US reporter says he has huge cache of Snowden files

[ProSense]

US reporter says he has huge cache of Snowden files

Brazil-based Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald said Tuesday that he had received more than 15,000 secret US government documents from intelligence leaker Edward Snowden.

Greenwald, an American who was among the first to release details of Washington's vast electronic surveillance program, gave no details of the content of the files as he testified before the Brazilian Senate´s foreign relations committee.

"I did not do an exact count, but he gave me 15,000, 20,000 documents. Very, very complete and very long," Greenwald said, responding to questions from lawmakers.

"The stories we have published are a small portion. There will certainly be more revelations on the espionage activities of the US government and allied governments (...) on how they have penetrated the communications systems of Brazil and Latin America," he said.

- more -

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/brazil-based-us-reporter-says-20-000-snowden-184730244.html

So he does have the files.

Greenwald tries to do damage control
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023244823

[DJ13]

1. Horse dead

still beating

[ProSense]

2. "Brazil-based Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald said Tuesday"

"Horse dead still beating"

Are you upset that Greenwald is "beating" a dead horse?

Or is it that you don't like to see reports about what Greenwald says?

[David Krout]

19. Do you think Greenwald shouldn't have answer the question about the number of files?

Because of concerns that Prosense of DU would claim this was a "dead horse" beating?

Did the lawmaker want to know how many files Greenwald have? Ah! that's what you don't say. because if you do you can't pretend greenwald volunteered this information to the lawmaker.

[ProSense]

20. What? Who the hell said anything about him not answering the question?

"Because of concerns that Prosense of DU would claim this was a "dead horse" beating? "

My comment was directed at the poster's claim, and it was snark. You need to understand what you're responding to before creating straw men.

[DevonRex]

5. Greenwald is beating a dead horse with his announcement today?

Or is it that you're telling ProSense she is not allowed to speak?

[DJ13]

6. The subject consumes too much of her time

[ProSense]

7. WTF? Who the hell appointed you my guardian?

You sound like you have authoritarian issues that you really need to get over.

What I chose to post is none of your business. Mind yours.

[DJ13]

9. lol

Your posts are on many threads, what you post is your business, what I post is my opinion.

At least you didnt put blue links in your response, thats a plus.

[ProSense]

10. You're laughing

"Your posts are on many threads, what you post is your business, what I post is my opinion.

At least you didnt put blue links in your response, thats a plus."

...while posting a failed attempt to walk back your ridiculous comment: "The subject consumes too much of her time."

[ljm2002]

22. "What I chose to post is none of your business"...

...har de har har har.

This from the poster who, a few weeks ago, when we were having a heated exchange, told me I should "get a hobby". Which, given our relative post counts, was rather hilarious -- as I pointed out at the time.

Sorry, but you earned this one.

[ProSense]

23. Link?

"This from the poster who, a few weeks ago, when we were having a heated exchange, told me I should 'get a hobby'."

Also, what does that have to do with point?

[ljm2002]

26. Here you go...

...http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2501350

in which you opine

...what you need is a hobby. Seriously, reread my responses and answer them again if you're looking for something to do.

And what it has to do "with point", dear, is that you are objecting to someone else telling you what to do, while you yourself have engaged in the same behavior. But I guess it's okay when certain posters do it, eh?

[ProSense]

28. LOL!

Yeah, you were in a "heated exchange":

"Maybe what you need is an English lesson"

"Your method seems to be try and wear 'em down. I'd say you are probably a paid shill, but that might be construed as a personal attack or a call out or some such thing. So I won't say it. "

Now, what does that have to do with the point made here?

[ljm2002]

29. So a heated exchange...

...means you can tell someone they need a hobby, but it does not mean that someone else can tell you that you appear to be obsessing?

Sure, whatever.

Now, again, what it has to do with the point made here, dear, is this: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Don't want people suggesting what you should be doing with your time? Then you can start by not engaging in the same behavior.

[ProSense]

30. You defined it as a "heated exchange,"

and it was in response to your suggestion:

"Maybe what you need is an English lesson"

I mean, the hypocrisy is fairly hilarious as is your attempt to play the victim.

Again, what does any of that have to do with the point here?

[ljm2002]

32. Oh please...

...you really are good at deflection, I'll give you that.

You did not like where the exchange was going, so you decided to suggest that I spend my time doing something else, like pursuing a hobby. You even made a "helpful" suggestion as to what I could occupy myself with.

Yet you complain when someone else says maybe you are spending too much time on this Snowden / Greenwald topic.

As to your repeated question of what it has to do with "the point here": Again, dear, you might try brushing up on your English comprehension: it's not just for school children.

[ProSense]

34. LOL! "you really are good at deflection, I'll give you that."

You dragged a bullshit point into the thread trying to play the victim when you were the one throwing around accusation and you're accusing me of being "good at deflection"?

"As to your repeated question of what it has to do with 'the point here': Again, dear, you might try brushing up on your English comprehension: it's not just for school children."

[ljm2002]

36. You don't seem to understand basic concepts...

...such as "playing the victim" vs. "hypocrisy".

You accuse me of playing the victim when I am doing no such thing. You are an anonymous (to me) person on the Internet and as such are in no position to victimize me. On the other hand, you got all huffy at someone for telling you how to spend your time, which I found amusing considering our previous exchange.

It seemed relevant to me. You obviously don't see it. Why does that not surprise me.

TTFN.

[DevonRex]

35. Just stop. We'd like to discuss the topic. Enough is enough.

The personal attacks have gotten out of hand. And it is VERY clear which side began this. You didn't have to come to this thread. You had no intention of discussing the topic. You just wanted to attack ProSense. And you did. You and your buddies derailed the discussion. Proud of yourselves?

[ljm2002]

38. "You and your buddies derailed the discussion"...

...awww, poor l'il ProSense, I guess she can't defend herself eh?

"We'd like to discuss the topic." Who is this "We" you refer to? Wouldn't be "You and your buddies" would it? Not that an upstanding poster like yourself would ever, ever stoop to attributing motives to others, like "You just wanted to attack ProSense"; and sly little digs like "You and your buddies". See, some of us see it as an issues thing, not a buddies thing. You should try it sometime.

What a load of crap.

This poster spams the board with post after post trying to slime Glenn Greenwald because she does not agree with him. Fine, then others are allowed to express their displeasure with such tactics. You don't like it? Tough beans.

[randome]

40. Ah, our plan is working, ProSense! Don't give up!

The more they swarm to derail you, the more we can sneak up on them and post the facts! Sweet!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[DevonRex]

41. SO PUT HER ON IGNORE. Quit bothering the rest of us.

With your bullshit personal attacks that keep people from discussing issues. Stop derailing discussions with personal beefs. You see that little ignore button? Use It.

[ljm2002]

44. OMFG, this is too easy...

...wherein I quote your BFF:

WTF? Who the hell appointed you my guardian?

You sound like you have authoritarian issues that you really need to get over.

What I chose to post is none of your business. Mind yours.

[ProSense]

48. Yes, that's exactly what I said. Now

...what does that have to do with you dragging in a point from another thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023415993#post26) in which you're making all sorts of accusation, including.

"Maybe what you need is an English lesson"

"Your method seems to be try and wear 'em down. I'd say you are probably a paid shill, but that might be construed as a personal attack or a call out or some such thing. So I won't say it. "

[ljm2002]

53. I see...

...so your chivalrous defender can tell me what to do, in very specific terms, but you are upset when I quote you in response?

And I did not try and rehash that old exchange, only pointed out that you yourself have made suggestions to others as to how they should, or should not, spend their time on DU.

You're the one dragging that whole thread back into this one, which was never my intent.

Now, I'm sorry if you were offended at the English lesson bit. But you still need one. Not just English comprehension, in which you seem borderline, but English usage. e.g.: "in which you're making all sorts of accusation, (sic)". For some reason, my exchanges with you seem to inspire these typos in your responses. It is a source of amusement.

For the record: I stand by my statement about your method of trying to wear 'em down. Also for the record: had you chosen to alert on that post, it probably would have been hidden. I knew that when I posted it, but I was pretty peeved at the time. Yet no one ever alerted on it -- or if they did, it was not hidden. So it stands.

[ProSense]

54. Apparently

"I see...so your chivalrous defender can tell me what to do, in very specific terms, but you are upset when I quote you in response?"

...you can't help yourself.

"And I did not try and rehash that old exchange, only pointed out that you yourself have made suggestions to others as to how they should, or should not, spend their time on DU."

Right, you just wanted to take a response to one of your accusations and drag into this thread to make a completely irrelevant point and play the victim.

[ljm2002]

56. Well tell you what...

...why don't you go back to your Very Important Discussion here and stop replying to this subthread which after all was started with the intent of subverting your thread to begin with.

Apparently, you can't help yourself.

[sheshe2]

43. What is with the condescending use of "dear"?

What's with this attack? This seems to be the new "modus operandi".

It has become a pack attack, not just here, elsewhere at DU. It's a pile on attack of the OP, no conversation about said OP, personal attack pure and simple.

The new buzzword. Paid poster. This was addressed by Skinner BTW, check out his answers at ask the admins.

[ljm2002]

45. I use the term "dear" in the same way...

...that a Southerner would use the phrase "bless your heart". I thought it was obvious. And yes, it is intended as a barb. So? I haven't noticed any upwelling of civility in the discourse around here lately, and I'm not trying out for Miss Congeniality.

As to "a pack attack", one could make the same observations on either side of the Snowden / Greenwald debate. Whether or not posting behavior is coordinated (which I will state for the record, in my case, there is no coordination with any other poster here at DU or anywhere else for that matter) seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Suffice it to say, there are posters at DU for whom this is a topic of great interest, and regardless of what side they take on the matter, they are likely to click on and post in threads on this topic. No need for coordination.

You and others here would seem to prefer it if only one "pack" gets their views out there. No worries, though: ain't gonna happen.

[sheshe2]

49. Yes "dear" it was a barb.

Silly me, I knew that.

As for...
You and others here would seem to prefer it if only one "pack" gets their views out there. No worries, though: ain't gonna happen.

You are correct, it ain't gonna happen. I suggest you take a ride in GD...it is a pack attack. It's vicious.

BTW did you check out what Skinner said about "paid posters"?

[ljm2002]

55. OFFS...

...I have been watching and participating in these threads since the Snowden saga began. If you want to talk about packs, fine, as long as you don't carefully leave out the pack that swarms around any pro-Greenwald or pro-Snowden post, trotting out the day's talking points as if they are contributing anything of substance to the discussion.

Yes I saw what Skinner had to say. I both respect the principles stated, and yet fear that this very principled position may be a bit naive as to the present-day reality on our beloved Internet. And before you say it, no I am not implying anything about ProSense. As I mentioned in my response to her, I expected that particular post of mine to be hidden because I knew it was skirting the rules but at the time I did not care. The post was not alerted on or at least, not hidden. Oh well. Had I been on the jury and it was someone else's post I probably would have voted to hide it -- I try to be fair when serving on our juries here, and not let agreement or disagreement with the post get in the way of a fair assessment of whether it adheres to DU's rules.

With all that said, I think it is highly amusing that I've been accused of derailing the OP here, and told to use the Ignore feature, but the one thing that has not happened is the people who disagree with me, and who think this is stopping discussion of the "real" issues... those posters have not stopped replying to this diversionary subthread.

Mission accomplished, I guess.

[DevonRex]

8. It's her time. This is a discussion board. Take it up with Skinner.

If you're brave enough.

[woo me with science]

11. Yes, and the poster responded with discussion of the post.

It is part of a vapid and repetitive pattern, and an OP who repeatedly posts in this manner on a discussion board should expect commentary on that pattern. You are the only one here advising that people run to the admins about anything, which does not surprise me.

My response to the post is exactly the same: It is a sadly familiar, predictable attempt at a propaganda smear.

[DevonRex]

12. No, he responded with discussion of the poster. That's your M.O.

You guys don't discuss issues. You attack the poster. Part of a vapid and repetitive pattern, if you will. Hope you don't mind me borrowing your phrase and turning it right back around on you.

The ISSUE is that GG says he has 15-20,000 very long, "complete" documents, although he hasn't looked at them yet. My first question is how the fuck does he know they are "complete" if he hasn't even looked at them, but then I'm kind of particular that way. I'm careful with words since they actually have definitions.

But, you two carry on attacking posters. We'll discuss the article. Have yourself a super day.

[ProSense]

18. It's the typical attempt to deflect. n/t

[DevonRex]

25. It's really rude. A different group ganged up on

another poster last night. Same MO, though. They attacked her viciously, said she was either stupid or paid to post. And was too dumb to understand their barbs. She's a really nice person who doesn't deserve that kind of treatment by anyone, much less by people who are supposed to be allies.

[randome]

31. Maybe it's Snowden Withdrawal Syndrome hitting its stride.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[DevonRex]

33. Either that or a mob trying to derail any sort of discussion

of issues related to Greenwald. It's weird. It's like they can't tolerate any point of view but their own so they swarm every thread by ProSense and a few others. While complaining that they post at all.

It's pretty easy to use ignore or trash thread so I really don't get it.

[sheshe2]

46. It's a pack attack!

They don't want to use ignore or the trash bin. The new modus operandi, attack then high 5 each other for their witticisms and subtle slurs~

So clever.

LOL, I sure saw it in action!

Devon.

[DevonRex]

51. Yes, so very "clever."

Clever, of course, meaning sad display of aggressive behavior.

[dionysus]

14. well there's something vapid here, but not what you think it is...

[DevonRex]

24. You noticed that, too?

[emulatorloo]

39. And he's projecting too!

"It is a sadly familiar, predictable attempt at a propaganda smear."

[Number23]

58. Every post from that poster: A noun, a verb and "propaganda." EVERY. DAMNED. DAY.

[David Krout]

16. Greenwald was responding to a question. Why do you call it "announcement"?

Did you think Greenwald called a press conference to say that or something?

[DevonRex]

27. So, Greenwald said something today.

And someone wrote an article about it. ProSense posted the link. And we're discussing the information.

If you do not wish to discuss the article or the information in it you are free not to do so. DU is full of different subjects. Go to the front page and pick one you like.

[David Krout]

59. Right. But was an "announcement" by Greenwald? Or an answer to a question?

?

[DevonRex]

60. .." Glenn Greenwald testifies before the Brazilian Senate foreign relations committee."

"BRAZIL-BASED Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald says he has received around 20,000 secret US government documents from intelligence leaker Edward Snowden.

Greenwald, an American who was among the first to release details of Washington's vast electronic surveillance program, gave no details of the content of the files as he testified before the Brazilian Senates foreign relations committee.

"I did not do an exact count, but he gave me 15,000; 20,000 documents. Very, very complete and very long," Greenwald said, responding to questions from lawmakers.

"The stories we have published are a small portion. There will certainly be more revelations on the espionage activities of the US government and allied governments (...) on how they have penetrated the communications systems of Brazil and Latin America," he said."
http://m.heraldsun.com.au/technology/news/reporter-has-huge-cache-of-snowden-files/story-fni0bzod-1226692478109

But by all means, keep trying to make your tiny, itty bitty point. It carries so much weight.
[URL=http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Cha]

42. Trying to stifle the discussion... Not. Gonna. Happen.

[sheshe2]

50. No it's certainly not going to happen!

You are so correct about that, Cha!

[Mojorabbit]

57. yep

It is like OMG he answered a question on how many files he has!!!!!1111!!!!

[Whisp]

3. not an exact count but he knows they are

very complete and very long.

How does he know 15-20,000 documents are very complete? wtf? He can't count them but he looked in each one to decide they were very complete?

does not compute, but anything Recyclable Green says seems not to.

[DevonRex]

13. That's exactly what

I was wondering. And, I'm wondering if this puts Snowden's asylum in jeopardy, too. Putin really doesn't want Snowden in the news 24/7. He wanted his little victory. But he doesn't want to keep poking the U.S. and Western Europe right before the Olympics.

He's already on very shaky ground there with that disgusting anti-LGBT law. He rushed to say they won't enforce it but he knows nobody trusts him. Especially after Snowden. No matter what the EU countries had to say publicly about NSA, anybody paying attention knows they all use NSA themselves. The more Snowden is in the news the more reason the West has to suspect Putin of having a hand in this business from the beginning.

The G-20 is coming up in St. Petersburg. Just think about that for a minute.

[KansDem]

4. Release the ones dated on or around 9/11/2001

[Rex]

21. I remember that, Idiot Son was trying to read

"My Pet Goat" but failed so the kids in the class read it to him. Something else happened that day.

[millennialmax]

15. Very sad and troubling that people are using the cover of their career to damage the U.S. eom

[madokie]

17. Pretty much it

[Luminous Animal]

37. Has he ever denied having the documents? No he hasn't.

And here is a picture for you. Greenwald says via twitter that a few Brazilian Senators borrowed the masks from the students to wear them in solidarity with Snowden.

[DevonRex]

47. Now we know. But

Glenn needs to be careful and not make himself a target. There are some countries that don't give a rat's ass about the life of a gay American journalist. But they will want the documents. I don't like the guy. But I don't want any harm to come to him. He really should be careful. Did he say the docs are locked away and he can't access them even if pressured? I don't think so. If not, he's got to do something fast.

[Auntie Bush]

52. Greenwald is a fuckin traitor!

It's necessary for governments to have secrets in order to protect our country. Name a country that doesn't have secrets. Greenwald and Snowden don't have a right to expose how we plan on thwarting the enemy. Now the Russians use typewriters and our government has lost a way of spying on them and everyone else in the world. I think they have done a lot of harm to our intelligence gathering and our country.