET program, please tell us again how he could have brought this story to us "without the stealing". Are you suggesting that he should just pull it out of his ass? But then you'd criticize him for that, wouldn't you? Perhaps you mean he should have interviewed people in the government -- like, say, the head of the NSA. Yeah, that's the ticket: I'm sure that guy would have never lied to Mr. Greenwald on this topic!
or can't you feel that hot water?
and that's putting it kindly.
So now I know to pay more attention to Greenwald and what he says, because Sid has been on the wrong side of everything I've ever read from him.
Greenwald = Respected whip smart journalist.
Sid = ???
Thanks, Sid.
RL
never mind that this is six year old news, Congressionally authorized, completely legal, well known to anyone paying attention and approved of by majorities of polled American citizens."
Fixed it for ya Glenn.
Brought to you by catoinstitutevideo, Uploaded on Jan 31, 2012
And oh look, Cato is on this NSA story like flies on poop:
"How the NSA Spies on Americans," catoinstitutevideo, 4 days ago:
&feature=player_profilepage#t=223s
So Glenn is at the center of the latest CATO ratfuck, what a surprise.
In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.
I not only disclosed those writings but wrote about them and featured them multiple times on my blog as it happened: see here and here as but two examples. In 2008, I spoke at a Cato event on the radicalism and destructiveness of Bush/Cheney executive power theories.That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees. Those payments are a miniscule, microscopic fraction of my writing and speaking income over the last 7 years. I have done no paying work of any kind with them since that online surveillance debate in 2010 (I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization).
I have done far more work for, and received far greater payments from, the ACLU, with which I consulted for two years (see here). I spoke at the Socialism Conference twice - once in 2011 and once in 2012 - and will almost certainly do so again in 2013. I'll speak or write basically anywhere where I can have my ideas heard without any constraints. Moreover, I'll work with almost anyone - the ACLU, Cato or anyone else - to end the evils of the Drug War and the Surveillance State. And I'll criticize anyone I think merits it, as I did quite harshly with the Koch Brothers in 2011: here.
The very suggestion that there is something wrong with writing for or speaking at CATO is inane and childish. The claim that it means I "worked at CATO" is just an obvious lie. If writing for or speaking at CATO makes one a right-wing CATO-employed libertarian, then say hello to the following right-wing libertarian CATO employees, all of whom have been writers for or speakers at the CATO Institute in the past:
Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas (Writing for CATO's Unbound: here and here);
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (speaking about surveillance issues at CATO in January, 2011, speaking again at CATO in July, 2012 about FISA, and favorably citing CATO);
Democratic Rep. Jared Polis (defending CATO as "a leader in fighting to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and helping to end the War on Drugs"
.
the ACLU's Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson (speaking at the CATO Institute's 2011 event on FISA);
Brown University Professor Glenn Loury (writing for CATO's Unbound);
liberal blogger and Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong (writing for CATO's Unbound);
Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig (writing for CATO's Unbound);
liberal blogger and GWU Professor Henry Farrell (writing for CATO's Unbound); and
Wall Street critic and securities professor William Black (writing for CATO's Unbound).
Trying to judge someone for where they write or speak - rather than for the ideas they advocate - is about as anti-intellectual and McCarthyite as it gets. CATO has a far better record of advocacy than the mainstream Democratic Party on vital issues such as opposing the Drug War, secrecy abuses, the Surveillance State, marriage equality for LGBT citizens, anti-war activism, and reforming the excesses of America's penal state. They were attacking Bush and Cheney for power abuses (see here) and aggressive wars (see here) far earlier, and far more loudly, than most mainstream Democratic politicians
As is obvious, all sorts of liberals, progressives, and even leftists have written for or spoken at CATO. It's a think tank devoted to debate and discussion of public policy, and invites a wide range of speakers to participate.
I'm proud of all the advocacy work I've done against the evils of the Drug War and surveillance abuses -- whether it's at the ACLU, CATO, the Socialism Conference or anywhere else. That's why I write openly about all of that work. But the claim that I've ever worked at CATO or was in any way affiliated with them is just an outright lie.
I'm still laughing at your screenshot of a search of his name at Cato. You get even more results when you search Barack Obama. OMG! Do you want a screenshot? LOL.
Imagine that?
RL
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
I like this one better.
fixed your title for ya!
