It's Getting Close Folks... Greenwald, Naming Names....

[WillyT]

Greenwald, part of a team at the Guardian to win a Pulitzer Prize for the NSA reporting, is now a founding editor of the online independent news site the Intercept. In coming weeks, Intercept will publish new stories revealing for the first time the names of Americans singled out by the NSA. The stories are based on unpublished material given to Greenwald by Snowden.

"We're working on that story now," said Greenwald, who grew up in New York and lives in Rio de Janeiro with his longtime partner, David Miranda. "It's highly likely it will be out before the end of the month. It will be reporting on the people the NSA is targeting domestically."

He added, "Snowden hasn't given us anything new. But it's a lot of work to piece together the evidence. There are legal questions about naming individuals as targets. You have to interview them. It's reporting that takes a huge amount of time. And it's not just going to be naming people; it's also showing how they were targeted."

From: http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/Glenn-Greenwald-expands-exposure-of-privacy-5571223.php

[JI7]

1. we seem to get this same news every couple weeks or so

[itsrobert]

4. Yup, trying to milk his golden cow dry

I still haven't learned anything new from GG and Snowden.

[rhett o rick]

36. How can you "learn" with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut? You seem to want so

much to believe in the status quo. Your authoritarian leaders will take care of you and you will yield your freedoms and liberties to them. Odd behavior for a liberal. You are liberal arent you?

[itsrobert]

40. Huh, em what?, this stuff was known during the Bush years

Odd as a liberal you haven't been paying attention and only get upset about the NSA/spying when we have a black president? You are a liberal aren't you?

[rhett o rick]

47. That's a bunch of crap and you know it. The NSA/CIA grabbed unbelievable power during the Bush

years. And there is nothing Pres Obama can do even if he wanted to.

And your logic is out of whack. I have always been concerned with the powerful NSA/CIA cabal, but didnt think anything could be done during the Bush years. Now we have a Democratic president and I hoped, maybe naively, but I hoped a Democratic president could change it. But Pres Obama is in love with Gen Clapper and Gen Alexander and all of the Bush guys. That's what has me upset.

And you dont care. You dont care if Gen Clapper and Gen Alexander run the government as long as there is a Democrat in the WH.
How utterly naive. You will give up your freedoms and liberties to Gen Clapper because Pres Obama embraces him. The Oligarchs have figured out how to fool you.

When things get tough, whose side will you be on? Again rhetorical. You will side with the power the NSA/CIA. You would have sided with the Tories against the American rebels.

[Warpy]

64. This stuff was suspected in Stupid's presidency

It was only known to be a fact once Snowden blew the lid off.

[hedda_foil]

92. Exactly, Warpy, exactly.

Anyone who says this was all known during the Bush years is spinning wildly. We had some of the pieces and and many data points that didn't all connect. Snowden and Greenwald painted a much fuller and far more complete picture of what's really going on.

I met Obama at the beginning of 2004, when he was an unlikely member of a very large and influential crop of Democratic primary candidates for US Senate. To put it mildly, I was wowed. He seemed like a regular guy, with great ideas. The was more than six months before the keynote speech that rocked the progressive world. I was thrilled that he was a Constitutional Law professor because I believed he would steer the country out of Bushinc's trashing of the bill of rights. I have seldom been more disappointed than watching him push the constitutional limits well beyond Bush/Cheney.

I don't know how the BOG squad handles the cognitive dissonance. But it's a lot more comfortable to tilt at political windmills than to recognise the depressing truth.

[greiner3]

222. "Anyone who says this was all known during the Bush years is spinning wildly."

And this post after the 'usual suspects' have already done so.

This is not satire, just



And will



Waiting to see if my post gets

[hughee99]

155. Nice! The "old news" defense with a "because we have a black president" finish.

You just don't see this sort of effort put in by most people these days.

[lark]

156. Wait a minute.

So if Bush does it and he's white (totally irrelevant, but you brought it up) it's horrible. When a black man does the same, it's no longer a problem whatsoever? Geeze, talk about not giving a damn about anything other than skin color - you exactly embody the trait you are trying to put down.

[LondonReign2]

159. Christ on a trailor hitch

So now being upset that about the NSA illegally spying on Americans means...YOU'RE A RACIST!

FAIL

[Doctor_J]

211. 40 posts before someone played the race card

interesting

[itsrobert]

235. 36 post before someone played you are not a liberal if you dont bow down to GG/Snowden card

interesting


Edited to correct post number. Some people have to be force fed when someone makes a mistake.

[Dragonfli]

245. Post #34 was self hidden, did Cali_Democrat really say to "bow down before GG/Snowden?"

I don't think anyone in this thread said that one must "bow down" (Like in church?) to anybody or you are not a liberal least of all that poster.
?????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025137017#post34

[Luminous Animal]

246. You noticed that too, eh?

[Dragonfli]

248. I really was just curious because I had never seen such a thing and wanted to see for myself

what the poster was talking about only to notice the self deleted post.

[JDPriestly]

223. What we "learned" in the Bush years was vague. Now we have the documents to clarify

precisely what is going on.

We were upset about the possibility of spying in the Bush administration. But it is disgusting that a Democratic president is continuing it. Just disgusting.

Have you read the story of John Adams, John Hancock and the Liberty?

[nashville_brook]

226. was there supposed to be a sarcasm thingy on this?

b/c if not… wow.

[Rockyj]

233. Being black has nothing to with...

Obama campaigning on transparency but turning out to be the opposite:

"President Obama has failed to deliver on few promises as miserably as his vow to create a more transparent and open government. Shortly after being sworn into office, he sent a memo to federal agencies promising, “We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.”

“Dan Ellsberg. He called me again last night,” said Kiriakou, referring to the man who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon Papers and opened the world’s eyes to the United States’ long involvement in Vietnam. “We talk about this all the time. He keeps asking me, ‘Where is the outrage? If this were a Republican administration, people would be in the streets, right? We would be marching in the streets. But people cut Obama a break to the point of irrationality.’ ”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/barack_obama_promised_transparency_the_white_house_is_as_opaque_secretive.html

[zappaman]

101. Is there a version of Tourette's syndrome

Where someone says "authoritarian" over and over and over instead of cursing?
Sure seems like it.

[randome]

108. It sometimes manifests as 'Benghazi!' or 'Bergdahl!'

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

[Whisp]

148. Yes, it does...

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[LiberalLovinLug]

125. Well...its because it fits

duh

as the Zappa-meister said himself:

Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over.

[zappaman]

126. Right

Anyone who disagrees with someone's position is an "authoritarian".
Got it.

[LiberalLovinLug]

128. WTF?

No, but I think jumping to absurd conclusions is probably one aspect.

[Bobbie Jo]

145. No kidding

It's like DU's version of Alex Jones.

[Logical]

70. Yet the house is voting to reduce the power if the NSA! Weird! nt

[uponit7771]

150. ... not weird, glad Obama started the conversation months before SnowGlens releases

[Doctor_J]

212. I forget. Was that before or after he signed the NDAA?

Before or after he refused a request from Dem Senators to stop the spying using an EO? These dates all run together.

[Autumn]

2. It takes time. I can wait.

rec

[WillyT]

10. Me Too... It's Been One Hell Of A Year...

[neverforget]

3. Cue the Snowden and Greenwald haters in 3, 2, 1,.......

[Fuddnik]

117. Nothing like a good food fight!

[JackRiddler]

138. They aren't really Snowden/Greenwald haters...

They are defenders of the authoritarian surveillance state, as long as it's happening under Obama. When the next Bush is in charge, then they will find it absolutely dreadful.

[Whisp]

154. You said: 'When the next Bush is in charge...

I would like to add: or Clinton.

Yes, I would find it absolutely dreadful then. You are correct.

Why, is because I trust this President to do what is right and do what he can. I do not trust a Bush or a Clinton with anything because it's all about themselves and how much power and money they can accumulate.

I know you will find this something to laugh and jeer about, but even being the jaded snarly cynic I am, I believe enthusiastically that there are extraordinarily good people in this world of which the President is one, as well as extraordinary selfish ones.

[LondonReign2]

160. Indeed, it will be amusing to see

a certain poster pull her SECOND 180 on the topic.

[Dragonfli]

167. I think I know which one as she was quite opposed to it at one time

even posted several blue links regarding the issue.

[bvar22]

232. Something like this?

XxxXxxxx (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by XxxXxxxx

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimes by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

Consistency is the hallmark of an Honest Broker.

[Aerows]

254. Don't look for honest brokers

in the crusade to defend anything and everything that has ever occurred during the Presidency since Jan. 20, 2009. Everything was thrown out of the window on that date.

[JackRiddler]

259. Awesome! That is too good...

Are we not allowed to name who obviously wrote this? Have posts been hidden for saying it?

The Internet is wondrous, however, the link is still up here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

Amazing. I would have guessed as much, but I had no idea it was this awesome.

[Octafish]

207. Some of them will.

For others, it's more Mission Accomplished.

[snooper2]

5. I bet the article has the name Jones in it-

who is in for $30

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Why the suspense?

If information awareness is so important, why not just immediately release everything that's beneficial to the public?

It's seems like this is more about ratings and money. It's like a TV show that milks the ratings and keeps the TV audience in suspense.

[RobertEarl]

8. They are good

Kept attention going for a year now?

Otherwise it would have just gone away. Instead, we have congress people upset and acting, finally. The big internet people are grumbling. Just wait till this thorough investigation is revealed, i think then heads will roll, finally.

Greenwald is amazing and very helpful when it comes to us maybe getting to keep some privacy. Let's all cheer him on!!

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Funny thing though....if you look at political polling

...most Americans don't give a shit about the NSA.

The top issues are economy, jobs etc...

The NSA is a bubble issue...only the hardcore political folks care about it.

[WillyT]

14. And Most Americans Have No Idea What The Constitution Says... You're Point ???

[Cali_Democrat]

17. Prolonging this is pointless

Americans care more about who won on the last episode of American Idol.

This shouldn't be about dragging it out.

If one truly believes these disclosures are beneficial to the public, the information should be put out there. Like I said above, everything that's beneficial to the public should be released immediately.

[ljm2002]

88. Everything should be released immediately?

Really? So you'd be okay if Greenwald released the names of individuals, without asking them first? You'd be okay with him doing a big fat data dump, rather than combing through and analyzing it first?

Why not just be honest. You are carping about HOW the information is being revealed, because you don't like THAT it is being revealed. Once Greenwald took on this story, there was nothing he could have done or not done that would have met with your approval. It's really that simple.

[bobduca]

220. "Why not just be honest."

Then the rhetorical games would be over and that poster would have to admit that the release by Greenwald pushed the Govt. into action.

The Boggy Loyalty Brigade's only purpose here seems to be to come here and "act out" these administration positions, eg.

"JOE SIXPACK AND MARY HOUSECOAT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE NSA, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG"

Counter-factual narratives take a lot of hard work.

[Dragonfli]

23. Some people see everything through a prism of how it will effect people in office.

Rather than how things effect the constitution and the rights of the citizenry.

They are more concerned with the "feelings" or reputation of elected officials (whom they view as some do sports stars or pop singers) than they are our privacy, our rights, or our well being. It is a shallow extension of pop culture in politics, so to them polls are all that matter.

I and others consider what it means to the country and realize that no matter how bad the truth is, the Constitution is what is important as are the issues that effect the quality of all our lives, we realize that politicians are not so fragile that we must trade our well being to save them embarrassment or protect their legacies, and even if they were so fragile, the legacies of the few do not trump the well being of the majority.

[WillyT]

39. Thank You For That !!!

[Dragonfli]

67. Oh, your welcome

It was nothing more than an observation I have made regarding they way some appear to view politics in the 21st century. I think TV has a lot to do with it. I like your posts because you take political issues seriously rather than see it as a new form of pop entertainment.

Political issues should be taken seriously rather than as a venue to discover "stars" that one wishes to idolize.

As a man once said "A Republic if you can keep it", a good reminder to take it seriously that was offered at the very beginning of our nations founding.

[truth2power]

115. Yes, thank you, dragonfli.

ETA: What you say about some people having to see some things through a certain prism is exactly correct. It's about protecting the status quo.

[LiberalLovinLug]

127. + 1000

So well said.

I always thought liberals were above all that cult of personality temptation. Not only that but they hover over any new thread like this and be sure to get on the first or second post to try and dampen the thread.

[Enthusiast]

163. Thank you.

[Doctor_J]

213. Ding! To the BOG, every issue is judged by how it effects the Messiah

The nation's standing, the effect on regular Americans are given no consideration.

[nashville_brook]

225. Loyalty Derangement Syndrome,

it's not as if Obama personally administrates the NSA. there's an easy for him not to own this issue, and that's to do something about it before a republican gets in office who ostensibly cares less for the constitution than Obama.

[JackRiddler]

139. "Most Americans don't give a shit about the NSA."

Well that's great!

Most of them probably don't think about nuclear war, either. Let's have one!!!

[hueymahl]

197. Is it just me

Or does anyone else see BOG and think about Star Trek?

"We are the BOG - Resistance is futile."

[Cali_Democrat]

199. Welcome to ignore. nt

[hueymahl]

202. Wow, my first ignore

I feel honored!

[Doctor_J]

219. Then this shouldn't cause much embarrassment for the president

no worries!

[JDPriestly]

231. You mean only those of us who are informed, know a little history and care about our

country. Most Americans are not informed, ignorant about even a little history and while shouting USA USA couldn't even tell you what our country is about.

Most Americans couldn't tell you what the Bill of Rights does or what the Fourth Amendment requires for a warrant. That's why those of us who do understand these things have to speak out.

[NanceGreggs]

16. This idea that ...

... releasing the alleged "important information" would have "just gone way" if released all at once is totally bogus on its face.

CNN - just to cite one example - spent how many hours on the missing Malaysian flight? According to Greenwald, he has information that would "bring the US to its knees". And yet we are to believe that such earth-shattering information would not hold an audiences's attention as long as the non-information that the MSM spewed, non-stop, for weeks.

Greenwald is your classic Huckster - package your snake-oil in small quantities, so that by the time your customers have discovered it is useless, you have ample opportunity to convince them that the next batch will deliver the cure they've been promised.

Snowden & Greenwald - Thief & Huckster. One is stuck in Russia, his ultimate fate still unknown - the other is raking in the dough.

What's wrong with this picture? Everything.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Zing!

Great snake oil salesman analogy.

[WillyT]

43. So... I Guess The Pulitzer Award Has Been Reduced To Zero...

Funny... how some journalists attack their own institutions.

The Nobel is coming up in a couple of months...

Stay tuned...

And just when did you lose your respect for the 4th Amendment, and start holding up the works of Jon Yoo, David Addington, James Clapper, and Dick Cheney?

[NanceGreggs]

69. The classic DU-ism ...

If you don't swallow whole every word that Greenwald/Snowden have uttered - despite their having offered zero proof of same - means loss of respect for the 4th Amendment, and support for Jon Woo, David Addington, James Clapper and Dick Cheney.

That's right up there with another DU-ism, i.e. "I don't agree with what you're saying," followed by, "Don't tell me to STFU."

DUers used to laugh at the "when did you stop beating your wife" query. Now they embrace it, and honestly believe such a question is relevant.

[WillyT]

74. And There Are Politicians And Journalists On Both Sides Of This Issue...

Why have you chosen the side you did ?



I've always considered you a hell of an essayist... what gives ?

[NanceGreggs]

76. I'm on the side of the truth.

And when people like Greenwald and Snowden make allegations without offering any proof whatsoever, I tend to think their "truthfulness" bears greater scrutiny.

Your mileage may vary.

[WillyT]

78. But How Does One Get To The Truth When Eveything Is Classified ???- This One Always Bothered Me...

Culture Against Domestic Spying Begins to Shift at the NSA
Sep 12, 2001

(Wiebe Declaration, Pg 3)

Ex-NSA Analyst J. Kirk Wiebe recalls: "everything changed at the NSA after the attacks on September 11. The prior approach focused on complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA&quot .

The post-September 11 approach was that NSA could circumvent federal statutes and the Constitution as long as there was some visceral connection to looking for terrorists."

While another ex-NSA analyst also remembers: "The individual liberties preserved in the US Constitution were no longer a consideration [at the NSA]."

From: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline

[NanceGreggs]

102. Some things need to be classified.

And many things are classified for legitimate reason.

While many are rightfully concerned that some things that are "classified" shouldn't be or need not be, others are rightfully concerned when a man like Snowden steals thousands of documents and then passes them to third parties, without even knowing their content or the implications therein.

One should always have a healthy skepticism when it comes to what anyone says - be it the gov't or Snowden/Greenwald. The problem here is that those who so often proclaim the need for that healthy skepticism have NO skepticism at all when it comes to Glenn and Eddie.

[nolabels]

118. The sun needs to come up in morning

The problem is there is this people thing. I kind of takes on this identity that says i can do this little thing, it won't matter and no one will notice. It's only how you decide to color it that makes it what it is. Most professionals will protect their own, society supports that and shuns them that don't.

The idea of 'what could be, might be, probably are, or actually exist' are only those shades and colors in your mind. How they effect other things in and around them is another whole subject altogether. That of course if you believe those surrounding items cannot actually change the hue or the perception of the entity being focused on.

Not saying you are wrong about anything though though i do believe that understanding another's perspective even if you think their intellect could be faulty is still helpful

[mindwalker_i]

134. And what legitimate reason is there for collecting mass data on Americans' communications

and classifying that? There have been multiple articles about the lack of any data helping stop a terrorist attack. Similarly, the TSA gets lots of money, does lots of stuff, but has not stopped a terrorist attack. In fact, people have deliberately snuck knives onto planes to prove the TSA doesn't catch them. So if these programs are not to catch terrorists, then what are they for? That's the reason they're kept secret - government doesn't want us knowing what they are doing.

Sure, it's a good idea to carefully look through the documents from Snowden and published by Greenwald, and it's a good idea to approach them with some skepticism. But it's a really good idea to be skeptical about the programs, the government, and why they are doing this. Unfortunately too many people here support the man with a D next to his name without regard to the issues.

[freebrew]

186. I disagree...

how can a populace vote for the 'right' person if there are secrets? We are supposed to be the government: the people.

How do you even know if something should be secret?
We weren't told about cointelpro: secret.

Do you know why Hoffman and Lennon and Rubin were targeted for surveillance? No? Secret.

This government has too many secrets, many of them lies like the DEA thing.

Cheney's secret government needs to be exposed, would you deny that?

The media and people defending the status quo are compromising our government.

[MrMickeysMom]

214. Your skepticism is yours...

I and dare say, many here would take the advice of having a healthy dose of it, too. Whoever said anyone's skepticism is not healthy as yours is?

You did.

[Luminous Animal]

215. Hahaha! Without knowing their contents. Thanks for the laugh!

[hedda_foil]

95. I'm confounded by your statement that they haven't offered any proof.

What do you call all the documents that have been published in the NYT, WaPo, and the Guardian if not proof? I've almost always agreed with your opinions, and love your writings, but we differ before big-time on this one.

[NanceGreggs]

104. This is the crux of the matter ...

For Snowden to be hailed as a whistle-blower, he needs to have exposed illegal activity at the NSA.

When asked point-blank by Brian Williams what illegal activities the NSA was engaging in, Snowden could not cite a single example.

It would seem obvious that if any of the documents published by anyone, anywhere, served as "proof" of illegal activity, the man who stole those documents and passed them along to others would have cited those publications as evidence of the truth of his allegations.

But he didn't.

[WillyT]

111. And Maybe, THAT Is The Biggest Scandal Of All... What Was Once Unthinkable, Has Quietly Been...

Made Legal, And Nobody Bothered To Check With The American Citizens.

[woo me with science]

210. Or the Constitution.

Well said.

[nxylas]

239. If the President does it...

You know the rest.

[WillyT]

241. You Mean To Tell Me That Tricky Dick Was Tellin' The Truth ???

[nxylas]

261. Of course not

He was a Republican, and therefore bad. It's totally different now

[bvar22]

119. No, Nance. You haven't sided with the "truth".

You are standing with "the least untruthful."

[grasswire]

123. boom nt

[LondonReign2]

162. Double boom

[woo me with science]

209. Touche.

[QC]

249. She has nothing to apologize for. n/t

[elias49]

58. The kind of visceral hatred I read from GG haters

goes far beyond Greenwald making money, getting famous (infamous?) Do you hate him as much as you do because he's ugly? Do your hate him so much because you think he lied to you? Do you despise him and Snowden because they might be (gasp!) Libertarians? People here seem to hate Greenwald with more passion than they hate Limbaugh or Beck. Seriously? What.The. F**K???
Has Edward Snowden hurt you in a personal way I can't comprehend?
Just WOW

[Dragonfli]

62. I find it quite bizarre, it goes far beyond what one might expect. /nt

[NanceGreggs]

75. The fact that you believe ...

... that questioning Greenwald's or Snowden's unproven assertions equates to "visceral hated" speaks for itself.

"Do you hate him as much as you do because he's ugly?" Seriously? Who said Greenwald was 'ugly' - other than you? Who said I hated Greenwald - other than you? Who said I despise Snowden - other than you? Who said that "People here seem to hate Greenwald with more passion than they hate Limbaugh or Beck," other than you?

Seriously - WTF?

[elias49]

93. You're shitting me, right?

Thanks for stopping by.

[NanceGreggs]

98. Exactly the response I expected ...

... which was no response.

[uponit7771]

147. 15th non response from SnowGlen supporter in 1.5wks...

[NealK]

84. It makes Obama look bad.

[uponit7771]

149. ...only to conservatives who think everything started under Bush makes Obama look bad no? tia

[NealK]

191. No, really?

[GoneFishin]

136. It's the same reaction you might expect if you told a 6 year old there is no Santa Claus.

It's like a tossed quarter that lands heads up 20 times in a row. It might be genuine, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

[Logical]

71. Another NSA defender? nt

[NanceGreggs]

99. Yes, of course.

Any questioning of the "facts" re Snowden/Greenwald means one is an NSA defender.

Thems the DU rules. There are only two extreme positions on every topic, and you must adhere to one extreme or the other.

Glad to say that out here in the real world, there is still a myriad of shades of gray in between those monolithic blocks of black and white that have overtaken DU. In RL, being skeptical of the holes in the Snowden/Greenwald story does not immediately equate to defending the NSA, or embracing domestic spying - or anything else. It simply IS what it is - nothing more, nothing less.

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. It gets tiring having to explain that ...

Doesn't It?

The sad thing is those to whom this must be explained, are the very same folks that accuse supporter of this President of being mindless, lock - stepped lackeys.

[dhill926]

133. Yessir...

It does.

[zappaman]

152. What are you?

Some kind of "authoritarian"?

[uponit7771]

144. or someone who sees SnowGlen for what they are and doesn't like what the Spy agencies are doing?

[Historic NY]

72. Exactly.

[uponit7771]

143. AMEN AND AMEN!!!

[Luminous Animal]

169. Greenwald never said he has info that would bring the US to its knees. Unbelievable that you put it

in quotes.

[grasswire]

177. ^^^^^^

where is the cite for that?

[Luminous Animal]

181. It's a huge twist on what he actually said.

[grasswire]

184. and that poster had the chutzpah to correct someone's..

.....minor mistakes or typos. :eyeroll:

[JDPriestly]

229. Great post!

[betsuni]

22. It's like previews for the next episode

of a reality show. It looks like something dramatic and exciting will finally happen and you can't wait, then you tune in and it's the same old idiots doing the same old boring things.

[MaggieD]

63. I would assume because the information has to be confirmed

And as Greenwald has stated repeatedly, vetted to ensure it will not endanger lives.

[truth2power]

142. Cali, you do realize that you're making a conditional statement, don't you?...

And you've said it several times in this thread. It makes me wonder whether you're being deliberately obtuse, because what you propose is exactly what Glenn Greenwald is trying to do, that is, to release what's beneficial to the public. And that takes time.

If I wanted to throw out everything that's in my garage, it would be a fairly simple matter; just shovel it all out to the curb, or call 1-800-GOT-JUNK to come and get it all. I could accomplish that in one day.

But as it is, there are items that I need to keep. So I need to sort through things and make decisions about what needs to be saved. I have to be involved in that. I can't delegate it to someone else. It's a slow process.

You're impeaching your own case if you want GG to release what's beneficial, and then complain that he's not working fast enough.

Or do you really mean that he should just dump everything, without regard to the consequences?

[WillyT]

234. Great Analogy !!!

[Cali_Democrat]

238. Post any interesting toons lately, Willy?

Before you do, make sure you check the source!!

[WillyT]

240. Just For You...

[Dragonfli]

247. What do we know about the author of he comic artist? Who does he/she vote for?

You really need to post the biographies of the artists before posting just in case!

[WillyT]

251. I Have... No... Fucking... Clue... Nor Do I Care...

[truth2power]

242. Thanks!

[JDPriestly]

228. Did you read the OP and the article it linked to?

Greenwald has to get the permission of each person whose name he wants to reveal. He also has to piece together facts about how the person was put under surveillance. Then he has to make sure he is not revealing facts that ought to be kept secret (as opposed to facts that the government is hiding from us for no good reason).

[IDemo]

7. "You have to interview them"?

I take it then that the 'targets' have already been made aware of that fact?

[BlueCheese]

25. It takes a long time to interview everyone in the country.

Which is who they're spying on.

[Takket]

11. this is going to be a disaster for obama

the right is going to find the most well known rethug on the list and claim the NSA is attacking rethugs specifically by Obama's orders, just like they did with the IRS scandal. and the media is going to lap it up.

[RobertEarl]

13. Well, they are

Everyone is a target. And that is the problem.

Obama won't be hurt much. This is a republican engineered program. Pubs can't shoot at Obama without shooting themselves first.

Some here cry that all this is hurting Obama. Well, that's bullshit.

[WillyT]

15. If You Don't Want To Get Hurt... Do Not Engage In The Game... Or At The Very Least... End The Game..

[WillyT]

21. How Many Years Have We Been On This Board Together... And THAT Is What You Got ???

Try focusing more on the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution...

And a little less on protection detail for a grown man protected by the entire Military Industrial Complex...

Nice tell though...

[neverforget]

26. To some it's about Obama. To others, like you and me, it's about un-Constitutional spying by

a federal intelligence agency.

[WillyT]

30. I Know That... But Every Now And Then... Their Anger Reveals The Truth... And It Is Sad...

[grasswire]

28. ridiculous

"Bringing down" Obama would be a disaster for this country. No one wishes for that. It would be very sad to see someone who sold us hope be forced out. That said, many of us would be gratified to see the MIC brought to heel. That would be the best outcome from the leaks.

[WillyT]

31. Um... Presidents Are Afforded Two Terms... He's Been Elected Twice... Math Says You Are Wrong...

Quit treating him as a child.

[WillyT]

37. SFGate Is Right-Wing ???

Okie-Dokie...

[Dragonfli]

38. When someone actually does that let me know.

I have seen trolls do just that and mirt usually gets them pretty quickly, before that the mods got them in short order. Bullshit accusations you extract from your ass do not impress anyone with a brain.

[NanceGreggs]

107. I understand from an unimpeachable source ...

... that there is a plane at an airport in Copenhagen, waiting to whisk Obama away to an undisclosed location after his impeachment for "selling us hope".

Do you know anything about that? I only ask because you seem to be on top of the Copenhagen flight schedules, based on reliable sources.

[Dragonfli]

35. ???? just how did you get that? I am reading this thread and I am also familiar

with that posters history (some of us don't post 50 threads a day but we read every day) and I am at a loss how you feel you can make such an unfounded and rather nasty accusation.

Please explain.

[Cali_Democrat]

44. Here:

OP posted an anti-Obama teleprompter toon from a known right winger:

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10025022246

More on the person behind the toon.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5028992

[WillyT]

49. A Toon That I Found On The WaPo Editorial Page, And Did Not Bother To Investigate... Nice Smear...

[itsrobert]

53. Yup, we are never responsible

The buck stops with someone or something else.

How is it a smear? You either did or didn't do it? Cali has the link. Is the truth a smear?

[WillyT]

57. Posted All Sorts Of Toons And Graphics Here... Did Not Know If This One Was RW Or Not... Didn't Care

It was funny, and found at WaPo...

[JI7]

56. the editorial page is political opinions which include conservatives like George Will

[Dragonfli]

51. Oh, I remember that and that had more to do with not knowing the right wing was behind it

As I recall (and this was explained to many at the time) the poster saw it as a comment on hacking, to be honest so did I as I am not as familiar as you appear to be with the work of right wingers as I don't frequent their sites as you appear to. Did you miss the mea culpa?

If the poster is a "right winger trying to take down Obama" as you claim, surely there are several examples beyond a totality of ONE mistake. After all, that poster has more than just one post under his belt and being a right winger trying to take down Obama as you claim there must be several such examples to prove your accusations.

Please list Oh, I don't know 3 of them. Taking down Obama would surely require at least three posts would it not?

I see more of a pattern of right wing thought coming from you quite frankly, but I still don't accuse you of being a wingnut, misguided perhaps, uninformed perhaps about liberal thought, but likely innocently so.

[Cali_Democrat]

52. So your excuse for that person posting a right wing toon

...is ignorance?

Welcome to ignore.

I have no time for people who try to defend right wing toons on DU.

[Dragonfli]

59. You're funny

No skin off my ass, I don't post very often anyway so you will miss little. /nt

[WillyT]

65. I Don't Get Why She Doesn't Ignore Me ???

[Dragonfli]

68. I would think he/she would ignore you over me as I don't recall that we have engaged much

over the years.

It's not like we argue all the time, I can't even remember the last time we interacted.

[LuvNewcastle]

80. He/She doesn't ignore you because you post a lot and he/she wants to smear you.

It's all a big competition, you know. The BOG has to answer all the people who they think are talking bad about Obama.

[Logical]

73. Why so many self deletes? nt

[grasswire]

91. I'd like to know why, too.

Must have been pretty nasty stuff.

[Dragonfli]

96. Well, it was kinda' bizarre, the poster was calling out Willy as a right winger trying to bring down

Obama.

It came pretty much out of nowhere which was the bizarre part, I tried to question why the poster felt Willy was a right winger, or how he was trying to bring him down, I suppose you can extrapolate a bit from what is left of the exchange that left me on ignore.

I think someone was having a bad day and was too angry to post coherently, I also think it was good that the poster self deleted as it was just stuff posted in anger that perhaps was regretted at least somewhat after calming down a bit. We all have bad days, at least the statements were self-deleted showing perhaps the comments were not really meant in earnest.

Why I was placed on ignore is probably also due to the bad day thing and perhaps was not quite as earnestly felt either.

We all make mistakes, WillyT is obviously not right wing and has no apparent record of "trying to bring Obama down".
I imagine after reflection much of it was regretted (unless there is history I am unaware of).

I don't know, but nobody got hurt, words are only words after all, that is not to say that I don't vehemently disagree with the posters stance on the whistle blowing, but many of us strongly disagree with each other on a host of issues. Willy does not seem the type to hold a grudge. I hope the behavior doesn't continue tho as it distracted a great deal from the news of the article about to come out that was posted and is being discussed here.

On edit, I think there was one other that should also be deleted, blowing that cartoon mistake so out of proportion as to consider it proof of the accusations is a pretty nasty smear.

[TheKentuckian]

205. I guess not, all your time is for right wing policies on DU as long as the delusional

Tea Klan has moved to a new extreme but sometimes that rule is waived like if neomoderates (apparently in the estimation of some) Cheney, Yoo, Cantor, Coe, and Clapper are involved.

[uponit7771]

151. Oh... so the political aware isn't aware and that's excuse enough to post RW attacks on Obama? ok...

... I'll take that into consideration when said people post what they know

[Dragonfli]

157. People make mistakes, I bet even you do at times (maybe not)

I just think that if one is to accuse somebody of being a "right winger trying to take down Obama" it would take more than one post made in error of a cartoon that appears to be about Chinese hacking to convince me of the accusation, you may require little to no evidence to convince you of whatever a person tells you, but I happen to expect more.

If you read what I posted all this should be rather clear already, if you have a chip on your shoulder and want to start a fight with me over it fine, but I am not required to take the bait.

[uponit7771]

172. nnnnnnnnnot like that, not childish ass'd RW mistakes while bashing also.

[Dragonfli]

182. You are so far from making any sense I can't even discuss this with you

How is not knowing intimately the author of a comic he found in the paper a right wing mistake as opposed to just a mistake? Is there such a thing as a left wing mistake? And how did he make the mistake while "bashing"?

If he is really a right winger trying to bring down Obama as the poster claimed and what I was asking proof of from the poster making the allegation, how does one mistake prove that?

All I asked for from the poster was 3 examples out of thousands of posts to prove the allegations, the rather extreme allegations that WillyT is a right winger AND he is "trying to bring down Obama". If either charge were true is it really unreasonable to ask for three lousy examples out of thousands of posts to prove a pattern or something that would expose him fore the troll that poster claimed he was?

The tone of your post sounds stressed and angry, take a few breaths and relax a little before posting, it will help you be understood.

[uponit7771]

187. The "I'm done with you" retort is so common here... it's about the 16th time I've seen this in weeks

... come on people.

[Dragonfli]

189. Maybe that should tell you something

Have a nice day, it is beautiful out where I live, hopefully it is nice where you live as well. I don't really want to fight with you, I see no upside to it.

[uponit7771]

195. Yes, that these Snowden\GW reflexive defenses aren't very well thought through? regards

[betsuni]

12. "Snowden hasn't given us anything new."

Wait wait. Whenever I say that, I get yelled at that nobody knew, there was no proof so nobody could really talk about it, etc. Now I'm confused.

[BlueCheese]

24. He means Snowden hasn't given them anything new recently...

It's just that it's taken Greenwald et al a while to go through the initial documents and understand them.

[betsuni]

27. Ah, silly me. Never mind.

[Blue_Tires]

19. Good to see Greenwald contributing content to the Intercept again...

He's been there so infrequently that I was beginning to think he was a guest columnist or something....That $250 million investment might start to bear fruit and turn a profit after all...

If he finds a way to get a fully-detailed database of 320+ million names on his site, I'll be impressed and take back maybe one or two things I've said about him over the past year...But I'm betting this is another one of his 'over-promise and under-deliver' hypefests -- Either way, time will tell...

FWIW, I do long for the days when journalists just did shit without the hype and fanfare instead of endlessly teasing the "big reveal" months in advance...But as I am constantly reminded, this is the "new" journalism; and Greenwald is its icon...

[Uncle Joe]

33. This thread needs a theme song.

Thanks for the thread, WillyT.

[whistler162]

122. A better selection -

http://www.allmusic.com/album/elmer-gantry-mw0000041256

[Uncle Joe]

146. There is nothing religious or demagogic about Greenwald or Snowden's message.

They're not giving us hell, just the truth and it sounds like hell.


"No, sir, I don't give 'em hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." - Harry Truman.

[WillyT]

236. Anytime... Uncle Joe, Anytime...

[Uncle Joe]

237. WillyT!

[barbtries]

41. should be very interesting.

i expect the list will be full of progressive activists.

[LuvNewcastle]

82. I think so, too.

That's why it's taking so long to reveal all this stuff, if they have to interview all those people. There won't be any season for watching all those people, I'm sure. They aren't a danger to our security or anything.

[Mnpaul]

252. of course they are a danger

they have secret "red cells" across the country. They are plotting to violently overthrow the US government.

Not sarcasm.

These claims were actually made against the antiwar committee when the FBI raided their homes in 2010.

[Oilwellian]

45. I wonder if he'll showcase the reported NSA's spying on Obama?

It will be interesting to see how the Greenwald naysayers will react to something like that.

[UTUSN]

48. Am *I* named?!1

[Luminous Animal]

185. Why don't you tell me what your name is and I'll shoot Greenwald an email.

[DJ13]

50. How many NYC size phone books will this fill?

[cantbeserious]

54. Thank You Snowden, Thank You Greenwald, Thank You For Sharing WillyT

eom

[WillyT]

61. You Are Quite Welcome !!!

[MrMickeysMom]

55. What people should take away is - THIS is the way you report this magnitude of information...

I saw Greenwald try to explain the care one must take in reporting this kind of information on Bill Maher's latest show to someone who should have known better (just like people on this board who should know better). I personally want this information. Jesus H Christ, we all should.

Are we liberals or progressives? Are we the least little bit curious? Maybe some people are not, but I think the heart of those who ARE on this board are interested in more than the latest reality show.

Edward Snowden provided a hell of a lot of information. You can't just spill every like that. This is why I'm sure Snowden thought about WHO he trusted to make that decision as journalists should do. It takes all the care one should use IN reporting news of this magnitude that WE SHOULD AND NEED to hear.

I'm glad this is coming down to less than a few weeks now. I hope people on this board will wake up… finally.

K&R!

[KoKo]

113. Well Said!

[MrMickeysMom]

206. Thanks, KoKo...

That means a lot.

[MaggieD]

60. I'm excited to see what he has

Should be very interesting!

[Warpy]

66. Want to bet most are on the left?

That's certainly been the pattern before now, even as most of the violence in the country is being threatened and committed by the far right.

[LuvNewcastle]

87. But the Rwers are patriots, Warpy.

Lefties are scum.

[ljm2002]

77. Thanks for the heads up...

...I look forward to reading it.

[SoapBox]

79. Not getting enough publicity Greenwad?

Ya...you're a real hero....not.

[elias49]

94. 'Greenwad' Bwaha. Now that's real funny there.

Oh yeah...where's that sarcasm smilie?

[Aerows]

253. The poster couldn't find the time to type an "L"

and you want a sarcastic smiley?

The only thing worse than legal laziness with regards to our Constitution is a group that isn't even motivated enough to generate a good put down against those defending it.

[ReRe]

81. Thanks for the SFGate article, WillyT

To all the naysayers, "shit takes time." And to those who say this all came out in the GWB years, go to the library. Look up James Bamford's books. Read them in chronological order as to publish date. This will keep you occupied while we wait for GG's revelations on the content of Snowden's leaked documents.

[WillyT]

83. Thanks ReRe...

[NealK]

85. K&R

[KansDem]

86. Just cut to the chase, Greenwald...

Give us any name tied to 9/11.

[nikto]

89. The NSA is just trying to protect...

...Our freedoms, cute little puppy dogs, fluffy kittens
and The Children.

How could they be bad?

Want a daisy?

"The NSA wuvves you!"

[WillyT]

90. LOL !!!

[truth2power]

97. Thanks for posting, WillyT. Don'tcha notice how the smear campaign

against Greenwald and Snowden is in high gear these days? It's like they're frantic.

I hope no one has a stroke or anything.

[NanceGreggs]

105. Let me fill you in on a little secret ...

Questioning the holes in Snowden's and Greenwald's stories is not a "smear campaign". And no one is in "high gear", no less "frantic", about anything.

In addition, people who post the random response in a GG/Snowden thread are not "obsessed" with the topic.

Posters who are skeptical of GG/Snowden are not now, and never have been, focused on boxes in the garage, or pole-dancing girlfriends.

It is amusing to watch the Snowdenistas come out to declare others of being "frantic" or "in high gear" - a classic case of projection.

[JackRiddler]

137. "In addition..."

"people who post the random response in a GG/Snowden thread are not 'obsessed' with the topic."

That's rich. What about people who can 100% be relied upon to show up always with the same old non-random kill-the-messenger talking points that never have anything to do with the actual stories about the surveillance complex?

[grasswire]

164. than you for sayng what I would have said...i

.....if I were interested in replying to that poster, which I'm not.

[LondonReign2]

165. While you can claim that you personally

are not engaged in a smear campaign, obsessed, or frantic, your claim does not hold up for a number of high volume posters who will take every opportunity to smear Snowden and Greenwald. They have VOLUMES of posts that bear witness to the fact that they are indeed frantic and obsessed.

[Whisp]

100. And the names are... Envelope, please...

Snowden White and
Doc
Dopey
Sneezy
Sleepy
Grumpy
Bashful
Happy

[SamKnause]

103. THANK YOU !!!!

Thank you Edward Snowden !!!

Thank you Glenn Greenwald !!!

[bluestateguy]

106. Heavy breathing

Will be about as climactic as "Fitzmas" in 2005 :eyeroll:

[Beaverhausen]

130. LOL!!!

[randome]

109. Yeah, that sure was a terrible time back in the Bush Presidency.

Now if only Obama would use his time travel powers for good instead of evil to correct those abuses.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[blkmusclmachine]

110. NSA profiles domestic US enemy groups. One of them is below, scrambled for security purposes.

t e h . s y a g

[Rstrstx]

174. I don't understand

Why would they be targeting someone who gets hay?

[hueymahl]

200. That's awesome

[MineralMan]

112. It will be interesting to see which names Greenwald chooses

to disclose. I'll be interested to see his writings on the subject. I doubt that he will be selecting names at random from his information, really. So, the names he selects will also tell something about motivation.

I'm watchfully waiting.

[RufusTFirefly]

114. Greenwald is right to play this out slowly. The Abu Ghraib revelations were gone in one news cycle.

It was only after the photos were released (the story came out months before as I recall) that the issue finally gained traction.

24/7 news is a complete insult and an embarrassment. It's only interested in the lurid, the latest, or the pathetically trivial. Everything of real substance quickly becomes "old news," particularly when there's hard-hitting, in-depth information about celebrities to upstage it.

[Cryptoad]

116. Milk that Teat!,,,,, nt

[NCTraveler]

121. Interesting that he is going to use a different channel to publish this material.

Did the New York Times not like his pitch? Does it not meet their standards of journalism? Is he just parlaying it into a more profitable operation that he has more control over(something that would bother me in no way)?

[randome]

131. Probably the NYTimes insisted on context and he did not like that.

This is what will see print:
* Names from the Bush era.
* Names of individuals in contact with foreign organizations.
* Names of individuals who were not citizens before but are now.

No context will be provided, though. Just as he wanted us to believe that PRISM was a means to spy on everyone 24/7, he will make sly insinuations without posing the rigorous questions a true journalist would pose.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[NCTraveler]

158. I think that is probably what will happen.

The way in which he operates leaves a lot to guess at. In his line of business that means $. Hype it up and then release what you have. Hard to blame him for chasing the all mighty dollar. Either way, it is a very big change in the way he is disseminating his information and it is more complex than a simple change in venue. He likes to use the larger organizations for their recourses yet seems to be going away from them for this. And I would think that getting the information together for a release like this would use serious resources.

[Luminous Animal]

173. Huh? This makes no sense. Why wouldn't he publish on The Intercept?

[Dragonfli]

178. I don't understand either, and why would he be writing for the New York Times?

He is not a journalist with the New York Times. There are a great many very confused posters here in this thread, one below thinks he is making the names up and we shouldn't believe him because he is lying about the names, as if the leaks don't exist or something.

[Luminous Animal]

180. He hasn't shared one byline with the Times. I don't see why he'd start now.

also below, there is the claim that he will provide no supporting docs for his coming articles. Crazy, given the fact that Greenwald has published more supporting docs than any other news organization.

[Dragonfli]

183. I think it is time to consider whether the confusion is genuine or feigned for some purpose

It is hard to believe so much hard to believe confusion is genuine, I don't know what could be gained by faking it tho, I must be missing something or some people need to think at least a little before posting, or calm down before posting, or something.

[mfcorey1]

124. Not a Greenwald fan and especially after seeing him ON Bill Mahrer. He comes across as

arrogant. Too much for my taste. Flame away

.

[Dragonfli]

132. I am more interested in the information he will release in the forthcoming article

than I am in if he is likable, charismatic, cute, unlikable, rude, ugly, or whatever.

I think that makes sense, I do the same with non journalistic reading, I read say "the Shinning" rather than read a biography on Stephen King if we are to be discussing "The Shinning" in a book club, but that's just me.

You are of course free to decide if the journalists that bring you information are "rude" as a metric to discuss the information presented by them, it is none of my business how you evaluate information.

[JackRiddler]

135. Oh no! "Arrogant"! I guess NSA is okay.

[valerief]

161. He was fabulous on Maher. Makes me like even more! nt

[grasswire]

166. if you haven't seen that debate with Hayden,

......go watch it. Greenwald was outstanding there. Hayden looked like a princeling prick, and Greenwald ran circles around Alan Dershowitz.

[valerief]

168. Thanks. I've bookmarked it and will watch it later! nt

[Hissyspit]

216. Worthless ad Hominem.

Not really flaming, but that's the fact.

[Jefferson23]

129. Recommend..thanks! n/t

[randome]

140. The Green One is gonna name names? All hail the Green One!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[zappaman]

153. Any day now....

Keep your excitement level high!
Any minute....
It's coming.
Just hold on.
When you least expect it...
Any second...
Just give it a little time.
Hang in there...

[Octafish]

208. When did you post something to expose crimes of the national security state, zappaman?

Greenwald posted June 6, 2014:

NPR’s David Folkenflik has a revealing new look at what I have long believed is one of the most important journalistic stories of the last decade: The New York Times‘ 2004 decision, at the behest of George W. Bush himself, to suppress for 15 months (through Bush’s re-election) its reporters’ discovery that the NSA was illegally eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. Folkenflik’s NPR story confirms what has long been clear: The only reason the Times eventually published that article was because one of its reporters, James Risen, had become so frustrated that he wrote a book that was about to break the story, leaving the paper with no choice (Risen’s co-reporter, Eric Lichtblau, is quoted this way: “‘He had a gun to their head,’ Lichtblau told Frontline. ‘They are really being forced to reconsider: The paper is going to look pretty bad’ if Risen’s book disclosed the wiretapping program before the Times“).

SOURCE: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/06/06/encouraging-words-dean-baquet-weasel-words-james-clapper/

Gosh. Bush might've lost be even too big a margin for Corporate McPravda to notice in 2004, were it not for the New York Times spiking the NSA spying story.

Would you have posted the story, if you knew, zappaman? Of course you would.

[zappaman]

243. Hold on!

I'm gonna blow the lid off the NSA and CIA.
Just
You
Wait!

[Hissyspit]

217. So, got nothing, hunh?

[randome]

224. No, not a thing. Just trying to inject some levity into the oh-so-serious brigade.

Any day now, Assange will bring the banking industry to its knees.

Any day now, Occupy will rule over us all!

And any day now, Greenwald will publish something that doesn't depend on insinuation and assumption.

Any...day...now...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[uponit7771]

141. wait... we're supposed to just believe Snowden (a damn liar) without proof...............AGAIN?! tia

[Dragonfli]

170. No, we are supposed to examine leaked documents and that's about it, they actually do exist. /nt

[uponit7771]

171. This isn't about leaked docs and they're not posting any docs with names of spied on US

...citizens either.

By the way the OP story sounded Snowden is going to "give" the names of people spied on and other details...

Not documents.

I'm not just going to believe him ..... again

[Dragonfli]

176. The names are found in the documents

that are to be used as the source, you appear to believe that he intends to write an article wherein he just picks names at random out of nowhere when the names wouldn't even be named were they not in the documents that he will be revealing.

You really don't make very much sense, why do you think the leaks have nothing to do with the article and that he will make everything up?

Are you charging that he created the documents themselves and they are forged just so he can expose the fake documents and the names therein? Or are you claiming he is lying about what is in those documents (that he is not the only journalist to have by the way)?

Help me out here, you aren't making any sense.

[uponit7771]

188. I'm not going to take Snowdens word for it doesn't make sense to you?!!? REALLY?! That's interesting

... I'll try to be more clear.

No proof... not believing him...

I don't know how to be more clear on this.

Also, the OP said that Snowden will be giving GW NAMES!!! not docs

The stories are based on unpublished material given to Greenwald by Snowden

AKA... believe what Snowden says not any documented proof

regards

[Dragonfli]

192. The leaked documents are the proof, the reality of it can't be more clear

The only way to argue your position is to claim the documents are fake, or they have been/will be modified by Greenwald to use them to lie.

regards.

[uponit7771]

193. There wont be any "leaked documents" in this context there will be "stories". I've already quoted

... the OP multiple times and I'm clear on this.

I wont be taking Snowdens "stories" for what they're worth without some in context documents to follow them up

[Dragonfli]

196. I fully expect the article to be sourced, so I expect something different

All we have to do is wait for it to come out, if he just makes stuff up, I will look for you to post the mea culpa you would deserve in such a case.

[grasswire]

179. so you've already seen the documents?

I don't get what you are trying to say.

[uponit7771]

190. From the OP... Snowden wont be giving "documents" he'll be giving "stories" quote inside

The stories are based on unpublished material given to Greenwald by Snowden.

[Luminous Animal]

201. Snowden doesn't have any documents to give and Greenwald has posted supporting documents with

every article he has written. You are putting the cart before the horse. Every article was based on previously unpublished documents that Snowden gave to Greenwald. In fact, Greenwald has published more documents than any other journalist. How you can come to the conclusion that he won't publish anything to support his future articles is a mystery.

[Dragonfli]

203. I think the poster is reading "unpublished documents" and not realizing

That that means new documents will be published with this new article and has decided instead that it must mean that they will never be published or something like that.

You and I understand it because we understand how these articles are written and how they are sourced, we take the obvious as common knowledge. Others appear to be new to this sort of thing and require an added "as yet" to fully understand what is going on.

That's just my guess based on the posts.

[JoeyT]

175. God I hope they drag it out more.

It's giving the defenders shitfits because there's no way to get out in front of this. The only thing they can do is scream their well-rehearsed messages that appear to have swayed someone's thoughts on the subject (While forgetting that the people that were "swayed" were feigning neutrality while JAQing off in true Beckian fashion.) while discarding all the ones that didn't and hoping no one remembers how they banged on about them until they were proven false.

[carolinayellowdog]

218. a lot of the craziness we took as reactive was really preemptive I suspect

the defenders of the Total Surveillance State might have appeared to be reacting to revelations that have come already from Snowden and Greenwald. But I've had the feeling that they were really reacting to imagined future scenarios of what is to be revealed-- to try to innoculate people by demolishing the credibility of the messengers beforehand. When the big revelation does hit, I sure hope it changes the balance of power around here because "Snowden and Greenwald always bad, Obama always good" has gotten terribly boring. Months of being annoying, but now it's just boring.

[bvar22]

227. If the intent of their smear campaign was innoculation,

....it hasn't worked.

[bobduca]

221. One Screamer always seems to convince a Pragmatic New Poster

At least that's what NSA defender swarm looks like while browsing incognito mode.

So many animated gifs seeming to ridicule so effectively, the record here at DU clearly shows they changed minds!111111

[randome]

194. I can hardly contain myself!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

198. I opened this thread in an incognito window

just to see the myriad replies that I didn't see because I have some folks on ignore. Now I know why I started using the ignore function.

[carolinayellowdog]

244. Ignore is ideal for Johnny-one-note types

It is easy for forget how many of them there are, or how relentlessly they hit that one note, until reading here without logging in.

Sing it, Judy:

&feature=kp

[DeSwiss]

204. K&R

- At some point the facade falls away. Then.......

K&R


Those who are AWAKE will note that the WH is increasing it's use of CT smearing (as BO does above). A sure indication that they're worried because the LIE isn't taking hold anymore.......

[obxhead]

250. To be cheered in 2016

If a "d" fails to win POTUS. If a "d" wins the POTUS spot, this will continue to be flamed and denounced here on DU.

[Aerows]

255. This entire thread illustrates more eloquently

than any pointed opinion article that there is absolutely nothing that ideologues will not do to defend their chosen politician.

I wish those folks would defend the idea of the USA as vociferously as they defend one person that is the President for 8 years. Our country is a much longer and larger edifice - it isn't a mere idea with the shelf life of 8 years. Our laws are far more lasting than 8 years. What you defend today, unfortunately, will be used against you tomorrow if you invest in personalities and not in principles.

[WillyT]

257. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

EXACTLY !!!

Maybe the divide is between those that consider the United States of America...

An Idea...

Or just another country.

[Aerows]

260. The United States of America

is my home. It isn't just another country to me.

I've never been the sort of person that takes anything for granted - especially how fortunate I am to be an American citizen. I'm able-bodied, I have friends and family, I can contribute to society and am employed. I don't take any of that for granted, and I view it as precious.

The right to privacy is part and parcel of the right to self-determination. I respect it as such.

[Babel_17]

256. Thanks for the heads-up! K&R

History is a funny thing, way too much detail gets obscured by time, but things like on which specific side of an issue people stood, that tends to get recorded.

The McCarthy era, Civil Rights, The Iraq War, they're just a few of the issues that are remembered.

The issue of the leaks that we've seen discussed here, that will be a part of history too, and sooner rather than later given how our ability to record has increased.

I suspect that we are already seeing the more far sighted of politicians, journalists, and other players, increasingly being careful to not dismiss the importance and usefulness of these leaks.

[WillyT]

258. You Are Quite Welcome !!!

Great points, All...