IAN BREMMER: UK And US Are Likely Preparing To Indict Journalist Glenn Greenwald Over Snowden

[KoKo]

BREMMER: The UK And US Are Likely Preparing To Indict Journalist Glenn Greenwald Over Snowden Leaks
Henry Blodget 16 minutes ago 420 3



REUTERS / Ricardo Moraes

Glenn Greenwald (left) and his partner David Miranda after Miranda's arrival in Brazil.
The domestic partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who reported classified information leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, was detained at Heathrow Airport over the weekend and interrogated for 9 hours.

UK authorities detained Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, while he was en route from Berlin to Brazil. They held him under an anti-terrorism law, which allows them to detain and question anyone for any reason without stating the cause.

Authorities also "confiscated" Miranda's laptop, smartphone, memory sticks, camera, and game consoles, the Guardian reports. Glenn Greenwald confirmed to Business Insider this morning that these items, which included a "WiFi watch," have not been returned.

One initial theory about the detainment in the Twittersphere was that UK authorities were trying to hassle and harass Greenwald, who is obviously the bane of secrecy-loving government authorities these days.

But this morning, geo-political expert Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group suggested that the motive was far more serious. Bremmer thinks it's likely that the U.S. and U.K. authorities are preparing "indictments" against Glenn Greenwald.

UK move against @ggreenwald's partner isn't a scare tactic. If they're taking his electronics, US/UK working on indictments.
— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) August 19, 2013

In response to a question from Business Insider, Bremmer clarified that these indictments would be against Greenwald.

If the U.S. and U.K. governments care about regaining public support for their surveillance and spying tactics, they would probably be well-advised not to hassle the partners of journalists who report on their activities--or, for that matter, the journalists themselves--without having a very clear and public reason for doing so.

This behavior will rally support for those perceived as brave enough to stand up to authority, and it will not endear public opinion to secret government surveillance causes worldwide, some of which some of the public still very much supports.

http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-greenwald-indictment-2013-8

[Octafish]

1. Why not? The US Government already is going after James Risen.

When "Money trumps peace," investigative journalism must be illegal.

Thanks for the new info, KoKo!

Even more than hoping Greenwald finds a drone-proof hideout in the Amazon, I hope our nation returns to the Constitution, where the Bill of Rights is once again the law of the land.

[Hissyspit]

4. Torturers and war criminals get a pass.

[Octafish]

21. That bothers me, too.

CIA destroys all the evidence? Oh. No trial. All is forgiven.

When a non-BFEE spook/gangster does that, it's called obstruction of justice.

[msanthrope]

9. Can you point to Mr. Risen's indictment? nt

[Octafish]

20. In post-Constitution America, who needs an indictment?

James Risen's risk of prison means journalism is being criminalised

That a New York Times national security reporter may be jailed for refusing to name a source is a total affront to press freedom

Lindsey Bever
theguardian.com, Saturday 10 August 2013 08.3

Committing an act of journalism could soon become an imprisonable offence.

New York Times reporter James Risen has been ordered to testify in the criminal trial of former Central Intelligence Agency official Jeffrey Sterling, who has been indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 – for leaking classified information to Risen for publication in his book, State of War. Last month, the US court of appeals for the fourth circuit in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that Risen could not claim a reporter's privilege under the first amendment to win exemption from being compelled to testify.

In effect, the court has ruled that the journalist must reveal his source. That sets a dangerous precedent now applicable in Maryland and Virginia, home to the NSA and CIA – the very states in which national security journalism matters most. If a reporter cannot guarantee confidentiality to an important source willing to provide information that may be of vital public interest, the job of journalism itself has been criminalised. If a reporter like Risen refuses to co-operate and name names, he himself may face time behind bars.

Indeed, like a dedicated few before him, Risen has vowed to go to prison rather than break his vow of confidentiality in the courtroom. Although there will almost certainly be an appeal, the court's ruling is a potentially devastating blow to investigative journalism. Given its significance, it is shocking how little publicity the Risen/Sterling case has yet received from major media outlets with a direct interest in its outcome.

The Obama administration's war on whistleblowers coupled with the court's ruling against watchdog reporters highlight the federal government's efforts to curb the flow of information from both ends. No one disputes that at times journalists have a duty of care when entrusted with secret information with possible national security implications, but Risen is critical of how government officials will use this argument cynically to delay or suppress a story. He said recently:

I've been an investigative reporter for a long time, and almost always, the government says that ('you can't publish that because of the national security risk') when you write a story. And then they can never back it up. They say that about everything. And it's like the boy who cried wolf. It's getting old.

CONTINUED...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/10/james-risen-prison-journalism-criminalised

[msanthrope]

26. Your posts on Judith Miller, who faced exactly the same situation as James Risen, indicate that you

supported jailing her for contempt when she refused to testify. Why shouldn't James risen be subject to the same law?

[Octafish]

42. Really? Care to show where?

I recall calling Miller "Steno Judy" because she helped lie America into war.

[msanthrope]

86. Exactly--you seem to think the very same law should apply to Miller, but not to Risen, and you've

failed to make a legal argument why.

[Octafish]

92. So what?

So they both face or faced jail for not revealing sources?

Big difference between them: Risen stands up to protect his source, someone exposing the secret government. Steno Judy stood up to protect her source, someone using secret government to lie America into war.

You want a legal argument? Go for it.

[msanthrope]

93. I think if you distill this into a legal argument, Risen's got a defense:

Big difference between them: Risen stands up to protect his source, someone exposing the secret government. Steno Judy stood up to protect her source, someone using secret government to lie America into war.

[Octafish]

98. Thanks! Please send me through University of Detroit School of Law and I'll write you a brief.

Promise. Swear. Cross my heart. Demo Donkey's rule!

[last1standing]

107. I won't write a legal brief but I will try to offer a distinction between the cases.

First, I have to ask: Why was Miller charged and why has Risen been charged?

[msanthrope]

108. Miller wasn't charged. nt

[last1standing]

109. Really? She went to jail with no charges?

I find that hard to believe.

[msanthrope]

110. It was Protective Custody, as I was kindly reminded downthread. nt

[last1standing]

111. Strange. My (very brief) research states she was charged with civil contempt.

I guess clearing it up would make a difference. Here's my source.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071502080.html

Miller, now in her 10th day in the Alexandria jail, already faces as much as four months of incarceration for civil contempt after refusing to answer questions before a grand jury about confidential conversations she had in reporting a story in the summer of 2003. Fitzgerald and Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan have both raised the possibility in open court that Miller could be charged with criminal contempt if she continues to defy Hogan's order to cooperate in the investigation of who may have unlawfully leaked the name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media.

[msanthrope]

112. Maybe I'm wrong in relying on the poster downthread. I've been wrong occasionally. nt

[last1standing]

115. Regardless, the disctinction that I've found between the two is the reason for charges.

Judith Miller maintained that she couldn't reveal her sources even after Libby's attorney assured the court that he had waived confidentiality. This was the court's reasoning for holding her in civil contempt charges according to the article cited above. The prosecution successfully argued that there could be no right to protect sources that were not requesting protection. That's a pretty compelling argument.

Miller and the Times have said the reporter has chosen jail to keep promises she made to protect the identity of confidential sources. But Libby's attorney, Joseph A. Tate, has told the New York Times that he provided reporters with assurances that they could rely on the waivers releasing them to talk to Fitzgerald. Tate did not return phone calls placed for this story on Thursday and Friday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071502080.html

So far as I've seen in the Risen case, there has been no such waiver of confidentiality as there was in the Miller case. Since, according to this article, that was the reason for contempt charges, the two cases are easily distinguishable and I'd love the opportunity to write that brief for the court. I think if the prosecution were relying on Miller I'd have a very good chance of acquittal - depending on the judge.

[last1standing]

136. I took the time to answer your challenge. Can't you even acknowledge that?

n/t

[go west young man]

23. Octafish's post doesn't mention indictment.

Yours does.

In July of this year Risen was ordered to testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling. They are bringing pressure to bear on Risen. Indictment is possible in the near future. You could easily look this stuff up yourself by the way.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/19/nation/la-na-nn-james-risen-cia-testify-20130719

[msanthrope]

24. No--it would'nt be an indictment...it would be a contempt charge, like Judith Miller. Did you

have a problem with Patrick Fitzgerald getting Miller to testify against Scooter Libby? Then you should not have a problem with James risen facing contempt.

[leveymg]

80. The differences are the very different nature of the crimes that Libby committed, and Miller's role

in actively advancing the scheme. By comparison, Risen merely reported facts that were brought to his attention rather than furthering the crime. In fact, the Gov't was able to successfully prosecute Sterling without Risen's testimony, which is not the case with Miller and Scooter "the Aspens turn together" Libby: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/Ex-CIA_officer_charged_with_leak_to_reporter-113042189.html

The government was apparently ultimately able to make its case against Sterling without any assistance from the reporter. (The indictment doesn’t mention Risen by name, but a senior government official confirmed to NBC that the case involves Sterling’s dealings with Risen.) David Kelley, a lawyer for Risen, told NBC that his client “did not provide any information directly or indirectly” to the government. Asked if Risen cooperated in any way, Kelley said: “He did not.” He had no other comment on the indictment.

Ed MacMahon, a lawyer for Sterling, said: “He maintains his innocence.”

Therefore, Miller and Risen are not clearly comparable case.

[msanthrope]

81. The thing is, that's not a cognizable legal argument. A witness claim of "they didn't need my

testimony for the indictment, so they don't need it for the trial" is a laughable one. Witnesses don't get to decide the importance of their own testimony.

[leveymg]

95. Quite the contrary. Fitz argued that Judy's testimony to the GJ needed to be compelled

as this promised to lead to other defendants. The US Attorney's request for Protective Custody would not have otherwise prevailed to Judge Reggie. No such compelling interest can be argued here- the gov't already has plenty of evidence to convict Sterling and there aren't significant co-conspirators in this case who might otherwise escape justice.

Sorry, you need to refresh your memory about that other case, which is easily distinguished on a number of grounds.

[msanthrope]

97. Hey--if you think that's an argument the court will buy, I say go with it! nt

[leveymg]

102. You asked what I see as the distinction - I'm not presiding over this case.

I'm coming to the conclusion that as America slips toward Third World status economically, there's less and less effort made to preserve the pretense of niceties such as the First and Fourth Amendments.

[sabrina 1]

82. What does Judith Miller have to do with a Journalist who has published FACTS. Miller was a stooge

who lied to the American people for the worst possible reasons. To get their support for a war that she knew was a lie. She got some of her material passed to her from the Rendon Group, if you don't who they were, I will be happy to explain.

Greenwald has published facts to do the exact opposite of what Miller was did. To end the lies and corruption started by Bush and Cheney.

If a journalist commits a crime, they should be treated like anyone else who commits a crime. She was a friend to a suspect in the Fitzgerald's case. She was considered a witness to a crime by the prosecutor. That has zero to do with journalism.

[msanthrope]

83. Sabrina, you know I don't answer your questions. But, if you can come up with a cognizable legal

argument that says that the law should apply to Miller, but not Risen, you be sure to send that along to his attorneys because so far, they haven't been able to come up with one.

[sabrina 1]

85. The law should apply as is appropriate. If someone is a witness in a case but refuses to testify,

then they must face the consequences.

If a journalist receives information from a source, the journalist is perfectly within the law to publish it, if it is material that the public needs to know. If the Government decides to prosecute them for refusing to reveal their sources, then they will most likely go to jail.

What does any of this have to do with Greenwald/Snowden? The Government knows who the source is so that is that.

What the courts have repeatedly stated is that a Journalist has a right to publish material from a source, a legal right, regardless of how the SOURCE obtained it. Iow what would Greenwald be prosecuted for? Being a Journalist?? Well, we did warn about this back during the Bush years. And now people are getting to see play out in Real Life.

I take it you believe Journalists should be silenced if they are not adhering to the Government's 'message'. Of course I could be wrong, I sure hope so.

[msanthrope]

87. I can't even pick the croutons out of that word salad, so I'll just leave you with a goodnight. nt

[sabrina 1]

90. Lol, of course you can't. It's hard to argue with facts..

Fact 1) Greenwald is protected as a journalist when he receives material from a source and publishes that material regardless of how the Source obtained it. He is not responsible for the Source's actions in obtaining it.

The courts have stated this over and over again.

Fact 2) The Government has zero reason to prosecute Greenwald. They know who his source is, they know he is within his rights to publish material that is of interest to the American people. So that is the end of that.

If the Government has nothing to hide, then they have nothing to worry about. So why all the anger and hostility and stupid reactions? Looks to me from the way they are acting, that they have a whole lot to hide.

[COLGATE4]

128. I leave you with the advice an older lawyer

gave me when I was starting out - 'Never argue legal questions with a non-lawyer. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing. It doesn't get you anywhere and it just irritates the pig'.

[struggle4progress]

89. Isn't Risen the guy whose inaccurate reporting caused Wen Ho Lee so many headaches?

[Octafish]

94. Good memory.

Remember William Safire?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2000/09/22/sliming-wen-ho-lee/

[struggle4progress]

96. Yeah. I pretty much stopped reading Safire in the Nixon era

[Octafish]

99. While I loathed his politics, Safire did write at least one thing worth spreading...

Safire in 1992 detailed how Poppy Bush helped arm Saddam's Iraq



William Safire was almost alone tying George Herbert Walker Bush to the illegal arming of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
In fact, very few liberal and almost zero conservative voices have dared oppose the Bush bandwagon, let alone the War Party. The story, read by the late Representative Tom Lantos (D-California), into the Congressional Record (public domain, emphasis by Octafish):

THE ADMINISTRATION'S IRAQ GATE SCANDAL

BY WILLIAM SAFIRE
Congressional Record
Extension of Remarks - May 19, 1992
Washington

Americans now know that the war in the Persian Gulf was brought about by a colossal foreign-policy blunder: George Bush's decision, after the Iran-Iraq war ended, to entrust regional security to Saddam Hussein.

What is not yet widely understood is how that benighted policy led to the Bush Administration's fraudulent use of public funds, its sustained deception of Congress and its obstruction of justice.

As the Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar, was urging Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker to buy the friendship of the Iraqi dictator in August 1989, the F.B.I. uncovered a huge scam at the Atlanta branch of the Lavoro Bank to finance the buildup of Iraq's war machine by diverting U.S.-guaranteed grain loans.

Instead of pressing the investigation or curbing the appeasement, the President turned a blind eye to lawbreaking and directed another billion dollars to Iraq. Our State and Agriculture Department's complicity in Iraq's duplicity transformed what could have been dealt with as `Saddam's Lavoro scandal' into George Bush's Iraqgate.

The first element of corruption is the wrongful application of U.S. credit guarantees. Neither the Commodity Credit Corporation nor the Export-Import Bank runs a foreign-aid program; their purpose is to stimulate U.S. exports. High-risk loan guarantees to achieve foreign-policy goals unlawful endanger that purpose.

Yet we now know that George Bush personally leaned on Ex-Im to subvert its charter--not to promote our exports but to promote relations with the dictator. And we have evidence that James Baker overrode worries in Agriculture and O.M.B. that the law was being perverted: Mr. Baker's closest aid, Robert Kimmett, wrote triumphantly, `your call to . . . Yeutter . . . paid off.' Former Agriculture Secretary Clayton Yeutter is now under White House protection.

Second element of corruption is the misleading of Congress. When the charge was made two years ago in this space that State was improperly intervening in this case, Mr. Baker's top Middle East aide denied it to Senate Foreign Relations; meanwhile, Yeutter aides deceived Senator Leahy's Agriculture Committee about the real foreign-policy purpose of the C.C.C. guarantees. To carry out Mr. Bush's infamous National Security Directive 26, lawful oversight was systematically blinded.

Third area of Iraqgate corruption is the obstruction of justice. Atlanta's assistant U.S. Attorney Gail McKenzie, long blamed here for foot-dragging, would not withhold from a grand jury what she has already told friends: that indictment of Lavoro officials was held up for nearly a year by the Bush Criminal Division. The long delay in prosecution enabled James Baker to shake credits for Saddam out of malfeasant Agriculture appointees.

When House Banking Chairman Henry Gonzalez gathered documents marked `secret' showing this pattern of corruption, he put them in the Congressional Record. Two months later, as the media awakened, Mr. Bush gave the familiar `gate' order; stonewall.

`Public disclosure of classified information harms the national security,' Attorney General William Barr instructed the House Banking Committee last week. `. . . in light of your recent disclosures, the executive branch will not provide any more classified information'--unless the wrongdoing is kept secret.

`Your threat to withhold documents,' responded Chairman Gonzalez, `has all the earmarks of a classic effort to obstruct a proper and legitimate investigation . . . none of the documents compromise, in any fashion whatsoever, the national security or intelligence sources and methods.'

Mr. Barr, in personal jeopardy, has flung down the gauntlet. Chairman Gonzalez tells me he plans to present his obstruction case this week to House Judiciary Chairman Jack Brooks, probably flanked by Representatives Charles Schumer and Barney Frank, members of both committees.

`I will recommend that Judiciary consider requiring the appointment of an independent counsel,' says Mr. Gonzalez, who has been given reason to believe that Judiciary--capable of triggering the Ethics in Government Act--will be persuaded to act.

Policy blunders are not crimes. But perverting the purpose of appropriated funds is a crime; lying to Congress compounds that crime; and obstructing justice to cover up the original crime is a criminal conspiracy.

SOURCE: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920519l.htm

Amazing stuff. Still...not much else worth remembering, besides how few Democrats stood with Gonzalez.

[struggle4progress]

113. Well, the in-fighting can be informative. I still remember the late Reagan-era Republicans shrieking

about Noriega in Panama, presumably because they'd started to lose the PR battle over Reagan's wars in Central America. Then the Republican primary season rolled around and -- joy of joys! -- some Republicans started to remind GHW Bush that Noriega had been on the CIA payroll when he was in charge of the company. It all dropped down the memory hole after he became the GOP candidate, of course, but it was worth remembering when as President he decided it was critically important to shut Noriega down

[dawg]

2. Why not?

Printing information that is not government-approved is a crime, isn't it?

Isn't it?

[NorthCarolina]

16. Especially when that information exposes Government criminality, right?

Right?

[dawg]

18. Duh?

If it made them look good they would leak it themselves. (Probably to the Washington Post)

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Seems to be a ommon theme reverberating around here this morning--

"This behavior will rally support for those perceived as brave enough to stand up to authority, and it will not endear public opinion to secret government surveillance causes worldwide, some of which some of the public still very much supports."

And then there's Kevin Drum--

"This is more than just shocking. It's stupid. Criminally, insanely stupid. I can hardly think of a better way of convincing skeptics that security authorities can't be trusted with the power we've given them."

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/08/heathrow-greenwald-miranda-detain

[TBF]

5. So they are both in Brazil right now?

Miranda is a citizen of Brazil, correct? Does that help Greenwald - will he be able to stay there and avoid extradition?

[KoKo]

6. BBC News this a.m. had someone from UK Intelligence who was saying pretty much

the same thing. That Miranda was an accessory because of quote the "investigation into Greenwald." I didn't get his name...and he sounded like one of our "law and order" intelligence "experts" who appear on CNN. He said he thought nine hours of detention were "excessive" but that if he is an accessory they wanted to get as much info as they could for the investigation.

Sorry I couldn't write down his name... But, interview is probably up on BBC News Online.

[quinnox]

7. Maybe these power mad elites are taking inspiration from North Korea

and other authoritarian regimes in history.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. We crossed the rubicon on 911

The scenery is starting to crash

[99th_Monkey]

45. Just like Zappa said it would

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
― Frank Zappa

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Well inverted totalitarian states have a shelf life

In Mexico it developed to actual free elections...here we are moving closer ever day to an open police state.

[Tanuki]

8. Sadly, Greenwald himself painted a target on his partner's back when he said previously

that he had considered sending Miranda the documents. “When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing it."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html

[Waiting For Everyman]

10. "Bremmer thinks... "

One problem: Bremmer appears to be basing his statement on an if-then logic that these are thinking people taking these actions. They are not. None of the surveillance "community" actions have demonstrated any noticeable common sense to date.

If he's right though, that would prove my point about the void of common sense because indicting Greenwald would be like throwing fuel on a fire. So, back to his conjecture, maybe. They are that dumb.

[stonecutter357]

11. K&R

Good!

[snappyturtle]

14. How on Earth would indicting Greenwald be a 'good' thing?

Yeah...let's show the reporters what the free press is all about!?

[stonecutter357]

28. I think Glenn and comrad eddie communist spies or at the very least libertarian.

[blackspade]

31. And that makes sense how?

Communist=libertarians?

A: Communism is a state directed capitalist economic system.
B: Libertarianism is a rightwing ideology opposed to government intervention in the economy.

So, which one are they? Jeez, keep your authoritarian memos straight.....

[stonecutter357]

32. He is making himself a victim and that is classic gop and or libertarian.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/glenn-greenwald-uk-secrets-britain-detains-partner_n_3779667.html#comments


Glenn Greenwald To Publish UK Secrets After Britain Detains Partner

[Iliyah]

35. Read that on another site - stonecutter357

and not on HP. WHOA tho . . .

[blackspade]

36. Now you've changed memos again...

[Fawke Em]

124. While I don't agree with him, being from the

Deep South doesn't make him stupid.

I live in Tennessee and I'm on Greenwald's side. I'm also a former reporter, so I "get" what indicting Greenwald would mean to the state of journalism (such that it is, given its corporate corruption).

Please kindly re-write your post as to disclude regional bigotry.

Thanks.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

125. You are right.

I was angry with the poster, and not the region. I'll delete the post now.

[frylock]

33. i think this may be the stupidest fucking thing that i've read today..

but it's early yet.

[Demeter]

37. And that may be the most truthful, funny thing I've read today

and I went shopping for Halloween greeting cards, too!

[deurbano]

55. Halloween greeting cards... for real?

If so, you must be an extremely generous and organized person! (Not that you are not generous and organized, if it's not for real.)

[Demeter]

58. They were there, and so was I

My shopping opportunities are unpredictable and limited.

Plus, one gets the best selection by shopping early.

[deurbano]

60. You sound very thoughtful!

[dhill926]

41. still gonna be hard to top tho.....

[Maedhros]

51. Right up their with forcing the Bolivian President to land in Austria.

Memo to White House: it's supposed to be inverted totalitarianism! You're not supposed to just up and act like a dictatorship, you're supposed to dissemble and pretend you care about freedom.

[MNBrewer]

34. COMMUNIST???

Do you happen to also think that Snowden is now living in the Soviet Union?

[Th1onein]

61. WOW!

[sabrina 1]

84. What does any of this have to do with the facts of this issue?? Are you saying that

Prosecutors should ignore testimony from people whose Political alliances they don't like even if they are telling the truth??

What an incredibly strange thing to say.

Are you joking?

This is a whole new idea for our Judicial System.

Let's see, what you are stating is that if someone witnessed a murder, knows who the perp is, but happens to be a Libertarian, the perp should go free because Prosecutors should never accept testimony from witnesses unless they belong to the Democratic Party?

Did I get that right?

[stonecutter357]

123. Snowden

Snowden stole my data from the US GOV

[sabrina 1]

127. Snowden retrieved our property that the government was hiding from us. I applaud him for

taking our property and handing it over to us, the owners who paid for it from he employees we hired but who tried to hide the 'work' they were doing from their bosses.

We need more good employees like Snowden working for us. I am more than pleased with the work he has done for the people who paid him.

[stonecutter357]

131. Snowden

So he steals my data and runs off to China and then Russia and you are ok with that?

[sabrina 1]

133. You're not getting the facts right. It isn't YOUR data, it is OURS, the American people's for

one thing.

And no, he didn't go to China, the US Government forced him to remain in China when he landed there before continuing his journey, by taking away his passpart.

See how different things are when you deal with FACTS?

He retrieved OUR property since we were being deprived of viewing the work our employees were doing, they were hiding it from us for some reason, and he got it published so that we all could read what was ours to begin with.

I totally approve of employees letting their bosses know when crimes are being committed by other employees so they can make better decisions regarding their hiring practices in the future.

We the people now have some access to our property and what we are seeing is extremely disturbing. It appears we were very misguided when we thought we could just 'trust' people who are working for us.

[stonecutter357]

134. We the people now have some access to our property

Bull he sold our data to China and then Russia.

[bobduca]

103. That is some grade A bullshit

straight from 1958

[Dustlawyer]

12. To all of the Govt., defenders, Greenwald broke their big secret so they must tear him down!

Make the story about Greenwald and Snowden to distract us and discredit the ones who broke the story! They caught the govt., spying on its citizens for Christs sake! That's the real story! Don't fall for these tricks, be appalled at them! Spying on us is wrong 9 ways to Sunday. So is the govt., putting its other powers to weigh in on these boards to convince us how bad Snowden, Greenwald, and all of the other victims of the Govts., abuse of power! You don't think they monitor these boards? I have some Louisiana wetlands w/o BP oil on it to sell you!

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. Snowden and Greenwald made it about THEM!

they put their faces on it. It could have been done anonymously...yet it wasn't. And this latest escapade proves how stupid and nonsensical they are..

[geek tragedy]

13. Some Wall Street insider speculating is not news, nor is it information. nt

[Iliyah]

15. Nice looking!

OK back to the subject and or what someone above mentioned, couldn't they get married and GG would automatically become a Brazilian citizen? I know I know this isn't Europe nor the newly minted (gay rights re: marriage) USA.

[WillyT]

17. K & R !!!

[WillyT]

19. Sorry KoKo... I Searched "Bremmer" And Your Post Did Not Come Up...

I must have started posting mine, when you had just finished yours.

[KoKo]

39. No problem...we were just posting at same time..I didn't see yours...

until I had mine up and went back to post the BBC report..

[JRLeft]

22. I support Greenwald the Pre-police state must be derailed before it becomes all out fascism.

[Fire Walk With Me]

25. "Journalism means printing something someone doesn't want printed. Everything else

is public relations." ~George Orwell

Chilling effect upon journalism, anybody?

[railsback]

27. Can't wait for the faux outrage here

if Greenwald is arrested for peddling stolen classified material.

[Hissyspit]

44. Peddling?

You mean publishing in a newspaper leaked material about what our government is doing?

I'm loving all the drug dealer language being used. Nope, no propaganda techniques going on here.

Funny punish torturers, torturer cover-uppers, Republican war criminals, but when it comes to journalists...

[railsback]

67. So, I guess I'm to ASSUME

that a book deal and a movie in production have no financial interests. And you would base that on… what?

[Hissyspit]

72. Barack Obama wrote three books.

But, no you don't have to do that.

And it won't be faux outrage.

[railsback]

74. Obama wrote 3 books based on circumstantial 'evidence' that the NSA

was spying on my porn, violating my 4th Amendment rights, and that we should destroy our elected government? I'll have to read those.

[Hissyspit]

75. Oh for fuck's sake.

[railsback]

77. That's what I should have said

Oh well...

[Whisp]

144. I wonder if GG's price for a Snowden interview just went up...

I think he was asking 7 figures last I heard.

So altruist a man, that GG. He sacrfices so much for us all.

[caseymoz]

47. Totalitarian way of looking at things.

You even conclude that political enemies only have "faux" outrage.

These classified designations have to stop, especially when the purpose of classifying them is to directly undermine the Constitution, representative government and the principles of rights.

I've said this many time these last few months, but if you really think like this, we don't belong in the same political party.

[railsback]

66. Sorry, I tend to not sit in grey areas

The simple facts are this: Edward Snowden has been charged with a crime. It doesn't matter if you agree with the charge or not, the charge has been levied, and any nation of laws is required to follow the laws as written in their current form. Snowden has admitted to illegally copying classified materials. Greenwald has insisted that he has copies. As with any criminal investigation, associates of fugitives come under scrutiny. Greenwald/The Guardian were forced to admit that Miranda was a paid courier between Greenwald and filmmaker Laura Poitras, who apparently is making some kind of 'documentary' (thank you, Mr. Savage, for forcing that confession). Remember, Snowden is a fugitive who has admitted to 'stealing' classified information, which is against the law. And again, it doesn't matter if people disagree with that. Greenwald has also issued threats to the U.S. and U.K. so of course, the U.K. is very interested in this.

So, unless any of you know exactly what Snowden is harboring, and apparently Greenwald, too, who says that it will bring nations to their knees, you'd have to be assuming your 'facts', which is nothing but faux outrage. I won't go there. Its like me accusing my neighbor of pissing on my lawn just because he has the capability of doing so.

IMO, the bulk of the 'bombshells' have already been released concerning the NSA, but that's just an opinion, not a fact, based on everything that's happened so far. As much flack as Greenwald has taken for his vagueness, it would have been logical to give out concrete evidence that the NSA was, in fact, actually 'spying' on everyone, rather than saying that they have the capabilities to do so.

[caseymoz]

68. We're not a nation of laws anymore.

Look at Wall Street. That's your first fallacy.

Maybe someday we'll be a nation of laws again, but that's a work in progress. The "rule of law" now is nothing more or less than an instrument of oppression.

Progress will not be made by screwing over the guy who helped point out lawlessness at the very top.

Emotions like outrage are an utterly different mental processes than the ones that consider facts. Whether one feels an emotion or not has nothing to do with whether reasoning or information is correct. The outrage that gets somebody torn apart by a mob is real whether the mob had its facts right or not. That's a minor fallacy compared to your major one, but I'd expect your thinking would be twisted enough to get one wrong if you've got the other one wrong.

If you're standing on the idea that the power probably hasn't been misused, (when proof that it has is already demonstrated by revelations other than Greenwald/Snowden) then you've crossed over from skeptic to denier status, right up there with Birthers, Creationists, and anti-Climate Changers.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/you-wont-believe-whats-going-on-with-government-spying-on-americans.html

I don't stand in gray areas, either. We don't belong in the same party. You're going on ignore.

[railsback]

69. Those are some wild, giant leaps of assumptions

Just as Greenwald/The Guardian conveniently left out the fact that Miranda was a paid courier in their initial stories, there are ALWAYS details that are deliberately side stepped to promote a narrative. For example:

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/new-snowden-bombshell-reveals-internal-nsa-oversight-to-flag-and-correct-errors/

Is it all really dismissible being that it doesn't promote the 'spying on everyone' meme?

[HooptieWagon]

104. Speaking of assumptions....

Miranda is not an employee of The Guardian, so your initial assumption is an epic fail.

[railsback]

114. How is that a 'fail' when The Guardian was forced to admit they paid him?

Defending Libertarians is strangely reminiscent of those who tried to defend Bush for 8 years.

[HooptieWagon]

116. The Guardian said he wasn't an employee.

They merely paid his travel expenses. He was not paid.

[railsback]

141. So international plane flights are free.

You learn stuff every day..

[HooptieWagon]

142. Just because they reimburse travel expenses doesn't make him an employee.

[railsback]

143. Well, for one, you haven't seen their books, so you're just assuming

which is how the whole NSA flamed out scandal was built. Two, I live off contract work. I work for them. Payment is payment. No need to mince meanings.

[HooptieWagon]

145. I do volunteer work.

And while I'm usually reimbursed for out of pocket expenses, I'm not paid for the work itself.

Perhaps Greenwald already pays Miranda, who knows? Maybe he assists Greenwald for free. What is known is that The Guardian unequivocally stated Miranda is not employed by them.

[railsback]

146. None of my clients say I'm their employee, either

but I do work for them.

[Maedhros]

53. You're at the wrong site.

See, liberals believe in an independent, free press. You know, that thing that was guaranteed in some ragged piece of paper somewhere.

Take your conservative bullshit elsewhere.

[railsback]

63. Liberals aren't supposed to assume anything

That's the job of the Right.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

132. You really want to lose big in the mid-terms. Why is that?

[Festivito]

29. They'd have to arrest and charge David Gregory as well then?

GGreenwald made a pretty good case for that.

[Cryptoad]

30. What charges

do you think the US will charge Greenwld with?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

57. Being anti-America.

I believe there's a statute he violated along those terms.

[Cryptoad]

59. Can you direct me to that Statue

in the US Code ... Would love to see it!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

62. I was being facetious ...

Meaning the government could just bring up any charge it wants to - probably under the draconian Patriot Act. Effectively, being "anti-American" just like the rest of us subversives who despise the police state we live in now.

[Cryptoad]

64. I was being facetious ..too

The Government has only brought forth charges that the Traitors have already confessed to being guilty!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

118. Exactly!

If they're caught, then they must be guilty. QED

[Cryptoad]

119. No

IF they honestly confess they must be guilty

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Sadly I am not surprised

They will do all to stop this. They lost control a while ago.

This confirms that we are not as free as we like to think. If true, it's a message to the press.

[Babel_17]

43. Hmmm, maybe, but

I rather think it's more a matter of "we can and therefore should" in regards to any searching regarding GG and Snowden. It's also "cover your ass".

[whistler162]

48. And when it doesn't happen....

how many of you will admit you where suckered? Again!

[Maedhros]

54. They detained his partner for nine hours without an arrest warrant or even naming charges.

Harassing a journalist's partner because of what the journalist published? That's bad enough for me to be outraged.

You people never fail to amaze me.

[NoPasaran]

91. "You people"?

You people?

I can't believe someone played the You People Card!

[Maedhros]

117. The people that launch personal attacks against journalists because they disagree

with what the journalist is publishing.

[dionysus]

140. .

[totodeinhere]

50. Indicting Glenn would be one of the stupidest things imaginable.

And so perhaps that's why they just might do it. If I were Glenn I would stay in South America for the time being. I doubt very seriously if any of the socialist democracies in Latin America would agree to extradite him.

[cascadiance]

76. I wonder if Daniel Ellsberg will show up at an FBI building with handcuffs on...

... and say to those there that if they want to be consistent in how they want to assume that in fact whistleblowing IS a crime to be prosecuted, that he should be put away too. And in his pocket is a list of all of those he worked with at the newspapers that published his "criminally acquired documents" in those days too that they should proceed to arrest now as well.

I wonder if the NSA and some of our other intelligence agencies will get even more brazen in their feeling of having unstoppable fascist power and admit that they were the ones that took out Michael Hastings as well. I'm sure they'll be going after Cenk Uygur and other members of the Young Turks for having Hastings and Greenwald on as regulars on his show and put them in prison or take them out as well...

[villager]

52. And think of the craven apologetics on this very site, such an indictment would bring!

eom

[Fantastic Anarchist]

56. I stand with Greenwald. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. You're a "Fan"tastic Anarchist...

I am not surprised!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

120. Well, yes, yes I am.

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. Think you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque....

This is Democratic Underground....Anarchist Underground is ------>>> thataway!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

135. Oh, I didn't realize you were the designated hall monitor.

I'll make arrangements accordingly.

Anyway, this place is for all progressives. As long as I don't run afoul of the rules, I think I'll be fine. Thanks for your consideration and your kind concern.



On edit: I still stand with Greenwald, if of course, that meets with your approval. If it doesn't, well, I guess that's just too bad.

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. actually this place is FOR Democrats...

thus the name...otherwise it would be "Progressive Underground". It's express goal is to promote
Democrats....

Besides real anarchists eschew politics....

[Fantastic Anarchist]

138. You need to read the ToS, then.

Specifically:

"It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Members who demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior over time and end up getting too many of their posts hidden by the jury (measured by raw number or percentage) may be found to be in violation of our Terms of Service. If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck.

<emphasis added>

Or read:

Our Community Standards

It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints. Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. These broad community standards of behavior are maintained though the combined efforts of members posting and serving on citizen juries, using their own best judgment to decide what behavior is appropriate and what is not.

Members who cannot hold themselves to a high standard risk having their posts hidden by a jury of their peers, and being blocked out of discussion threads they disrupt. Those who exhibit a pattern of willful disregard for the Community Standards risk being in violation of our Terms of Service, and could have their posting privileges revoked.

<emphasis added>

I have a left-wing viewpoint, I am a progressive, and I have just as much right to be here as you do. If you don't like it, I suggest you alert on any offensive post I've made, or to contact a DU Moderator and/or Administrator. If they don't feel that my participation is needed or wanted, I think they can make that determination.

But, I'm sure they'll appreciate your assistance.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

139. "Real anarchist eschew politics...."

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I've studied anarchism for going on seven years now - and yes, while no political party or apparatus is needed or wanted in an anarchist society, that doesn't mean we don't involve ourselves with "politics."

You may want to speak to Howard Zinn, Leo Tolstoy, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, Josiah Warren, George Orwell, Ernest Hemingway, Noam Chomsky, etc if they would have or do "eschew<ed> politics."

Hilarious.

[MisterP]

65. perhaps more importantly, they've played all their trump cards, and in a very noisy, public manner

first the Bolivian plane, then this: there's no written orders from the WH, but every act in this farce perfectly aligns with its goals--heck, it took exactly 50 years for the written orders to come out for Operation Ajax, and the Corporation's usually subtler in concealing its hand: it's actually ideal if you don't have to bother with handlers--you just stumble upon a vendepatrista class that has the same ideology and worldview as you! if you have synchronization you don't need to get your toes wet at all (70s Argentina, 60s Indonesia, maybe 50s Guatemala)

[woo me with science]

70. This is the behavior of totalitarianism,

complete with the creepy, ubiquitous, Orwellian propaganda machine to attempt to normalize it.

Corporate fascism, the criminalization of journalism, targeting of even the families of journalists...These things are no longer hypothetical.

This is tyranny.

[NoodleyAppendage]

100. Scared to admit it, but I think you are right.

We are quick approaching a pivot point in history, the decision between which we as humans will either veer towards corporate hegemony/totalitarianism or broad populism. Sadly, the reigns of power are not supporting the latter.

[grasswire]

129. yes, this is the moment where each citizen must decide...

....whether to seek liberty or accept tyranny. Our ancestors faced the choice more than 200 years ago. Many of my ancestors chose to seek liberty even at the cost of their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Some others chose to live under the tyrant King George, and were shamed, dishonored, and driven to Canada. Either path brings suffering. I suspect we are heading into an internal shooting war in our lifetimes.

[Vinnie From Indy]

71. I take my hat off to Ian Bremmer whoever the hell that is!

The Eurasia Group? This guy Ian and his inside guy at Business Insider just gave the Eurasia Group a big, fat, free commercial.

Nicely done Ian Bremmer!

[KoKo]

73. I've not seen any News Reports that Contradict this Information...watchin all day

Has anyone seen anything that would refute this?

Links? It seems to be just reporting the DETENTION...and not much more.

I realize Late August is a "Time Out" for both Europe and USA (On Vacation)...but...still...not seen anything that disputes this. So...If you have..please Post!

[Old and In the Way]

88. So...should I vote Teapublican/Rand Paul in the next election cycle?

Cuz we all know that this masive spy apparatus was Obama's fault, rigjt? We can trust a good libertarian like Rand Paul to dismantle our spy agencies because Obama hates us for out freedoms...amirite?

[HooptieWagon]

105. I plan to vote for a non-totalitarian ticket.

And I hope its the Democratic Party. That remains to be seen.

[Old and In the Way]

106. Well, you can always vote for a 3rd Party ticket!

They,ll have all kinds of institutional support to make change. What could go wrong with this thinking?

[Recursion]

101. I think Bremmer's wrong

Any takers?

[MineralMan]

121. Possibly, but still speculative.

Bremmer has no actual information, but is extending a line of thought about what might be under consideration by the UK and US. I'm sure it is under consideration, but I'm pretty doubtful that any indictments will issue. The fallout would probably be too large for this idea to be actually implemented.

[stonecutter357]

122. Snowden

Snowden stole my data from the US GOV and i hope he gets life for it.

[Zorra]

126. Sieg fucking heil. nt