General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenwald is accusing President Obama of making "false" claims, but hasn't backed up his claims
Here: Glenn Greenwald: As Obama Makes "False" Surveillance Claims, Snowden Risks Life to Spark NSA Debate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023041294
By Mathew Ingram
<...>
Why he chose to go to Hong Kong: Asked by Greenwald why he chose Hong Kong as a place to hide, Snowden said that the U.S. government had destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treasonbut he didnt really answer the question. There have been conspiracy theories about alleged collusion with the Chinese government (which Snowden denied later in the discussion) and also some theories about the upside of choosing Hong Kong.
Whether he made copies of the documents: Greenwald also asked if Snowden had made any copies of the NSA documents he provided to the Guardianand if so, whether he gave them to a number of different people for safekeeping, or stored them somewhere else, so they would be available if something happened to him. Snowden didnt answer the question.
What exactly direct access means: Circa editor-in-chief and former Reuters social-media editor Anthony De Rosa asked Snowden to define what direct access meansa term that is used in the NSA documents describing the Prism program and something that technology companies such as Google (GOOG), Facebook (FB), and Yahoo! (YHOO) have repeatedly denied they provide. Snowden would say only that more detail on how direct NSAs accesses are is coming.
Whether agents can listen to phone calls: De Rosa also asked if NSA agents could listen to the content of domestic phone calls without a warrantas opposed to simply collecting and filtering the metadata around those calls, such as the location and length of time they take to complete. There have been allegations that the NSA is able to listen to specific phone calls without a warrant, but Snowden didnt say whether this is true.
- more -
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-18/five-questions-edward-snowden-didnt-answer
Snowden basically admits the "direct access" claim was bullshit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032903
Edward Snowden Says More Info About "Direct Access" Is In the Works
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023033916
Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023012813
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)"Yeah, I made copies and gave them to X, Y and Z. Do you need coordinates, or will street addresses suffice?"
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Are the other questions a "joke" too?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And the only proof that we have that the documents are evidence of crimes is his word as well.
And so far, Snowden's word is worth shit. Every one of his claims that is able to be verified has been proven to be false.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)all-encompassing court orders to his first article in the Guardian.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)Cha
(297,446 posts)thanks for the OP, ProSense
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)The only person who would do such a thing would be a paid propaganda agent who is targeting lower education level readers, which would not be the people who read DU. Character assassination is a poorly received technique as it doesn't provide any information pertaining to the issue(s) involved.
Please explain why you engage is this behavior as 100s of people have asked you to and you have yet to respond to any of them.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I give you a 6.3 out of 10
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Fuck what he could do, what DID he do?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The possibility of crime does not = crime"
...If Greenwald's goal is to "to spark NSA debate" about the potential for abuse, why is he trying to create the impression that the President has abused his authority by pushing bogus claims that have been debunked? Also, what's with the bizarre focus on spying on other countries? Surely Greenwald isn't surprised by this.
randome
(34,845 posts)He's at the Denial stage.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... coming from this OP, I know it's nothing but pure, unadulterated, 100% propaganda.
babylonsister
(171,079 posts)but that's what my r/w 'friends' say when I provide links to them that I think are valid news sources. Which source that was provided in the OP do you consider 100% propaganda?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)In a word:
Absolutely.
babylonsister
(171,079 posts)The Nation, Businessweek, etc. I know I would probably never have read them, so I appreciate the info.
emulatorloo
(44,156 posts)Better to just post fact-free hyperbolic rants. That is how we do it at DU.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Don't give in to his jedi powers!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"He is just doing so to drive you crazy."
..."crazy":
Glenn Greenwald Justifies Snowdens Fear He Will Be Killed: U.S. Targeted Americans In The Past
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035095
Yikes!
Rex
(65,616 posts)I've agreed with Greenwald on many things...but he is waaaaaay of the reservation on this one or as I like to say sometimes, 'all over the road with this one'.
If the U.S. wanted him or them both dead...guess what Lucy...they would be 6 feet under or sinking to the bottom of the ocean right about now.
The fact that Snowden went to the Chinese, sinks all his credibility with me. Also, I already knew the government is spying on the citizens...knew that over 10 years ago. I wonder how many people would freak out by learning that there were wiretaps BEFORE there was an NSA?
Enrique
(27,461 posts)that little "cross-dressing red riding hood"* calling Obama a liar! Well, I never!
*this is what the Washington Post's Richard Cohen called him in his contribution to the smear campaign.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)What does it mean?
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)people can't see what he's typing. While I was researching some statements he made that sounded like quotes, I found that the phrase he used "turnkey tyranny" came from a book called "The Cap of Liberty" written around 1860. The cap of liberty is referring to the red hooded cape (cap as it was called at the time) given to slaves when they were freed. Supposedly the tradition goes back to Roman times but has other references in history. He also uses the expression "Architecture of Oppression" which is both a book about the Nazi SS using slave labor to construct buildings in Germany, and a death metal band.
Rex
(65,616 posts)a cross dressing, etc.. very informative and explains the red cape part, TY!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Why not close the blinds or something?
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)This is news to me.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)against the door so people couldn't hear. I don't know exactly where he wears it, but I doubt it's Starbucks.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)before he was ever identified. This is the first article published about him, so apparently his fear of being spied on predated the story.
He is deeply worried about being spied on. He lines the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping. He puts a large red hood over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Wait....wuh?
Enrique
(27,461 posts)sorry for the confusion!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)But almost as outrageous to many Tea Partiers as the NSA snooping itself has been the lack of outrage by Republican leaders.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/13/tea-party-on-nsa-snooping-we-told-you-not-to-trust-big-government.html
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"He doesn't have to, the government did it for him."
He most certainly has to back up his claims. That document has nothing to do with Greenwald's claims.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Americans who have family and friends overseas, phone calls and e-mails are under surveillance.
We qualify in that enormous group.
So, we cannot speak freely.
We are fortunately not yet at the point of no return. We have not reached the point at which our government is weak and takes its frustrations out on dissident voices like many who post on DU or the many Tea Baggers.
But if history is our guide, as long as this program is in place and provides a means through which a government unable to deal with the problems our nation faces wants to find scapegoats, this program will be used to identify and prepare those scapegoats for, and I am using this word figuratively, not necessarily literally although it could become the literal reality, the "slaughter."
The word slaughter seems overwrought to us, but think of the millions that people like Stalin and Franco and Pinochet, etc. killed and punished for no reason other than that they did not support the official party line.
This is the ultimate slippery slope. This is unacceptable.
Stop spying on Americans.
And private businesses should not be allowed to spy on us without our permission either.
Jarla
(156 posts)Which can be found here
Question from Ewan Macaskill:
Why did you just not fly direct to Iceland if that is your preferred country for asylum?
Answer:
Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration.
Question from Glenn Greenwald:
How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?
Answer:
All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped. (So, yes, he did make copies.)
Question from Anthony De Rosa:
Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means.
Answer:
...in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time.
(In other words, the various intelligence agencies have large collections of raw, unfiltered data. Legally, an analyst can only search for certain information in these databases. But an analyst with that level of access to a database also has the ability to search for information about you or me, regardless of whether or not its legal.)
But you're correct, he didn't respond to the question about analysts listening to phone calls.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It's helpful to read the whole transcript"
...I read it.
Snowden basically admits the "direct access" claim was bullshit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032903
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."If you are an American person, the NSA cannot listen to your calls without first obtaining a warrant", or words to that effect (I cannot find the transcript, but the above is an accurate paraphrase, and he did use the term "American person" without qualification).
Greenwald pointed out that, if you are an American person talking to a foreign national, this is patently untrue.
So he did back up his assertion that Obama lied.
Now you might believe that Obama meant purely domestic calls when he said "If you are an American person...". But that is not what he said. His statement was direct and used simple language, and Greenwald pointed out how the statement is not true.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)..."If you are an American person, the NSA cannot listen to your calls without first obtaining a warrant", or words to that effect (I cannot find the transcript, but the above is an accurate paraphrase, and he did use the term "American person" without qualification).
Greenwald pointed out that, if you are an American person talking to a foreign national, this is patently untrue.
So he did back up his assertion that Obama lied.
Now you might believe that Obama meant purely domestic calls when he said "If you are an American person...". But that is not what he said. His statement was direct and used simple language, and Greenwald pointed out how the statement is not true.
The person targeted is not American, and the President also said:
"It can only be narrowly related to counter-terrorism, weapons proliferation, cyber hacking or attacks"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023039098
Like I said, Greenwald's goal appears to be using baseless claims to create the impression that the President is lying.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...yes I get that, at least if the rules in place are followed.
However, that does not alter the fact that President Obama clearly said "If you are an American person". He did not further qualify that to say something like "If you are an American person talking to another American domestically". He stopped at "If you are an American person".
Now sure, you can say that Greenwald is nit picking here. I don't think so, but I see how one could make that argument. BUT if you are going to insist people don't nit pick before calling others liars, then one would want to be consistent in that. For example, people have been calling Greenwald a liar over his story about the NSA's slides that claimed "direct access" to company servers. Even though Greenwald clearly stated this was a claim made by the NSA in their slides and that some of the companies say otherwise. That did not stop a huge onslaught of commentators here and elsewhere calling him a liar.
Sorry, your argument does not hold water.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)video at link and worth the five minutes IMHO.
Sen. Russ Feingold on FISA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=150878&mesg_id=150878
"However, that does not alter the fact that President Obama clearly said "If you are an American person". He did not further qualify that to say something like "If you are an American person talking to another American domestically". He stopped at "If you are an American person."
maxrandb
(15,344 posts)I'm just a little shocked by how quickly some on DU throw President Obama under the bus for a 29 year old High School dropout and a reporter with an agenda.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)railsback
(1,881 posts)When Greenwald/Snowden tell you they have evidence that its a good idea to jump in front of a speeding bus, try to think past the initial euphoria.