He's surprised that's the headline.

and I'm not talking about the Obama administration, but whoever and whatever their agenda that both parties seem to have no choice but to follow regardless of who is in office.

on Greenwald's discretion and humility.

Blue Ivy or something?

When is the royal baby due????????

I wondered how long it would take Greenwald to make this kind of threat.

I wonder how many friends he has at the DU now.

Snowden's goal to harm the US. It is funny to me how that keeps being left out so that sensationalist headlines can be used.

Devastating also means embarrassing... Which in the grand scheme of things seems much more likely.

Why? Snowden has given Greenwald and others memory keys with these things that are suppose to be devastation Assume even ONE has a different agenda and they release something. This is the risk that Snowden has taken - and it is unacceptable. (Not to mention absolutely illegal on Snowden's part.

Had he stopped at speaking about the various spy programs, it would have been illegal, but defensible. Had he gone a step further and released just those documents detailing the programs, many would say it was needed as back up. EVERYTHING else he has done goes far beyond this and I find it amazing that people accept it. If he really has a list of all CIA agents - that he risked by not just giving to others, but taking with him to China and Russia, that is stupid beyond belief unless he wants to take down the CIA.

To put it in perspective, no one on DU defended Cheney and Libby et al outing Valerie Plame.

This is what Greewald says about this latest mess.

I made three points in this La Nacion interview, all of which are true and none of which has anything remotely to do with threats:

1) The oft-repeated claim that Snowden's intent is to harm the US is completely negated by the reality that he has all sorts of documents that could quickly and seriously harm the US if disclosed, yet he has published none of those. When he gave us the documents he provided, he repeatedly insisted that we exercise rigorous journalistic judgment in deciding which documents should be published in the public interest and which ones should be concealed on the ground that the harm of publication outweighs the public value. If his intent were to harm the US, he could have sold all the documents he had for a great deal of money, or indiscriminately published them, or passed them to a foreign adversary. He did none of that.

He carefully vetted every document he gave us, and then on top of that, asked that we only publish those which ought to be disclosed and would not cause gratuitous harm: the same analytical judgment that all media outlets and whistleblowers make all the time. The overwhelming majority of his disclosures were to blow the whistle on US government deceit and radical, hidden domestic surveillance.

My point in this interview was clear, one I've repeated over and over: had he wanted to harm the US government, he easily could have, but hasn't, as evidenced by the fact that - as I said - he has all sorts of documents that could inflict serious harm to the US government's programs. That demonstrates how irrational is the claim that his intent is to harm the US. His intent is to shine a light on these programs so they can be democratically debated. That's why none of the disclosures we've published can be remotely described as harming US national security: all they've harmed are the reputation and credibility of US officials who did these things and then lied about them....

We know it made diplomacy more difficult with many countries and we know that it has given a lot of information about what is watched that may lead a terrorist group to avoid it - and avoid being seen.

and to live in a surveillance state so that diplomacy is made easier or on the off chance a terrorist might be caught by accident through wholesale snooping on the population.

than you are for your provider to have them? You do realize that for decades the government could request and get all the phone records - for any period of time - if you were a suspect. Now they have the raw records AND with a FISA court approval, they can get the same thing -- faster.

That is NOT surveillance.

to cause me any harm. It is surveillance. A former judge on the FISA court recently voiced his reservations with the way things are now and how laws are being interpreted. I think he prob has a good insight into what is happening.

Greenwald , Snowden , Palin = all the same : say anything crazy to get in the news .

eom

And Major, he's just the messenger. He has only reported the Crimes of our Nation, he didn't do the crimes, nor did he sell them or make any profit from his disclosures. So, he sounds nothing like a traitor, nor is Mr. Greenwald, he's just stating the obvious in case it was not obvious to all.

Greenwald says he doesn't have the information

That has nothing to do with me: I don't have access to those "insurance" documents and have no role in whatever dead man switch he's arranged. I'm reporting what documents he says he has and what precautions he says he has taken to protect himself from what he perceives to be the threat to his well-being. That's not a threat. Those are facts. I'm sorry if some people find them to be unpleasant. But they're still facts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/13/reuters-article-dead-man-s-switch

Maybe you could point out the threat he made.

n.t.

Glenn must be of himself when he spews this stuff....I find him more distasteful than young Snowden...and that says a lot!

My feelings exactly. Glen really wants this story to be all about him. He truly makes me ill.

is more absurd than most"
by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/13/reuters-article-dead-man-s-switch

<When you give many interviews in different countries and say essentially the same thing over and over, as I do, media outlets often attempt to re-package what you've said to make their interview seem new and newsworthy, even when it isn't. Such is the case with this Reuters article today, that purports to summarize an interview I gave to the daily newspaper La Nacion of Argentina.

Like everything in the matter of these NSA leaks, this interview is being wildly distorted to attract attention away from the revelations themselves. It's particularly being seized on to attack Edward Snowden and, secondarily, me, for supposedly "blackmailing" and "threatening" the US government. That is just absurd.

That Snowden has created some sort of "dead man's switch" - whereby documents get released in the event that he is killed by the US government - was previously reported weeks ago, and Snowden himself has strongly implied much the same thing. That doesn't mean he thinks the US government is attempting to kill him - he doesn't - just that he's taken precautions against all eventualities, including that one (just incidentally, the notion that a government that has spent the last decade invading, bombing, torturing, rendering, kidnapping, imprisoning without charges, droning, partnering with the worst dictators and murderers, and targeting its own citizens for assassination would be above such conduct is charmingly quaint)...

I made three points in this La Nacion interview, all of which are true and none of which has anything remotely to do with threats:

1) The oft-repeated claim that Snowden's intent is to harm the US is completely negated by the reality that he has all sorts of documents that could quickly and seriously harm the US if disclosed, yet he has published none of those. When he gave us the documents he provided, he repeatedly insisted that we exercise rigorous journalistic judgment in deciding which documents should be published in the public interest and which ones should be concealed on the ground that the harm of publication outweighs the public value. If his intent were to harm the US, he could have sold all the documents he had for a great deal of money, or indiscriminately published them, or passed them to a foreign adversary. He did none of that.

He carefully vetted every document he gave us, and then on top of that, asked that we only publish those which ought to be disclosed and would not cause gratuitous harm: the same analytical judgment that all media outlets and whistleblowers make all the time. The overwhelming majority of his disclosures were to blow the whistle on US government deceit and radical, hidden domestic surveillance.

My point in this interview was clear, one I've repeated over and over: had he wanted to harm the US government, he easily could have, but hasn't, as evidenced by the fact that - as I said - he has all sorts of documents that could inflict serious harm to the US government's programs. That demonstrates how irrational is the claim that his intent is to harm the US. His intent is to shine a light on these programs so they can be democratically debated. That's why none of the disclosures we've published can be remotely described as harming US national security: all they've harmed are the reputation and credibility of US officials who did these things and then lied about them....>>>

This deserves OP status, because this attempted slime is everywhere.

N/T

Snowden is still a pathetic loser in my book. Snowden trying to save the country or Snowden ready to bring on the country's worst nightmare -- which is it, Greenwald?

Greenwald lost his cred with this whole thing.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, Greenwald said Snowden was done and it was all in the hands of Newspapers.

I remember this was posted around a few places:

and then the clarification:

This sounds like a threat, and a bluff.

-- and in my opinion, if Greenwald wants the leaks to be the story, then maybe he should do that and report on what he has and what he knows -- it's been more than a month now, where is all this extra information that he claims Snowden gave him?

He had already said as much.

I think it works best that way. Perhaps we as a nation should pick a time for synchronized grovelling. Or Greenwald should suggest one.

The British GCHQ (their equivalent of NSA) doesn't take things like British citizens threatening to divulge sources and methods lightly. The Tower of London is no longer used to hang people by their ankles, but I'm certain they could find some manacles and a hook.

He said he didn't vote last year and I think that is because he gave up his US citizenship.

In the preface to his 2006 book, he wrote "I never voted for George W. Bush — or for any of his political opponents"

And then there's this:

At a talk given the day after the 2010 election — one that was a disaster for Democrats — “progressive” writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012 ... Greenwald offered a few insights into his way of thinking ... He said Democrats have stigmatized the idea of supporting third parties or not voting at all ... Greenwald’s notion of third party voting .. offered the greatest window in what he’d like to see happen in American elections ... Here’s a transcript

Gary Johnson were yet further proof that if he can get enough lefties to abandon the Democrats, it will almost always ensure a Republican win.

Maybe Greenwald should be more concerned about Snowden blowing the cover on the real story here, along with others who have contributed to this crazy movement.

...and he wanted to break this story so badly, he should be the one taking the heat and Snowden should be a source that he'd be protecting.

His credibility meter is falling quickly. Even people I know who have been posting positive comments about Snowden and GG are posting more and more grumpy cat photos instead.

Snowden asking Russia for asylum! Really! Russia? Land of true oppression, human rights violations, state sanctioned homophobia and true experts in the art of spying?? REALLY???


This Snowden worship runs deep with many DUers.



Personally, MY heros at this moment are Elisabeth Warren, Malala Yousufzai, Sen. Wendy Davis and yes... Bradley Manning who didnt threaten to blackmail the government when he released his data and was caught.

Then again, none of these fine people want a Pulitzer prize or an exaggerated place in history.

Is that why Mr Snowden asked the Washington Post to help him convince a foreign embassy that he was the source of documents supplied to them?

Is that why Mr Snowden said he'd set up the release of documents he says will bring down the government of the US if things don't go the way he wants? If such documents actually show illegal activity, why doesn't he just release them?

If his intended message were indeed what you suggest, he has had enormous difficulty staying on-point

An alternative interpretation is that he is a self-important little dramatist, who craves excitement and would like to be the center of attention, but is currently stymied by his own chaotic thought processes and poor planning skills

Shame on you. See post 11.

You are spreading propaganda. Hence the complete avoidance of post 11, which debunks everything you are saying, and the doubling down on the lies, in [font size=11] HUGE BOLD FONT.[/font size]

You embarrass yourself.

Post #11 is a response from Greenwald, not denying what he actually said, but claiming that what he said wasn't blackmail or threatening. He then tries, like he always does, to play the victim:

like the Assange "insurance" file, I wish they would just go ahead and release it.

People need to know what is really going on behind the scenes or they can't knowledgeably participate in our democracy, and if you aren't knowledgeable, it ain't really democracy.

Guardian is a paid media service. Looks like they, manage, sell, grow and promote the Snowden vs USA fight.

Even if you've pre-judged this thing and you think that everything the US does is aboveboard you might want to read Greenwald's own response to this shyte by reading his Guardian response today.

I think the USA is very corrupt, especially at the State and local levels.


The Federal departments not yet touched by computerizing to audit their efficiency/corruption are also neglected. The President needs to ramp up the multi-tasking and audit those federal departments!

This paid media Shinie mirrors, fuck the little American voice and pink smoke show run by republican billions, should be shut down.