Skip to main content

View Diary: (UPDATED 2) Ellsberg: "He's revealing unconstitutional activity." Twitter: 30 to 1, "He's a hero." (280 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And you can speak until the cows curl up and die (7+ / 0-)

    after they get home. Without anything but your word, we'll have to decide whether we should believe you.

    I hope your self-esteem doesn't depend on a resounding YES or anything....

    "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

    by lunachickie on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 06:45:09 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Without anything but your emotional guess (0+ / 0-)

      we'll never know, will we.

      "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

      by GrumpyOldGeek on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 06:56:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll take that as a yes (7+ / 0-)

        (snicker). If you were really sincere, you wouldn't need to sling words like "emotional" around to try to "win" some blog debate.  

        "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

        by lunachickie on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 07:00:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What was the question again? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wader, Chrisfs

          Something like why should I be believed?

          Maybe because you can't decide which conclusion you prefer?

          1)The big bad ebil gubmint, 100,000 NSA professionals included, all conspire to spy on every detail about every American while never revealing that they know they're violating the 4th Amendment. And nobody cares. One guy chooses this one and writes about it. Then the cut and paste journalists make it go viral. One guy, one very shaky source. Viral.

          2) A high school dropout (GED maybe) finds a powerpoint presentation that every NSA employee knows is deliberately altered and incorrect and believes it's factual and accurate. And he gets all outraged. And he's told it's altered and incorrect. And goes with his outrage, commits a serious felony and flees the country? He wasn't in the meeting that briefed the developers that this stuff was obsfucated. Because he's just an admin. And a moron. So he hands his outrage and his bogus evidence to a sensationalist hack with a history of getting things wrong. How's that Bradley Manning torure thing going for ya, Glenn. Every single government source says that this guy got it wrong. I know this is a fact. He got it wrong. So Glenn Greenwald tells us that everyone except this one guy are lying. How come you're not writong about Bradley Manning and his 10 guilty pleas, Glenn?

          I gotta say that both choices are pretty darn crazy, don't ya think?

          The over-the-top conspiracy theories are always a lot of fun. I kinda enjoy the Ancient Aliens fallacy machine. It's great laughs. Except too many people choose to believe this nonsense. You know, because it's an emotional thing. It's different. It's intriuguing. It's also complete bullshit, but that's not so appealing. So I stick with counting and identifying all the fallacies.

          The correct answer is number 2).

          But that won't be accepted for about another month. The 1) answer rings more bells right now. Besides, everyone else seems to be going with the outrage, so it must be right, right? (The appeal to popularity fallacy)

          Srsly, just monitor Rachel Maddow this week. I expect that she'll find the right choice and she's certain to provide much more detail and evidence than I can muster.

          "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

          by GrumpyOldGeek on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 07:39:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ahem ... (15+ / 0-)
            How's that Bradley Manning torure thing going for ya, Glenn.
            What did Greenwald ever report about Manning's treatment that wasn't true?  Did I just imagine that even the military judge in his case ruled he was mistreated at Quantico?

            You're sounding less and less like you're merely "grumpy" and more and more like a very angry guy with an agenda.

            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

            by jrooth on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 07:49:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The list is long (0+ / 0-)

              Besides the torture thing, the torture that Manning and his lawyer repeatedly denied was happening, there were the usual Greenwald exaggerations:

              1) He didnt even have sheets or pillows. Fact: He had two wool blankets and the bed had a foam mattress/pillow. A brand new one.

              2) They used sleep-deprivation torture. Woke him every 10 minutes!
              Fact: While he was under suicide watch, they observed him every 20 minutes to check that he was breathing. If that wasn't possible, they would gently nudge him to verify that he was ok. This is SOP in mental health units, too.

              3) The gubmint is waterboarding him. Fact: Never happened. Greenwald deleted that from his online Salon article quickly. It remained in the published version, of course.

              4) Held nine(?) months without any charges or appearing in court.
              Fact: UCMJ is different. Manning's lawyer did an excellent job, imo. He was represented by his lawyer. Charges were filed well within the allowable time.

              I wrote a diary about Greenwald's hype and his bogus sources long ago. Got a few inappropriate HR's, even. But I fact-checked everything. Even one of Greenwald's references said exactly the opposite of what he had written. I lost just about every shred of respect for Gleen during that time.

              I checked other articles, too. His track record was just plain horrible. The facts were often ignored or dismissed oif they didn't fit his narrative. EVen Manning's lawyer tried to get him to correct the eorror and stop the hype. It was hurting the overall case, he said. And Gleen finally backed off after a while. Now he's dropped the whole thing. His hype just didn't happen. Even Jane Hamsher evaporated. These days, the hundreds of hero-worshipers have dropped him like a brick. Now they're back with Greenwald on his latest attention-getting scheme. And the hype is blatent again. That new job with the Guardian, you know.

              "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

              by GrumpyOldGeek on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 09:01:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think your diary isn't quite the debunking (8+ / 0-)

                you think it is.  I recall Greenwald reporting a number of the things you list as debunking his reporting - like the fact Manning had blankets.

                But at any rate, let's not hijack this diary with relitigation of Manning's mistreatment.

                “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                by jrooth on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 09:45:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Greenwald changed his online article many times (0+ / 0-)

                  At the time, I noticed that he was picking off one item at a time. Not just things I pointed out, but others had been pointing out his errors, too. And he changed and corrected a few things. I give him a lot of credit for doing that. He actually toned things down quite a bit. Subsequent articles were noticably less hair-on-fire.

                  I think he benefits when he gets called out at the times when he goes overboard. I know he has the capability to be an excellent and responsible journalist. He's a terrific writer. But man, is he ever biased and stubborn when he gets himself all fired up about something.

                  This time, imo, he really screwed up. His source has almost no credibility. His assumptions go way beyond what the evidence suggests. And he's reducing his arguments to fear-mongering. He's done this before. That's his personality, I guess.

                  Yes, our big brother government has gone past reasonable and necessary, imo. And the secrecy, the ex parte rubber stamps, and the lack of recourse disturbs me most. This is fundamentally and morally wrong, imo. And I have no ideas about how to improve this mess.

                  Greenwald isn't addressing these critically important questions adequately. He's too busy telling the talking heads that the government is lying. This isn't helpful. And it's not true.

                  "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

                  by GrumpyOldGeek on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 10:33:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Ha, yeah, break out the Buzzwords, why don'tcha? (7+ / 0-)

            Wingnut talking point borrowed? Check:

            The big bad ebil gubmint
            Killing the messengers? Check, more than once:
            Then the cut and paste journalists make it go viral. One guy, one very shaky source.
            And a moron. So he hands his outrage and his bogus evidence to a sensationalist hack with a history of getting things wrong.
            So Glenn Greenwald tells us that everyone except this one guy are lying. How come you're not writong about Bradley Manning and his 10 guilty pleas, Glenn?
            Derisive language? Check:
            over-the-top conspiracy theories
            Smear by association? Check:  
            kinda enjoy the Ancient Aliens fallacy machine.
            You did make one salient point though. Tonight's the night we all find out how brave Rachel Maddow really is, in the face of her government-backed employers at MSNBC, brought to you by Phil Griffin!

            "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

            by lunachickie on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 07:57:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, and ... Greenwald has repeatedly written (6+ / 0-)

            about Manning's guilty pleas.

            Here, for example.

            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

            by jrooth on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 08:08:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Addressing grumpy (12+ / 0-)

            Your argument is not compelling.

            You use straw men to defend your thesis: nobody is suggesting that 100,000 NSA professionals conspired to harvest this data..

            You attack the messenger: moron, high school dropout, dumb, piece of work, clueless..

            You attack the reporters: cut and paste, etc.

            But your central thesis seems unlikely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you're suggesting that the NSA for some reason developed a fraudulent PowerPoint intended to mislead someone or other into thinking that a program called Prism had been developed to collect data on everyone... This  fake was known by "every NSA employee" to be fake... this fake powerpoint was then spotted by a low-level admin... Who passed it to reporters... Who ran with it... Leading to a massive clusterfuck in Congress... Clapper turning his focus away from his day job to deal with this..

            Is that what you're saying?

            The purpose of a document so fake that everyone knew it was fake is....?

            If the document is fake, then wouldn't the easiest response be to point this out rather than go into a national meta pie fight?

            If its so easy to punk the entire system, then real terrorists would be better off crank calling Congress; a few minutes and a good joke and they'll crash the whole place..

            •  Yes. It's a common security procedure (0+ / 0-)

              to obsfucate general introductory presentations. If Booz Allen is contracted to write a specific part of the overall system, they are not going to learn much about the other components that are outside the scope of their contract. This is a basic security concept. No single unit or group knows everything about the larger system. So the "enemy" can't find or capture everything about the larger system form one place. Old idea but still very effective.

              I've altered presentation material myself. Each contractor gets a different version that obscures the accuracy of the other pieces. Sometimes it's totally off the wall. Sometimes it's just slightly different. It depends on the project and the scope.

              The document isn't correct, for sure. Each major vendor immediately said that. In fact, the document attacks their business reputations. Secretly giving shit to the gubmint probably caused a lot of gmail accounts to go dormant, for example. The government doesn't have a secret connection directly into the Google server farm. The document says that it does. The document is false. Fake, if you will.

              "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

              by GrumpyOldGeek on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 09:16:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  At this point (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TealTerror, Ryvr

                you're going to have to do better than make assertions.

                Beyond this--which of course they would immediately say for public consumption:

                Each major vendor immediately said that.
                Seems like there is now becoming a need for you to actually back these now-extraordinary claims up with something besides your grumpy old opinion:
                The government doesn't have a secret connection directly into the Google server farm. The document says that it does. The document is false. Fake, if you will.

                "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                by lunachickie on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 09:32:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  They denied. (0+ / 0-)

                  They said that they habve no knowledge of such a system.
                  They said that the government does not have a direct connecteion to their servers.

                  The article parses the semantics of theior statements and there's some thoughts about reading between the lines,

                  But this isn't the point. I am not suggesting that the NSA is not collecting information from Google and the others. I believe that the NSA is collecting way too much information.

                  And I'm mad as heel that they're doing this shit in secret,

                  But the whistleblower isn't working with facts. The powerpoint is clear about the government's diect connection to the Google server farm. Google's response is very clear when it says that the government does not have a direct connection to Google. They add that they never heard of Prism. You would think that they would know about such a program because the NSA presentation talks about the various agreements they've signed. Yet they deny that this exists. And they reinforce their business privacy boilerplate.

                  This is different than a simple "neither confirm or deny" or some other meaningless statement. Or no statement at all.

                  One cannot assume that they would just lie straight out. The government cannot compel someone or some entity to lie. Basic contract law and the 5th Amendment could apply here. If they had a non-disclosure agreement, a more likely form of such an agreement, they would be compelled to take a "no comment" approach or deflect the questions back to the NSA (which would end the conversation).

                  What I thought was interesting was the fact that they denied knowledge of the Prism program. They included the name in their denial. If they had a non-disclosure, there's no way that they would have brough up the name. Which leads me to conclude that the program doesn't exist or, if it does, they have no knowledge of it.

                  Which leads to the conclusion that the leaked information wasn't accurate. Based on my experience and a few other clues, the leaked information is seriously flawed. And that's what the president and other govt official have been saying since day one.

                  Rachel Maddow picked up on this strong denial right away. Her thought was that this indicated that this program probably didn't exist. Just based on the denial rather than a wimpy non-denial-denial. This is one reason that I think she'll get to the core of this nonsense.

                  "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

                  by GrumpyOldGeek on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 10:15:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Notwithstanding their denial (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    chuckvw, JVolvo

                    which I pointed out initially, and could have easily found the link to myself, you have nothing else to back up your assertion that the whistleblower is wrong, other than your allegedly in-the-know word.

                    Your opinion. That's it!

                    "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                    by lunachickie on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 10:28:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Greenwald's very first article made all this clear (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rick Aucoin, chuckvw, JVolvo
                    The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

                    The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

                    The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers.

                    Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

                    ...

                    Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of Prism or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a program. "If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge," one said.

                    An Apple spokesman said it had "never heard" of Prism.

                    (all emphasis mine)

                    LINK
                    A couple of other points:

                    I'm not sure why you think the folks at these companies should know the word "Prism" as it relates to this program even if it exists.  "PRISM" appears to be the nickname used internally to refer to SIGAD US-984XN.  There'd be no reason to refer to it that way with people in the allegedly cooperating corporations.

                    DNI Clapper confirms the existence of PRISM, albeit he describes it as having  a more limited scope than the published slides imply.

                    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                    by jrooth on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 10:55:12 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site