Sorry, but I’m still waiting to hear about how there was any actual harm to our national security from anything leaked by Snowden. I hear a lot of noise but no actual examples.
IMHO embarrassment over things like tapping the phone conversations of allies doesn’t count. I’m sure they were not surprised. Embarrassment of public officials or organizations is a feature, not a bug.
“Flocking”? You’re joking, right?
You’d better go and hide under the bed!
I weep for this once-great nation.
LOL! That must have been written by one of the TPM regulars - it has all the hallmarks of the classic NSA talking points.
Not to mention the direct conflict their own talking points trip over:
“We already knew” - ( BULLSHIT, btw)
then…
Glenn happily treated as his intellectual property, instead of information the public had a right to know
So which is it? Did we know or not know?
So let’s review. They had a right to know BEFORE Snowden leaked the info…but it was stuff we already KNEW ? But at the same time, the Government withholding that SAME info is no big deal - it’s only a crime when the person leaking the info does’t leak ALL the info at ONCE?
Does that about cover it?
That’s some really weak sauce ya got there.
One more on this. Did you happen to read the comments under James Clapper’s…I mean AmishRakeFight’s “review”?
Ultimately, the most basic of this whiney reviewer’s complaints is that Greenwald is actually good at what he does, which is to effectively inform the public regarding the true nature of the US government. Presumably “AmishRakeFight” would be happier if public dissent were limited to ineffectual and justly ignored whining from the most obscure corners of the blogosphere by people who receive no funding, no book contracts, no TV interviews, and who certainly would never dream of “starting a new media enterprise” - because if dissent were limited to ineffectual whining, the reviewer himself (and not Glenn Greenwald) would be on the cutting edge of dissent by default. In other words, AmishRakeFight is less interested in the disclosure of important information about the world than he/she is in vindicating his/her own sense of inadequacy. Wallowing in a shallow puddle of toxic resentment and corrosive envy isn’t exactly a revolutionary stance.
I’m waiting for someone to be similarly inspired with respect to the Senate torture report.
The laws for private contractors and federal employees on this are literally exactly the same. There is no difference. And it’s the government who issues security clearances, private companies don’t do it themselves.
Wipe away those tears and give me a verb that meets your approval.
Western-born jihadists rally to ISIS’s fight in Iraq and Syria
Will the Americans and Europeans flocking to ISIS return as hardened terrorists?
Would a great nation allow these people to die of thirst?
Thanks for the demonstration. You also fail to address where to draw the line (because you’re too hyped on one aspect.)
I’m sorry but your reference is contemporary. Recall the Bush years when Glen gave The Dummy, “the benefit of the doubt” on security (with no mention of privacy concerns.)
It’s not rocket surgery. I’ll type real slow…
During the Bush administration, Glen was a security cowboy. Now he’s a privacy warrior. When’s he going to bridge the gap?
Complete bullshit, as I have demonstrated. Greenwald was all over Bush on the NSA.
Let’s review:
His book : How Would A Patriot Act? is, **
the
The book was written in
Do I have to make a diagram for you?
You’re too excited to grasp the time line.
In October 2005, he started his blog Unclaimed Territory focusing on the investigation pertaining to the Plame affair, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, the federal indictment of Scooter Libby and the NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07) controversy.[8]
Sorry, Bub…the facts are there for anyone to see.
Sorry Bub but like yourself, your friend offers nothing to address privacy and security.
Instead of making opaque, constitutional references to “unreasonable”, reference the statue that actually defines “unreasonable” (in legalese). There, you can float an “amend the language” argument that addresses the privacy you demand. On the other hand, you have no national security qualifications so you can’t offer congruence of factors.
Outrage isn’t information. It’s a product. Resist the temptation to swallow it whole.
Nice goalposts you have there. I like their new location!
What happened to your falsehoods about Greenwald covering for Bush?
They seem to have disappeared into a thicket of vague rhetoric.
You still misunderstand. I never said that Glen covered for anybody. I said he’s too thick to broach congruence of privacy and security.
He’s not too thick to understand that outrage sells more than it informs.
Yup!
Allow me to quote you so it’s clearly understood by GG’s buddy TurningDeeperGreen
''outrage sells more than it informs"
~OGD~
cc: @UnfadingGreen
Oh and… Uh…
Before I forget… Nice Strat there in your avatar.
Here’s a '68 Rosewood Tele I lovingly watched over as the old roadie with the fella who is holding it.
Rest in Peace… D…
~OGD~
It’s a jazz bass and thanks for the link. I’ve never seen a rosewood Tele but I read that “fella” taught Eric Clapton how to sing and play at the same time.