Does Greenwald still beat his wife ?? answer at 6:00

I don't know where he gets his 'crazy' ideas but he needs to stop .......... I think he knows Glen I heard that on the news

... that he's already there.

mining DU for material!

Then, whoever you are, whether you think you are just hyper-pragmatic or can see past all the rainbow-shitting unicorn-seeing Snowden worshippers...

IT IS TIME TO CHECK YOURSELF.

Seriously.

Where is the "Squirrel Channel?" Where is it? Oh.. (2+ / 0-)
It's Fox News: "We Squirrel. You Go Nuts."
Also view its corporate journalmalistic partners: CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, etc.
(Pay no attention to Democracy Now, Link TV, McClatchy DC Bureau, etc. They not nearly squirrelly enough for mature Villager news consumers. Always follow David Gregory's lead.)

The Snowden discussion reminds me of this (8+ / 0-)
When the Pentagon Papers issue was heating up in the spring of 1971, my fraternity house at Cornell had a visit from two FBI agents. Unbeknownst to us, Daniel Ellsberg had been a member of said fraternity in the previous decade. They figured we'd know where he was, being fraternity brothers and all.
Well, no. We were not exactly the most traditional fraternity on campus and we particularly had no tradition of keeping in touch with alums. It didn't help that I and my two friends were, um, high at the time. But we finally convinced them that really we would liked to have helped them (not really true) and that we DIDN'T know anything (absolutely true), and they went away.

(I really like this one) The power of the Occupy movement is that it ....realizes a fundamental truth about American politics… there is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs.

Today I will be purchasing fertilizer. Although nitrogen-bearing, it's organic so you probably don't have to worry about what I'm going to do with it.
If you are worried, it's going in the garden which desperately needs a good feeding. The zinnia are slow this year, as you no doubt noticed on your satellite photos.
I'll also be purchasing gas for the car, and an additional gallon to run the machinery around here. The two events are not connected.
Have a great day and tell Harry I said hello!

...and many more

I'm gonna use that.

Stare up towards the sky and say "Smile for the camera!"

Need lots and lots of checks....

I'm sure someone has tweeted this to Glenn, but I'll do it again.

He's my dog-loving buddy.

Yet another piece of evidence he is not a real journalist...

-Laelth

That's great!

K&R

I'm of a generation that can still pretend to know nothing about computers.

Aside from that,
Mr Tomorrow swept up most of the trash.
Thank You!

When you find yourself On the Wrong Side of Tom Tomorrow and Mr Fish,
you ARE on the Wrong Side.
[font size=3]Pick Up the Clue.[/font]

Either that or a slew of threads about how Tom Tomorrow is a Paulbot and a racist.

If Glenn Greenwald must be treated as a journalist, why isn't Glenn Beck a journalist?

Because the character of the messenger matters. Because the veracity of the info matters.

Of course there are those who believe that character doesn't matter, and that facts are fungible things - they are true only so far as the amount of money is behind them.

Snowden & Greenwald are on the wrong side of the character & veracity divide.

What a ridiculous comparison. Not even close.

Character had nothing to do with it, unless you count O'Keefe's character after his stories were exposed as frauds. The point was, his footage was verifiably edited to tell a false story.

Whereas all of Snowden's allegations have stood up.

So, now character matters with O'Keefe. He's a demonstrated liar.

How many times do we have to repeat this?

Snowden claimed the NSA program was operating without warrants:
http://blog.reidreport.com/2013/06/greenwald-and-the-guardian-try-again-only-this-time-theres-warrants/

Snowden claimed PRISM had direct access to the servers for US service providers:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174783/glenn-greenwalds-epic-botch#axzz2XZ1oysk3
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174816/response-glenn-greenwald#

Snowden claimed that he could read The President's email & that the NSA is listening in on everyones phone calls:
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/snowden-and-greenwald-beginning-to-self-destruct-the-nation-and-mother-jones-raise-questions/
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/greenwald-sticks-with-his-story-in-spite-of-growing-questions/


These are the simple facts:

-The NSA is not listening to all your phone calls & it is not reading all your emails.

-Having the metadata about phone calls and emails is not the same as the content & the identity of the sender and receiver.

-Snowden, as the employee of a private contractor, did not have the ability nor the authority to tap anyone's phone. He was not able to listen in on the President's phone calls.

-The programs Snowden exposed are not unconstitutional or illegal.

These are Snowden's central allegations. None of them are true. The President has repeatedly said that they are not true. Members of the House & Senate Intelligence Committees have repeatedly said that they are not true. Most knowledgeable legal experts are saying that they are not true. The text of the warrant Snowden provided to Greenwald proves that they are not true. It covers only anonymous metadata, which isn't linked to any particular individual without a further warrant.

Even the libertarian nutcases at Reason are criticizing him:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/11/the-supposed-dangers-of-advocacy-journal

Snowden's story has fallen apart. It's beyond belief that this guy still has supporters on DU.

If "the character of the messenger matters", your message is DOA.

Show me where I'm wrong.

Conflating them is dishonest. And equating Greenwald's opinion pieces with O'Keffe's deliberate propaganda fraud is ridiculous.

I see nothing from you attempting to refute that fact.

I can read for myself, and I think there is a big problem with domestic surveillance. Your arguments to the contrary are not compelling.

A blatantly false statement even approaching Snowden as skeptically as possible. Much of it we simply can't know for sure...

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/06/edward_snowden_fact_checking_which_surveillance_claims_were_right.single.html

...but I was also clearly addressing the absurd Greenwald/O'Keefe equivalence. Yes, O'Keefe might be considered a journalist, except for his clearly shown deliberate fraud.

to national security.

. . . as you will notice by the balanced tone of the first paragraph.

The second I know for a fact that they do have direct access to at least on ISP's traffic, and did before Snowden made the news. It has to do with a job I used to have with a major ISP. Other people have said the NSA has been doing this before. And if you look at it, the denials by the companies were very carefully and narrowly worded. All of them.

The programs are definitely both illegal and unconstitutional, and if you're going to even argue against that, we don't belong in the same political party.

A secret court is not a court. The warrants are broad, and contradictory to the Fourth Amendment, which says "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

A word like "metadata" sounds like the Creationists word "micro-evolution." The argument here being that the information isn't unconstitutional because it's gathered broadly and generally. Well, the Constitution says that's precisely why it would be unconstitutional. How Orwellian of you to cite the exact reason it's unconstitutional as the reason why it's legal with the term "metadata." That's exactly how the people who coined the term hoped you would use it.

And your comments show that you don't even understand the issues involved. The words "illegal" and "unconstitutional" have very specific meanings. When applies to a law duly enacted by a legislature and confirmed by the executive, it means that a court in with the proper jurisdiction must have acted to rule as such. This has not been done with any of the programs involved here.

And the reason metadata isn't privileged is because it's not unique. Just because YOU don't understand the term doesn't automatically mean that its "illegal" and "unconstitutional". You might think your 2005 Toyota Camry is a special car, but millions of them were manufactured. When a cop records that it's in a particular intersection at a particular time, that doesn't constitute an illegal search. It's the same with the metadata the phone companies and internet carriers record.

And in my view, the Democratic Party is dedicated to the truth - which is decidedly not the place Ed Snowden and his sycophants are coming from. If you can't deal with that, maybe you should go find somewhere else to play.

Chicken Little is almost 2500 yrs old, but he's alive & well in the 21st century.

for stylistic reasons: word variety. I wasn't going to repeat "unconstitutional" again. I'm a writer, not a lawyer. I understand the distinction. I don't practice law, so for the purpose of communicating my point, the distinction was insignificant, or should have been. It's not like anybody was going to be extraordinarily renditioned because I used the word wrong.

So, I understand the distinction. You don't understand relevance.

And you don't understand the difference between editorial and factual. Greenwald's columns have facts, and he refers to sources when he cites facts that definitely aren't opinion pieces. If he didn't do that, I'd agree his work is completely editorial. The column you cited, doesn't do this. It starts by singling Greenwald out for ad hominum attack. An article like that isn't useful, editorial or not.

I had never heard the word "metadata" used before the Snowden incident. In fact, I don't know what it means. It's definitely not a technical term coined by computer engineers. What I am tempted to presume it means (data about data) is probably far from the what's actually gathered in practice. It probably means, "beyond data" or "greater than data."

It should set off alarm bells all over your brain when the government is coining a brand new word (or popularizing an obscure one) to describe what they're doing, especially the NSA, which specializes in code.

If they meant data like the purchase of a Camry, why wouldn't they call it data? That's what other companies would have called it. The government wants to say they informed you when they didn't.

If you think Snowden is no good because he lied. Then why do you feel inspired to support the NSA against him, which is an intelligence organization, which gathers information through deceit and spying.

Snowden did exactly what our intelligence services do routinely, but they do it on a massive scale (and I'm not talking about just PRISM).

Yet, when the NSA does it on citizens you support it; it's caught lying about it, and you support it, and say you're dedicated to the Democratic Party because it's the party of truth. I'm sorry, there's only so much hypocrisy a "party of truth" can take before it mutates into something else.

Like Republicans are going to say they're not the party of truth? You think they just lie when they say that? Apparently what's wrong with Republicans is not that they don't have true believers.

I believe the Democratic Party is a political party. Up till recently, I thought it supported my interests at least approximately. Now, I'm having doubts.

Chicken Little? Paranoia might be a mental illness, but there's also an opposite to it that's even more dysfunctional. It's the inability to feel alarmed when you should be. Paranoia is not the belief there are conspiracies, it's the falsified belief in impossible conspiracies. Believing the NSA is turned against the 99 percent of us is completely plausible when you look at the social class of people running the agencies and who founded them.

Maybe paranoia is insanity, but in the wild, who would get killed faster? The one who feels alarm and tries to interpret what every sound in the jungle is, or the one who denies the sounds could be anything dangerous?

And if you think our intelligence agencies protect us from anything now, you're wrong. They, and our military, have created the all problems we're trusting them to protect us from. We should have never let those organizations continue to exist after the Cold War. Only a struggle for existence barely justified the trouble they were making for us.

Paranoid doesn't begin to describe it.

The word "metadata" has been around for almost 70 yrs. It wasn't invented in the last six weeks for the sole purpose of confusing you.

In my Webster's New World College Dictionary that I was required to buy in journalism school. It's not in there. Now, I did buy that in the eighties, but it appears the term was a bit remote at least. And of course, I said the term was either new or remote, so that just demonstrates again that you don't understand relevance.

Even so, I looked it up on dictionary.com, and this is what they say about the word's origins:

So, they not only know it wasn't use seventy years ago, but they know the exact time it was coined, who coined it, what use they had, and that the use was remote and very specialized until the government recently took over Mr. Myers' Trademark apparently as a kind of Orwellian eminent domain. And it appears the government has assigned it a different meaning. All I know is what the meaning sounds like it should be.

Seventy years? More like forty, but you did just pull that out of your ass, didn't you? Like me, you only heard the term the for the first time five weeks ago, and so you presumed it always existed with the current usage. This is exactly what a fascist government loves you to do for it. You've been well-trained.

I'll tell what: someone with your wisdom, intellect and fearlessness belongs in a different party than I do. I don't even respect you enough now to refrain from insulting you. So with that, you go on ignore. Goodbye.

O'Keefe is the logical corollary to the premise. There, to suit their non news special agenda they uncritically granted the revelations as both fact and cause for discussion, heat. An exact opposite example proving the point of the not so subtle point of the satire.

Not getting it is done deliberately by the MSM according to their peculiar needs. Going after targets and accepting the story as the talking point are all determined by the same.

The more interesting squirming is that they would love, in fact need, to attack Obama, but not for certain facts they don't even want discussed. National security, bowing to DC authority are not considerations. Damaging Obama without going near their desirable evils are. Eventually the issue morphs with an anxious after flavor of "individual rights" to hypocritically make the real issue about Obama being in charge of the virtual Hoover files.
From that fog still emerges "scandal" "Benghazi!" "IRS" "Birth Certificate" and other incoherent noises of faux rage. The sooner they emerge from that fog bank the more comfortable they will feel dissipating the new whistle blowers into Assange-like exile and Castro status.

That's why.

http://thecareerist.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a9220c59970b0133f30d59a7970b-pi

A thing of beauty.

LOVE YA TOM!

Maybe if he can divert our attention to some anti-aging eye cream or a new car that goes 115 mph across the desert sands, we`ll forget what a frightening cesspool of a mess mainstream "journalism" is today.

I don't know how he does it, but he is always able to aptly convey the vapid stupidity of the talking heads.

And if you're not scared of terrorists then you hate America!!11!1!!!(one)!1!111!!!

RL

what's your DU screen name?