Despite the desperate attempts by another DUer to prove otherwise, you're correct.



Sid

I have heard nothing from the USG saying it's false.

What the government is doing seems far more relevant to me than what political views Greenwald holds.

The tradition of "kill the messenger" when you get news you would rather not have heard is a very old one, but it never made a lick of sense.

Brian Williams pressed Snowden to specify something the NSA did that was illegal and he could not name a thing.

So, yeah, Greenwald's suppositions and innuendo need to be seen in the light of his motives.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

And no, a speaker's motives in saying something does not affect the truth or falsity of what the speaker says. Either it's true or it isn't. Given that the government has not even tried to imply that the disclosures are false, I have to assume they are true.

BTW, is claiming repeatedly that the NSA has not violated the 4th amendment, even though you have no legal basis whatever for that claim, one of the things you consider not to be a defense by you of the NSA?

Is it true that they are wholesale monitoring American citizens? No.

Why would the NSA deny what the documents prove? That they spy on other countries and store copies of the telecom metadata.

That's all this has been about so far. We're going into the 2nd year of Snowden's incredible 'Run For Freedom' and still nothing illegal has been revealed.

Maybe you can point to something that's illegal that I may have missed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

Maybe you can point to something that's illegal that I may have missed.

You know this has been the norm since the 1970s.

It is not illegal, much as you want to believe otherwise. You want to change that? Change the law. But it's not illegal. All this Snowden-fest has been for nothing. Because Snowden could not name one thing the NSA has done that is illegal, he is not a 'whistleblower' by even the most expansive of definitions.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

case when someone else brought it up. I could be wrong, but think you were on that thread, too.

In that case, the government did have reason to suspect the individual whose phone records the government sought and, at that, I don't believe the govt collected the content of the conversation, only the numbers the suspect called.

Try again.

You are still frightened of what the government could be doing instead of looking at what they actually do. There will be no mass outrage directed at the NSA until evidence is produced.

To claim that your interpretation conflicts with the government's is evidence of nothing. It's your opinion, as good as Snowden's but opinion nonetheless. Maybe 'Super-Spy' Snowden could have faked his way into a court case to have the law changed. But he didn't even try. He simply stole as much as he could get his hands on then ran.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

I don't trust them any more than I trust Snowden or Greenwald. Show me the money, I mean evidence.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

none of the disclosures refer to anything done by the NSA that was illegal.

Several of those posts are right on this thread and on many other threads.

We've been over the illegal aspects. You think some things should be illegal. Fine. But they currently are not. We can both type until we're blue in the fingers but it doesn't change the fact that none of what Snowden has revealed is illegal.

As Neal deGrasse-Tyson said in so many words, the truth doesn't change based on one's opinion of it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

My opinion is based on the express wording of the 4th Amendment and cases decided under it. What has your insistence that the government's actions are legal been based on? Absolutely nothing.

And, for the third time, are the kinds of posts you have been making to me examples of your NOT defending the NSA?

I don't defend the NSA but I want evidence before I decide to be against anything. I won't jump on the anarchic bandwagon based simply on Snowden's word. He has specified nothing that the NSA is doing that is illegal. Ergo he is not a whistleblower, just a thief.

Great reams of documentation and enormous effort are and have been expended to decide what our amendments mean and how they should be applied. Your opinion is just as good as anyone else's, as I said, but you can't simply say "It's illegal" and expect that to be enough.

No one should. Our laws require careful consideration and interpretation. Since the telecom records have been stored since 2006 -and periodically purged- why does Snowden think this is some sort of emergency situation now?

And below you say that the NSA is collecting your emails and recording your conversations. Surely you realize what that sounds like without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

that the evidence shows nothing illegal is neither precise nor supported by anything.

As the rest of your post, I call bullshit. Yes, there are many cases deciding what the Fourth Amendment means. I have read a lot of them. I don't think you have. Hence my call of bullshit. Merely citing the existence of lots of paper that you have not read or attempted to assimilate is bs. So is your claim of a quest for precision.

Also, you have yet to even attempt an explanation of how the 4th Amendment requirement of probable cause has been satisfied by the NSA.

Yes, many people have opinions. I have already responded to that. Mine is based on the express requirements of the Fourth amendment and cases interpreting it. What is yours based on? As best I can tell, zero.

And for the fourth time, is this an example of your NOT defending the NSA.

That's how the NSA gets around storing copies of them. Even Carl Bernstein said it appeared to him that they have strong safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

You want to change that, go ahead. It means nothing to me if you succeed in shutting down the NSA in its entirety. I just don't like the mood that sometimes settles in DU that tearing things down is the way to affect change.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

of appeal to authority, as least appeal to an authority on Constitutional law.

"Third-party business records are not our personal property. That's how the NSA gets around storing copies of them."

No, you have that wrong, because you have not, despite your claims of only wanting precision, read the 4th Amendment cases or analyses of the cases by people who know the law. The relevant distinction here is between what is public and what is reasonably expected to be private. Nor do you seem to know the definition of business records.

It means nothing to me if you succeed in shutting down the NSA in its entirety. I just don't like the mood that sometimes settles in DU that tearing things down is the way to affect change.

If they've gone too far, let's rein them in. But nothing Snowden has said or done reveals illegality and that's simply the truth.

The FISA court was put into place because of the abuses of the 1970s. We've been fine with it ever since until Snowden stood up and shouted, "Fire!"

And now that his story keeps changing, he has damaged his own credibility so it's less likely people will listen to him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

Harry Truman said the CIA was a mistake on his part, but I am not sure even he was 100% sincere about that. I don't think he actually took any steps toward dismantle it.

In any event, there is a lot of breathing space between saying the NSA should not have been gathering and storing all that stuff secretly and saying the NSA should be abolished.

And yes, I agree that trusting the government never to abuse info or power flies in the face of a lot of evidence, not to mention that the government has admitted that some of the information has already been misused.

but it seems that no-one can reign it in...not even PBO, who I truly support, despite disappointments.

pretended I was advocating for the abolition of the NSA. Guess it was easier to do that than to address the points that I actually did post. So, I wanted to be clear that I haven't seen many advocating that. (Certainly none that I've typed.)

but it seems that no-one can reign it in...not even PBO,

"Legal" and "Constitutional" are two very different things. It was quite legal to ban contraceptives, interracial marriage and same-sex marriage until it was found to be UN-Constitutional.

Right now, the NSA is hiding under the "laws" passed by our legislators. Those laws are protected by the secret FISA Court and haven't had a day in the open courts or court of public opinion until Snowden and Greenwald exposed the NSA's behavior. Exposed that facts that they were dishonest with even the FISA court and their top officials LIED to congress. I'm pretty sure, last I looked, both of those actions are illegal.

Clapper saying he came up with the "Least dishonest answer" wouldn't be accepted in any proper court of law or, by the parent of a three-year-old. Especially since he had the questions in advance of the hearing. It would have been much better for him to say something like "This open hearing is not a proper forum for this discussion. I'd be happy to answer the Senator's questions in a closed hearing."

...you don't do that by stealing everything you can get your hands on then giving it away to other countries. That is not the way to start a conversation.

S&G haven't 'exposed' anything other than that the NSA spies on other countries and stores telecom data for 5 years. Big deal, especially since the metadata storage was known since 2006.

I'm no court case expert but I'm willing to bet that prosecutors get called on stuff they try to pull all the time. That's what the court is there for -to rein them in. That's why FISA was created in the first place way back in the 70s.

And Clapper's non-answer would have been seen as a 'Yes' in a public forum. He didn't handle it expertly and no one in Congress held it against him.

Still nothing illegal revealed by Snowden or Greenwald.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

... powers shouldn't be curtailed

or another. I think the focus on them is misplaced at best.

"To be perfectly clear, I am NOT saying Glenn is sexist or racist. What I AM saying is his comment reflected a blind spot on racism and sexism." (See first comment)

The other posts are half-truths and/or silly.

Please.

I don't get it. Shouldn't we be focusing on whether the USG is acting constitutionally or not. And, even if it is--though I don't think it is--whether that is what we want or should want? And then, what, if anything, we might do about it?

Let's say someone can prove definitively that Greenwald is a saint. After we recommend him for beatification, so freaking what? Conversely, let's assume someone can prove he's the worst two-legged turd who ever disgraced the planet. After we recommend him for annihilation, so freaking what?

Either way, the government is still collecting my emails and phone convos and claiming a right to check my snail mail whenever it feels like it. Why do we keep deflecting?

I agree that first and foremost, the issue is the Executive's Spy On Everyone program. Obviously I'd prefer Greenwald to be a Liberal, but that's not a huge matter.

However... the continued attacks on Greenwald, featuring untruths and half-truths that have been discredited over and over, is fascinating. Seems to be an attempt to invalidate or deflect the Spy On Everyone issues, and I think it's important to counter the prevarications rather than ignore them.

I think it's important to counter the prevarications rather than ignore them.

It's that simple.

...he'd instantly become a good, life-long Democrat in the eyes of some here.

happen under any administration. even a Bernie Sanders administration wouldn't have a place for this guy.

From what I have observed, I don't think think the poster was wrong about the point he or she was making.

could say it was raining cats and dogs.

The reason Greenwald rubs so many people here the wrong way isn't just Obama worship, it's the fact that Greenwald really does represent an anti-government viewpoint.

The poster did not ask anything at all, let alone a nonsensical question, so I am not sure what your analogy is trying to say.


And the post was not about Greenwald at all, but about the....flexibiity of the opinions, beliefs and principles of some posters. You can agree or disagree with that characterization of a group of posters here, but the post is not about Greenwald. I happen to agree.

From the 1st page of Google search results for '"Glenn Greenwald" inequality":

and not much about income inequality. No mention of wage laws or safety regulations in the work place and certainly no mention of the right to organize. These issues go hand in hand with income inequality without addressing them your not really addressing income inequality. The article was basically talking alot saying nothing.

It's mentioned in the vast majority of paragraphs. The only times when it's not, it's because he's using a metaphor of a race, or talking about power inequality and abuse.

No, he doesn't write about labour rights; he's not a one-stop-shop for all your liberal needs, and no, you can address income inequality without explicitly mentioning wage laws or the right to organise. There's no obligation to put forward the exact arguments that you personally would put.

The point is that this shows that "he's a libertarian" is just simply wrong.

He's a writer. He's not a candidate for office. I will judge him based on what he writes. If you think you should dismiss him because he can't play piano or because he eats too many brussel sprouts or something I can't help you.

However, because so doing reflected badly on Obama, the man has to be attacked for his politics and his personality. Because, apparently, attacking him makes the actions of the USG better somehow. More to the point, as long as we are discussing the personalities of Greenwald and Snowden, we are not disccussing the actions of the USG (and other governments). So, no matter how the personalities discussions turn out--and they never come to resolution anyway--the USG is shielded and nothing of importance is done.

Like maybe building a bridge?

Particularly on the subject of domestic NSA spying, which is exactly why we see OPs like this one attempting to kill the messenger.

If Greenwald is not my friend, which Liberal has been speaking out against NSA/FBI/DHS/CIA/GCHQ violations of our Fourth Amendment rights? Which Liberal has exposed these abominations?

Because if there is no Liberal who passes the Litmus test available, then what should we do? Ignore those violations? I only ask because prior to Snowden/Greenwald whoever posted about those programs was accused of spreading FUD and CT. Then when we had the proof that the Government was indeed spying on everyone, not just the conjecture and conclusions of spotty reports, but the proof, then it became a Libertarian plot to discredit President Obama.

So what Liberal should we listen to regarding the violations of our Civil Rights?

Certainly are a lot of tertiary (at best) individuals pretending absolute knowledge regarding the wholly subjective interpretations of another person's positions and intentions.

Even lacking the sandwich boards reading "the end is nigh", prophets are still tedious, obvious and full of pretense when it comes to spreading grade-school level gossip...

good.

that he and Snowden have done the world a service by whistleblowing on the surveillance abuses (which have been going on for a long time, since long before President Obama).

And while he is not Bernie Sanders, he is not a hard-right libertarian either.