General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPost proof of Glen Greenwald's scandalous lies here
No conjecture, please. The gold standard for this thread is verifiable proof. I keep reading about what a liar Greenwald is. This thread can serve as a repository for his lies.
And when it sinks like a stone, I'll have my very own blue link to endlessly refer to.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
quinnox
(20,600 posts)railsback
(1,881 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Saying that the NSA program was operating without warrants:
http://blog.reidreport.com/2013/06/greenwald-and-the-guardian-try-again-only-this-time-theres-warrants/
Saying that 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#
Repeating Snowden's claims 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/
Even the libertarian nutcases at Reason are criticizing him"
http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/11/the-supposed-dangers-of-advocacy-journal
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.
Greenwald didn't feel it was necessary to try to verify any these allegations, and just printed them as-is. And now, with Snowden's story falling apart, Greenwald refuses to print a retraction or make any corrections for these lies.
It's beyond belief that this guy still has supporters on DU.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)and attempting to make it a slice. He's after the whole pie with this.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)That's all they are.
Cha
(297,275 posts)it through their green colored glasses.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Thank you.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)
I haven't seen a better summary.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)This one is also an opinion, not proof:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174783/glenn-greenwalds-epic-botch#axzz2XZ1oysk3
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174816/response-glenn-greenwald#
This one, an opinion, too:
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/
Sorry, but they are all opinions, no proof. Where's the proof you said you were going to give us?
patrice
(47,992 posts)Narkos
(1,185 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)debunked over and over again. No surprise re the right wing nutcase. Right Wingers always hated Greenwald.
1) What court issued the warrant on Domestic Intel they claim to have? The FISA Court is for Foreign Intel. So which court issued the warrant allowing Verizon to spy on its millions of American customers?? Thanks in advance.
2) What probable cause of wrongdoing was presented under oath in court to justify that warrant. What are these millions of Americans suspected of doing wrong?
3) Was there just ONE warrant issued on the basis that millions of Americans are ALL suspected of the same wrong doing? (what are the odds of that?)
4) Or, were there millions of warrants issued on each individual American, proving millions of probable causes of wrong doing?
5) If no one owns their records, how come I can't collect data on my neighbors who actually think their phone and FB and emails do not belong to me or anyone else? Why, if they don't own that stuff, can't anyone collect it and keep it for future reference? Does this include my bank records? Do I own them or does the Bank own them and therefore, can anyone access my Bank Records?
Enquiring minds are still trying to get answers.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)1) No warrants are required for non-privileged information. And per the USA PATRIOT ACT (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861), metadata is not privileged information.
2) See #1
3) See #1
4) See #1
5) Nobody ever said the metadata belongs to nobody. Just that it doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the carrier. You don't own your phone number, you don't own your IP address, you don't own the networks the messages & data packets travel on, you don't own the exchanges & servers this information is stored on. You never have. It belongs to the private multinational corporations that invested the billions of dollars to create that infrastructure. It's been that way since AT&T was set up as a monopoly in 1913, through its breakup in 1984, up until today. It was never yours.
Now the burning question is: Will the Paulbots & Greenwald fans actually be able to comprehend & acknowledge this basic information this time?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)David Allen Green, at the New Statesman -- where the editor Jemima Khan had put of some of Assange's bail money -- wrote two quite informative columns Legal myths about the Assange extradition and The legal mythology of the extradition of Julian Assange
Mr Greenwald disliked Mr Green's claims in the first column and wrote a response
The New Statesman must correct its error over Assange and extradition
... Green claimed that "<i>t would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request" ...This is completely and unquestionably false ... Mark Klamberg – a professor of international law at the University of Stockholm – ... dissects Sweden's extradition law and makes Green's error as clear as it can be ...
Klamberg then tweets:
@ggreenwald is only qouting half of my statement and distorts my conclusion http://gu.com/p/3ax4a/tw @davidallengreen
https://twitter.com/Klamberg/status/239028648424898560
Klamberg then followed up with a lengthy blog post:
Sequencing and the discretion of the Government in Extradition cases
The problem is that Greenwald earlier and later in the same text argues for a sequence that would put the Government before the Supreme Court. In essence he is arguing that the Government should have the first and the last say with the Supreme Court in the middle. That would make the Supreme Court redundant which is contrary to the sequence that is provided for in the Extradition Act which I have tried to describe. It may also violate the principle of separation of powers.
At the time I looked into this, back in 2012, a number of tweets and emails were available by web-search, between various persons involved in this exchange, but it was not easy to sort it all out: Greenwald IMO has a habit of selectively quoting people out of context and then aggressively denying that he misrepresented what they were saying. I've just posting here enough of what I can easily reconstruct to show that Greenwald (1) misrepresented Klamberg's views and (2) knew soon after that Klamberg complained Greenwald misrepresented Klamberg's views (see the tweet page above) -- and as far as I can tell, Greenwald never admitted anywhere that he had misrepresented Klamberg's views
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
moondust
(19,988 posts)I don't think he/she/it was expecting all that!
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)except maybe in Obotland.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)links for the nth time. Which is WHY he asked for proof in the first place.
Still waiting for an answer to the OPs question. Won't be holding my breath.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)They have no proof. That's why we're getting no proof.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)starting around 2005, I know they are full of it. I just like to see the contortions people will twist themselves into to try to defend the indefensible. It's difficult for them to be in a position where many of them have to try to defend someone who keeps letting them down, well those who actually thought we were going to get the change we were promised. So I have a little sympathy for them although not much.
I tried it once, for several years, and I knew it was putting a huge strain on me, defending Clinton to the far right. Then one day I saw Clinton and Bush arm in arm, with Babs stating that Clinton was like 'part of the family' and I can't express the feelings that evoked in me. I felt utterly foolish. The only consolation was that my Right Wing adversaries no doubt felt even more betrayed, obsessed as they were with Clinton.
After that, I knew to never again allow 'loyalty' to any politician to blind me to reailty. Lesson learned.
moondust
(19,988 posts)an anarchyunderground or libertarianunderground somewhere? I'll bet you'd like it!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)discuss policies with anyone, even with the far right, which I love to do actually.
I always wonder about people, such as yourself, who have nothing to say about politics but launch insults, weak ones at that (I am immune to insults btw, thinck skin developed from years of doing this with Bush supporters) in place of discussion.
How do you feel about Bush's policies, according to the President in his speech last week, being continued by a Democrat who we supported to get rid of them? He stated that he had 'kept some of Bush's policies'. Why?
Did you vote for Republicans eg, I mean how do you feel about all the Republicans this President has appointed to his cabinet? Speaking of other parties, which you appear to want to do.
Did you know that voting for Democrats now means you voted for Republicans, by osmosis?
How many of them are there now? Are there no Democrats to fill those positions? Is that what he is trying to tell us? Our party is inadequate?
These are all things people are wondering about and talking about.
I don't like or trust Republicans. How about you? Or have you come to the conclusion that they are okay, just not Ron Paul?? And why are you okay with Republicans in powerful positions in our Democratic cabinet?
These are all very important issues.
I know I am a fascinating individual, I must be since so many of you want to talk about ME, but really, I'm not that interesting. I'd much rather talk about policies.
think
(11,641 posts)But hey we all can cast aspersion into the mix once in awhile so I digress....
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the Big Brother Authoritarian State. Transparency is essential for Democracy. Secrecy is essential for Tyranny.
Republican liars like Clapper and Mueller are continuing to use the same spy machinery that was developed under Bush. Seems you are ok now that we have a Democratic Administration. I dont want Republicans spying on me.
I would hope that "politically liberal people" would fight for the Constitution instead of trying to close the door on this Republican spy machine.
Snowden and Greenwald arent the issue. The 1% want you to help with their distraction.
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to domestic spying. You side with the Corp-Media.
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)Mr Greenwald does not provide accurate facts or usable analyses that might help us move towards progressive goals
In fact, Mr Greenwald largely provides a trolling strategy designed to strip progressive voters away from the Dems, as I laid out here last year:
Ron Paul, Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald and the Libertarians’ Electoral Strategy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125179195
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)can a Democrat trust a lying Republican? But you also have the Corp-Media on your side.
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)that's because I never have praised either of them
Maybe you'll feel better after a nice snooze and a good breakfast
I'll leave this thought for you to contemplate when you are ready: flaming folk on an internet chat-board isn't really a substitute for activism; a chat-board may help you find some useful news and analysis, but the real action is elsewhere
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)fact based information. That is what we are getting and the more we see, the more we learn about the lies we are being told.
Clapper lied to Congress because he couldn't tell the truth being a former CEO of one of the hundreds of multi-billion dollar Corps that profit from the lies we are told. How on earth did he get appointed to the position of Director of Intel. And the Bush torture apologist, Brennen, another Republican, how did HE get appointed to a Democratic Admins.
Do you like voting for a Democrat who then appoints old Bush people from the Republican Party, instead of Democrats, to positions of power in his administration? I thought you said recently that you 'don't like Republicans'. Well, you voted for them, by osmosis.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Greenwald:
The primary means of mocking Paul's concerns was to deride the notion that Obama is about to unleash drone attacks and death squads on US soil aimed at Americans. But nobody, including Paul, suggested that was the case. To focus on that attack is an absurd strawman, a deliberate distraction from the real issues, a total irrelevancy...First, the reason this question matters so much - can the President target US citizens for assassination without due process on US soil? - is because it demonstrates just how radical the Obama administration's theories of executive power are. Once you embrace the premises of everything they do in this area - we are a Nation at War; the entire globe is the battlefield; the president is vested with the unchecked power to use force against anyone he accuses of involvement with Terrorism - then there is no cogent, coherent way to say that the president lacks the power to assassinate even US citizens on US soil. That conclusion is the necessary, logical outcome of the premises that have been embraced. That's why it is so vital to ask that.
<...>
Um, bullshit!
http://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/309465276863365120
Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711
By Steve Benen
In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.
The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.
Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:
"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."
I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.
But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand
Drones to kill people "suspected of robbing a liquor store."
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)And while you're at it you might as well list the people killed by Obama's Nazi unicorn assassination team.
Those damn Nazi unicorns! They are the absolute worst!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If you have proof of Greenwald's lies, present it. If you still want to traffic in unicorn pictures, that will be sufficient enough to illustrate my point.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)You request proof of Greenwald's lies. Several posters offer exactly that proof you requested. And then you dismiss everything by saying "that's not proof!"
It getting to be like you Greenwald fans will argue that 2+2=5, or that the Earth is actually a 4 dimensional time cube, just as long as Greenwald says so.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Paul mentioned the drones and the liquor stores.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts) 
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:02 AM - Edit history (1)
Endless discussion of Greenwald or Snowdon's flaws or virtues do nothing to mitigate or exacerbate the issue of NSA surveillance of Americans. The issue is civil liberties and the Fourth Amendment, not the life stories of particular individuals. I see them as neither heroes or villains, and frankly I don't care. I care about what the surveillance state does to its citizens.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)The story should be about NSA and their continued spying on American citizens. But since there's a dishonest campaign to smear the messenger as a liar, I thought it was important to point out who is actually lying about whom.
The issue is the issue.. meaning widespread surveillance and domestic spying both on
Americans here at home and on those in other countries we have an .. ermm.. issue
with.
The fact is that our own corporate imperialist mindset and fundamental worldwide
policy requires spying and surveillance, along with the police state tactics to keep
us defanged and compliant.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)nt
bobduca
(1,763 posts)and he sometimes leaves his electronic devices on during takeoff and landing.
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)you hate them because they expose the nefariousness of your beloved politicians. if they were going after just republicans you would all be gushing over them.