Skip to main content

Wow. What a rodeo it's been. For weeks and weeks. Dueling diaries, HR extravaganzas, accusations of roving gangs, and predictions this site is going to hell in a hand basket.

I can honestly say that on this topic, I've read much more than I've commented. Far more. And still, as much as I try to straighten it out in my mind, I remain HIGHLY skeptical of arguments on both sides. And by skeptical I mean neither side has convinced me, which is not to say both sides haven't made points that make me think.

I know I'm not the only one here who feels this way, but I'm not sure I've read the diary that says so. So for all of you here who can't go black or white on this issue, I hope you'll let me know I have company.

Those that claim Greenwald and Snowden are liars and the equivalent of carnival barkers and cowards are choosing to believe that the freaking huge NSA complex, that has grown and multiplied w/the aide of the Patriot act---which I think is a total travesty, (and which I HATE the name of just to being with, my God, sounds like a bad country western song to me, you know like that one about "I'm proud to be an American, chest pound etc,) is nothing to worry about. I think it's A LOT to worry about.

OTOH, those that take Greenwald and Snowden at face value, and assume righteousness on their parts, without distancing themselves enough to question, without the patience and objectivity it takes to evaluate the motherlode of events, flying commentary, conflicting testimony and sheer complexity of the issues at hand, don't win me over either.

I find this VERY complicated. And I am amazed at the many here who see this as either black or white.

Here's what I do know and here's what I ask.

---Whatever side you're on, this is an excellent discussion to have, and none too soon.

---People who are more than suspicious of the NSA, have a legitimate story to tell.

---People who are more than suspicious of the motivations of Greenwald and Snowden, or at least the judgement of either, also have a legitimate story to tell.

---The choices we make about all this, as progressives and democrats, can bring us together, or bust us apart. See the current disarray in the GOP. Yummy. But it can happen to us too.  

---In this age of technological prowess, which anyone world wide can use, where do we see see ourselves fitting in?

---In a world that gives up its privacy willingly in so many ways, where do we draw the line? Why is it OK for corporations to track our on line activity, through meta data,  as they do every day in the interest of commerce, but wrong for our government to do it in the interest of security? Can't remember a single diary on this comparison.

---How do we protect ourselves against enemies who don't worry about civil liberties?

---What are any of us willing to bet, in the end on either side, that we are right? We must ask ourselves this because we ask those we elect to make that bet every day.

---And what are we willing to gamble that we're right, either way? Splitting the party? Making this site nothing but an unending pie fight? Giving up our power to act because we can't agree?

These are the things that keep me up at night. These are questions NO one can answer with impunity. Which is why I asked them. To simply point out that humility and patience would serve us all well. We DON'T KNOW, much more than we do know.

All this is not to say we shouldn't raise our voices and our concerns. I am all over that.
But on this issue, we have made war with each other, a blog in constant argument, much of it mind numbingly familiar and repetitive, with no sign of consensus or forward movement, or action.

Maybe this is the way it just has to work. I'm open to that, although I'm uncomfortable with it. Who isn't?  I guess in the end, I just had to write this out tonight, that I'm confounded by the assurance of either side on this issue. Because I am still waiting for the blessed feeling of truth, and I'm not finding it yet.

UPDATE:

Someone has added "False equivalence" to my tags. Is this legal here? Can we all go about adding any tag we want to someone's diary? Can we impose our opinions on a person's tags?

EPILOGUE.

It's been quite a day for me here. Quite an experience.  I have been sick with a viral infection and was confined to the sofa today, with the choice to do this, or watch TV, or read. I chose this. No regrets.

I don't think I'll do this again soon, all day long, if ever, but for a gal who likes conversation, this has been a good experience. Even though I have certainly had to take my share of blows and insults here. But then, as I have made clear many times in the comments, I expected that when I wrote on this topic. I do not feel discouraged by the experience.

There have been many thoughtful comments here which have made me think. I like that. There have been many attempts to communicate through insult. I don't like that, but accept it is the price of voice here. Although I will note it when it happens. I understand that some think civility is not an issue, but I think it is. Something else we
have to simply agree to disagree on sometimes.  

In the end, I will go back to the beginning. I have very deep concerns about the NSA, which I stated quite clearly in my diary, and which were ignored by many. I also have concerns about minds that close like a steel trap, that interpret any question as a threat. Which I also made quite clear in my diary and in many a comment here. I still wonder at how threatening this is to many, but I accept it simply is.

I am grateful to have this platform to discuss. Many people don't like to discuss politics, as you all know, and here, it is the norm and expected. I like many others here, have ideas and questions and arguments that swirl through my head all the time, and it is good to have somewhere that at least that, is accepted.

 

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Agreed. (9+ / 0-)

      Greenwald is an attention whore. There isn't an angle or story he won't sensationalize for impact and attention.  This works great for reality shows and TMZ but for national security and serious journalism not so much.

      There has been guidelines and opportunities to address these NSA issues for years but congress has dropped the ball because I suppose the topic wasn't sexy enough.

      Right man, right job and right time

      by Ianb007 on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 11:53:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think (38+ / 0-)

        Greenwald is an attention whore. And I never in any way said he was in this diary, just to be clear.

        I think he is a man of strong and passionate convictions, but then there have been many people of strong and passionate convictions, throughout history and my lifetime, that I don't agree with at all, or agree with sometimes. Just like there are many folks here of strong and passionate convictions too, and I don't trust them to think for me either.

        I have been reading Greenwald's columns for years. He is an advocacy journalist, and one of the strongest ones out there, in the sense that his voice often overwhelms his story. I don't hold this against him, I just keep it mind when I read what he writes. In the past, long before this, I have both cheered and jeered him.

        To make my point more clear, I'd like to compare him to Matt Taibbi. Taibbi lets you make up your own mind. He tells his story, without much proselytizing. He does not preach. Not saying he doesn't have a POV, he clearly does, but he never shoves it down your throat. He leaves space for you to make up you own mind. IOW, he let's his story do the walking.

        IMO, Greenwald for the better or worse, does not let his story do the walking, he becomes part of the story. Always has. And I think this is a product of his passions, which always have an upside and a downside.
         

        "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

        by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:27:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Still missing the forest for the trees. n/t. (4+ / 0-)

          "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

          by Superskepticalman on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:53:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What do you not agree with (6+ / 0-)

          that is based on hard evidence, and not just gut feeling?

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:43:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  One day, when I was a freshman in High School, (24+ / 0-)

          two girls started an argument over how the math teacher knew that there were 12" in a foot. The more he tried to explain very basic mathematical principles, the more vehemently they argued that he could not prove his statement.

          All of us understood that they were simply obfuscating the truth to keep the teacher tied up in a meaningless argument so we wouldn't have to take a pop quiz, and it worked because he was knocked off message.

          He had acted in good faith; they hadn't.

          That is what most Obama apologists do, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that they are not acting in good faith. They only want to mislead. It might seem that a lot of people are buying into an argument that tries to create doubt, but it only works with those who are have already made up their mind to protect the president at any cost.

          •  This has nothing to do (26+ / 0-)

            with my need to protect the president. One of the most boring arguments on this site is throwing the "Obama apologist" thing at anyone who questions anything regarding this issue.

            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:18:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  so what (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chuckvw, koNko

              I judge things on the quality of evidence.

              You do not just get to make a claim and suddenly everyone agrees.

              That is not how science works.

              And yes science can be quite boring.  But it works

              Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

              by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:01:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nor do you get to deny factual evidence (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Reggid, gjohnsit, koNko

                just because it doesn't fit your agenda...that is what the republicans do...

                •  sorry (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  koNko

                  I am not following you.

                  Which piece of factual evidence am I ignoring here?

                  Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                  by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:29:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Gideon, I'm sorry...I was responding to two (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    GideonAB, koNko

                    different sites at the same time, and I do that by copying quotes and pasting them into a word file...that normally helps me to keep the gist of the comments separate, but I unintentionally mixed yours and Stella's comments with those of the other site (which is about the NSA) and I made mistakes...once again, sorry.

              •  politics are not science (4+ / 0-)

                and neither is the abuse of power or the art of fear mongering and propaganda. Science works when the theories it comes up with are true. The docs released are the proof of the NSA programs they can be read with ones lying eyes. How can anything that is secret and unaccountable to verification be called science or truth. Then when you get to the heart of the matter the GWOT it is not only untruthful it's an illogical narrative. The bent lawyers, pols, spooks, justices and legislator's may call this bogus war on terra a fact but they have an agenda that has nothing to do with the truth.  

            •  You describe everything in terms (8+ / 0-)

              of how you feel

              Do you understand that's not relevant?

              You decided to make this diary about skepticism, but I question whether you understand what the term means.

              its not about emotional , gut reactions. Its about what you can and cannot prove through evidence (Whether direct, circumstantial on inferential) and logical analysis

              I think its extremely strange your comment, which is pure emotions, was rated high by ten people. Its trange because you said nothing of substance regarding the concerns people have over you replacing emotions with what skepticism means.

              •  I don't need you to define (7+ / 0-)

                skepticism for me. I find it hilarious that you are giving me a lecture on my "emotional, gut reactions," while you consider your comments all over the comment section here, to be of sound logical analysis, with no imput from your POV,  your beliefs, and your emotions.

                "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:57:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You respond again with emotions (5+ / 0-)

                  And no substance.

                •  apparently you do (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TheMomCat, Dianna, koNko

                  need such a definition.

                  You have provided no evidence that you have no such need and yet you still want us to believe you.

                  What else do you want us to believe without evidence? Roswell?

                  Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                  by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:34:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't need to (5+ / 0-)

                    present evidence for stating that this is a complex issue, and that imo, we all need to know more before we blast everyone in our path who dares to question.

                    I don't care what you believe. That's up to you.

                    "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                    by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:49:17 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  this site (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dianna, koNko

                      is for debate. kos intended it to be so and does not regard debate "as blasting everyone".  Is that how I came across? Sorry.

                      I do not have a problem with you questioning but I would need evidence in order to take a different position seriously.  I look forward to your next diary

                      Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                      by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:16:09 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Of course you don't need evidence (0+ / 0-)

                      Because you are a noted skeptic and The Decider here, and it's your diary. You don't need to show us no stink'n' badges either.

                      But please let the rest of us know when we "know" enough to meet your standard to blast everyone in our path that dares to question.

                      Our blood lust for heroic truth seekers is insatiable, it's a feature of Daily Kos. We would have made hamburger of Jeanne d'Arc in seconds.

                      400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

                      by koNko on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 02:26:51 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You have blasted me in (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sviscusi

                        this diary from top to bottom. There are copious comments from you here and almost to a one they are insulting. So I find your sensitivity regarding this...let's just go with highly disingenuous, at the risk of saying something much less civil.

                        "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                        by StellaRay on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:00:01 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Stella, your arguments don't even make sense. (10+ / 0-)

              They're based on the belief that if you can't see the proof, then the facts are disputable (not that you might need to look closer at the facts). The information that was released has resonated worldwide...even the leaders of our European allies are feeling a tremendous amount of heat because of the NSA overreach...people in other countries get it, but Americans have become so accustomed to swallowing bullshit -- hook, line and sinker -- that they will believe in anything, no matter how obviously untruthful it is.

              You just don't give other people enough credit for having the cognitive skills to see through obfuscation...

              •  Nonsense. (13+ / 0-)

                What is it with you people that you can't read what a diary said once you hear something you don't like. No where in my diary did I say "nothing to see here" with the NSA. Not even close.

                I said I need to know more about this, we all do, and that takes some time and patience. I said that I question all the moving parts of this story, which does not mean I deny them or disbelieve them, or discredit them, it means I need to  know more before I stand up and tell the world I'm right and you're wrong.

                "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:03:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's okay, but to make it sound like (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  shaharazade, Dianna, Willa Rogers

                  Snowden and Greenwald are lying just because you don't understand what is happening is going too far.

                  •  Please show me where I said (8+ / 0-)

                    Snowden and Greenwald are lying.

                    "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                    by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:24:10 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  well (0+ / 0-)

                      You said "I said I need to know more about this".

                      Clearly you are not comfortable with just believing Snowden.

                      So it is not a big leap to think that you think that he is lying

                      Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                      by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:36:10 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, it is a leap. (9+ / 0-)

                        "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                        by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:22:49 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  This is just silly. (9+ / 0-)

                        By this standard, anytime anyone reserved judgement on an issue, you'd claim that they were calling someone a liar. That's nonsense.

                        Nothing human is alien to me.

                        by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:10:04 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Clearly, comfortable just believing in the FSM? (4+ / 0-)

                        Is this why everyone must 'have faith' in anonymous
                        hackers, sensationalistic bloggers, or even rogue
                        bureaucratic semi private guvmint functionaries?

                        "Everybody knows", it is 'all over the news', but
                        if one might happen to disagree with the views
                        of these sources, then such becomes shillery,
                        paid propaganda, sexual euphemism bottery,
                        or cargo cult kool aid for the sheeple shearing.

                        Everyone talks about 'news reports' and
                        'press releases' and link quotes them as if
                        they were indeed scientific evidence, when
                        really they are just more of the same
                        self referential bias confirmation that is widely
                        mocked in those who use biblical sources as
                        precedent for any number of dubious legislations.

                        The reason passions run so high
                        on this, and other issues is that
                        most bring to them their very own
                        preconceived notions of what is or
                        is not the 'true state of reality'.

                        For me, personally, it boils down this:
                        You either 'believe' in the power of people
                        to associate for mutual benefit and protection,
                        (i.e. government), or you don't. That is the
                        'true' nature of this debate. Yes, there are
                        dangers and the potential for abuse anytime
                        the power of the collective is used in this fashion.

                        If you only wish for private individuals and
                        corporations to have this ability to mine the
                        profit from all of our collective digital ephemera,
                        then we lose the ability to use such to achieve
                        any other necessary or desirable progress.

                        Why have so many forgotten GG's support
                        for the Bush invasion of Iraq now? Why is his
                        credibility any greater than Darth Cheney's?

                        Thanks for all of your efforts.

                      •  Her point is (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        StellaRay

                        She's not comfortable with just believing anyone. It doesn't have anything to do with Greenwald or Snowden personally. Her diary made a huge point of,saying that...

                        "Disappointment is anger for wimps," -Dr. Gregory House

                        by freakofsociety on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 09:51:42 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually, I did misread part of your diary, (11+ / 0-)

                    and I apologize for doing so, but I still disagree with your basic position, and here is why:

                    I think most Americans are angry because they believe that Snowden's revelations have dispelled any belief that our leaders are upholding our Constitutional rights to live freely from intimidation and reprisal...now we know beyond any doubt that we are living in a suspicious/militarized atmosphere that's starting to tear our nation apart at the seams.

                    Everytime you read an article about women being forced to endure cavity searches on the roadside, or when you read about a policeman killing a black youth for...actually, nothing...everytime you read about a whistleblower being prosecuted for exposing criminal activity...everytime you read about a corporate executive walking away from prosecution because the Justice Department has refused to prosecute them....all of that is part of Obama's leadership failures...a nation's cultural disintegration begins at the top...

                    I understand your need to proceed slowly and to wait until all the facts are in, but I think we've moved way past that...I think the foundations of democracy have been shaken to their core and I believe that we have been amiss for failing to take action to prevent further erosion.

                    Once again, I apologize for misquoting you.

                •  "You people?" Wow. (4+ / 0-)

                  That about sums it up for me.

                  I don't think this is complicated at all. I either have a basic human and citizenship right to be secure in my person, papers and effects from government collection for the purposes of trying to find reasons to make my life miserable or deprive me of my freedoms altogether, or I do not.

                  Under the legal charter of this nation - the U.S. Constitution - I do have such right. The government is currently and has been for some time directly violating that right. I want it stopped. Period, end of sentence, that's all.

                  If they think they have probable cause to surveil me and listing all the materials to be collected (and what for), they can get an honestly sworn warrant stating that probable cause and signed off on by a judge who isn't sitting on a secret court rubber-stamping secret laws and secret interpretations of secret laws, in secret.

                  That is not what we currently have, and that is why Jimmy Carter says that we do not currently have a functioning democracy in this nation.

                  I want my country back. This current governing junta and its machinery are what I want it back FROM.

                  •  Yep (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    orestes1963, gulfgal98, Joieau
                    Under the legal charter of this nation - the U.S. Constitution - I do have such right. The government is currently and has been for some time directly violating that right. I want it stopped. Period, end of sentence, that's all.
                    And try as I might, I still don't see anyone specifically disputing any Greenwald or Snowden claims which demonstrates that the government is not violating that right.

                    They're also not the only ones who have ever made such a claim.

                    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                    by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:13:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And I never said the government was NOT (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Onomastic, freakofsociety

                      violating that right, although you keep trying to stick me with that.

                      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:52:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So...I am having a huge problem (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Joieau

                        understanding with what is so complex to you and why you are conflicted over the government spying on you.

                        "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

                        by gulfgal98 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:51:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Let me set you straight (3+ / 0-)

                          since you apparently didn't believe it when I said it in my diary, but don't feel like the lone ranger. There have been many here today who have conflated my desire to question, my natural skepticism of day to day news, with a lack of concern or "conflict" over NSA spying.  

                          I am NOT conflicted over the government spying on me. I don't want that. I want the Patriot Act repealed. I am deeply concerned about what's going on here, and actually, have been for years, along with many of you. I said all this in my diary, but since so many feel compelled to ignore that, I feel compelled to repeat it.

                          But yes, I do want more information, and I do question. But that doesn't stop me from having any convictions, it just stops me from being sure I'm right all the time. And yes, I'm not much of a black and white thinker and struggle with people who are as much as they struggle with me.

                          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                          by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:13:40 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  which is why (0+ / 0-)

            it would not surprise me that Republicans are paying people money to fudge the debate

            Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

            by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:34:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  IMO Greenwald is an attention whore (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JWR, Reggid, Hey338Too, freakofsociety

          and a week journalist at best.  

          He is the worst of the new Free internet journalism has to offer.  He starts of with an inflammatory headline then proceeds to a jump in logic finally you find the facts glossed over buried in the 3rd to last paragraph and they never quite add up to his headline.  It's the same crap that Huffington post does.  

          This is what happens in the "per click" world of modern news reporting.

          Taibbi I like although he does the same thing to a certain degree and every time you read his column you have to be prepared to light your hair on fire.

          There have been many other journalists writing about this NSA fiasco that seem to have done more research and actually talked to the tech companies and reported on this subject without using fear mongering and hyperbole to make a point.

          Right man, right job and right time

          by Ianb007 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:19:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What diaries have you read? (3+ / 0-)

          Quite a few of us have published diaries that focus on the issues rather than the personalities, or deal with the relevance of the personalities in perspective of the events.

          Let me be honest with you not to insult your obvious intelligence:

          Pot, meet kettle.

          I suppose it belabors the issues to point out your comment above I now address meta bullshit that does not discuss the issues at hand but attacks one of the protagonists, Mr. Greenwald and makes a rather nasty claim that he is an attention whore because he is continuing to do his job to working the story and commenting on the issues.

          Whether you happen to like him personally or agree with his commentary is really of no relevance to the fact he happened to be one of the parties Ed Snowden contacted to disclose the information.

          Had Snowden contacted someone else and not Greenwald, we would not be discussing him now.

          So you like Matt Tabbi more. That's nice.

          Now may I ask if you have any thoughts about the issues here beyond the personalities of Greenwald and Snowden and Tabbi et al, or is this just another insufficiently skeptical meta diary that fail to get to some essential truth?

          And what do you think about the facts that have emerged, independent of the messengers?

          You are welcome to go back to my diaries on the issues or those of may others, consider the issues raised and comment in substance.

          400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

          by koNko on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:57:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it's hard to separate Greenwald (0+ / 0-)

            from the story because Greenwlad has injected so much misinformation, exaggerations and just lies into the whole topic you can't have a debate without debunking half of Greenwalds claims.

            Having said that.  It seems once you get past the claims of GG most of what the NSA is doing is within the law and the constitution.  The parts that are unlawful the FISA court seems to be catching most of it.  There are parts that irk the public because it either goes too far in the eyes of the public or because of national security claims of the admin, we only have part of the picture.

            Right man, right job and right time

            by Ianb007 on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 12:55:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Shoot the messenger (6+ / 0-)

        Reveal oneself to be a silly denialist at best.

        You forgot to make fun of Assange's hair, btw. Getting lazy, are we?

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:42:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As the host of this diary, (15+ / 0-)

          I'm going to ask you to quit with the insults. If you disagree, fine. Say so. But stop making it personal. My post above did not in any way deserve this hog wash.

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:20:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You don't own the discussions in this diary (5+ / 0-)

            Nor do you get to get away with this passive-aggressive shit that's ok with people insulting a credible journalist without basis, but not calling out their bullshit insults. Some of us actually weren't born yesterday, StellaRay.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:24:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I did not insult (13+ / 0-)

              anyone in my diary. The fact that you think questioning all the moving parts of this story is an insult is your deal. The fact that you think only your POV is the true and real POV, is your deal. Not mine.

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:42:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My POV is that facts talk, not vague insinuations (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Anorish, Dianna, gulfgal98

                What are you YOUR facts, that support your suggestion that S&G are making stuff up? Lacking them, your "argument" is an insult to one's intelligence.

                Spare me the meta BS. Give me evidence of your allegations.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:48:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I made no allegations. (4+ / 0-)

                  "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                  by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:02:11 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You alleged that S&B are lying (0+ / 0-)

                    Without a shred of supporting evidence.

                    Stop lying.

                    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                    by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:37:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Please point to where the diarist (5+ / 0-)

                      alleged that they were "lying". If you can't, you will be deserving of a doughnut for insult by false allegation.

                      Nothing human is alien to me.

                      by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:16:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Logic (0+ / 0-)

                        Skepticism has a specific meaning.

                        it means one believes something is possibly untrue.

                        Okay. if thats the believe, then the next question is why?

                        No answer given.

                        The only other element is that the untrue statement is either given intentionally or by accident. The later given the attitudes here isn't a likely candidate.

                        My guess is that Kovie used the same sort of logic knowing the definitions of the words used.

                        •  You are justifying the accusation (4+ / 0-)

                          on the basis of prejudice.

                          The only other element is that the untrue statement is either given intentionally or by accident. The later given the attitudes here isn't a likely candidate.
                          Whose "attitudes"? Stella Ray's? Please point to where she expressed any such "attitudes". If you can't, then you are attributing to her "attitudes" she has not expressed based on nothing other than your own bias.

                          Nothing human is alien to me.

                          by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:50:31 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  In a diary that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            orestes1963

                            some are questioning the writers bias?

                            I want to see specific facts reported that the diarist disputes, not generalities ("all the stuff about metadata" which isn't specific).

                            So far, I'm not seeing it and I had a lovely discussion way downthread with her about it. It was perfectly civilized but it still didn't provide specific facts.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:17:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  lunachickie, (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lunachickie, etherealfire, Onomastic

                            I too appreciated our conversation down thread.

                            But you say here there are facts that "the diarist" is disputing. Will you please give me the quotes that show I am "disputing facts." Perhaps that will be helpful.

                            As for questioning bias, well, that happens here everyday, and I find most people here do have a bias. I completely expected folks to accuse me of a bias, another thing that happens here every day. Who doesn't have a bias, on almost everything?

                            My bias is for information and evidence. We have some of both, we don't have enough yet to do what we need to do. By squeezing all sides with the maximum amt of questions, I believe we slowly get the information and evidence we need.

                            That is very apparently a threatening concept to many here.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:34:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We just did that downthread, didn't we? (0+ / 0-)

                            something about emails being read by the feds? ;)

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:19:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I don't think (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            etherealfire

                            we did the part where you show me the quotes in my diary that show I'm disputing the facts.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:21:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What is skepticism? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            koNko
                            skep·ti·cism
                            noun ˈskep-tə-ˌsi-zəm\
                            Definition of SKEPTICISM
                            1
                            : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
                            2
                            a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
                            b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
                            You're telling folks they aren't being skeptical enough. That, in and of itself, is dispute.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:39:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  glad to see I'm not the only one (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            koNko

                            who felt compelled to pull out a dictionary

                            Its like every time someone tries to nail down what she means, the whole argument becomes slippery again

                          •  Why is it "slippery" (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves, freakofsociety

                            when someone doesn't buy into your way of thinking lock stock and barrel? Why is that so threatening to you?

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:56:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hard to nail down? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bruh1

                            Think "jello".

                            I'm still not understanding exactly which specific revelation that is uncorroborated--and thus needs further review--that you want people to be skeptical of.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:03:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Others have asked the same thing (0+ / 0-)

                            No responses other than generalities.  Even the definition of what she means by skeptical here seems to shift.

                          •  And others have understood (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves, freakofsociety

                            very well what I'm saying, whether they have the same thoughts I do, or not. Frankly, you have offered me nothing but generalities with your criticisms, which pretty much amount to insulting the way I think. I don't get how you think your comments are so substantive. Because they are most certainly not.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:32:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I answered this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            freakofsociety

                            in part, further down the thread. One of the reasons I DID NOT get specific about my questions regarding the "facts" in my diary, is because I did not want this diary to be an argument about the "facts", like every other diary on this subject is. Over and over and over again.

                            I knew there would be those who wanted to turn it into their discussion, and their idea of what's important, and that's fine, but since I wrote the diary, I don't need to apologize to anyone about what I wanted to discuss.

                            I wrote this diary to express my opinion that all sides of this should be examined. Again, that is something you do not believe in. Can't do anything about that, don't want to. I don't need to change your mind.

                            The fact that you are see this kind of thinking as "jello" tells me how committed you are to black or white. How uncomfortable you are with shades of gray, with the idea that anyone might question the conclusions you've arrived at. That really was the point of my diary.  

                            I'm thinking we've come to an end of our "reasonable conversation" for today. And that's OK. We've made a good run at it.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:28:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There's no disputing demonstrable fact (0+ / 0-)
                            One of the reasons I DID NOT get specific about my questions regarding the "facts" in my diary, is because I did not want this diary to be an argument about the "facts",

                            Facts are facts. Those which have been demonstrated thus far to be true are what they are. And you can feel free to dispute them anyway, but if they've been demonstrated and you're still disputing them? That's not something any of us has the liberty to do. You cannot pick and choose which demonstrable facts you want to believe in.

                            You're conflating your skepticism of facts with disagreements of opinion. And that weakens your position considerably.

                            There doesn't have to be any "arguments" about it.  Either you dispute a specific fact or you don't.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:08:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Who knew the dictionary is (0+ / 0-)

                            dedicated to me.

                            I appreciate the honor, but I must decline: The dictionary is for everyone.

                          •  ? (0+ / 0-)

                            Who said the dictionary was dedicated to you? Really, your confabulation is stupendous. You seem to think that my ownership of the part of this definition that I think applies to me on this issue, is about you. I didn't mention you in the comment you are replying to nor did I imply anything about you in this comment.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:43:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think "2a" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Onomastic

                            describes me the best with emphasis on "a particular area." I would add the caveat that it is much easier to look back and find facts proven, than it to find them in the morass of information out there today. Patience is still a virtue when looking for the ultimate truth, imo.

                            And, I think skepticism is not a dirty word. I could give you tons of examples of those who have questioned what was seen as "true knowledge" that have been proved to be right, and that we are plenty glad were there to question.

                            There are many things I am not skeptical about at all.  

                            But again, this is splitting hairs, or asking me to agree with you on everything, or anybody here to agree on everything.  And I don't. I certainly don't agree that questioning is disputing the facts---which assumes everyone agrees on what the facts are. Which they don't.

                             

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:55:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then you should have no trouble (0+ / 0-)

                            articulating exactly what is uncertain and why, so that others who aren't skeptical enough can go back and look at that particular area and re-review any facts disseminated--to see if they've been backed up.

                             

                            a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:01:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Done for today, lunachickie. (0+ / 0-)

                            You are not interested in my answers, not really. You are interested in making your point. And you have. Several times.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:19:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What has been made clear here is (0+ / 0-)

                            that you simply cannot or will not answer with specifics because you have conflated "fact" and "opinion" and pretended that the reason for that is because some of us aren't "skeptical" enough of a certain reporter and therefore we're just unreasonable.

                            That is very clearly your position, otherwise you would be more specific with the facts that you dispute. And not go out of your way to avoid being specific.

                            If that's where you're leaving this discussion, StellaRay, then your position simply is not very believable.
                             

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:14:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have come to understand (0+ / 0-)

                            that you don't find my position very believable. Which I can deal with. I do wonder at how your initial openness to this discussion has turned into an attack on me.

                            I have not attacked your position or your beliefs. Not once. Nor have I or would I, tell you that your position is "not very believable." I just assume it is your position, and something I can disagree with here and there, but not something I can call unbelievable.  

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:27:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not attacking you (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm asking you to back up your assertion that we're not all skeptical enough by explaining exactly why that is. Why can't you just do that?

                            It's not up to you or me or anybody else to disagree with a fact. Facts are not the same thing as opinions.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:30:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I could pull out the dictionary (0+ / 0-)

                            for the word skeptical here:

                            http://www.merriam-webster.com/...

                            The second defnition, according to the diarist, when someone else went down that road, is not what she meant.

                            That leaves 1.

                            ": an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object"

                            Here's synonymies

                            "distrust, distrustfulness, dubiety, dubitation [archaic], incertitude, misdoubt, misgiving, mistrust, mistrustfulness, query, reservation, doubt, suspicion, uncertainty"

                            Most of which center around trust.

                          •  Which has zero to do with my comment or the (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Onomastic, StellaRay

                            question I posed.

                            The only other element is that the untrue statement is either given intentionally or by accident. The later given the attitudes here isn't a likely candidate.
                            This is the justification you gave for Kovie calling StellaRay a liar. A vague allusion to "attitudes" which you don't bother to explain or even connect to anything StellaRay actually said.

                            This has nothing to do with the definition of skepticism and everything to do with your own preconceived notions which, evidently, you are loathe to explain. Unless you're arguing that skepticism always equates to calling someone a liar, something the definition doesn't support and which contradicts your own earlier post.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:24:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            couldn't have said it better myself, and am glad for this brief moment in this very long day, I didn't have to.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:38:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  It will not be possible (4+ / 0-)

                        for kovie to site where I said that, because I did not say that. Kovie is the one who's making false allegations, and has not managed a comment to me without an insult.

                        "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                        by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:33:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes I know (4+ / 0-)

                          it was a blatant lie. The only question is whether it was the result of incoherence or cynical malice.

                          Nothing human is alien to me.

                          by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:54:40 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And it's not as if the cynicism (0+ / 0-)

                            isn't justifiable.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:18:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Cynicism is fine. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            etherealfire, WB Reeves, Ianb007

                            Making untrue allegations about what a diarist said, is not.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:34:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  many such heated allegations (0+ / 0-)

                            are a direct result of said cynicism.
                             

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:21:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  One can be cynical (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            etherealfire, Ianb007

                            without being rude and making false, not "heated" allegations.
                            If you think I said Greenwald and Snowden were lying, then again, I invite you to show me the quote from my diary that you base this on. I sure haven't heard from Kovie on this.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:24:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, they can (0+ / 0-)

                            but the "heated" part tends to make  us human and forget the manners our parents taught us.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:42:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Calling people liars without a shred of (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            StellaRay

                            substantiation isn't bad manners, it's slander and prevarication and there is no justification for it.

                            If it's the result of a fit of temper, the proper course is to withdraw it with an apology.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:06:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's also typical human behavior (0+ / 0-)

                            I invite you to, the next time you have a fit of temper, withdraw and apologize immediately. Or demonstrate where you ever have, say, on this blog. If you've ever done such a thing, then you, too, are human.

                            Your reaction to this "blog lie" seems a wee bit hysterical, as if you've forgotten that humans sometimes say shit that isn't right to say.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:13:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            StellaRay

                            Here ya go.

                            You see Luna, some people actually try to live up to the values they espouse.

                            This is only my most recent apology. I haven't made that many but certainly more than one. I guess that qualifies me as human but it excuses nothing. Why you think it should is an interesting question. I look forward to you excusing it the next time someone labels you a liar, a Snowden humper, etc. That will be a sight to see.

                            I find your attempt to push my buttons by describing my opposition to slander and falsehood as "hysterical" pretty hysterical itself. :)

                            Oh, and let me possibly save you some time. If you're going to say that the link doesn't count because it isn't in this diary, you need to be more specific. Daily Kos is the blog, this is a diary.

                            If you think I need to apologize for something I said here, you should point it out.  

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:04:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I will remind you of this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            comment in threads to come. I expect you will employ the same tolerance as you do for Kovie calling me a liar, with others who are not in synch with your POV.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:40:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Go right ahead n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:15:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Do it (0+ / 0-)

                        Put your money where your mouth is and HR me. Do it. Do it now.

                        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                        by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:46:41 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So you can pose as a Martyr? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          StellaRay

                          So you can call me out for Hr'ing someone I'm in an argument with?

                          I think not.

                          I had the option of Hr'ing you before I commented. Instead I chose to give you the chance to show some integrity and withdraw the slur. Seems it was a waste of effort.

                          Nothing human is alien to me.

                          by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:06:56 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I am quite pleased that so far (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          WB Reeves

                          no one has been Hr'd in this thread. Everyone has had their say, including you. And it's all out there, on the record. Nothing has been hidden. Very open.

                          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                          by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:30:49 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  No, I did not. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      WB Reeves, etherealfire

                      You need to step away from your keyboard. You are the one making unfounded accusations.

                      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:30:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  kovie (10+ / 0-)

                was responding to attacks on GG "attention whore".

                Which is an example of not saying anything real on real issues

                Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:05:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think its interesting that they (14+ / 0-)

                  believe we shouldn't analysis the NSA issue based on all the evidence, but instead want us to focus on one aspect of the story as if its the only aspect

                  Do we need to be one hundred percent comfortable with either Snowden or Greendwald to realize there is sufficient evidence to back their claims?

                  They seem to think we must be emotionally comfortable with them.  Hence the "attention whore" part

                  Why is this important in terms of what other evidence we now have to back up the overall problems with the NSA?

                  •  we have (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    shaharazade, Dianna, Joieau, lunachickie

                    independent confirmation of a lot which now renders Snowden irrelevant.

                    If we only had Snowden's word for it, I would be inclined to agree with the wait-and-see approach.  But that is not where we are at

                    Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                    by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:26:22 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I would as well (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      WheninRome, lunachickie

                      But the fact is that this is a pattern here

                      Whenever something bad comes out bout the President or the Democratic party, there's a tendency to want people to be skeptical and for the person arguing such reservation its not grounded in anything

                      Again I point out the example of the grand bargain where for months despite the president's various hints, we were told "oh you don't know that. Up doesn't mean up"

                      Where one keeps seeing th epattern again and gain it stops being about being skeptical. It starts being about a bias.

                      It ultimately means no evidence would ever be good enough

                      The result of waiting months and months with the grand bargain issue was that even after he admitted it, the argument didn't become "lets all rally against this"

                      It became lets make excuses for it.

            •  Credible journalist? Greenwald? (0+ / 0-)

              While we're at it, I'd like you all to give a nice "Hi, everybody!" to a credible doctor, Dr. Nick Riviera.

              Já þýðir já. Nei þýðir nei. Hvað er svona erfitt við það?

              by Rei on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:16:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So what facts of the Snowden story (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gulfgal98, koNko

                reported by Glenn Greenwald are you disputing? Please be specific.

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:19:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If you've missed all the diaries about Greenwald, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ianb007

                  both his current articles on the Snowden affair and his long history of BSing in the past, both on this site and others, that's your problem, I hardly have time to repeat all that for you to account for your lack of paying attention.

                  Já þýðir já. Nei þýðir nei. Hvað er svona erfitt við það?

                  by Rei on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:04:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  And you've asked Ian007 to stop leading with (4+ / 0-)

            "Greenwald is an attention whore"?  There are 2 already and I'm only 1/10th of the way down the thread.

            The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

            by JVolvo on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:30:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Greenwald is an attention whore (0+ / 0-)

              That's my opinion.  You may disagree.  However it's not the same as insulting someone.  The two are different.

              Stella has already disagreed with my opinion of Greenwald, she can't ask me to stop expressing my opinion but common courtesy alone should be enough for certain people to stop insulting others on DKOS.

              Right man, right job and right time

              by Ianb007 on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:08:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  1 (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too, tytalus, sviscusi, etherealfire



          Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

          by Wee Mama on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:03:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And to take narrow it further, I believe (12+ / 0-)

        the issue is not necessarily that abuse has occurred (though it may have and we may never know), BUT the specter of easy abuse these programs expose innocent U.S. citizens. . .

        which IN FACT is unConstitutional.

        Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

        by Einsteinia on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:52:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Soooo, Greenwald help make the issue sexy (10+ / 0-)

        enough to wake people up, but he's an "attention whore"?

        Curious how journalism works, huh?


        "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

        by Pescadero Bill on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:55:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think Snowden is the one who made it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catte Nappe

          an interesting story.

          Right man, right job and right time

          by Ianb007 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:21:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Have you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lunachickie

            no interest in the fact that under the bogus auspices of the bogus nebulous GWOT your government is dismantling the Bill of Rights, and all the checks and balances of power that keep these dark spooks and powerful entities at bay? Have you no interest in democracy or the real protections afforded by the universal rules of law people have developed over centuries to keep them save?    

            •  Minor disagreement: HAS dismantled (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shaharazade

              The only Amendment that has been expanded rather than contracted and compromised and weaselsplained into utter uselessness is the Second.

              If it's
              Not your body,
              Then it's
              Not your choice
              And it's
              None of your damn business!

              by TheOtherMaven on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:12:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Funny that... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Knucklehead

                guess theyfigure the second will keep us all busy shooting each other or getting out of the crossfire that we won't notice that they eaten all the rest of our rights.

                 "It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
                "To play them such a trick,
                After we've brought them out so far,
                And made them trot so quick!"
                The Carpenter said nothing but
                "The butter's spread too thick!"

                "I weep for you," the Walrus said:
                "I deeply sympathize."
                With sobs and tears he sorted out
                Those of the largest size,
                Holding his pocket-handkerchief
                Before his streaming eyes.

                "O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
                "You've had a pleasant run!
                Shall we be trotting home again?'
                But answer came there none--
                And this was scarcely odd, because
                They'd eaten every one.

            •  This NSA fiasco is far from a dismantling of (0+ / 0-)

              the Bill of Rights.  Hyperbole is not really moving the discussion forward.

              Of course I care about the all that you mentioned.  I just don't buy the Greenwald and Snowden sell job and the BS assertions

              Right man, right job and right time

              by Ianb007 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:00:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please provide (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                shaharazade

                an explanation as to exactly what assertions being made are "BS assertions".

                And...

                I just don't buy the Greenwald and Snowden sell job

                That's your opinion. You can buy it or not, feel free! But it has so far been demonstrated that our Constitution is being grossly and criminally undermined by government intrusion.

                To deny that because you don't care for the reporter--and absent specifics (as requested above) seems to demonstrate a clear aversion to reality.

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:22:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I would add (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gulfgal98

                  that GG and Snowden are not alone in these assertions. There are and have been many voices now and during the Bushies regime, who have been standing up and speaking truth to power. If people are determined to stick their heads in the sand and not look at the reality we live in there is nothing that will convince them the dark is not light.

                  As evidence starts coming in and it will because courage is contagious, those who refuse to look at what is really happening will continue to believe that this is acceptable. They are authoritarians who do not think that the Bill of Rights or our democratic republic system is more important then the unbelievable narrative that is being spun. This unbelievable fiction is used to justify the 'way forward', these assholes have for their 'inevitable' NWO and their corporate global agenda.  

                  •  I can't even get tied up on their agenda (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    shaharazade, orestes1963

                    because that distracts from what they're doing now.

                    And those who support them are probably running the table, in terms of why. I truly think most of it is rooted in denial, whether it manifests in authoritarianism or hatred or whatever. It's simple, though: the facts here are far too painful for a lot of people to even contemplate.

                    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                    by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:12:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  When Glen Greenwald made the assertion (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WB Reeves

                  that the govt has direct backdoor access to al the servers of the major tech companies like Facebook and Google and can monitor all activities without a warrant it was Bull shit.

                  http://www.vanityfair.com/...

                  http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/...

                    Even the Guardian had to walk back Greenwalds over the top claim as pointed out here

                  http://littlegreenfootballs.com/...

                  The Guardian understands that the NSA approached those companies and asked them to enable a “dropbox” system whereby legally requested data could be copied from their own server out to an NSA-owned system. That has allowed the companies to deny that there is “direct or indirect” NSA access, to deny that there is a “back door” to their systems, and that they only comply with “legal” requests - while not explaining the scope of that access.
                  Here is nice article on the over exaggeration of Mr Greenwald

                  http://thedailybanter.com/...

                  Right man, right job and right time

                  by Ianb007 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:40:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  anyone? Bueller? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                orestes1963

                got an answer?

                an explanation as to exactly what assertions being made are "BS assertions".

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:15:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  apparently not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              orestes1963
              Have you no interest in the fact that under the bogus auspices of the bogus nebulous GWOT your government is dismantling the Bill of Rights, and all the checks and balances of power that keep these dark spooks and powerful entities at bay?
              Typical of these "flame wars" are the people like that who lob stink bombs but never bother to justify the actual smell when asked to do so.

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:21:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Greenwald isn't the story (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lunachickie

        He isn't even close to being the story.
           A very select number of people are trying to make him the story, and all that does is try to distract us from the real story.

        None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

        by gjohnsit on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:20:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Is Greenwald as big a liar as Clapper? (0+ / 0-)

        Did Greenwald tell us Saddam had WMD's?  Did Snowden say North Vietnam attacked the US in the Gulf of Tonkin?  Have Greenwald/Snowden broken every treaty with the Native Americans they ever signed?

        When it comes to lying - it's the air the government breathes.

        Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

        by bobdevo on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:45:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really? The US govt is one monolithic entity (0+ / 0-)

          since 1776 that acts and speaks as one for over 200 years.  in that case we should want govt out of healthcare, bank regulations and social security.

          Right man, right job and right time

          by Ianb007 on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:18:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't say that . . . . (0+ / 0-)

            but anyone who BELIEVES what the government tells them is an idiot.

            And the last time I checked - Obama hired Clapper.

            Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

            by bobdevo on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 05:27:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is equally idiotic (0+ / 0-)

              to disbelieve everything merely because the govt says it.

                There are many writers besides the govt that have set the record straight on what the NSA is actually doing.

              Right man, right job and right time

              by Ianb007 on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 07:54:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed? (0+ / 0-)

        You agreed that Greenwald is a distraction from the real issue and then you attack Greenwald? Way to go.

        We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

        by denise b on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:56:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  OK. Let's go with that. (17+ / 0-)

      No Greenwald. No Snowden. Except if we cross them out, what are the other accusations against the NSA that have drawn any interest? If we cross them out would we even be talking about this tonight?

      See, that's the thing. It's Snowden and Greenwald that brought this up for discussion, in a bigger way than ever, so if you dismiss them from the equation, what do we have to go on?

      I don't want to dismiss either, because I think they've both gone on record for what they believe in, and I think they deserve to be part of the conversation and I think willing the veracity, motivation and agenda of either of them to not be part of the conversation is pretty useless, although it is repeated here endlessly.

      They brought this to the fore. That's a good thing. But despite the old adage "don't kill the messenger" folks have always questioned the messenger, and they should.

      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

      by StellaRay on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 11:56:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The rec list diary notwithstanding, (54+ / 0-)

        their credibility isn't really a big issue in any of this.  Snowden leaked documents to the Guardian that explained the Prism program in the NSA's own terms, and they began denying the accuracy of their own material from the very first day.

        And further revelations keep coming out every day.  I expect them to ramp up.  there was another diary recently that showed that the the NSA just hired 90% of their system analysts (Snowden's job) for security reasons.  Well, that's 90% of their employees that will be hanging out on gaming forums bitching to each toher about their former employer.  I wonder how many new leaks we'll get out of that.

        It hasn't proven to be a safe bet to argue that things are not as bad as they seem.  They always seem to be revealed to be worse than first admitted or thought.  I expect time to sort this out even further.

        •  Well, (19+ / 0-)

          I'm afraid that to most Americans the credibility of Greenwald and Snowden IS an issue, no matter how many on this blog want to deny that. IF the message was something that repulsed you, you would go after the messenger, as folks do here every single freaking day when it comes to republicans. Every single day in numerous comments, folks here take down the messenger, if he/she is republican. They do it personally, and with all kinds of pithy comments, visuals and cartoons.

          I am Switzerland when it comes to Greenwald and Snowden, I really am. In that I don't hold their motivations sacrosanct, nor do I diss them. And I didn't do so anywhere in this diary.

          I am happy to see this conversation happen, I just wish it was more nuanced than it is most of the time here. Black or white, those are your choices here on this topic.  I'm not comfortable with that. And that's what my diary was about.

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:25:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If Snowden's information were inaccurate... (57+ / 0-)

            ...Why would the U.S. Government force down a diplomatically protected aircraft of a head of state to get him?

            Why would government officials threaten countries considering offering him sanctuary?

            Why would government officials claim Snowden had done grave damage to national security?

            Did Obama cancel the summit with Putin because Snowden hurt his fee-fees?

            After all, people come up with crazy conspiracy theories all the time. The government hasn't tried to imprison and 911 conspiracy theorists, for example, despite what they have alleged about the activities of various intelligence agencies.

            No Stella, no government official has claimed the documents released so far are inaccurate. And the validity of the documents does not depend on the motivations of the people leaking and publishing them.

            Thanks to everyone, whether they agree with me or not, for making this such an outstanding community. I know we usually want to see the same things for the country even when we disagree over individual politicians.

            by expatjourno on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:49:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I know I've asked this before (8+ / 0-)

              but is there any actual proof to that claim?

              I know there wasn't the last time I asked but well you never know

              In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
              Shop Kos Katalogue
              Der Weg ist das Ziel

              by duhban on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:14:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you know (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lunachickie

                If you really feel you know something, how much money are you prepared to wager on being right?

                zero dollars

                Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:36:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Wow you guys are (8+ / 0-)

                like climate change deniers. The docs were not just released without being vetted and checked by the Guardian or even the WaPo. Is Spencer Ackerman the Guardians US editor a lying attention whore. Even this administration does not deny that these docs are valid. What they do do is try to sell this unconstitutional Kafkaesque security state into legal and necessary. The 'parsing' coming out of the WH is so lame that it would be laughable if it wasn't another piece of the destruction of our civil and human rights down the rabbit hole.      

                •  You mean the way they "vetted" (5+ / 0-)

                  the characterization of Congressman John Lewis comments?

                  I've been a Guardian reader for decades and they have a good deal of credibility in my eyes but I don't treat any newspaper as gospel.

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:17:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Again (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    shaharazade

                    and again the diarist has been requested to post specific facts that she feels people haven't been skeptical enough of.

                    And the Guardian isn't the only paper reporting this. How many times does this have to be pointed out before the fake skepticism and bullshit insinuations stop?

                    They're right--you guys do sound like climate-change deniers. Seriously.

                    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                    by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:28:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think the diarist is sincere. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      shaharazade, StellaRay, WB Reeves

                      I accept that some people who disagree with me are sincere (but wrong), and some just want to argue on autopilot, and there's a gray area in between, as well.

                      •  Thank you for this. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Dumbo, shaharazade

                        I am sincere in what I wrote.  And I accept that you think I'm wrong. I'm Ok with that. What would a day on the DK be like if we all agreed? Scary to think about, huh?  I thank you for communicating without insult.

                        "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                        by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:54:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh, so we're all liars now? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      StellaRay
                      fake skepticism and bullshit insinuations stop?
                      There's nothing fake about my skepticism. At this point I'm skeptical of everything I hear on this topic since so many people insist on treating their prejudices as fact. A reality that recent public embarrassments have born out.

                      No bullshit insinuations either. I stated plainly that the Guardian isn't perfect and gave a recent example of them screwing up. You may not like it but there's no insinuation involved. Moreover, I was responding to someone who cited the Guardian as authoritative. If you want to complain about not mentioning other newspapers, you should complain to them.

                      StellaRay posted the questions she'd like answered. You don't get to impose your agenda on her diary.

                      Nothing human is alien to me.

                      by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:27:33 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  And again and again (0+ / 0-)

                      the diarist has answered to these requests in the way she feels is correct and honest for her and focused on the point her diary was trying to make, without getting into arguing every "fact" that is controversial.

                      And again and again that has not been good enough for those who really have no interest in what the diarist thinks, and are much more interested in what they think.

                      And I expected nothing less when I chose to write a diary on this topic, which I have expressed many times in these comments. So I'm not whining about it, just stating it as I see it.

                      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:51:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The facts are not the controversy here (0+ / 0-)

                        the opinions of the facts are. And that's a problem because it is not LOGICAL.

                        Anyone who thinks they can look at a set of facts and say "I don't agree with those facts" and call that "skepticism" is taking liberties with the language.

                        One can be skeptical of opinion all day long.  You've been asked repeatedly to separate the two and provide a fact that you believe hasn't been proven, thus deserving of your skepticism. And you have finally come right out and said you purposely won't do that.

                        And that's simply not being honest, either with yourself or others participating in the discussion. And I also think you understand that, very well.

                        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                        by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:16:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  What I find dishonest (0+ / 0-)

                          Is blathering on about facts with out presenting a single one.

                          Nothing human is alien to me.

                          by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:30:33 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And the diarist has been doing that all day (0+ / 0-)

                            there's been diary after diary, byline after byline, op-ed after op-ed and hardcore news stories that back up the Guardian allegations. Yet the diarist merely says "we're not "skeptical" enough.

                            I noticed that the title has changed, to remove the word "skeptical". Perhaps that helps make the overall premise here a little more honest, because StellaRay never would say exactly which facts she thinks are disputable. And because it's HER diary and HER POV, it's up to her to do so, WB Reeves. Not me, not you, not anyone else. The diarist.

                            Could she enumerate even one specific fact? No. In fact, she came right out and said that she purposely would not provide one "because of all the arguing."

                            The arguing this diarist is speaking of isn't about the facts, it's about the opinions surrounding who brought those facts to the world at large. That is conflating fact and opinion, pure and simple.

                            You can call people dishonest for pointing that out all day long--it doesn't change it.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:42:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            Again, you do not speak for me, as much as you try to. And your summary of the diarist is not something this diarist agrees with.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:32:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Luna, that is entirely bogus (0+ / 0-)

                            You don't like the diary because it isn't talking about what you want to talk about. Tough. You don't get to tell others what they can or can't discuss. Neither do you get to decide what is or isn't a fact based on what you choose to believe.

                            And the diarist has been doing that all day there's been diary after diary, byline after byline, op-ed after op-ed and hardcore news stories that back up the Guardian allegations. Yet the diarist merely says "we're not "skeptical" enough.
                            Here you conflate diaries, Op-eds and "hard core news stories". What is that other than conflating opinion with fact? If you think you can point to a hard core news story that backs up the entirety of GG and Snowden's allegations please do. So far, every time I've checked out one of these supposed confirmations, that characterization has turned out to be either a gross exaggeration or an opinion masquerading as fact.

                            Tons of media reported the Guardian Blog's mischaracterizations of Congressman John Lewis' recent remarks. All that attention didn't alter the fact that they were mischaracterized. So please, if you actually can point me to a hard core news story that completely vindicates every jot and tittle of GG and Snowden's allegations as reported by the Guardian, do so.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 11:51:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Just to be clear, (0+ / 0-)

                          no, I don't understand it as you see it.

                          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                          by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:39:18 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Then you are purposely (0+ / 0-)

                            picking and choosing information to suit your own world view, based on who brought the information to you.

                            That has nothing to do with skepticism, whether you want to understand that or not.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:46:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again no. (0+ / 0-)

                            You're the one who is trying to say what I think is based on who brought the information to me. That is not correct about me.

                            And frankly, at this point, I'm sick to shit of you telling me what is and what isn't about how I feel or think. Again, I have not done this to you, but it seems you just can't help yourself.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:26:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  really? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WB Reeves

                  like the Lewis interview? Like claiming Snowden was an analyst when he really wasn't? Like Snowden claiming he had broad access to data that he really had to abuse his position to get?

                  I really liked the Guardian, still do but frankly you seem more and more like hte climate change deniers in that you can't face any reality in which Obama is not evil incarnate and GG is a saint with Snowden a hero.

                  In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
                  Shop Kos Katalogue
                  Der Weg ist das Ziel

                  by duhban on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:32:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Snowden stole classified documents (4+ / 0-)

              That's why he's been criminally charged.

              Let me ask you this. If in addition to stealing those documents and claiming he was able to wiretap anyone he felt like without further authorization (including the president), Snowden had also claimed the moon was made of green cheese, would you see the Obama administration's criminal charges against Snowden as conclusive proof that the moon was made of green cheese?

              I hope not. It's not proof of anything.

              •  false analogy (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo, Joieau, lunachickie

                We know from other information that the moon is made of yellow cheese.

                We do not have that other information for the Snowden claims

                Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:32:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My point was (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hey338Too, Larsstephens

                  that criminal charges only establish that the government believes it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged is guilty of the offenses charged, not that each and every thing the person has claimed is true.

                  I'm not quite sure of what to make of your yellow cheese comment.

                  •  however (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    orestes1963, expatjourno

                    we have Obama confirming and defending certain things.  So it does seem plausible that he would point out the errors if Snowden was wrong on certain things.

                    And the story is so big that there is an incentive for people to speak out.

                    Wyden has said that the NSA program has not delivered very much in terms of fighting terrorism.

                    We just get "true believers" who have swallowed the whole lie and think that the NSA system does help.  When you actually break it down, you find little help.

                    And it does seem that the 4th amendment is being disgarded to permit a dragnet approach which does undermine trust in the government and calls into question the entire secret judicial system whereby terrible unconstitutional laws are just rubber stamped

                    Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                    by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:39:22 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't care if he broke the law. (0+ / 0-)

                    Some laws need to be broken from time to time.  I understand the law is always sacrosanct to you, no matter what other extenuating circumstances, but not everybody feels that way.

              •  That's pathetic (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                expatjourno, Dumbo

                Really? You're gonna stick with that, huh?

                None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

                by gjohnsit on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:33:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The documents are classified (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Reggid, CroneWit, Hey338Too

              The U.S. Government is trying to capture Snowden because they have accused him of releasing classified documents. The validity of the documents or the damage done is also important but regardless, they'd like to capture him and bring him to trial simply for releasing classified materials.

              [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

              by rabel on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:32:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So the documents are real, not fakes. Q.E.D. (14+ / 0-)

                Thanks to everyone, whether they agree with me or not, for making this such an outstanding community. I know we usually want to see the same things for the country even when we disagree over individual politicians.

                by expatjourno on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:47:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I've never thought the documents were fake. (9+ / 0-)

                  But in all the reading I've done from all the debating computer geeks here, I cannot say with any certainty that I know all the claims on either side are true. That was the point of my diary.

                  Some here think I'm making an "equivalence." I'm not. I just don't know. I don't have the certainty many here do. That's all.

                  "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                  by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:00:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The claims are corroborated by the documents... (23+ / 0-)

                    ...and by other whistleblowers—and even other governments. I don't know how much more evidence you need.

                    No one disputes that the programs exist nor what they are capable of. The only disputes are a) whether they are legal in the U.S. (They indisputably break European data protection law and laws of other countries) b) whether they are good or bad and c) just how easily someone could commit abuse.

                    When it comes to the latter, any systems administrator for a corporate IT department can give you a pretty clear idea of what access sysadmins have. Snowden was one of the guys who had to reset people's passwords. He would by the nature of his job have had immense access to things an analyst or ordinary user of the system would not have had.

                    Thanks to everyone, whether they agree with me or not, for making this such an outstanding community. I know we usually want to see the same things for the country even when we disagree over individual politicians.

                    by expatjourno on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:11:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Great comment (12+ / 0-)

                      A reasonable debate at this point is "Do you think we should do anything about the NSA issue and if so what?" Not "there's no proof. The later argument is divorced from reality.

                    •  Other whistelblowers? Yeah -- from 2004! (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Hey338Too, Larsstephens

                      See?  Just more "truthy" bullshit.  A whistleblower from 2004, about warrantless spying under Bush, pre-FISA 2008, pre-Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, five years before Obama ever took office, is being spun into "corroborating" evidence of Snowden's claims.

                      Utter nonsense.

                      •  What is wrong with whistleblowers from 2004? (0+ / 0-)

                        Reggid, I read your diary, and I lost hope after I read your point about how things that happened before Obama became president were irrelevant.  As if this was all about defaming Obama rather than about NSA domestic spying.  

                        I can't say that you're making a strawman argument when you do that because that would mean you are knowingly setting up a false argument.  You seem to think that that's what all this is about, all that's important.

                        It doesn't matter.  It was happening before Obama, during Obama, and unless something is done, it will continue to happen AFTER Obama.

                        I don't think Obama is the root of the problem at all, so I just ignore everything else you say when you start talking like that.  I don't care.

                    •  This: (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      WB Reeves, Larsstephens, etherealfire
                      any systems administrator for a corporate IT department can give you a pretty clear idea of what access sysadmins have. Snowden was one of the guys who had to reset people's passwords. He would by the nature of his job have had immense access to things an analyst or ordinary user of the system would not have had.
                      I have read many comments here and elsewhere from dueling computer geeks who do not agree this as straight forward as you present it.

                      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:33:45 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Then you didn't talk to a systems admin (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lunachickie

                        I am a systems admin, and I can destroy every server and access every piece of data on my system if I so choose. If one of those "computer geeks" tells you otherwise then they are either ignorant, or a liar.

                           Of course my job is to make sure that nothing gets destroyed and all the data is protected, and its my a** if I don't protect it.

                        None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

                        by gjohnsit on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:38:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I did not argue (0+ / 0-)

                          what a systems admin. can or can't do. Some have, but I didn't. I wouldn't know, and respect your knowledge of your industry.

                          There other issues besides the capacity of a systems admin, and about the documents presented as proof that the NSA is reading e-mails and listening to phone calls without any need for approval or supervision.

                          As you yourself say, although the capacity is there for you to use much power, you don't because the sacrifice would be your job and livelihood. You are not the only person that is true of.

                          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                          by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:49:52 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Stella, with all due respect, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            StellaRay
                            As you yourself say, although the capacity is there for you to use much power, you don't because the sacrifice would be your job and livelihood. You are not the only person that is true of.
                            This is irrelevant.  For one thing, that doesn't dispute Snowden at all.  For another, I'm not worried about what SNOWDEN could have done to me at NSA.  I'm worried about what NSA can do to me, after following all the "proper" procedures.  

                            We know from everything that has been disclosed so far that they have enormous powers to spy on Americans.  We know that after retreating to multiple backup positions, they have had to admit that they DO spy on Americans, and the number they spy on keeps increasing.  With three hops, it became exponentially big enough to possibly encompass every living American.  (That's just math).  We know that they ASSURE us that they wouldn't do it unless they thought it was really important, but they have been exposed as liars, and people on the Senate Intel committee have been hinting for a long time that they have exceeded their authority.

                            How much should we just believe ASSURANCES (and these assurances only come late, after Snowden leaked the PRiSM documents and started the ball rolling)?  Some people will believe those assurances, other people won't.  That's a fair distinction between us and that's a nice dividing line for a fair fight.

                          •  I do not disagree with most of what you say here. (0+ / 0-)

                            And I don't believe we should just believe in any assurances. I don't think many here do.  I also think there are some restrictions and risks involved with using the power anyone who has restricted access has.

                            That said, again, I want to know a whole more about this. I want to know who has access, and how are they vetted, just for beginners. An entirely different conversation is why the hell we leave this to private contractors, but that's a whole different diary.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:49:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Point taken (0+ / 0-)
                            An entirely different conversation is why the hell we leave this to private contractors, but that's a whole different diary.
                            So why not write THAT diary?

                            Why waste your time picking nits regarding "Greenwald and Snowden" when you can really get your teeth into something?

                            If it's
                            Not your body,
                            Then it's
                            Not your choice
                            And it's
                            None of your damn business!

                            by TheOtherMaven on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:09:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  She's making the point that (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          orestes1963, StellaRay

                          we don't KNOW exactly all the specific types of access Snowden had, that even though the access he had MIGHT have been like that, we have no way of knowing for sure without reading NSA job descriptions and interviewing his office peers about what they could do.  Something like that.

                          Personally, I'm less worried that Snowden could have listened to the president's phone call than that he might listen to my phone calls.  I'm not protected by the Secret Service and multiple layers of security.  I'm just a guy who donated to Wikileaks and sends emails to Vladimir Putin and writes diaries defaming ex-NSA chiefs.  I suspect I do already get a higher level of NSA scrutiny, although I can't prove it.

                          And I think it a more disturbing thought that people LIKE me might be under closer scrutiny than that Obama might be, not just because I'm self-centered, but because it means our democracy is fucked over.  We have to be able to dissent in this country without becoming targets of government surveillance.

                          •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dumbo

                            And we have to be able to dissent on this site, or to take a different spin on things, as long as we are respectful with how we do it, and not be the target of disdain and insult. I say this because there are corollaries. We all want our freedom of speech, but we must also grant that to others.

                            I agree with you, it is very disturbing that you might be under close scrutiny. Good Lord, for the number of petitions I've signed and the causes I've signed them for, I could be under close scrutiny too.

                            But we don't know that. We have no proof of that. So it is about our fears at this point. And while those fears are justifiable, they are not the same as facts.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:59:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  That's possible, Stella. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        StellaRay

                        We don't know all the details of that, although, really, that's not critical at all to how I feel about the situation.  Suppose, for the sake of argument, I stipulate the following:

                        Snowden was exaggerating when he said that he thought he could have listened to the president if he wanted to.

                        I still feel like... so?  Does that mean they get to track the activity of so many Americans (I believe it will be proven eventually to be all Americans, but we'll wait for that) with such flimsy, generalized secret "search warrants?"

                        However, I don't stipulate that.  Tice already said once he had paperwork on Obama when he was senator.  It seems to confirm something terribly wrong is going on there.

                        A more interesting question, if I wanted to help the other side, might be this:

                        "Does the NSA spying only target and invade the privacy of suspected foreign terrorists and people very close to them?"

                        Too easy.  We know the answer to that is no.  Three hops, for instance.

                        •  No disagreement (0+ / 0-)

                          with Greenwald or Snowden, no assessment of their credibility motivations or choices, means the NSA gets to track and spy on Americans however they want. Period.

                          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                          by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:10:01 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay, that tells us everything we need to know (0+ / 0-)

                            You're just throwing dust in everyone's eyes.

                            It DOES NOT MATTER whether anyone "agrees" with Greenwald or with Snowden in ANY particular.

                            It DOES NOT MATTER what their motivations were.

                            It DOES NOT MATTER who was or is President when these matters came to light.

                            It DOES MATTER what has been revealed about what the NSA and other US espionage agencies have been up to.

                            It DOES MATTER whether they will be permitted/encouraged to continue and expand such activities.

                            If you don't care about any of that, fine, go stick your head in the sand and go "La la la Greenwald is an attention whore, Snowden is a liar and a traitor, la la la it's all good".

                            But remember that when your head is in the sand, your butt is sticking up and is a big fat target.

                            http://www.youtube.com/...

                            If it's
                            Not your body,
                            Then it's
                            Not your choice
                            And it's
                            None of your damn business!

                            by TheOtherMaven on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 12:54:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your rudeness (0+ / 0-)

                            is noted. But more importantly, you have put all kinds of words in my mouth here, as have others. You throw out a bunch of shit I never implied or said. But I'm hardly the only one that's been greeted with that kind of behavior here, should you not entirely buy into the meme of the moment here.

                            And btw, your communication style sucks. If this is an example of progressives trying to sell their ideas and agenda, we're in trouble.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 03:24:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  What are the claims that you think (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    orestes1963

                    might not be true?  List an important claim or two, not the more speculative ones.

                    •  I don't see proof positive (0+ / 0-)

                      that the government is engaged in spying on our e-mails and phone interchanges willy nilly. I have stated this a couple of times here.

                      I have also stated that I think that they have the capacity to do so is as scary as whether they are doing so. Several times.

                      I have also stated, several times, that we can't affect change, as in legislation to repeal the patriot act, till we are able to delineate, to most, not all, people what is going on. And if we believe that the government is listening to our phone calls, and  reading our e-mails, we're going to have to continue to find evidence to support that.

                      Because while the public, according to polls, now believes the NSA has gone too far, I guarantee you the majority of them don't know the difference between meta data and worse, or how they feel about it. And IF this becomes up for legislation, these issues are going to be questioned.

                      I also feel that Glen Greenwald blurs the lines between his stories and his opinions, and he's not the only advocacy journalist to do so, and I'm not a hating on him, and certainly did not in my diary, as some here want to suggest I did.  I simply accept this is true about him, after reading years of his columns.

                      And I don't eat everything he says whole. That causes a lot of consternation here. Nor do I dismiss him or his reporting. I said the same in my diary, pretty clearly, but many did not want to hear what I said, or credit it. Understood and expected, if not enjoyed.

                      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:49:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Flanders & Swann: The Ostrich (0+ / 0-)

                        The Ostrich

                        Peek-a-Boo, I can't see you,
                        Everything must be grand.
                        Boo-ka-Pee, they can't see me,
                        As long as I've got me head in the sand.
                        Peek-a-Boo, it may be true,
                        There's something in what you've said,
                        But we've got enough troubles in everyday life,
                        I just bury me head.

                        Oh, Ostrich consider how the world we know
                        Is trembling on the brink.
                        Have you heard the news, may I hear your views,
                        Will you tell me what you think.
                        The Ostrich lifted its head from the sand,
                        About an inch or so;
                        'You will please excuse, but disturbing news
                        I have no wish to know.'

                        Oooh, Peek-a-Boo, I can't see you,
                        Everything must be grand.
                        Boo-ka-Pee, they can't see me,
                        As long as I've got me head in the sand.
                        Peek-a-Boo, it may be true,
                        There's something in what you've said,
                        But we've got enough troubles in everyday life,
                        I just bury me head.

                        Then I noticed suddenly where we were,
                        I saw what time it was.
                        Make haste, I said, It'll be too late,
                        We must leave this place because....
                        He stuffed his wingtips into his ears;
                        He would not hear me speak,
                        And back in the soft Saharan sand
                        He plunged his yellow beak.

                        Oooh, Peek-a-Boo, I can't see you,
                        Everything must be grand.
                        Boo-ka-Pee, they can't see me,
                        As long as I've got me head in the sand.
                        Peek-a-Boo, it may be true,
                        There's something in what you've said,
                        But we've got enough troubles in everyday life,
                        I just bury me....

                        (BOOM)

                        From a sheltered oasis a mile away
                        I observed that dreadful scene.
                        And a single plume came floating down
                        Where my Ostrich friend had been.
                        Because he could not bear the sound
                        Of these words I had left unsaid;
                        'Here in this nuclear testing ground
                        Is no place to bury your head!'

                        If it's
                        Not your body,
                        Then it's
                        Not your choice
                        And it's
                        None of your damn business!

                        by TheOtherMaven on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:13:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Ironic that (0+ / 0-)

                          a diary that asks for healthy skepticism and questioning gets accused of having its head in the sand.  Just more of the price of voice on the Daily Kos, this great bastion of anti-athoratarian thinking, except if you have a different POV.

                          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                          by StellaRay on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 03:10:42 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Evidence versus words (6+ / 0-)

              The leaking of the NSA documents by Snowden through the Guardian and to a lesser extent, the Washington Post is the physical verification of what other whistle blowers have tried to tell us in the past, but did not have documented evidence.

              The documents stand on their own, regardless of how you or anyone else feels personally about Edward Snowden or Glenn Greenwald.  They are tangible evidence.  Further, not one government official has disputed that fact.  

              I see diary after diary here charging that those who consistently cite these documents are somehow from the cult of Snowden or Greenwald.  No, the documents stand on their ownThos e who continue to hone in on Snowden or Greenwald are the ones who are trying to invalidate the documents by casting doubts about the messengers or in many cases smearing the messengers.  

              In addition, the evidence contained in these documents shows that the government has consistently lied about the extent of the information being gathered by the NSA and that such information is being gathered in a way that is in violation of our Constitutional Rights under the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.  so what we have is the govt's word saying "trust us" versus undisputed documents.

              To me that is the real issue, not whether you like or dislike Snowden or Greenwald.  They are simply the messengers.  The documents are the tangible evidence.  These documents are proof of what other whistle blowers have tried to tell us for years.  It speaks stronger than words.  There is no equivalency here.

              "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

              by gulfgal98 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:31:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  here's my on-the-one-hand... (15+ / 0-)

            As other folks are saying, there is information to evaluate regardless of Snowden and Greenwald's motivations -- so it's not at all that if we ignore them, the story goes away.

            I do seem to keep seeing uncritical "Greenwald reveals..." diaries, which don't impress me. No trouble if Greenwald actually reveals something; I just want to see someone kick the tires. (Kicking Greenwald himself is not so helpful.)

            Beyond that, I see a lot of credulity about poorly supported claims -- in all directions, as you say, but disproportionately in one direction because it's the direction we lean in the first place -- along with wild misrepresentations of other people's positions, name-calling, and all-around purity trolling.

            "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

            by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:29:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I doubt that Snowden or GG's (20+ / 0-)

            credibility matter much at all to most Americans. In fact, I wonder how many could even name GG as the primary reporter?

            "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

            by tardis10 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:46:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Can you provide even ONE piece of evidence (31+ / 0-)

            to support your contention that neither Snowden nor Greenwald are credible? Otherwise, your too clever by half attempt to discredit both with this "well both sides are questionable" false equivalence is textbook concern trolling.

            The fact that Greenwald has an in your face writing style and his career stands to benefit from this story is NOT evidence of his lack of credibility. Does a defiant tone discredit Krugman? Did the fact that Watergate made Woodward & Bernstein famous and rich discredit them?

            Stick to facts and leave the "Oh, well, I just don't know!" CTing to others.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:50:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know (7+ / 0-)

              the "truth" about many things concerning this issue, which is what my diary was about. If you don't like that, or can't tolerate the thought that someone feels that way, that's your business. But it does not make me a concern troll. It makes me honest to my viewpoint. We can do this without insulting each other. Or hasn't that occurred to you yet?

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What's the difference between "insulting" (6+ / 0-)

                someone by calling them a concern troll, and insulting someone by making an insultingly silly "argument", and then defending it with the proverbially silly "Well that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it!"?

                You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to not have it shown to be a very silly one. That's how this works.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:22:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not making an argument (5+ / 0-)

                  either way. I'm saying there's plenty of things to question here all around. I'm saying I don't know everything and I'm not sure about everything, like you are. If you choose to be insulted by that, not much I can do about it, or care to do about it.

                  "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                  by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:28:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are making the EXACT same sort of argument (12+ / 0-)

                    that more clever global warming denialists (or, more accurately, people who are trying to discredit global warming) make in order to cast doubts about it in the minds of non-wingnuts. He said this, she said that, who should I believe?

                    The ones with the facts, not the ones with the lies and coverups. And if you think that Snowden and Greenwald are making stuff up or have things wrong, why don't you have the integrity to offer specifics, and not this smearing with broad strokes nonsense? Otherwise, you're David Brooks.

                    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                    by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:33:44 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, I'm not. (6+ / 0-)

                      I'm not denying NSA spying so your comparison does not work.

                      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:08:50 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You're not "denying" it (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bruh1, lunachickie

                        But you are denying it, by casting aspersions on those who claim it.

                        Notice how most people aren't buying it, and those who are, are the usuals?

                        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                        by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:36:58 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Kovie, this is absolute crap (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          StellaRay, sviscusi, etherealfire

                          Unless you believe that everyone who agrees with your take is a Saint, it is obvious that there will be people of less than stellar credibility on both sides of any given debate. If you want to deny this you can but others aren't obliged to agree. Bury your head in the sand if you like but quit pretending that a healthy skepticism is the same as denial. That is a false equivalence and blatantly so.

                          Nothing human is alien to me.

                          by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:32:32 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, WB Reeves, it is not absolute crap (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            orestes1963

                            Crap is dodging questions and failing to provide specifics when pressed.

                            Which specific facts are in dispute?  

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:37:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have answered to you (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            etherealfire, WB Reeves

                            many times today lunachickie. Nothing I say can satisfy you that my POV is legitimate. But I do wonder that you support and defend the kind of insulting balderdash that Kovie has been spewing all day long here.

                            I can tell you this. If you had approached me the way Kovie has from comment one, through endless comments on this thread that all amt to calling me a shit, we would not have had the conversations we've had.  You may or may not care about that.

                            But I make no bones about the fact that I value civility and do not find communication through insult effective.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:55:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just bring up ONE lousy fact that would make (0+ / 0-)

                            any reasonable person skeptical of any of them, and I'll take you seriously. But engaging in blanket skepticism absent facts is literally conspiracy theory.

                            And I have no use for "civility" that's used to hide dishonesty. That's the basis of the Sunday talk shows and why they're utter crap that only a moron takes seriously. The basis of civility is honesty and substance, not surface manners.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:40:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have no need for you to take me seriously. (0+ / 0-)

                            I certainly don't take you seriously. So at least we agree on that.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:58:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Since you think calling people liars (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            StellaRay

                            without any substantiation whatever is A-okay, I don't think your opinion on matters of fact is worth much.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:34:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's pointless (0+ / 0-)

                            They've achieved their goal of misdirecting and wasting everyone's time and energy, and now they're just wrapping things up.

                            Ooh, look, it's Glenn Greenwald's very young gay lover on the beach in Rio! Is he hanging out with Snowden's stripper girlfriend? Who can believe them!

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:42:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just going through (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            my diary to answer to comments I choose to, that I didn't have time to do yesterday.

                            No one mis-directed your energy, or insisted you spend the day here arguing with insult. That was your choice, and it's all on record here.

                            And now I find this gem that brings up Greenwald's gay lover, as if any single commenter here thinks that's relevant. And I believe this is the second time here you've brought up Snowdon's stripper girlfriend, which in over 900 comments, you once again get the prize for being the only one to bring it up. No one here cares about that stuff, and you know it.

                            For this audience, this is about as perfect of a definition of a straw dog as you can get.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 06:10:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please (0+ / 0-)

                            Both have been used to tarnish both men before, here and elsewhere, and you know I was being snarky. Irony meter need readjustment?

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 08:57:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not in this (0+ / 0-)

                            this diary of over 900 comments they haven't, and I have never seen a comment here that tries to diminish Greenwald because of his sexual orientation, or one that tries to argue Snowden's credibility on the basis of his girl friend.

                            And I saw no evidence of snark here, but rather your attempt to conflate useless criticisms of Greenwald and Snowden, which carry no water here, with real questions.

                            As for "irony meters," I suggest you look up the meaning of irony. What we're talking about here has nothing to do with that word.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 09:10:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your criticisms of both men WERE useless (0+ / 0-)

                            I was at pains to mention that so many times that eventually snark seemed the best way to respond. Your diary was classic concern trolling, drive by insinuations and attacks without a shred of evidence to back it up.

                            Why don't you look THAT up.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 09:20:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You were at pains to mention this? (0+ / 0-)

                            hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahha!

                            Damned if you didn't mention your opinion, always with an insult, in a plethora of comments here. At pains to mention it, my ass.

                            Look Kovie, let's call it a day. You don't like me, and I don't like you. It happens. I will do my best to avoid you from here on out, except in the event when I agree with you, and then I will still rec your comment, in the interest of being honest with myself. Other than that, I can only hope we don't meet again soon, or often.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 09:34:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Take away the "Greenwald said mean things (0+ / 0-)

                            about Obama whaaaa!" crowd, and most commenters were more focused on NSA spying than on his credibility or alleged lack thereof.

                            I.e. most agreed with my position, not yours. It's nearly always that way.

                            From start to finish, you have focused on people, not issues.

                            Now I will just have to find a way to go on without your liking me.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:10:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you really this foolish, or are you (0+ / 0-)

                            just play acting?

                            You're the one who came into this diary with an agenda of your own that you tried to impose on the diarist. No one forced you. You chose to do it. Now you want to play the victim. The only attempt at "misdirection" is your own. The only person who wasted your time and energy is yourself.

                            And you have the unmitigated gall to accuse others of projecting.

                            Pathetic.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:53:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My agenda was to get the diarist and their (0+ / 0-)

                            supporters--the usual crowd, of course--to cite a single fact in support of her or their contention that Greenwald et al weren't completely credible. They provided none. Your various attempts to misdirect from that went unnoticed by no one. I.e. you suck at this, and are wasting your time.

                            The rest doesn't mean jack to me. Fuck civility when you're being lied to.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:13:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fuck civility? (0+ / 0-)

                            Okay.

                            You're an idiot and dishonest one at that.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:46:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fuck FAKE civility (0+ / 0-)

                            Surely even you're not that dense.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:10:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  :) N/T (0+ / 0-)

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:19:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your projection is so obvious (0+ / 0-)

                            It can be seen from space. I'll look for it on Google Earth.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:36:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You obviously have no idea what the word (0+ / 0-)

                            projection means. That or you're cynically misusing it.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:40:07 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Does the realization that you suck at this (0+ / 0-)

                            not mean anything to you? You two are virtually the only ones still at it.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:14:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry, I don't engage with DIs :) (0+ / 0-)

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:51:07 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, you don't, obviously (0+ / 0-)

                            Oh irony, we hardly knew ye...

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:13:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  :) N/T (0+ / 0-)

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:14:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          etherealfire

                          You're going to talk to me about the usuals?!?!?!? As if you aren't a usual in your own right.

                          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                          by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:57:05 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  You are using the EXACT same sort of Orly (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      etherealfire

                      arguments that the POTUS was not born in the USA.
                      Big Guvmint spies. So Big Guvmint is bad. Only Big
                      Corporate Business spying is beneficial to us all.
                      We must believe GG and Snowdem before POTUS.
                      We must believe anonymous and Assange because
                      of sheeple kool aid droannes and occupy everything.

                      Stella Ray is right reserve judgment.

                •  Kovie, if you don't know the difference (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Larsstephens, StellaRay, etherealfire

                  between making an argument, even one you consider "silly" and personally insulting someone by calling their integrity and character into question with epithets like "concern troll", I'm not sure anyone could explain it to you effectively.

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:29:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  There's honest doubt... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lunachickie

                which I believe yours is; and then there's denial or refusal to believe, wrapped up as doubt.  The latter seems to be the case for some of the folks in this discussion.

                I have always been cursed with the ability to see many shades of grey where too many people see black and white.

                One area where we may differ is that I'm starting to think that the focus on GG/Snowden is taking the spotlight off of finding out what the NSA is actually doing.

                It's classic debating techinique to try and put your opponent on the defensive, so they can't put forward their own arguments.  That appears to be happening here.  There's a lot of pressure from the administration to sweep this under the rug.  Let's not let the shiny object that is GG/Snowden distract us from finding out as much as we can about what the NSA is really doing.

            •  Yeah, I had recced this diary for what I saw as (0+ / 0-)

              a reasonable discussion. OPs subsequent comments changed my view of this diary.

              meh

              The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

              by JVolvo on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:35:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah. (6+ / 0-)

                Pretty heinous for a diarist to ask that folks not insult each other in her diary, and to respond to people putting words in her mouth.

                "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:11:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My heart would bleed for you (0+ / 0-)

                  were your diary itself not an insult to any thinking and informed person's intelligence. So spare me the fake civility misdirection. It's transparent.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:42:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And yet you do the same (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bruh1, gulfgal98, lunachickie

                  Consider a diary that seriously discusses the subject and facts not personalities and opinions.

                  You have gotten exactly what you asked for based on the subject of your commentary.

                  The entire purpose of this diary was to discuss personalities and cast doubt on the veracity of reporting based on ad hominem attacks against Greenwald and Snowden because you seem the find their personalities abrasive or message distasteful and yet, you offer up nothing but opinions and anecdotal arguments yourself.

                  So what were you expecting in the comments?

                  400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

                  by koNko on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:06:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Baloney N/T (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Larsstephens, etherealfire, StellaRay

                    Nothing human is alien to me.

                    by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:33:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Nonsense /eom (0+ / 0-)

                      400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

                      by koNko on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:21:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yeah right (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sviscusi, etherealfire, StellaRay

                        We should all just accept your assertions about StellaRay's intentions because in real life you're actually Professor X and can read minds. That's nonsense.

                        Nothing human is alien to me.

                        by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:00:04 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm not reading minds (0+ / 0-)

                          That is your projection not mine. I am reading diaries and comments, and in the case of the diarist, she complains about how others present the information and the debate, but when questioned on substance she always evades the issue with diversionary arguments about things like "the truth is elusive".

                          Conclusion:

                          We can never really know the truth about anything and those who talk about things in ways I find abrasive are at fault for something ill-defined but should stop.

                          Nonsense. Plenty of the issues in play here are well-documented and have been confirmed by multiple credible parties including those like Clapper that originally mislead the Congress and public but was forced to, um, clarify his answers.

                          You are welcome to give the diary and comments a critical read. Diarist is the one who raised the questions of veracity and intentions, not only of Snowden and Greenwald but of the members of this site who are discussing and debating these issues to her displeasure.

                          Does that make her Professor X?

                          400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

                          by koNko on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:11:08 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course you are (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            StellaRay

                            Where Did StellaRay say or write anything that would justify this flight of imagination?

                            The entire purpose of this diary was to discuss personalities and cast doubt on the veracity of reporting based on ad hominem attacks against Greenwald and Snowden because you seem the find their personalities abrasive or message distasteful and yet, you offer up nothing but opinions and anecdotal arguments yourself.
                            That's a direct quote, not projection. I defy you to show where StellaRay said or wrote anything that affirms this characterization. Absent such foundation, the above is either the product of mind reading or it's merely a subjective caricature that you are trying to pass off as fact.

                            You apparently do not understand what an ad hominem is. You're "welcome" to look up the definition and give it a "critical reading."

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 10:04:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, he does not understand (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            the definition of ad hominem. And I find it endlessly ironic to be told the story isn't about Greenwald, but mention his name, even in reasonable context and tone, and people who say he's not the story, make him the story, and put words in your mouth regarding your intent. Mentions of Greenwald took up maybe 20% of my diary, and were far from inflammatory, yet that's what they all want to talk about. Because the investment in Greenwald is huge here, and no one wants to admit it. I appreciate your support on these things.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:18:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No thanks necessary (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            StellaRay

                            Just trying to do the decent thing.

                            Beyond that, I'm of the opinion that a lot of folks here are actively undermining efforts to rein in the NSA, even though they are convinced that they are doing the opposite. They really don't seem to understand how they appear to those outside their circle of mutual self reinforcement.

                            Hope your having a better day :)

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 02:14:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You know, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            yesterday wasn't a bad day, but I'm glad the thread is dead. It ran its course, and it was an interesting experience. Can't say I was totally surprised by the reaction, but was a bit astounded that healthy skepticism would be so controversial here. Particularly when it's not like this site hasn't gone off half cocked before here, miles a head of the facts, and then had to tuck and head the other direction.

                            Like you, I don't see how we can hope to get legislation on this if we don't cross the Ts and dot the Is in terms of as much evidence as we can get our hands on. And that's happening, slowly but surely. There has been a steady drip of revelations and for all the talk about how we can never really know what's going on, because it's all top secret, information has not stopped coming out since Greenwald broke the story. The more the better, and I don't think it's going to stop.  

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 03:07:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ad Hominem (0+ / 0-)

                            No, you are wrong. The definition of "ad hominem", as in the logical fallacy, is "attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument".

                            You are engaging in an ad hominem argument. You are doing so by mentioning his name" (of course you go much further than his name), which of course provokes others to insist we judge NSA spying on grounds other than characteristics of Greenwald - because that's ad hominem. You try to make him the story to discredit the actual story, so others try to stop you.

                            As Theodore Roosevelt said: "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues."

                            Your denial is deafening.

                            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                            by DocGonzo on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:45:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Please show me (3+ / 0-)

                    where I committed "an ad hominem attack against Greenwald and Snowden." I would appreciate the direct quotes from my diary that form the basis of your accusation here.

                    "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                    by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:31:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Fair Enough (0+ / 0-)

                      This:

                      I don't think

                      Greenwald is an attention whore. And I never in any way said he was in this diary, just to be clear.

                      I think he is a man of strong and passionate convictions, but then there have been many people of strong and passionate convictions, throughout history and my lifetime, that I don't agree with at all, or agree with sometimes. Just like there are many folks here of strong and passionate convictions too, and I don't trust them to think for me either.

                      I have been reading Greenwald's columns for years. He is an advocacy journalist, and one of the strongest ones out there, in the sense that his voice often overwhelms his story. I don't hold this against him, I just keep it mind when I read what he writes. In the past, long before this, I have both cheered and jeered him.

                      To make my point more clear, I'd like to compare him to Matt Taibbi. Taibbi lets you make up your own mind. He tells his story, without much proselytizing. He does not preach. Not saying he doesn't have a POV, he clearly does, but he never shoves it down your throat. He leaves space for you to make up you own mind. IOW, he let's his story do the walking.

                      IMO, Greenwald for the better or worse, does not let his story do the walking, he becomes part of the story. Always has. And I think this is a product of his passions, which always have an upside and a downside.

                      This is a classic ad hominem; you are casting doubt on the veracity of what Greenwald is reporting because he express a point of view leading to conclusions. Well, that is what is known as debate.

                      Secondly, although you lead with a defense of him against the charge that he is an "attention whore" you end with essentially the same assertion, if more politely stated.

                      We can agree on a few things:

                      - Greenwald (and Tabbi) are opinionated
                      - Greenwald can be brash and abrasive, or "passionate" as you put it
                      - Greenwald would not be the center of attention now if Snowden had not contacted him to facilitate the process

                      None of which lessens the credibility of what he is reporting or even his personal conclusions when it is supported by documented evidence and ample corroboration from other parties including persons that worked in the NSA for decades.

                      So you now doubt the facts of documents published in black and white because Greenwald "walks" these instead of letting them walk themselves?

                      You seem to be putting style above substance here and a logical fallacy above reason: you don’t like the delivery so the message is false.

                      I suggest the strength of Greenwald's opinions gives skeptical readers (including me) the opportunity to directly question the basis of his conclusions by going back to the now very ample evidence to give it a test.

                      Have you done that?  

                      Please do: instead of complaining about the debates others have had or how others present the issues, you have the option to actually do the work to research and examine the issues, draw conclusions for yourself and present your arguments for serious debate.

                      Or you could go to numerous serious diaries on the subject where I and others have presented reasoned arguments supported by cited information and then debate the issues in substance if you are so inclined.

                      Lastly, I'd like to more clearly articulate my own reaction to your diary and comments here.

                      Many of us here take this quite seriously for various reasons, some a mater of principle and others concerns on the practical impact on our work or lives.

                      As you say, this is not a simple or small thing. We don’t take it to be that, obviously, by giving the subject serious attention.

                      And yet, you seem quite confortable to dismiss our efforts with the flippant “I’m not convinced”.

                      Well, “I’m not impressed”. What would impress me would be for you to actually examine the evidence, draw your own conclusions and offer them up for debate in substance here, venturing to face the skepticism from others you find so easy to dispense yourself.

                      Dare you publish a substantial diary on the subject?

                      You might, actually, have something interesting to say that could spark a more productive discussion than the two meta diaries you have published so far.

                      Just do it. Drop the meta and focus on the issues.

                      400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

                      by koNko on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:09:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Ok. Here we go. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        WB Reeves
                        This is a classic ad hominem; you are casting doubt on the veracity of what Greenwald is reporting because he express a point of view leading to conclusions. Well, that is what is known as debate.
                        No, it is not a "classic ad hominem to have an opinion about Greenwald's style. And I would think you would know this, as you seem well versed in "debate."
                        We can agree on a few things:

                        - Greenwald (and Tabbi) are opinionated
                        - Greenwald can be brash and abrasive, or "passionate" as you put it
                        - Greenwald would not be the center of attention now if Snowden had not contacted him to facilitate the process

                        Yes we can agree on a few things. Probably more than you know or are willing to see.
                        So you now doubt the facts of documents published in black and white because Greenwald "walks" these instead of letting them walk themselves?

                        You seem to be putting style above substance here and a logical fallacy above reason: you don’t like the delivery so the message is false.

                        I said I questioned, I never said I doubted. Find the word "doubt" in my diary. And I never said I don't like the delivery. You did. I said essentially, I don't eat everything Greenwald says whole. I question him, as I would question any journalist who breaks this big of a story. I think that's healthy. You do not. We can agree to disagree here.
                        I suggest the strength of Greenwald's opinions gives skeptical readers (including me) the opportunity to directly question the basis of his conclusions by going back to the now very ample evidence to give it a test.

                        Have you done that?  

                        Yes, I have, to the best of my ability. And I don't see ample evidence on everything he claims. Which is not to say that I don't agree w/him on anything he claims. I think he makes many salient points, whether from fact or opinion. I made this pretty clear in my diary, but you didn't wish to see that.
                        Or you could go to numerous serious diaries on the subject where I and others have presented reasoned arguments supported by cited information and then debate the issues in substance if you are so inclined.
                        As I said in my diary, until today I have read far more diaries on this without commenting, just gathering information and ideas, than you have managed to read withholding comment. I can guarantee you that. Your assumption that I came to my diary willy nilly, with no idea of what folks think here and why is incorrect.

                        Your idea of debating the issues on substance is all fine and good, as long as the substance agrees with yours. The purpose of this diary, for me, was not to argue the facts, as I've seen done here over and over again, with little result.

                        It was to state my belief that all sides of this should be open to question. Simple as that. That was my focus. May not be yours, but I'm the diarist so I get to choose my focus. This disturbs you. I understand, but really can't do much about it.

                        And yet, you seem quite confortable to dismiss our efforts with the flippant “I’m not convinced”.
                        "I'm not convinced" is not a flippant dismissal of anyone. It is simply my opinion. And by "I'm not convinced" I mean again, that I don't eat everything Greenwald says whole.

                        You have your opinions, of which you state quite strongly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall telling you ever, in any diary, in which I have several times tipped your comments, that you were being flippant about what you believed in. Say what you will, but I have not done this. I have not accused you of that. I assume you are as sincere and concerned as I am. I do not assume we will always agree, but I'm OK with that.

                        Dare you publish a substantial diary on the subject?

                        You might, actually, have something interesting to say that could spark a more productive discussion than the two meta diaries you have published so far.

                        Just do it. Drop the meta and focus on the issues.

                        This is I think the third or fourth time you've told me what to write in my diary. What would be correct and proper as you see it. Again, this is foreign to me, as I don't tell people what to write their diaries about. Ever.

                        I assume people write what they feel and want to say. I may disagree with what they say, but I don't tell them what my idea of a good diary would be and expect them to heel to my ideas in that respect. I don't think you have any business telling me what to write about a diary about, and how to do it. I would not do that to you.  Again, we can agree to disagree about this.

                        Finally, I will end this on a positive note. I have read many, many, many of your comments, and as I said, recced many of them too. I think you have a a lot to offer.  I understand your passion and commitment to this, and I do not think I diminish that by questioning things you don't. I respect your right to your opinions, and as I said, agree with more of them than you are willing to see.  

                        "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                        by StellaRay on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 12:19:49 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Questioned = Doubted (0+ / 0-)
                          I said I questioned, I never said I doubted. Find the word "doubt"

                          "Questioned" = "Doubted". To speakers of proper English. Who aren't spinning so wildly that anyone can see they're lost.

                          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                          by DocGonzo on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:47:15 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  And you've told Ian to stop the "attention whore" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Larsstephens

                  openers, right?

                  The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

                  by JVolvo on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:35:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't tell people (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kj in missouri, etherealfire

                    what to say about figures in the news. That would certainly be an exhausting project here, and one that I'm not interested in.  If someone is out of line, they'll be Hr'd.  

                    Insulting commenters here, in my diary, because of disagreement is a different ball game to me, and I have no regrets about expressing that.

                    "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                    by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:35:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How one-sided of you in this context of "both (0+ / 0-)

                      sides do it" bi-skepticism.

                      The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

                      by JVolvo on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:49:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                        First of all, I never said "both sides do it." That's what you said, bringing up the meme of false equivalency, that is true sometimes, but imo, not true of what I was trying to say. It is  your prerogative to believe that was my intent. It is mine to disagree with what you see as my intent. After all, it was MY intent, so your mind reading abilities fall a bit short in that category.

                        In fact, there was someone so sure of their opinion on this very subject today, that they felt entitled to alter my tags. This is the point we have come to here. Cheap tricks. The price of disagreement on the Daily Kos is very high. Odd, for a community that claims to be uncomfortable with authoritarianism, don't you think?

                        I wrote a diary honest to my point of view. I knew on this topic, it would be a crazy ride. And it has been, and I'm OK with that. Many here have made thoughtful comments that have made me think, and I appreciate that.

                        You won't find be whining about it anywhere, except to reply to those who I feel who have used insults as communication. I do believe in civility, and have tried my best today to live up to that, but I'm not a door mat.

                        I will note that I didn't disparage your comment with my comment.  

                         

                        "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                        by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:15:22 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  This seems like a strawman... (9+ / 0-)

            What's behind the criticism and ridicule of many GOP "messengers" is that what they are saying is provably wrong.  Not an opinion I disagree with. Wrong.  The messenger is confronted to challenge the credibility their position wrongfully affords them.

            There's a huge difference between credibility and motivation.  To me, at this point, motivation is irrelevant.  It is the most difficult part of the puzzle to know with any certainty, and it matters only if it helps determine credibility.  If this was a he said-he said story, then it would be worth discussing.  In addition, the questions about motivation apply to both sides.  Both Greenwald and Clapper have motivations to exaggerate their stories.

            Documents have been released which seem to be very credible.  There are claims made in this case that have been echoed by other whistleblowers.  These claims also seem to be consistent with the veiled warnings coming from people like Wyden and Udall.

            Let's separate the legal issues from the political issues.  There is a history in the US of people breaking or challenging laws that they feel are unjust. Snowden may have to face the legal consequences of his actions in the future.

             In this case, it would seem there are laws being broken or ignored by the NSA.  At a minimum, there are actions being carried out by the NSA that many Americans would not support.  If even the few politicians that know anything about this are not allowed to comment on it, how can we come to any kind of informed conclusions?

            •  I hear your view point (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WB Reeves, etherealfire

              and we don't disagree on much. However motivation is part of credibility or lack of it, in this world. This is a major tenet in a criminal court for example.

              Which is not to say I don't believe Greenwald and Snowden. I never said that anywhere in my diary, and you won't find me saying it anywhere in the comments section either.

              But I have not found a consensus on the extent and degree of NSA spying. As I said in my diary, I don't need more evidence to be concerned. I'm deeply concerned. But I will continue to listen and read for more and I think there is much more to come.

               

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:42:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree it's a tough call... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                StellaRay

                I'm just pushing back at those who want to dismiss everything GG says because, well, apparently just because he's GG.

                In the legal system, statements against personal interest are usually considered very credible.  So while GG could gain from exaggerating the story, there doesn't seem to be much of an upside for what Snowden did.  He certainly could have profited by selling the documents; and I assume that he could have done more damage to US interests if he had really wanted to.  Instead, he'll either have to turn himself in to US authorities at some point, or be a fugitive for the rest of his life.  How exactly does he benefit from telling lies?  Is he that desperate to have his picture on TV?

                As I believe you said previously, it's a matter of applying the necessary amount of skepticism to what is claimed by both sides, while still listening to them.

                •  I am not one of those (0+ / 0-)

                  who is trying to, or wants to, or does dismiss everything GG says because he's GG. And I never said either he or Snowdon was lying, because from what I know, they haven't lied.

                  GG is an advocacy journalist who glides smoothly between fact and opinions. It is not a lie when it's your opinion. IMO, one simply needs to be aware which is which when reading him. And there shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about that and is part of the questioning I'm talking about. Opinion or fact? However, on the site say the word Greenwald and it's a shit storm.

                  As I believe you said previously, it's a matter of applying the necessary amount of skepticism to what is claimed by both sides, while still listening to them.
                  YES. Thanks for the discussion.

                  "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                  by StellaRay on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:28:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Are you most Americans? (5+ / 0-)

            I'm just wondering, because Pew Research polls suggest Snowden has pretty high credibility.

            And even if they didn't think so, numerous of the revelations have been corroborated and/or acknowledged as facts, including the persons who originally disputed or simply lied about them until they got caught.

            So where does that land you?

            You spend a lot of time here musing about "facts" and "truth", yet the definition of that seems to be more along the lines of "perceptions" and "opinion" and "anecdotes".

            May I ask how you define "truth" and "fact"? Serious question.

            400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

            by koNko on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:15:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not sure if this is addressed to me, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WB Reeves, Larsstephens, etherealfire

              but I'll answer anyway. I would say that truth is elusive. That one person's fact, is another person's lie. Goes on here ever day. Which is not to say there is no truth, or no facts, but that both are screened through the eye of the beholder, and every beholder is different.

              I never claimed this diary was about anything but my perceptions and opinions.

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:47:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Only elusive (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WheninRome

                To the uninformed.

                Seriously, if this is the entirety of what you have to offer in dispute of what are now numerous verified facts, what exactly is your complaint against others?

                You have now published 2 meta diaries bemoaning the "SUX/ROX" problem here without ever really going into the substance of the issues in a serious way.

                This is your solution?

                400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

                by koNko on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:11:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I certainly would not be (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Larsstephens, etherealfire

                  arrogant enough to write a diary that proclaimed to be the solution. But I did have the unmitigated goal to write one that gave voice to the hardened positions on both sides that seem to me to be closed like a steel strap when it comes to hearing or considering that which doesn't suit their POV.

                  Your righteous assertion that you are the arbiter of what the truth is, and the guru of appropriate reasons to write a diary, are exactly the kind of things that makes me feel claustrophobic here sometimes.

                  "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                  by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:48:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please read my own diaries on the subject (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gulfgal98, lunachickie

                    And then come back to me to lecture on "righteousness".

                    I do not claim to be the arbiter of truth but I have made an honest effort to research facts through numerous sources and to share those with others by citing them and encouraging others to actually read and think about the issues, and debate from an informed positioned.

                    What I see you doing, however, is:

                    (a) Casting doubt on the veracity of work others have done without actually refuting their claims with counter-claims or actual evidence, only anecdote and opinion. Please yourself, but these are not credible arguments.

                    (b) Taking the site and it's members to task for an apparent lack of substance and moderation that meets your own, undefined standard. Given this is your second such diary, can we now discuss who has appointed themselves an "arbiter"?

                    You could, instead, actually address the issues, and if you have reasonable doubts based on evidence, you could present that.

                    Again, not to belabor the issue, but there have been numerous well-researched diaries here on the subject that do not dwell unnecessarily on the personalities of Snowden, Greenwald or Obama for that matter, but discuss what are accepted facts of the situation (not because I say so but because credible people with the actual experience do) and what appears to be imperial overreach that we know started with the Bush administration but has continued under Obama.

                    If Snowden and Greenwald are so wrong about so many things, why do we keep finding so many smoking guns?  I don't make these things up, I just read what is reported, and there seems to be little in dispute about the facts, only argument about "legality".

                    It is fine to doubt, but not simply because we wish to deny facts in front of our noses, there should be some factual basis for that as well or we don't think facts matter.

                    Do they matter to you?

                    If so, then please present the facts that dispute the claims you question.

                    Or save us the lectures about our own opinions.

                    400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

                    by koNko on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:18:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  One question. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      WB Reeves, etherealfire, Onomastic

                      Why does my need to question all sides of this story bother you so much? Question does not have to mean doubt. It can simply mean question.

                      I stated loud and clear in my diary that I had deep concerns about NSA surveillance and that I thought the Patriot Act was a travesty. I also stated that people who question Greenwald, as in do not accept whole everything he says, have a story to tell too.

                      No where in my diary did I deny anything. I did not deny there was NSA spying going on, I did not deny that there was anything to it all, I did not deny that Green Greenwald had things to say we need to hear. I did not deny we have a problem. I did not deny it must be addressed.

                      And I never said I was doubting. That's your word. I said I was skeptical, as in questioning. For the life of me, it just wild to me that folks have such a hard time with this.

                      And really, you have delivered your share of lectures here to me today, so let's go light on that language.

                       

                      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:45:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Because you do not appear to be (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        orestes1963, koNko

                        basing those questions on anything remotely apparent.

                        Which facts are in dispute?

                        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                        by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:43:37 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  .. um ... (0+ / 0-)

                        First you lead with a lecture and then you complain about them? Excuse me, but, LOL.

                        My problem is your "skepticism" does not actually question or dispute the substance of anything.

                        You "doubt" but do not articulate the actual points in question or reasons to doubt them other than the fact you think Mr. Greenwald is opinionated.

                        IOW, my question is: what, exactly, are you questioning?

                        400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

                        by koNko on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:16:53 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                koNko

                Do you really believe this?

                one person's fact, is another person's lie
                Do you not believe in the scientific method?  Or the application of critical reasoning?  If everything is relative, why do you bother to raise the questions you do in the diary?  There can be no true answers.  You are on a quixotic quest.  I thought this was the "fact-based community."  What draws you here?
                •  Yes, I do. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WB Reeves, orestes1963, etherealfire

                  I see it every day here, by which I mean that what one person states as a fact, another one argues with.

                  And yes, I do believe in the scientific method. And I certainly believe in critical thinking, which was um, kind of what my diary was about.

                  I don't think everything is relative. I think there are facts everyone agrees on, and others that remain controversial---in that people are not willing to grant them fact status at this point. All this does not make me on a "quixotic quest" it makes me a person who questions till I see clearly.

                  Sometimes this is a fact based community, sometimes it's not. Your idea that facts are easily accepted as facts is belied here often.

                  Politics, news, action, advocacy and sharing of causes and a place to discuss is what draws me here. As you may know, many folks in the real world don't like to talk about politics. I do, and so does everyone else here.  

                  "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                  by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:46:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Perhaps it's a semantic distinction (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    koNko

                    but it seems to me you are saying the meaning or interpretation of facts can be in dispute.  That makes sense and I can agree with it.  

                    However, the notion that majority (or other) consensus can convert a belief or theorem into a fact or confers factual status on a matter is simply wrongheaded IMO.  It is demonstrable veracity that makes a matter a fact, even if only one person recognizes the fact (we usually call these people geniuses).  Similarly, that one argues against a  fact does not render its truth invalid.  See climate change denial.  

                    IMO, the notion that one person's fact is another's lie is nihilistic.  It renders all information relative, subject to arbitrary consensus.  There's no logical discussion to be had if that is the case.

                    •  A great amount of (0+ / 0-)

                      information is relative and subject to arbitrary consensus, and that's not nihilistic, it's reality. If for example, you look at the history of medical studies that promote endless conclusions based on "fact" and research, we often find years later the conclusions were wrong, and the "facts" have changed. This happens all the time with all kinds of studies, done by scientists, with every effort to produce veracity.

                      This is the slippery nature of "facts,"--- they have an odd way of becoming not facts, often. Of course there are immutable facts. But there is also plenty of shit seen as fact that is not. In certain areas, and politics is certainly one of them, facts are in the eye of the beholder, and perception is reality. We can see this when even the fact checkers are controversial.

                      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                      by StellaRay on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:40:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Which lies? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                orestes1963, koNko

                Stella, people have BEEN skeptics.

                I would say that truth is elusive. That one person's fact, is another person's lie.
                And frankly, that's just ridiculous. The facts reported so far about NSA and what they're doing are not under dispute.

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:42:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Credibility (0+ / 0-)
            to most Americans the credibility of Greenwald and Snowden IS an issue
            When do those "most Americans" look at the credibility of the NSA? Or should I say the lack of credibility?

             Seriously, the two cases can't even be compared, yet you seem to not be able to see the difference. Perhaps your credibility meter is broken.

            None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

            by gjohnsit on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:31:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Last I checked (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              etherealfire

              Most Americans, including me, have looked at the credibility of the NSA and found it lacking. I believe polls show this.

              The credibility of any reporter is always an issue. Glenn Greenwald has passionate followers and passionate detractors, which is what he attracts with his own passions. I'm neither. Don't care about Greenwald, do care about what he's reporting. All of it. I think there are many facets here.

              Not worried about my credibility meter. Everyone has their own you know, and I'm just fine with mine. No one can really speak for another's sense of credibility, what it entails, and who earns it.

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:55:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But still (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lunachickie, orestes1963
                Most Americans, including me, have looked at the credibility of the NSA and found it lacking.
                And yet you still put them on the same level as Snowden. That makes no sense. Perhaps you haven't thought this out.

                   If a known liar (i.e. NSA) accuses someone else of lying (i.e. Snowden), and you don't know this someone else, you don't automatically give the same amount of credibility to the known liar as to the denials of the person being accused.

                  That's logical. It's especially logical when the person being accused produces documentation to back of their claim.
                   A logical person would demand that the known liar (NSA) prove their claim or be dismissed.

                  You've taken a different tactic than the logical person.

                None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

                by gjohnsit on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:09:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here's what's logical to me. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  etherealfire, Onomastic

                  That when someone says clear as can be stated in her diary that she is deeply concerned about the NSA revelations and has long wanted the Patriot act repealed, that would be noted, instead of accusing said diarist over and over again of everything from "not thinking things out" to being illogical, to being a Greenwald and Snowden distraction goddess.

                  Who said I give the same amount of credibility to the NSA as I give to Snowden? Not me. That was you. What I said is that there's a lot to this story, it's complex with many facets, and that I remain skeptical of all moving parts of this story. Skeptical as in questioning, not as in doubting or denying.

                  And for the life of me, I still find it incredible how many people are bothered by this. To me it's just a fundamental part of critical thinking, information gathering, and forming conclusions.

                  We all do that differently.

                  "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                  by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:21:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It would be a part of critical thinking (0+ / 0-)

                    if you were able to articulate the facts/issues that are unresolved for you so that a debate on the merits of your diary could be engaged.  You have avoided all but one of my queries in this diary, as well as those of others.  If you are really struggling to resolve the questions you pose in the diary, the starting point would be your explication of the specific issues that seem unclear/unresolved/in doubt, as well as an atriculation of your standard for determining the credibility of messengers.  You continue to demur on these points, which calls into question the sincerity of your stated desire to end "the wars" and find consensus.  

                    Frankly, your refusal to engage appears to indicate that you are not engaging in critical thinking, but merely  linguistic legerdemain.

                    •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                      the saying is not "you're entitled to my opinion."

                      The topic of my diary was based on what I wanted it be based on. That's what diarists get to do. I didn't write this diary to argue about the "facts" as you or anyone else sees them. My experience here is that this a losing game. No one changes their mind about anything, till they've decided for themselves to do so, no matter the links and windy responses provided in service of that goal

                      I wrote this diary to underline the questions. Questions I feel are important. No one here who has answered to me with repeated insults---"linguistic legerdemain" fancy and a new one!---has bothered with trying to speak to any of my questions. They and you, have simply dismissed me, and often rudely, because I dared to ask those questions.

                      And in the looooooooooooooong list of people who have put words in my mouth here, I will add that I never stated that the purpose/desire of my diary was to "end the wars and find consensus." You said that, not me.

                      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:12:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I understood your diary (0+ / 0-)

                        to address your irresoluteness on the NSA spying problem based upon lack of information and questions about Snowden's credibility.  I thought you were interested in evolving your understanding of the matter.  I read your diary in good faith.  I now understand your actual intent.  

        •  I just went to the Guardian's website (15+ / 0-)

          and took another look at the actual leaked documents. There's nothing there that substantiates Snowden's sensational claims about the NSA eavesdropping on the content of Americans' telephone calls without a warrant.

          And that's the thing. So many people believe that the government is listening to everyone's phone calls, reading their emails, maybe even tracking their movements. It's mass hysteria. You can't point out to them that there hasn't been any evidence of this.

          That's not the atmosphere in which you can have a substantive policy discussion.

          •  Exactly. That's the ridiculous part of all this (8+ / 0-)

            Like most people, I favor reforms to both FISA and the Patriot Act, and more oversight of the NSA, and have been on record as such since day one.

            But when one has to wade through so much obvious hyperbole, exaggeration, and outright total bullshit -- much of it emanating directly from Greenwald -- about what the NSA programs are actually doing, getting to the point of sensibly discussing reforms can be difficult.

            The confusion and conflation -- whether deliberately or just through shoddy reporting -- between what the programs actually do versus the scary, misleading claims; and between theoretical, potential capabilities, if one wanted to try to skirt all the safeguards and break the law, and actual conduct, has been a particular hallmark of Greenwald's reporting, as I have tried to document over the last few weeks.

            There has been zero evidence of actual wrongdoing.  Zero.  But you'd never know that from all of Greenwald's bullshit, would you?

            So, sorry, but since it is his "reporting" -- really "truth" propaganda -- that is largely driving this story, then his credibility is a direct, relevant, and material issue.

            •  That should be "truthy" (stupid iPhone). eom. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              etherealfire
            •  Just a few quick examples of Greenwald's bullshit (4+ / 0-)

              . . . all designed to drive an anti-Obama narrative, and create an impression of widespread abuse by his administration.

              Putting aside others' completely bullshit stories that Greenwald has pushed himself, like the NY woman's bullshit story of NSA spying and a federal raid that never happened (that Greenwald pumped but never apologized for or retracted), from day one right through the present, Greenwald's "reporting" on the NSA issues has been replete with wild exaggerations, outright misinformation, or just plain total bullshit.

              First, we have the recent story of the program which is directed at foreign communications (into or out of the US) -- foreign communications directly to and from a specific foreign target of investigation, or foreign communications which refer to specific information (such as the email address)  directly related to that specific foreign subject of investigation.  This program is authorized under 2008 FISA.  Oooooh!  Scaaaaary!

              Now, in the process of flagging these communications, as the NSA itself admits, occasionally an unrelated, domestic communication may get flagged because of some confluence of keywords or specific identifying information.  The key being "inadvertent," as even the Guardian's reports admit, if you wade through the bullshit deep enough.  That is why, as with its other programs, the NSA has specific policies and procedures, as required by law, for what to do when a domestic communication is inadvertently snagged -- either a warrant is obtained within x number of days (as has been expressly and specifically provided by FISA since its inception in 1978 for domestic communications inadvertently gathered when targeting foreign communications), or the communication is deleted.  That's it. That's all.   As 1978 FISA recognized from the beginning -- as ALL investigations of any kind recognize -- sometimes irrelevant, non-targeted information gets scooped up incidentally.  And so that's why have had long-standing laws to deal with it.

              But how does Greenwald frame it and discuss this rather ordinary and appropriate program?  "Secret back door allows government to spy on all Americans without warrants!"  I kid you not.  That's how he spins this.  His entire article is framed as the government deliberately using this program to spy on all Americans illegally.  So he takes the tiniest kernel of truth -- that sometimes, in the inconceivably large volume of foreign communications, a domestic communication gets snared inadvertently -- and spins it into complete, total "truthy" bullshit, all in an effort to make it sound like the Obama Administration is engaged in widespread illegal activity.

              _

              Next, we have Greenwald's repeated exaggerations and bullshit about how whistleblowers are supposedly treated by the Obama Administration.   He has repeatedly and consistently claimed that the Obama WH "disappears" whistleblowers, a term usually reserved for murderous totalitarian regimes killing their opponents, and has further claimed that the Obama WH takes whistleblowers and "puts them in a cage for decades" while keeping the "incommunicado."  Both claims are total bullshit, again meant to do nothing but create the impression that the Obama WH is doing all sorts of horrible, nasty, illegal things to these people.  But it's all bullshit.  Of the total of seven prosecutions under Obama, most (at least 4) are holdovers from Bush prosecutions.  And the longest sentence imposed has been 30 months.  A couple cases have resulted in probation -- PROBATION, not being "disappeared."  And no one -- not even Bradley Manning, Greenwald's poster-boy for all this supposedly horrible treatment, has been held incommunicado.  Manning is in near constant communication with his attorneys, and is allowed regular VISITORS.  So how the hell does Greenwald spin THAT into "disappeared" and "locked in a cage incommunicado"?   Because Greenwald is interested in attacking Obama, not telling the truth.
              _

              Finally, there is his claim of the NSA directly  “tapping” into servers belonging to Google, Microsoft, Facebook to access ALL of our email and internet usage.  That claim turned out to be complete, utter bullshit.  Not only was it not happening, but as numerous techie journals concluded, it could not be happening -- it's simply an impossible, fantastical piece of nonsense.  But that, of course, didn't stop Greenwald from spinning this complete fantasy into yet another tale of supposed abuse and illegality by the Obama administration.  When the claim collapsed, did Greenwald apologize and acknowledge that he was full of shit, and admit that he had posted falsehoods?  Of course not -- his anti-Obama narrative had already been served.

              _

              And those are just the first three that popped into my head.  Greenwald is a serial liar and bullshitter.  He has taken the tiniest grains of information about the NSA programs and spun them into some elaborate tall tale of all kinds of sinister wrongdoing by the Obama administration.  But on closer examination -- hell, on ANY examination -- his stories consistently turn out to be wildly exaggerated bullshit. But, sadly, the fact that so much of it is total bullshit hasn't stopped the narrative from taking hold and spreading.

              •  The NSA revealed (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lunachickie

                early on that up to 49% of what it flags via automated search programs on any given day "inadvertently" includes communications of regular Americans with other regular Americans. So long as it's not 50% or more, they think that's fine. I do not think it's fine, nor do I believe it's "inadvertent." YMMV.

                •  If you don't believe that it's inadvertent (0+ / 0-)

                  why are you giving credibility to the 47% figure?

                  If you think they're liars, why are you citing them?

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:38:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I can't speak for Joieau, but the answer is so (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joieau

                    obvious I can't help but point it out--the NSA admits it themselves:

                    The NSA revealed early on that up to 49% of what it flags via automated search programs on any given day "inadvertently" includes communications of regular Americans with other regular Americans. So long as it's not 50% or more, they think that's fine.
                    That's wrong. Focusing on the "percentage" itself is what the NSA clearly did. Nevermind that it should goddamn well be ZERO.

                    Inadvertently. Yeah, whatthefuckever...

                    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                    by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:47:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You really don't get, it do you? (0+ / 0-)

                      You can't cite a statement by the NSA as authoritative when it serves your narrative, while at the same time claiming that they aren't to be believed when they dispute your narrative, without appearing confused, self-serving and dishonest.

                      Nothing human is alien to me.

                      by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:30:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I never cited the NSA's figure (0+ / 0-)

                        as 'authoritative'. I cited it as public admission - when called to account - that indeed they do collect and flag data on Americans domestically.

                        They admit Americans are being targeted for surveillance, no foreign contact required.

                        Further, they admit that data gained by that surveillance of Americans is being farmed to Law Enforcement. Which is so blatant a violation of the 4th amendment that there are specific procedures for covering up the source of the data so any prosecutions of Americans on behalf of the PIC [Prison-Industrial Complex] won't be thrown out of court.

                        I do not believe average Americans represent just 49% of their targets, nor do I believe that their targeting of Americans is "inadvertent." That is neither here nor there, but it's certainly not evidence that I consider their self-serving deflections to be 'authoritative'.

                        •  Do you realize that you're engaging in (0+ / 0-)

                          exactly the kind of self contradictory special pleading that I described?

                          They admit Americans are being targeted for surveillance, no foreign contact required.
                          You're own statements contradict this. You yourself made the point that they claim that the 49% are swept up due to an "inadvertent" flaw in the system. That you don't believe them doesn't empower you to claim they've "admitted" anything otherwise.

                          It certainly isn't an admission that they are "targeting" Americans. To the contrary, the claim that it is "inadvertent" is an explicit and implicit denial that any conscious targeting is being done.  

                          Whether you or I find this believable is irrelevant to the point. The misrepresentation is glaringly apparent. To anyone who hasn't already made up their mind, it at best suggests that someone's bias has overwhelmed their judgement. At worst, that there is a conscious attempt to mislead.

                          This kind of incoherence undermines the credibility of NSA critics. Far from advancing the goal of reining in the National Security State, it impedes it.

                          Nothing human is alien to me.

                          by WB Reeves on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 11:08:47 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau

                            what else to do here but laugh my ass off:

                            It certainly isn't an admission that they are "targeting" Americans. To the contrary, the claim that it is "inadvertent" is an explicit and implicit denial that any conscious targeting is being done.
                            in·ad·vert·ent  
                            ˌinədˈvərtnt
                            Adjective

                                Not resulting from or achieved through deliberate planning; unintentional.
                                (of a mistake) Made through lack of care; negligent.


                            The word inadvertent is the denial? How fucking stupid do you think we are?

                            Dude, it takes some serious gall to sit here and just re-define English. That's just laughable!

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 02:49:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What part of "not achieved through deliberate (0+ / 0-)

                            planning." Do you not understand?

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 03:29:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Garbage. Nowhere have I suggested (0+ / 0-)

                            that the NSA claims 49% of records collected under Section 215 (and/or any other Section pertaining to records/data collected in the course of their 'normal' everyday spying operations) are "inadvertent" or are attributable to a "flaw in the system."

                            49% isn't a bug, it's a feature. Use your head. In order to have anything approaching a "reasonable" suspicion that Joe Blow is dealing marijuana, the NSA would need to have something more than telephone "metadata" that they can correlate, cross-reference and analyze, then forward to the DEA so that the DEA can bust Joe Blow for marijuana dealing.

                            The list of numbers called, their timing and length - the "metadata" - isn't data that would by itself be probable cause for suspecting anything like marijuana dealing. And neither the NSA nor the FISA court have jurisdiction to ask for or issue a warrant to investigate Joe Blow for marijuana dealing in Podunk, Illinois anyway.

                            Thus it is reasonable to surmise that the NSA has in its systems some way to cross-reference phone numbers to names, addresses, etc. Your basic digital telephone book type thing, something like this.

                            Poof! Joe Blow has become a specific - but unwarranted - target of NSA investigation. Even though he is neither a foreign national nor a terrorism suspect (connected to or known to be allied with a recognized terrorist group). When the DEA busts him and DoJ prosecutes him for being a pot dealer, they can't justify their investigation, bust or prosecution via the NSA.

                            The DEA/et al. are going to have to make up some reasonable probable cause for their targeting of Joe Blow, and "Oh, that's classified information we got from our good friends at the NSA" isn't going to pass muster with a regular judge for purposes of regular warrant and/or criminal prosecution. Defense attorneys would have a field day.

                            For purposes of defining electronic communications as "tangible" records/things under the provisions of the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution [i.e., "papers and effects"], let me just cite footnote 4 from pages 7 and 8 of the Administration White Paper on the Bulk Collection of Telephony Metadata Under Section 215 of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, issued on Friday [August 9, 2013]. This definition can be (and is) extended to all electronic records of a person's "papers and effects" under the 4th:

                            2. Tangible Things; footnote [4]...

                            [4] The notes of the Advisory Committee on the 2006 amendments to Rule 34 explain that:

                            Lawyers and judges interpreted the term "documents" to include electronically stored information because it was obviously improper to allow a party to evade discovery obligations on the basis that the label had not kept pace with changes in information technology. But it has become increasingly difficult to say that all forms of electronically stored information, many dynamic in nature, fit within the traditional concept of a 'document'. Electronically stored information may exist in dynamic databases and other forms far different from fixed expression on paper. Rule 34(a) is amended to confirm that discovery of electronically stored information stands on equal footing with discovery of paper documents. The change clarifies that Rule 34 applies to information that is fixed in a tangible form and to information that is stored in a medium from which it can be retrieved and examined. At the same time, a Rule 34 request for production of 'documents' should be understood to encompass, and the response should include, electronically stored information unless discovery in the action has clearly distinguished between electronically stored information and 'documents'.
                            Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 34, Notes of Advisory Committee on 2006 Amendments (emphasis added).
                            The FISA court is not authorized to issue warrants to the NSA for non-terrorist related investigations of American citizens within the United States. That's not its jurisdiction, or the NSA's. Thus the NSA cannot have legal warrant from the FISA court to have gathered and correlated all of Joe Blow's electronic records and phone calls for the purpose of investigating him for domestic criminal activity. So the DEA is going to have to make up a fictional probable cause for its investigation and prosecution of Joe Blow.

                            Can you not see that this violates Joe Blow's 4th amendment rights?

                          •  I am using my head (0+ / 0-)

                            as will anyone reading the comment who doesn't already agree with you.

                            The point is that you claimed that the quote cited was an admission by the NSA that it was "targeting" US citizens for domestic spying. It's clearly nothing of the kind. No amount of hand waving or speculation as to what you think may be happening is going to alter that. Speculation isn't evidence, regardless of the strength of your conviction that it's so.

                            Unless you're only interested in preaching to the choir, you need to start considering how others who don't already agree with you see things.

                            I'm in favor of reining in the NSA and if I can see the holes in your argument, you can be sure others will.  

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 03:52:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What do you not understand (0+ / 0-)

                            about the admission that up to 49% of what gets hoovered up by NSA is wholly domestic communications? Or that the domestic communications records, papers and effects of American citizens are being "flagged" for human analysis by the NSA's automated systems? Or that NSA is forwarding data and analysis to DHS, FBI, state and local LE and the DEA for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting American citizens the NSA thinks are engaging in domestic crime?

                            These facts stand as admissions from the NSA. Like information you might learn in the process of discovery in preparation for trial, the reason the DEA went after Joe Blow for dealing pot. If such admissions from the NSA of unwarranted seizure and search of "records, papers and effects" were the source of the prosecution's evidence, it would be fruit of the poison tree. Inadmissible because it's a violation of Joe Blow's 4th amendment rights because it cannot have been legally collected and analyzed under FISA warrant. FISA doesn't have that jurisdiction.

                            One need not believe the NSA's self-serving justifications or peripheral assertions in order to accept their admissions as-is, for what they are. If there is yet another secret law we don't know about, secretly authorizing the FISA court to issue secret warrants for completely domestic law enforcement investigations/search & seizure, secretly, then let's see it. Right here, right now.

                            Do you not understand that the NSA is supposed to be "targeting" foreign communications? Do you not understand that the FISA court cannot grant domestic warrants for investigation of domestic criminal activity unrelated to foreign intelligence and terrorist surveillance? Do you not understand that American citizens have a right to be "...secure in their person, papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure," or that sworn particular warrant naming the person and/or things to be seized is required, from a judge with regular U.S. court jurisdiction, in order to seize and search a citizen's "papers and effects" for evidence of domestic criminal activity?

                            You have pinpointed no "holes" in my analysis. You have simply asserted "hand-waving" and "speculation." I do not consider our enumerated rights under the U.S. Constitution - which all of these people on all official levels have sworn to protect and defend/uphold - to be reducible to "hand-waving" or "speculation." I take them quite seriously.

                            Why don't you?

            •  More quick examples of Greenwald's total bullshit (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hey338Too, Larsstephens

              Other than mentioning  it, I won't recount all the bullshit inherent in Greenwald's ludicrous claim that any anyone, any time, could sit there and eavesdrop on any American without a warrant or authorization.  That claim is utterly ridiculous -- which is probably why Greenwald has never provided any evidence at all that it is happening.  But I have a whole diary on that bullshit claim, so I won't recount it all here.

              _

              Another other great example of Greenwald's bullshit that popped into my head, though, is his claim about a Bush-era program that was SHUT DOWN by Obama.

              So, upon taking office, the Obama administration undertook a massive review of all of the NSA's programs.  One aspect of this review led to a Bush-era surveillance program being completely SHUT DOWN by the Obama WH within two years of taking office.  Good thing, right?  Obama comes in, reviews a Bush-approved program, ultimately finds it to be overstepping its bounds, and so he SHUTS IT DOWN.  Yay!  Great news!  Chalk one up for privacy over security, right?  Well, not if you're Greenwald.  How did he spin this story?  "Obama Administration uses questionable spying program for 2 years!"  Again, I kid you that -- that's how he spun it, and his entire article was again directed at trying to make it sound like the Obama administration was engaged in all sorts of illicit conduct, when the reality was just the opposite.  Again, that the program still existed for two years was technically true -- or "truthy" -- but Greenwald's claim was completely misleading and wildly incomplete.
              _

              Or how about, when directly asked for specific examples of current abuse under the NSA programs, all Greenwald could offer were examples of Bush-era, pre-2008 FISA incidents -- NONE of them involving domestic communications.  And his reference to a 2009 newspaper report turned out to be more of the usual Greenwaldian "truthy" bullshit.  Just like the Obama Administration review that shut down the Bush-era program, it turns out that the 2009 report to which Greenwald referred -- supposedly as proof of current abuse under Obama, remember -- again turned out to be just the opposite.  The report was about the Obama DOJ, again conducting an audit of an NSA program immediately after taking office, and finding a lack of safeguards . . . and SO THEY INSTITUTED SAFEGUARDS.  Again, Greenwald takes a tiny kernel of "truthiness" -- that there was a "report" related to abuses -- but ignored the actual reality and spun it into more total bullshit.

              __

              So, what's the moral to all this?  Greenwald's reporting is largely a bunch of "truthy" bullshit.  His claims are clearly agenda-driven and should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.

            •  You sir Get it. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Reggid, elmo, Hey338Too, Larsstephens

              Right man, right job and right time

              by Ianb007 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:09:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's a Catch 22 though (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hey338Too, WB Reeves, Larsstephens

              Any program operated in secret is bound to make people nervous. And any intelligence program operated fully in public is not going to be worth a bucket of warm spit in actually helping find and prevent terrorism.

              People don't trust the federal courts anymore, and that's hard to argue with after Bush v. Gore.

            •  People are going to believe (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hey338Too, Larsstephens, Onomastic

              what they already believe, facts be damned. I used to think that there was something fundamentally different about people who were liberals. Over the last six years or so, I've come to believe that the only thing different about our extremists and right wing extremists is ideology.

            •  Your views are well documented... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gjohnsit, Onomastic

              Your diary bravely supporting the status quo make the Rec list.  Good on you.  Nothing that's been said so far has changed your opinion of GG, and I doubt anything can be said that will change it.

              Whistleblowers make claims, at great personal cost, based on what they allege to have seen from inside the NSA.  The NSA denies their claims.  You believe the NSA and conclude the whistleblowers are liars since they can't prove their claims.  Seems like a Catch-22, since most of the people that could shed some light on the truth are prohibited from talking about it, even the Senators on the Intelligence Committee.

              The only "impartial" sources we have are the documents.  Interestingly enough there's a diary by Joan McCarter that seems to offer a bit of the validation you claim has been missing to date.  Have a look.

              I've been around long enough to believe that the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes.  I don't believe 100% of what GG/Snowden/Tice say; nor do I believe 100% of what Clapper/Alexander say.

              I think we should put GG/Snowden aside for the moment and focus on the debate that they have ignited.  Lets' shine some sunlight on what the NSA is doing in the name of "keeping us safe".  That will let us make an informed decision on whether we find it acceptable or not.

              •  Not supporting the status quo -- that's not true (0+ / 0-)

                Look back at my diaries and comments -- since the time this story first broke, I have been clear that I favor major reforms of both FISA and the Patriot Act, as well significantly more oversight of the NSA.

                But I ALSO think that most of what Greenwald has reported has been wildly misleading, outrageously incomplete, "truthiness"-filled bullshit.

                As I've said many times, it's hard to have a real conversation about reforms when, thanks in very large part to Greenwald's bullshit, everyone is running around screaming that the sky is falling and that we're all being spied on all the time.  It's utter nonsense.

                •  Yeah, you keep saying that (0+ / 0-)
                   it's hard to have a real conversation about reforms  
                  All you need to do is drop your inflammatory language and endless jabs at the messenger. StellaRay managed to do it just fine, how come you can't?

                  This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                  by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:49:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I can't believe you have read the documents (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gjohnsit

            and reached that conclusion. Please read document Exhibit A again.

            What about the climate cliff?

            by wayoutinthestix on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:27:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  They're not just killing the messenger. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gramofsam1, RFK Lives, CroneWit, alain2112
        But despite the old adage "don't kill the messenger" folks have always questioned the messenger, and they should.
        Lots of folks are getting caught in the crossfire, and bridges are being burned.

        Stop the NRA and the NSA
        Repeal the Patriot Act and the 2nd Amendment

        by dream weaver on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:37:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The government has been lying about this. (37+ / 0-)

        They've been lying, and getting caught lying with increasing frequency since this story broke.

        It's not "just" Greenwald and Snowden. The true extent and nature of these programs is obviously something the government not only keeps secret, but actively lies about it to the people.

        So you think Greenwald is a glory-hound. Perhaps he is. But I don't see what that has to do with the existence of the surveillance state.

        Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

        by Boogalord on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:50:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never said Greenwald (18+ / 0-)

          was a "glory hound," or anything close to that. And I don't know the extent or degree to which the government is lying to us. It's not that I think it's not possible, not at all.

          But again, I just wonder how you KNOW what you know. Because like I said in my diary, and which I am doomed to repeat here over and over again, I'm just skeptical all around.

          Sue me, but I don't have your confidence in the narrative. Either way.

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:50:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for being skeptical (11+ / 0-)

            There certainly is a suspension of disbelief on both sides.
            Don't believe everything you read on the internet, even if it agrees with your beliefs.

            Happy just to be alive

            by exlrrp on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:44:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  How do we know anything in the news? (10+ / 0-)

            There comes a point in any story when the evidence is so overwhelming as to make skepticism rather silly. Dozens and dozens of people have reported on and disclosed these allegations over the years. Either they're all liars, or this really is going on. This is not like Iraqi WMD.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:56:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Corroboration and history. (17+ / 0-)

            1) Snowden would have had less credibility if Senators Wyden and Udall hadn't already been raising the alarm that exactly such programs existed.  Further back, when the Patriot Act was passed this is what we said would happen (remember John Poondexter and Total Information Awareness?). So, it is consistent with what we already had good reason to suspect.

            2) The Obama fans among us have hated Greenwald for a long long time for pointing out that half to a third of Democrats are now in favor of policies done by Obama that they ostensibly opposed when George Bush was doing them.  Pointing out that hypocrisy was never going to be popular with those in the switching camp.  Now that Greenwald has landed a scoop that seems to land a loud blow, they've gone nuts. So, to answer you question, the folks who are going nuts over Greenwald don't have any credibility for me because tha attacks on Greenwald predate Snowden. When this came out it was immediately obvious what the response would be.  I'm surprised no fake sex scandals have "broken."  

            3) finally, the split you worry about already happened quite some time back. Around 1990 to be precise. This is just the latest iteration of the DLC vs the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party". Nothing more.   Sure it has gotten a lot more vicious in recent years. From where I sit, the DLC types have gotten reinforcements from the switcher crowd and have become more insistent in wanting liberals to go away.  The reemergence of triangulation as a political strategy has merely reignited those debates (which may just be about tactics only)

            So, the current kerfuffle about the NSA doesn't have much to do with the NSA or Snowden at all. If this has been revealed during a Mitt Romney Presidency, Dailykos would be sweetly unified in canonizing Snowden ( and I'd probably be arguing with that too!). What we have here is an important debate getting buried in people trying to score points in stupid fights that have nothing to do with this at all, and its a damn shame that we can't focus because some folks don't want to admit they were wrong in a few minor things (and they are minor).

            That's my read of the "debate" over NSA spying.   It isn't about the NSA at all

            There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

            by Mindful Nature on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:42:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I know this: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau, gjohnsit
            They've been lying, and getting caught lying with increasing frequency since this story broke.

            It's not "just" Greenwald and Snowden. The true extent and nature of these programs is obviously something the government not only keeps secret, but actively lies about it to the people.

            Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

            by Boogalord on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:04:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm just saying (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            orestes1963, Joieau, gjohnsit

            The people who defend the NSA are doing it essentially out of blind trust that the government would never lie about it, that there is meaningful oversight and no potential for abuse, and that we should all just Move Along because these programs keep us same from terrists.

            On the other hand, you have people who believe the government has built up a massive surveillance state with huge potential for abuse and no real oversight. We know they are building data centers to horde unthinkable amounts of data. We know we've been warned about this from a couple Senators who essentially have a gag order. We know that the "oversight" currently consists of a secret court interpreting secret law, secretly. We know the government has been lying to our faces about this. We know the government is okay with leaks as long as it leaks information that makes the government look good.

            Of course you should be skeptical of Greenwald and anyone else, but I think there's a false equivalency in saying that because you don't "like" Greenwalds writing style, that "side" relies on the same kind of dubious reasoning that the NSA defenders do. Because there's a pretty big gulf between the two groups.

            Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

            by Boogalord on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:25:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The problem here is the false equivalence (0+ / 0-)

            Snowden's credibility is on the line and his motivations questioned because of his whistleblowing. It's circular reasoning, but let's look beyond that for a moment.

            The NSA's credibility is on the line because of the charges against it.
               That sounds like a reasonable equivalence...but it isn't.

            Because the NSA has no credibility at all!.
            They are a faceless military intelligence agency that deals with lies and dirty deeds.
               Any reasonable person would naturally assume that an entity like the NSA would have to prove their innocence before being believed about anything.
               But that's not where this diary starts. It starts with Snowden and the NSA being equal.

            That's where you made your mistake.

            None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

            by gjohnsit on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:48:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You sound like someone who has made up (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Reggid, Hey338Too, Larsstephens

          his or her mind. Period. And no facts or evidence (or lack thereof) is going to disturb your conclusion.

          I say the same thing to those who believe the NSA is listening to our phone conversations as I said to those who believed Iraq had WMD: show me some evidence.

          The documents on the Guardian's website released by Snowden are of the same caliber as Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. There's no "there" there.

          •  Except one thing (18+ / 0-)

            Tice, Wyden, and many others have backed them up. In fact, even Obama hasn't denied major parts and even those are very serious.  Also, unlike Powell, Snowden has precious little reason to head into permanent exile to drag fake documents into light.  Going to prison for life if he gets caught seems a rather steep risk to take for a publicity stunt. So, following the money, Powell and Snowden are in very different positions

            Finally, ultimately what they do prove is a bigger deal than most seems to get even without the shakier bits.  There is definitely a there there, stupid efforts to dismiss it as "white privilege" notwithstanding.

            There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

            by Mindful Nature on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:48:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Couple points (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hey338Too, Larsstephens

              First of all, Tice left government service in 2005, so he has no knowledge of what is going on now.

              That Wyden has concerns is not significant to me. His concern is not evidence of warrantless spying on Americans.

              I don't accuse Snowden of faking documents. I am simply pointing out that the documents released so far are not evidence of warrantless spying on Americans, as so many here seem to believe.

              Sorry, but I don't see Snowden's willingness to head into exile (he thought he could live cushily in Hong Kong, after all) as evidence that what he claims is true. Orly Taitz, the nutcase birther attorney, has been devoting substantial time and money for more than six years in her quest to prove the President wasn't born in Hawaii. That she is willing to make a personal sacrifice is not proof of her claims.

              She likes the attention she gets, that seems clear. And, sorry, it seems to me that Snowden has similar tendencies. If he stayed within the law, he would have continued to live his life as an anonymous IT guy. Now, he's an international celebrity in some circles.

              •  Your first point is bogus (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WheninRome

                Tice has stated that he stays in touch with people who ARE currently in government service - and specifically in the same agencies he worked for - so he knows more about what's going on than you do.

                Dissing Wyden shows you deserve a dunce cap.

                As for dragging out O'Really Taitz and dragging her like a big fat red herring across the trail - that's just overt, blatant distraction, derailment and thread-jacking.

                #FAIL!

                If it's
                Not your body,
                Then it's
                Not your choice
                And it's
                None of your damn business!

                by TheOtherMaven on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:16:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Actually (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                emal, WheninRome

                The documents specifically show warranties wiretapping.  An analyst only has to present the justification to another NSA official, not a judge, before proceeding.   That is warrant less wiretapping

                There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

                by Mindful Nature on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:26:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  what would change (0+ / 0-)

            your mind?

            What claim are you actually willing to place money on?

            If you cannot change your mind, you are not really in a place to persuade others.

            Gandhi said you must be the change you wish to see

            Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

            by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:42:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's funny how you inverted the positions (0+ / 0-)

            Those who believed WMDs were those who believed the offical story, the story that had the imprimatur of Powell, Miller, et al.  They would be equivalent to those who believe the NSA is legal, is not violating the constitution, and is constrained by proper checks.  That is, the official story.  

            Your converse analogy is so weak as to be useless.  People who did not question the government re WMD are like people who do question the govt re NSA.  The only unifying element is that you disbelieve both of these.  That is not a compelling comparison at all.  It is merely solopsism.

          •  Have you turned your irony filter off? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD

            You dismiss the only potentially impartial source of information in this case, the documents, as fakes.  In case you missed it, here's the ironic part:

            You sound like someone who has made up
            his or her mind. Period. And no facts or evidence (or lack thereof) is going to disturb your conclusion.
            Did Powell release classified or declassified documents for his UN show-and-tell?  I don't recall any.  Powell got the assignment because he was "believable".  He waved around some photos and a vial of powder and made the sale.  

            If the documents on the Guardian site aren't real, then there's no reason for the government to go after Snowden.  They'd have to prove he has classified documents but hasn't actually released them yet. That is, prosecute him for a crime he hasn't committed yet.  Or prove that he's committed a crime by revealing how much spying they're actually doing.

      •  Greenwald and Snowden are NOT the only (31+ / 0-)

        evidence to support the existence of a US private/public spy network that includes Americans.  I am not going to link to any of it.  You are around enough to have read all the diaries and links.  

        One last point.   What they "believe" in?   You make it sound like  Snowden and Greenwald saw the virgin mary in a piece of toast.  

        What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren 2016

        by dkmich on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:40:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If you think that Snowden and Greenwald (22+ / 0-)

        are virtually the only two people to have come out with such revelations, then you haven't been paying much attention. There are dozens of people who've whistleblown or reported on this over the years.

        Risen
        Mayer
        Lichtblau
        Schneir
        Klein
        Priest (yes, same one)
        Goodman
        Maddow
        Hayes
        Hedges

        Just off the top of my head. This is FAR from a two-man conspiracy theory.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:46:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's fair and appropriate to examine (10+ / 0-)

        the evidence behind their claims and question the accuracy of their statements.  But instead people make it all about motivations and personalities.  And that strikes me as a deliberate game of diversion from the issue of what our government is doing and whether they ought to be doing it.

        "That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything ... There would be no place to hide." - Senator Frank Church

        by jrooth on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:51:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  in combat (0+ / 0-)

          if you are weaker, you have to try and equalize things.  distraction is one technique

          Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

          by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:10:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lawyer's rule: If the facts are against you... (5+ / 0-)

            ...pound on the law. If the law is against you, pound on the facts. And if both are against you, pound on the table.

            Questions about the motivations of Greenwald and Snowden are almost entirely table pounding. Arguments that Snowden broke the law are evidence that the arguers thinks the facts are against them.

            Questions about what we really know about NSA surveillance are relevant -- but we know far more than what Greenwald & Snowden have revealed.

      •  This is a great diary. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WB Reeves, etherealfire

        I truly believe that every time the personalities of Greenwald and Snowden are brought up, it is a deflection from the real issue of illegal spying.

        Even those on the left side of the spectrum are caught up in this. Ed Schultze called Snowden a punk and the Steph Miller show constantly bashes Greenwald and Snowden for making it about them.

        Meanwhile Alexander and Clapper continue collecting our data and lie about it to Congress. I am a big Obama fan but I am puzzled everytime he says there is no spying on Americans. Either he is lying or repeating talking points given to him. My true feeling is that he is too smart not to know what is really happening.

        Don't let the nattering nabobs get you down Stella!

        The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. - Elbert Hubbard -9.62/-8.15

        by GustavMahler on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:05:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You need to read more substance (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emal

        Based on your remarks above, it's pretty clear you have little background on the history and facts of this case and are insufficiently informed, hence you narrow and mistaken conclusion the water begins and ends at the feet of Snowden and Greenwald.

        I don't want to be a shameless diary pimp, but the first diary I wrote on this subject purposely provided background history and contains numerous links to articles that elaborate some of the issues.

        If you really sincerely wish to understand the "truth" as it is, you might start my researching more; it might lead to an understanding why so many people around the world have concerns about these reevaluations.

        If you have interest, find it here - Everything you don't want to know about the NSA & didn't ask

        You would also find, by checking my Recommends, numerous diaries written by other Dkos members that discuss the substance of the issues although, I'm afraid, you might find the names Snowden and Greenwald mentioned (hold your nose).

        And as a last resort, quite a few front page articles have been published that generally go directly for the issues with little dwelling on those wicked messengers.

        400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

        by koNko on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:11:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why don't we talk about the NSA's motivation? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        orestes1963

        Let's put this into perspective here:

          There are a lot of people who want to question Snowden's and Greenwald's motivations. Why? It sure looks like shooting the messenger, but let's ignore that for now.

         Why don't you same people look at the character and motivations of the NSA - a faceless military intelligence agency with a long history of swimming in lies and dirty deeds.

          And we are supposed to put the NSA and Snowden side-by-side and say that they are equal? Seriously?!?
           Has everyone here lost his sanity and just his/her perspective?

        None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

        by gjohnsit on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:28:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What do we have to go on? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        orestes1963

        Thomas Drake. And that's just off the top of my head. There are more besides him.

        A number of people have come forward or had already aired similar facts. If you're denying that, you're simply creating skepticism that's already been laid to rest.

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:24:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think he WAS a distraction. (36+ / 0-)

      He was up until the point Morales's plane was forced down.  Then he became a story in itself, and an important one.  The US Government does NOT usually do things like that.  We don't usually send letters to Russia promising to them not to torture prisoners if they turn one over.  That's unusual.  We don't usually have senators threatening to boycott the olympics over an asylum-seeker getting asylum...  Much more.

      There are too many instances where the reaction of the government has been insanely self-destructive and counterproductive in its pursuit of Snowden.  It has elevated his worldwide status.  Just think what would have happened to the US's reputation if Snowden HAD been on Morales's plane.  Or if Graham had got his wish and we had boycotted the Olympics?  Just imagine the world reaction as the rest of the world watched the opening of the Moscow Olympics games and asked why the US wasn't marching in the parade.  "There's this guy named Snowden that they are trying to extradite because he leaked a story about secret spying and and and..."  

      So they've been acting really nuts, and it makes me wonder just who is really in charge of the operation.  I'm really concerned about that.  Even if I thought Snowden was a rat bastard (and I don't), I would still have a great deal of concern and wonder about that.

    •  "Truthiness" from GG is driving the story (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larsstephens

      Since Greenwald is the one who initiated and is still driving this story, to claim that his credibility and agenda are irrelevant is ludicrous.  His reporting has been filled with "truthy" bullshit and the suggestion of widespread (but actually non-existent) illegality and wrongdoing since day one.

      We're supposed to be a Democratic, reality-based community, not reactionary exaggerators and "truthy" bullshitters like the right-wing Republicans.

      We all have concerns and even major philosophical problems with the reach of the NSA.  But to accept blatant, dishonest spinning of those concerns into some massive, anti-Obama tale of widespread illegality and widespread eavesdropping on all Americans is unconscionable.

      For the life of me, I cannot grasp how so much of Greenwald's obvious bullshit has stuck and spread.

      •  It is beyond hilarious watching you continue (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tool, PhilJD, bruh1, gjohnsit

        to spam every NSA diary with the same bullshit assertions that have already been debunked here numerous times, and then see you get increasingly frustrated that no one wants to replow those same fields with you.

        Take a rest, Reggid. Your last diary, breathlessly reporting Dana Priest's NSA-apporved stenography, was a bust. You're not making things better for yourself here.

        The privacy protection of our digital data is entrusted to Booz, Allen, Hamilton, et al, and the President would have us believe, "Nothing to see here. Move along." FFS, these are the guys who hired and vetted Eric Snowden!

        by WisePiper on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:36:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is even MORE hilarious (0+ / 0-)

          . . . watching the Greenwald fan club bloviate on and on and on and on . . . and on and on and on and on . . . in diary after diary after diary after diary . . . all group-reccomended by the exact same circle of posters over and over and over again . . . all based on nothing but "truthy" bullshit spun from the serial bullshitter and exaggerator and King of Obama Derangement Syndrome, Glenn Greenwald.

          But hey, if you want to roll in the mud with a pig, don't blame me because you get a little dirty.

          Sorry you don't like it when I point out that the pig is wading in  puddles of bullshit.

          •  Damn, I feel unclean just having read that. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GideonAB, gjohnsit

            < heading off to wash up now >

            The privacy protection of our digital data is entrusted to Booz, Allen, Hamilton, et al, and the President would have us believe, "Nothing to see here. Move along." FFS, these are the guys who hired and vetted Eric Snowden!

            by WisePiper on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:02:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  no rebuttal (0+ / 0-)

              on the diary being a bust.

              I guess no evidence presented means no evidence existing?

              Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

              by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:59:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  On the rec list -- with hundreds of recs (0+ / 0-)

                Well over a thousand posts -- most very supportive.  And it attracted all of the usual Greenwaldians like bugs swarming to a blue light outside at night.

                Um, yeah, I'll take that every day of the week.  If that's a bust, then I'd hate to see what you think is a success.

                I mean, seriously -- is there NO amount of bullshit you Greenwald fans won't try to spin and back-slap each other with?

                •  yes rec list (0+ / 0-)

                  If that is a success, there you are clearly not aware of all the tripe that has been on the rec list.

                  What assertions are you prepared to place real money on?

                  Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                  by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:13:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  "Hilarious" wouldn't necessarily (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gjohnsit

          be my word choice.

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:55:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  so you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tool, gjohnsit

        are saying that the 4th amendment being broken is just fine and it is an out-of-date document?

        The community is reality-based enough to be upset about Clapper lying to Congress, Obama doing an about-face about the trade-off of privacy and security.  Or were those all wrong?

        Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

        by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:45:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, GG is not the story (0+ / 0-)

        And our obsession with Greenwald hurts your own credibility.

         But you are beyond being able to see that.

        None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

        by gjohnsit on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:53:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm cool with that, however... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WB Reeves, Onomastic

      I have zero interest in lionizing Greenwald or Snowden.  I'm in the odd position of being certain that this stuff wouldn't have come out were it not for a leaker, but very disappointed in a lot of what this leaker and his spokesman (Greenwald) have said and done since June.  So I'm grateful for the the situation that has developed, but I don't want to have to buy into the assertions that the man is a great patriot or a hero.  I just don't see him that way.  I'm quite happy to focus the debate on the particulars of national security policy, NSA powers and protocols, and privacy rights.  There's lots to dig into there without even having to bring up Ed Snowden or the nature of his character.

      I'm very much in the diarist's camp.  I'm skeptical of both sides and I also believe that there is just a ton of stuff to understand about these matters and we've barely begun to get at it.  A considerable hindrance has been the ideologues on both sides having so much invested in obscuring aspects of these issues that don't support the narrative that they want to assert.  That's been very frustrating for me.

      "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

      by Triscula on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:39:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  this discussion is critically important (66+ / 0-)

    and we would not be having it without snowden and greenwald. that is all that needs be said about them. other than that, they are distractions- squirrels.

    a majority of house democrats supported amash-conyers. democrats on the senate intel committee have for years chafed against their security clearances trying to warn us about what we finally know. several pieces of legislation are in the works in congress. jimmy carter, al gore, john lewis, and many others have spoken out against the nsa spying. the aclu, the eff, greenpeace, and many others are engaged in lawsuits trying to stop the nsa spying.

    what we know is that the nsa spying is a serious problem. anyone claiming otherwise, or trying to make this about snowden or greenwald, is dishonest or deluded. don't be distracted by them. keep your focus on what matters: ending what the nyt editorial board calls the "abusive surveillance programs."

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 11:55:09 PM PDT

    •  I have greatly appreciated your dogged (16+ / 0-)

      insistence on keeping to the point. You're a more patient man than I.

      There's none so blind as those that will not see. --Jonathan Swift

      by chuckvw on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:17:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let me just say (11+ / 0-)

      that I'm not in doubt that there are abuses going on in our surveillance programs. And it concerns me, deeply. IMO, the patriot act, which allows for much of this, needs to be repealed and readdressed with better legislation.

      But in order to do that, we're going to have to prove WHY that needs to happen, and repeating endlessly that anyone who doesn't get it as you see it is dishonest or deluded is not going to make that happen.

      To use your favorite phrase, "I know this is hard," but the fact remains that people must trust the messenger or they're not going to believe the message. I don't leave this all up to GG or Snowden. They've thrown their hat in the ring, and some believe them and some don't. Now it's up to others to take the ball and run with it.

      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:49:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This: (24+ / 0-)
        but the fact remains that people must trust the messenger or they're not going to believe the message.
        Is precisely the problem, in reverse.

        People putting too much trust the (government's) message makes them refuse to believe anyone other than the messenger (Obama).




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

        by DeadHead on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:27:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My post upthread (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gjohnsit, orestes1963

          discusses this very issue of trust in the form of words versus tangible documentation.  You are right that the diarist seems to have it backwards in that the govt. has given us nothing but verbal reassurances (words).  On the other hand, we do not have to like or trust what Snowden or Greenwald have said or written.  They have provided us with tangible documentation of what the NSA is doing.  

          I will trust the documents over the govt's word any day.

          "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

          by gulfgal98 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:40:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe so (0+ / 0-)

          but that has nothing to do with this diary or anything StellaRay has said.

          Nothing human is alien to me.

          by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:51:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  How does that happen though? (10+ / 0-)

        In an ideal world,we would get independent corroboration of Snowden's information or refutation. But with everything secret, from the warrants to the court decisions to even the existence of the programs, how do we moved past "Do I or do I not believe Snowden." It is almost like there will have to be a second Snowden before we can settle it.

        The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

        by CenPhx on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:28:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  congress has the ball (28+ / 0-)

        and is running with it. the public is solidly behind serious reform. no one needs to prove anything.

        people with vested interests, or the delusions of vested interests, are trying to pretend we don't need serious reform. they are in the minority in the country and in the democratic caucus in the house, and probably in the democratic caucus in the senate. the administration is not going to lead on this. the administration has been preventing leadership on this.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:20:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lewis, who has claimed (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sviscusi, etherealfire, Onomastic

          that we don't need serious reform? Reggid is probably the most consistent and acerbic critic of Greenwald on this site and he doesn't even take this position. Who are these people you're referring to?

          Nothing human is alien to me.

          by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:56:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  well he put the word "serious" in there (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, Laurence Lewis

          so now you know its extra special reform headed down the pike

          Sorry, I just have to laugh at some of the spin here.

          I do hope those in congress serious about this aren't going to give up the fight, and won't turn into a partisan issue.

        •  Personally, I am not optimistic (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, Laurence Lewis

          We may get something that talks about reform but glosses over the issues enough to placate the public for now.  

          But my personal view is that the NSA is so far down the rabbit hole that it cannot be reformed and must be dismantled and replaced by a much smaller, very tightly regulated and highly transparent new agency outside the Dept of Defense and not under military control or outsourced, but run by permanent govt. civil service staff.

          "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

          by gulfgal98 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:46:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  it's NOT a "hat in the ring" thing . . . (19+ / 0-)

        Snowden isn't running for any office, and he's not just "telling stories" and asking you to believe them.  He worked inside the NSA.  He collected evidence of what they are doing . . . he "stole" the evidence, if that's what you want to make of it.  And then he gave it to the people most able to pass it on to you and me.

        You don't have to "believe" him.  You don't have to "believe" a word he says.  But you'd be . . . mistaken . . . to ignore the evidence he presented, to believe that he just "made it all up".  Especially since we know that only a small fraction of what he collected has been released.  So far.  And the government is fighting tooth and nail to keep you from seeing the rest of it.

        And that's the "tell" . . . the blood on the nails.  NSA hides, Obama lies, and the truth remains . . . sequestered.  Until that changes, nothing changes.  Obama should be asking, no demanding, that Snowden/Greenwald/Guardian release everything they've got, and granting blanket pardon when they do.  And then with a flourish and a "but wait, there's more" he should open the doors and windows at NSA and demonstrate some of the "transparency" he's so . . . um . . . famous . . . for.  Then we can start "discussing" . . .

        Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

        by Deward Hastings on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:35:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not so sure that it's a good idea (7+ / 0-)

          to release everything they've got, because I have no idea what they've got.  I have no idea if some of it might truly endanger national security or the lives of individuals.

          I'd like more transparency, I think we all would. But it's difficult to know how much transparency to demand when we don't know what we're demanding. I wish there were a way that we could know as much as we want to know without sharing that knowledge with the people who might use that knowledge against us. I don't know how or if we can achieve that balance. It's complicated, and I don't think we can honestly pretend that it's not.

          •  Exactly. (5+ / 0-)

            It's complicated. And there's much we don't know. And saying that is not an attempt to discredit Snowden or Greenwald, nor is it calling either a liar. But you know gram, if I were saying this instead of typing it, I'd be hoarse by now. Because apparently the most unbelievable thing to many here is that one might question ALL the moving parts of this. And that one can do so without being a defender of the NSA OR Greenwald and Snowden.

            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:39:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  for all that imaginary "hoarseness" (7+ / 0-)

              you still haven't said what you "question" about Snowden's disclosures.  What of it do you think isn't true?  What parts of his disclosures regarding what NSA can do and is doing do you suppose that they really can't and don't do ? ? ?

              I question NSA "denials" based on budget, acquisitions, available technology and past history, because based on what I already knew about those things I can see that their denials are lies.  They've spent a lot of money acquiring capability that they now claim they don't have.  I see nothing in the Snowden disclosures that isn't plausible or already (long since) confirmed.

              You seem to be suggesting that there's something in the Snowden disclosures that a reasonable person might doubt.  What is it ? ? ?

              Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

              by Deward Hastings on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:18:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                3goldens, Deward Hastings

                I wish the diarist would address these questions.  If she truly is interested in becoming more informed, it is impeative to know where her skepticism lays.  She seems to glide around these requests for specific concerns, which calls into question her credibility (an interesting twist given her view that credibility is a threshold issue).

              •  You appear confused (0+ / 0-)

                Skepticism is doubt, not certainty. A skeptic isn't one who disbelieves but one who is reserving judgement. Consequently, asking them to say what it is they "think isn't true" is either an expression of confusion or disingenuous.

                Can you provide links for the materials you've based your judgement on?

                Nothing human is alien to me.

                by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:00:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  For me it is simpler than (0+ / 0-)

              that. I just trust Thomas Drake since he has been here before. He does not discuss the personalities of Greenwald or Snowden.

              The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. - Elbert Hubbard -9.62/-8.15

              by GustavMahler on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:31:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This is not complicated at all (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deward Hastings, orestes1963

              What is happening is wrong and negatively affects our Constitutional rights. No one asked me if I was happy in giving up my 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights for what appears to be a scam to funnel enormous amounts of money to private contractors to build a system that could in the future be used against every one of us.  I am damn mad about this and it is not too complicated for me to understand just how dangerous to all of us this system is that the NSA has built.

              "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

              by gulfgal98 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:59:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  actually he is (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elmo, Reggid, Hey338Too

          he has claimed broad and far sweeping abilities that frankly he's not been able to back up. Never mind they seem to fly directly in the face of everything else.

          Given that a lot of this boils down to Snowden's word so far yes we do have to believe him.

          And to be clear that doesn't mean that if you don't believe Snowden you think everything is 5 by 5 and the system is absolutely perfect. But the most egregious things? Well those are all things Snowden is claiming.

          In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
          Shop Kos Katalogue
          Der Weg ist das Ziel

          by duhban on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:17:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's your lie, (7+ / 0-)

            and you're sticking to it.  We get that.  Never mind any of the corroborating "facts on the ground".  Until Snowden goes back to his desk and records your most recent phone call you won't believe anything that he says or has given to Greenwald and the Guardian.  

            And you'd probably deny it then, too.

            Somebody should be in jail for all that money that the NSA has spent doing nothing, eh?

            Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

            by Deward Hastings on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:04:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I did the calc last night in another thread. (7+ / 0-)

              $20 billion dollars spent on a reported (by Dana Priest) "300 queries" equals $67 million spent per query. Not exactly a laudable bang for the buck, hmmmm?

              The privacy protection of our digital data is entrusted to Booz, Allen, Hamilton, et al, and the President would have us believe, "Nothing to see here. Move along." FFS, these are the guys who hired and vetted Eric Snowden!

              by WisePiper on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:47:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  By the same token... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                duhban

                ... according to the NSA:

                At the same hearing, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the head of the National Security Agency, said that American surveillance had helped prevent “potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11,” including at least 10 “homeland-based threats.” But he said that a vast majority of the others must remain secret.
                How much is a human life worth?

                Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

                by Hey338Too on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:10:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Interesting question. (3+ / 0-)

                  Are three thousand American citizen lives equal to four thousand American soldier lives, plus half a million Iraqi and Afghani lives? Does skin color enter into equation?

                  Are the purported (by those with a vested interest) hundreds thousands of lives supposedly saved by NSA spying worth trashing the civil liberties of 300 million?

                  Certainly worth pondering,

                  The privacy protection of our digital data is entrusted to Booz, Allen, Hamilton, et al, and the President would have us believe, "Nothing to see here. Move along." FFS, these are the guys who hired and vetted Eric Snowden!

                  by WisePiper on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:27:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  * should read "hundreds OR thousands" (1+ / 0-)

                    Il don't think even the NSA would claim hundreds OF thousands of lives saved. (Well, I don't THINK they would.)

                    The privacy protection of our digital data is entrusted to Booz, Allen, Hamilton, et al, and the President would have us believe, "Nothing to see here. Move along." FFS, these are the guys who hired and vetted Eric Snowden!

                    by WisePiper on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:30:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Rah rah NSA! Tirelessly keeping us safe. (0+ / 0-)

                  Not to boast, but I've been personally, single-handedly, keeping America safe from rampaging dinosaurs my entire life... with, I might add, a much better track record than the NSA and the rest of the surveillance state heroes have at doing their jobs.

                  When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                  by PhilJD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:36:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Geez. I'd itemize every single (0+ / 0-)

                communication from every single email account business or personal, transcribe every single phone call, GPS map all movements (along with gas and food prices), and even report who saw whom when, what conversations were had around the water cooler, take regular photos (including dogs, cats AND ducks, daily!) of every family member - and send it all in weekly over a 'secure' line - for only HALF that much money!

                The gub'mint could save a big bundle on this, really. And at $33.5 million dollars per year (minus the cost of equipment and internet access) I'd be rich beyond all dreams of averice.

                Sounds like an extremely cushy gig. Where do I sign up?

            •  If you're going to call someone a liar (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban, sviscusi

              which is Hr'ble, you ought to at least be able to demonstrate what the supposed lie is and why it is false.

              Can you manage that?

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:01:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The lie in question is right (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deward Hastings

                HERE:

                he has claimed broad and far sweeping abilities that frankly he's not been able to back up.
                You've been asked to cite specifics on what he's claimed that hasn't been backed up.  If that wasn't clear enough upthread, consider it clarified.

                Links are helpful. Please provide them when responding.

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:59:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The onus is on the person who made the (0+ / 0-)

                  accusation. They are the ones required to offer proof, not the person they've accused.

                  Saying someone hasn't backed up their claims isn't the same as calling them a liar. It means nothing more than what it says, that they haven't presented proof. It doesn't speak at all to their truthfulness, only to the lack of evidence.

                  Now you may not agree that the evidence is lacking. That would entitle you to argue that StellaRay is wrong, not to claim that she was calling anyone a liar.

                  OTOH, there's no disputing the fact Kovie called StelleRay a liar.  

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:49:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  My bad (0+ / 0-)

                  We are, of course, discussing Duhban and Deward's exchange.

                  That should read:

                  That would entitle you to argue that Duhban is wrong, not to claim that he was calling anyone a liar.

                  OTOH, there's no disputing the fact Deward called Duhban a liar.  

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:00:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  no it's not a lie (0+ / 0-)

              and I demand that you back up your claim right this instance or be called on for your slander

              In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
              Shop Kos Katalogue
              Der Weg ist das Ziel

              by duhban on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:28:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Have you read the documents released? (4+ / 0-)

          There is actually far less there than you seem to imagine.

      •  " people must trust the messenger . . . (15+ / 0-)

        . . . or they're not going to believe the message."

        How about trusting the data, then evaluating the various messengers in relation to how they present their messages about the data?

        Other commentors have mentioned additional sources that support the Guardian's reporting on the NSA Disclosures -- whistleblowers, credible reporters.  What convinced me early on of the accuracy of the Guardian's reporting was the information I found at tech-related, business-related, and foreign-policy-related sites, where I found not just current-response reporting on the Guardian's Disclosures, but articles that had been published sometimes years before that supported the facts disclosed by the NSA documents.  These sources include sites like Wired, Business Insider, CNet,  Foreign Policy, emptywheel and writers such as James Bamford and Tim Shorrock.

        Some people become trustworthy messengers, over time, because they earn the trust of their readers.  Some people lose their credibility and become untrustworthy messengers because, over time, their distortions and manipulations of 'message' become apparent and people learn to question their messages and look for the manipulations.

      •  What do you need to trust the revelations? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens, gulfgal98

        What information do you need to find the information Snowden released to be credible?  If we start from there, perhaps we can help to resolve at least some of the issues that are up in the air for you.

        As for your position that the messenger must pass some form of personal credibility test (per my queries above, what is your standard for this?), that is  dangerous when discussing governmental wrongdoing.  Many of the people abused by police actions would be deemed incredible because those are the people more likely to be mistreated (drug dealers, prostitutes, etc.).  Rather than refusing to value the claims of complainants until they pass some form of credibility test, it is my view that those complaints should be given deliberate consideration unless the complainant's credibility is indispensable to the issue (ie, there are no independent means of confirming the complainant's story).  How do you apply your messenger credibility requirement to victims of rape, for example?

      •  Even you don't believe that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens, lunachickie
        the fact remains that people must trust the messenger or they're not going to believe the message
        Do you know how I know you don't believe that? Because you don't apply the same standard to the NSA - a faceless military intelligence agency that lives in a world of lies.
           The NSA has no credibility. None. Yet you've put them on the same level as Snowden.

         That's why I don't believe your statement.

        None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

        by gjohnsit on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:58:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We are in the middle of a propaganda offensive (24+ / 0-)

      Meaning up is down, black is white and legal is what ever a secret interpretation of the laws says is legal

      Off topic, it is sad how a site that began as a place to "crash the gates" has become one of the places to come to spin and derail substantive reform.

      •  well... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WheninRome, Joieau

        i wouldn't blame the site. the site is a forum that reflects the culture. i won't charecterize my thoughts on some aspects of the culture...

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:08:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Web sites are a product of how (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheMomCat, Joieau

          they are marketed, site rules , compliance  with those rules and its audience which grows out of those standards.

          When Smith at Naked Capitalism faced trolls pushing  sophist arguments , her response was to (1) moderate (2) ban them and (3) set up rules of engagement (e.g., no bullshit artists). Its not perfect, but it does reflect an expectation of standards

          There is some value in having an open system. There is greater value in having one where quality is a factor.

          This site right now is no better in many ways  than the MSM in that its he said, she said.

          Someone gets enough supporters here and they get on the recommend list for essentially denying what the evidence says.

          How is this diary any better than a conspiracy theory?

          •  much as it is derided by some (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tytalus, lunachickie

            the front page has been very strong on the nsa spying. there has been plenty of coverage of the systemic abuses, and no apologetics. the community has been mixed, with some of it best characterized as educational- just not in the way intended...

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:25:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My point is how is that anymoreq (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheMomCat, Joieau, lunachickie

              valuable than a real progressive Democrat going on a TV show in which they have conservatives (whether Democratic or Republican) there spewing bullshit as far as that not being turned into he said, she said?

              I mean- is there still any serious debate that the NSA has been abusing whatever authority it has and more importantly that there are some serious problem with the NSA even if what they are doing is legal?

              If not, why are there still diaries like this that pop up on a daily basis essentialloy denying the evidence

              How is this any different than what the Birthers do with President Obama other than here he benefits from the denialism?

              •  because the front page (4+ / 0-)

                gets far far more readership than does the right side. over three hundred thousand people subscribe to the front page rss feed.

                and no, there is no debate over the abusive nsa spying, no matter how much a small group of people desperately attempts to pretend there is. by so doing, they reveal themselves, and they reveal an aspect of our culture. i have never seen anything like it. it's usually confined to parts of our national culture that i mostly avoid.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:11:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I find it to be (0+ / 0-)

            a place where government trial balloons end up being floated.

            Why? Lots of smart inside folks here. To me, that's a great way to see how far something would fly with the general population. But that's just me ;)

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:03:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, all that's pretty obvious (0+ / 0-)

              Some of its free shilling by the believers, and others of it is paid. Who knows which is which.

              I remember when I first realized the game was rigged was when my friend who worked on the hill sent me this this job listing for a lobby associate who's primary job was to post on sites like this.

              On the other hand, there are also the free workers, or partisans, who see this sort of stuff as "helping" the party.

              I remember several of the names in this thread in other exchanges over other issues. I won't name the poster, but in the one case, when the President had not officially endorsed gay marriage and the repeal of DOMA, this person voraciously attacked gay rights advocates here because they were trying to put pressure on the President.

              They had just done so days before the public announcement, but changed the minute he  changed his views in public (so I assume from that they weren't payed since a paid shill would know to begin to change the message). I won't forget that interaction because it was one of those moments of clarity that "yeah. I am not just imagining this"

              The gay advocate called the person on their bullshit artistry. In fact, they have been called out in other context for flipping as the President changed positions. Against on Monday when President Obama is for it. For it on Tues when he's for it.

              I, for one, am happy when the President and I afinally agree on something- its so rare that like with marriage equality I was openly happy he did that. From what I can tell, there's nothing short of shoot their family (and I am not even convinced that will convince them) that will cause them any pause.

              Doesn't stop them from posting here pretending to be reasonable etc or using tactics like "I am going to expect civility from you, but as for me, don't expect it from me" strategies etc.

              Its all just a video game like the one from the 80s- where the balls would bounce off the wall, back and forth, back and forth. The sad part is people aren't being paid to be this against their own interest. Because wehn you think about it-w hy would anyone want a security state who isn't profiting from it? Inevitably the Democrats won't be in office.

              •  You want to know what I think of THAT (0+ / 0-)

                Big Picture?

                Inevitably the Democrats won't be in office.
                In my opinion, that's being hastened along by design. But that's a whole other diary ;)

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:19:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, every second spent (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis, lunachickie

      talking about Greenwald's personality or Snowden's designer glasses is a second spent ignoring the true issue.

      The government is illegally collecting our data and lying about it.

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. - Elbert Hubbard -9.62/-8.15

      by GustavMahler on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:28:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree Laurence. Snowden became important (7+ / 0-)

      in his own right the moment the US forced the grounding of Morales' plane in a futile effort to apprehend him.

      That unprecedented action revealed American "diplomacy" at both its most thuggish and its most inept. Snowden is now a separate story from the data he revealed... and a story that requires resolution, if we expect ever to be taken seriously for reasons other than our very big sticks.

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:32:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the administration's reaction to snowden (5+ / 0-)

        is a story in itself, but it is also a distraction. as long as we're talking about snowden, we're not talking about the abusive surveillance.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:38:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Two stories. Granted, gunboat diplomacy (6+ / 0-)

          is a very old story, but its resurgence under the administration that vowed a new way of doing things is telling. I think it merits attention as well.

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:45:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  consider (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD, bruh1

            which would the administration prefer we were talking about- its treatment of snowden, or the nsa spying?

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:48:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Snowden matters to me personally because we all (5+ / 0-)

              owe him an enormous debt...

              and I believe debts should be paid. I want to know that he's found safe and permanent refuge.

              When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

              by PhilJD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:55:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i'm guessing that he's safe now (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WB Reeves, PhilJD

                as safe as he'll ever be. but the more he fades from the conversation, the more the conversation will focus on the spying. and the article in yestersday's guardian was not written by greenwald. i wonder if they're also trying to remove him from the conversation a bit, at least on the reporting side. spencer ackerman has plenty of credibility, which doesn't mean that the usual suspects won't start demonizing him, too, but he's not already a target.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:44:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Lawrence, we may differ (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Laurence Lewis, etherealfire

                  but we agree on the fundamentals. The story is NSA spying not GG or Snowden.

                  From my own perspective, what I find amazing is why so many otherwise savvy people, some who may even agree with this point in the abstract, insist on going to war over the slightest dissent from the proposition that GG and Snowden are above reproach.

                  In my view, they are being played for suckers and contributing to the diversion from the real story. An unpopular view but I think it so.

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:12:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Normally, I would agree with that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PhilJD

              but you know, the government's treatment of Snowden is a direct result of the NSA spying. They sort of go hand in hand.

              Where the discussion goes off the rails is taking Snowden and holding him up and saying "He Broke The Law--Therefore Anything He Says Isn't Credible", as if all laws were good or just or Constitutional.  

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:06:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Bless you for skepticism (19+ / 0-)

    It's a vital part of the toolkit of everyone who commits to being reality-based.

    One of your questions has (I think) been addressed in comments, if not in a diary: "Why is it OK for corporations to track our on line activity, through meta data,  as they do every day in the interest of commerce, but wrong for our government to do it in the interest of security?"

    Even if, hypothetically, the government were acting in the interest of security, a critical difference is that Google can't kill us or disappear us. Knowledge is power, and our system is all about controlling government power.

    Anyone considering a dog for personal safety should treat that decision as seriously as they would buying a gun.

    by Dogs are fuzzy on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:04:17 AM PDT

  •  I don't accept the equivalence (27+ / 0-)

    you're attempting to create.

    Greenwald and Snowden's "motivations" are irrelevant.

    Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's discovered that GG and Snowden had the most diabolical intentions you can imagine.

    Everything else remaining constant, what difference would it make?

    Would that make this discussion any less important?




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

    by DeadHead on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:35:24 AM PDT

    •  Motivation only matters if one believes that... (10+ / 0-)

      ...the documents are forgeries.

      Stop the NRA and the NSA
      Repeal the Patriot Act and the 2nd Amendment

      by dream weaver on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:40:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WB Reeves

        If I tell you "The government keeps requiring that food manufacturers ensure that your food contains a chemical that when taken in large quantities will kill you" and then you later find out that the chemical is water, the data is true and yet not helpful, then you still have to suspect the motivation.

        "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

        by anonevent on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:21:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I stated quite (14+ / 0-)

      clearly in my diary that this is a discussion that needed to happen, that it was very important, so don't try to stick me with that.

      But you and others don't want to deal w/the fact that Snowden and Greenwald, and ANYONE who busted a story this big, WILL BE questioned on the substance and facts of their revelations. Of which there is much debate, whether you want to admit it or not. You just can't wish it away, no matter how much you want to.

      If these guys represented a message you didn't believe in, you'd be doing everything you could to prove the messenger was without merit. Oh. Yes. You. Would. That's the way the world works.

      I'm pretty much an agnostic when it comes to Greenwald and Snowden, but that doesn't mean that I don't think they have anything to prove. And I think the NSA has a whole lot to answer to too.

      Like I said in my diary, I'm skeptical of both sides.

       

      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:09:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There really is only one side (5+ / 0-)

        because right is right and wrong is nobody. Obama happens to be the one on duty. Realists think it doesn't matter who is on duty, the premise is still the same. Whether that devolves into rox/sux depends on how he's handled it, and to my perspective it is not a pretty picture. Obama went all hair on fire with it and now he's lost some standing to be bold about the Olympics. the info is out, multi-sourced, the bell can't be unrung and the dribs and drabs of info refute the dribs and drabs of denial.

        •  What a relief! (21+ / 0-)

          Now when we want to know what's right, we just have to ask you! Because there "really is only one side," and you're the arbiter of that. Everyone else is "nobody."

          See, this is the kind of black and white thinking that drives me freaking nuts. But happy for you that it makes you feel good. To each their own.

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:11:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  thanks to that (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CroneWit, chuckvw, Joieau

            we continue to have political relativism where nothing is true.

            I guess Nixon was just dandy

            If Rosa Parks wanted to change things, she should have worked within the system. Segregation is the law of the land

            by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:55:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Best thing to do when (0+ / 0-)

              someone says they're perfectly willing to give up their rights and liberties so the Big Bad Terrier-ists won't get them (which the government does NOT guarantee) is to nod and say they have every right to give up their rights and liberties if it makes them feel safe. What they cannot rightfully do is give up MY rights and liberties so THEY can feel safe.

              It really is that simple.

          •  We have plenty of examples and the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            3goldens

            Constitution. something like 70% of the people think spying on citizens is wrong, they don't like it. We also have the recent examples of the DEA backward engineering evidence they don't have legally. We have examples of of the gov't fomenting terror schemes in order to prosecute people. We have totalitarian history to look at.

            On top of that, we have no data that shows that any of it works. And even in the instances where it might have worked, the cost of having it is prohibitive versus any damage it may prevent. There are other costs associated with an enterprise that produces nothing for regular existence. We are steadily depriving essential goods and services and occupations while shoveling money into this clandestine mega-project that has a really bad track record. Think of all the good things we could do with all of that money and technology.....and we're not doing it.

        •  Sounds like a republican to me (5+ / 0-)

          My way is right because it IS, and you're wrong if you don't think the way I do.

          I think there are valid points on both sides of pretty much any discussion. I'm quite willing to listen to them and make up my own mind, and willing to change my view if more evidence is found.

          I have a brain, and I know how to use it.

      •  I realize you acknowledged that (12+ / 0-)

        This is what I'm "sticking you with" :

        People who are more than suspicious of the motivations of Greenwald and Snowden, or at least the judgement of either, also have a legitimate story to tell.
        And what I'm saying is no, in my opinion, they do not.

        If the discussion itself is important, then personal motivations should not factor into the equation, period. At this point, doing so only succeeds in muddying the water.




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

        by DeadHead on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:50:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let me ask you something. (12+ / 0-)

          Do you consider the motivations of Cruz, Rubio, Cantor, Boehner or McConnell irrelevant? If you answer no to this, I'm going to hope for your sake that you don't wake up tomorrow with your nose grown so long it drills a hole in your bedroom ceiling.

          All I'm saying, and said in my diary, is that people will question the motivations of those who wield power, whether it be in government, or in the news.

          But that's not what I really wanted to talk about. I wanted to find out if there was anyone else here who wasn't so GD sure they were right, on either side. So far, no takers. Everyone seems pretty sure they're right.

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:18:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course (9+ / 0-)

            But that's just yet another false equivalence.

            To compare elected Republican politicians to Snowden/GG and this NSA stuff is absurd.

            Look, I understand what you were trying to accomplish. Skepticism. Fine. I don't have a problem with that in general.

            Where I took issue, and where you should probably have seen it coming, is the above quoted text.

            Once I got hung up on that part, it was hard to move past it, for me.

            We'll just have to agree to disagree, and I won't belabor the point.




            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

            by DeadHead on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:36:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  okay, so i have a question for you (6+ / 0-)

              the diary about tice currently on the rec list, that says tice corroborates snowden/greenwald.

              it references info from 2004; i think 2006 was the latest tidbit it had.  the things it discusses predate the 2008 FISA reform, which put an end to the blanket warrantless wiretapping indulged in by shrubCo.

              would you say that diary is debating honestly?  i say it muddies the waters, for which this discussion is much too important.

              Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

              by Cedwyn on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:23:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (16+ / 0-)

            I don't give a rat's ass about the motivations of Cruz, Rubio, Cantor, Boehner or McConnell.  

            Motivation is irrelevant, it's actual words and actual actions, and especially actual actions that matter.

            When I want something done, all I care about is that it's done, and done correctly.  I don't care if the guy I paid to do it needed money for his sick grandma or just a beach vacation.  

            Congressional votes don't have individual 'motivations' listed alongside the votes, only the votes.  Legislation fails or succeeds based on the total votes, not the 'motivations' of those voting.

          •  I'm with you, Stella. (9+ / 0-)

            I don't trust Greenwald, I'm not adoring Snowden and I think we need to repeal the Patriot Act.  I would like more information.  I think the idea of requiring an advocate for privacy rights at every FISC hearing is brilliant, and may be the solution to the worst abuses, if there are any.  I still don't know who in America has been brought down by these databases.  I believe Obama reined in a lot of the shit the Bush Administration was doing.  

            I'm not sure how much privacy is lost with metadata gathering.  At this point I lean toward corporate data mining being somewhat more damaging because it's impossible for the long-term unemployed to know if they remain unemployed because of what the HR folks found on the Internet.  

            I know I'm unemployable in the corporate world because my private medical records are public.  I'm on SSDI as a result.  

            I'm thrilled there's an open discussion.  I'm waiting for more facts.  I don't believe that Snowden could access anything he wanted to see.  I don't believe I'll end up in Gitmo by accident.  I don't believe any NSA analyst or tech can access this data stream without going through a process, without oversight, without providing a solid reason other people find credible.  

            I do believe we've gone too far, we've succumbed to terrorism collectively.  I hope this discussion heals some of that.  I also know someone who is paying a steep price after being in a terror attack in Nairobi.  She was pleased that OBL was found and killed and believes that terrorism cannot be stopped by anyone but the players.  

            Glenn Greenwald dribbles out small bits of information and hypothesizes large, horrifying consequences.  They may be worth genuine concern, they may not.  I think the terror that reigns here is bad for the site, bad for mobilizing to change anything, and completely blocks any dialogue that might shed some light.

            At this point, the fact that I want more information, that I want to broaden the discussion, and that I don't believe that Obama is worst president ever is enough to make me the perceived enemy of many on this site.  I expect insults, name-calling, occasional hyperventilating attacks when I post anything that doesn't toe the approved line.  

            This site is going to survive and thrive.  I expect the rollout of a site better suited for outrage in the near future, or the BOJO of those who are suggesting an alliance with the Tea Party even sooner.  (Yes, Virginia, that's on the rec list now, in comments.)

            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

            by I love OCD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:36:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  which diary (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              I love OCD

              is suggesting an alliance with the tea party?

              Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

              by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:50:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  In comments, in the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WB Reeves, Onomastic

                "Snowden corroborated..."  diary

                "Remember when Jane Hamsher suggested (3+ / 0-)
                an alliance with the teapots?  The same group of Snowden trashers attacked her from every side.   We do need the teapots to realize that the left has many goals in common with them, and we need to ban together to take the crooks and robbers out.
                What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren 2016
                by dkmich on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 05:37:50 PM PDT
                [ Parent | Reply to This |  Recommend   Hide ]
                 Absolutely. This one issue could help (2+ / 0-)"

                iPhone didn't copy the full text of the reply, which said, in essence there's no downside to joining with the Tea Party.

                This isn't about pushing the Dem Party left, it's about repudiating it and bringing it down because there's no difference between Dems and Repubs.  I'm fine with people leaving the party because it doesn't fit their agendae.  Most socialists, greens and libertarians are former party supporters who have issues that are not being addressed fully enough by those parties.  I'm not fine with aligning with the craziest people in the country in order to damage a party that doesn't align with you well enough to satisfy you.  

                I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                by I love OCD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:42:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  thanks (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  I love OCD

                  for the response (especially since you are using an iPhone).

                  I cannot see that such an alliance would help much with my goal to move the Democrats towards more rational and effective policies

                  Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                  by GideonAB on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 04:21:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Me either. I'm a fighter not a runner. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FiredUpInCA

                    My dream is a Progressive cohort that backs off from complaining about shit and learns to actively engage people who don't understand what truly progressive governance adds to their lives.  We can't sell our ideology or our goals to each other without fighting and name-calling, how will we ever be the majority of Democrats?  

                    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                    by I love OCD on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 10:14:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I'm flabbergasted that you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            3goldens

            would assume that anyone who does not care about the motivations of those miscreants must be lying.  I just don't understand that presumption.  I could not care less what their motivations are.  I am only concerned with their words and actions.  Why waste time on their motivations?  Who really cares about that?  I don't care if they have benevolent or evil intentions; all I care about is what they do.  

          •  Well I for one don't "trust" either side of this (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi, Onomastic

            "debate". I've seen way too much bad faith, abuse, hypocrisy, self serving pseudo logic and just plain fuzzy thinking for me to take anything on trust. I've seen too many people breathlessly trumpeting any news story that seems to prove their preconceived bias only to discover on closer inspection that the stories do nothing of the kind.

            Thanks for having the intestinal fortitude to express your own view and not allowing yourself to be bullied.

            Nothing human is alien to me.

            by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:19:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Did you add the "false equivalence"? If not you as (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2, TomP, gramofsam1, alain2112, Hey338Too

        the author can remove it.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:30:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What are your questions on the substance (0+ / 0-)

        and the facts of the revelations?  Please explicate.

    •  So is that your 'false equivalence' tag on the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2

      diary?

    •  It would make me more skeptical of the claims (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cherish0708, Hey338Too

      Snowden has made for which he has offered no evidence.

  •  So let me get this straight: (28+ / 0-)

    On one side we have a massive secretive intelligence service with capabilities to see everything we do online and a secret court that makes secret rulings about what the intelligence service can do in secret (after only hearing one side).

    On the other side we have a journalist, and a guy who threw away an excellently paid job and comfy life to provide the documents proving the above.

    Seems pretty clear.

    We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

    by RageKage on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:41:58 AM PDT

    •  But that journalist is an unpatriotc coward... (14+ / 0-)

      ...who ran away to Brazil, just so that he could live with his spouse.

      In mean, the nerve of that guy!

      Stop the NRA and the NSA
      Repeal the Patriot Act and the 2nd Amendment

      by dream weaver on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:07:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The latest smear jobs are WAY worse than that. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emal, CroneWit, JVolvo, chuckvw, dream weaver

        It seems to be desperately important to...someone...that Greenwald be silenced, discredited and ostracized.

        Makes you wonder why.

        If it's
        Not your body,
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        And it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:25:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I guess that I'm not so concerned about... (0+ / 0-)

          ...actual smears against Greenwald. I'm sure that he can take care of himself.

          I'm more concerned about smears against large classes of people, including many Kossacks, and our families, thinly disguised as smears against Greenwald and Snowden.

          Some folks here, with their comments and their uprates, seem to take a special pleasure in sticking in the knife, and giving it a twist.

          If it were only restricted to immigration diaries, it would be easier to deal with. Experience has taught me to expect them to be a cesspool, and I go into those with my eyes open.

          I cringe when I see our families used as boogiemen to create a climate of fear, instead of being viewed as human beings deserving of the same human rights as US citizens, including rights of privacy.

          I cringe when where we live becomes an issue with people who have never had to deal with the threat of exile.

          We are not the enemy, but it is clear that we do have enemies here at Daily Kos.

          Stop the NRA and the NSA
          Repeal the Patriot Act and the 2nd Amendment

          by dream weaver on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:24:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If the documents did prove that, sure (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cherish0708, Hey338Too

      They don't though. Have you read them? Closely?

      Maybe there are other documents not yet released that prove what you say, but they haven't come out yet.

  •  we shouldn't lose sight that this is about (19+ / 0-)

    secret interpretations of secret laws by secret courts
    which spells the displacement of the Republic by a totalitarian National Security State

    we should be grateful to Snowden and Greenwald for drawing our attention to it

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:55:51 AM PDT

  •  it is really quite simple: (14+ / 0-)

    the trajectory of the United States of America completely backs up Snowden's version of reality.

    in fact, I wasn't surprised at all by Snowden's revelations. and what I do find surprising is this vicious need to protect a Democratic administration that ignores the civil rights of peaceful protesters and other ordinary citizens as they are subjected to para military police behavior.

    I am surprised at the blindness of those who will not acknowledge the sovereignty killing trade agreement being rammed through by this Democratic administration.

    I am surprised at the willingness to somehow make the strangle hold on our civil liberties a better kinder thing when done by a Democrat.

    I am surprised by lack of thinking regarding Obamacare and using participation by the young as its lynchpin... really? count on the young and, having access to so much info: where are they going to get the money????????? without jobs. etc etc etc

    I am NOT surprised, sadly to say, that there are people who attack the idea that our gov't is spying on us. and why? just to protect what? a political brand????????????

    and we wonder why we can't solve our problems. we are truly lame.

    “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

    by pfiore8 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:01:22 AM PDT

  •  Good try, but it didn't take long for the comments (21+ / 0-)

    to head into rox/sux territory .... which is what you were decrying in the first place.

    That being said, I am with you, in that I think there is a very real issue and concern with government spying - and while I am more in fear of its misuse in Republican presidencies than Democratic ones, I am bothered by the potentiality almost as much as the actuality.  So I don't believe that the NSA speaks truth when discounting Snowden's revealations.  And yet as you say, the hyperbole from the Greenwald side of things is both distracting and discrediting of the underlying truth of what we should be concerned about.

    •  SIGH. (18+ / 0-)

      Thanks Denver. I had no illusions that this would turn out any different than all threads on this subject. But you know, it was late, I couldn't sleep, and much was running through my mind, and I just wanted to write it out somewhere.

      Whatever the response, it is the price of voice, and I'm OK with that.

      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:30:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow. (9+ / 0-)

      That's a nice simplistic reading of the comments, isn't it?

      Question: How the hell are people supposed to discuss this topic without mentioning the president?




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:56:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm more meh on this than most of you (8+ / 0-)

      But only because the data IS being collected, whether by the govt or not, and if the govt wants it, they will ask or demand, and get it.

      While its not necessarily a bad thing to have a slight barrier (and it IS slight) to the govt getting that data, the data the companies collect is probably MORE detailed than what the govt gets. And there's no real oversight on what they collect.

      Face it - my cell carrier probably could tell the govt where I was and when, and who I called, texted, or emailed from that device. I have siriusXM, I suspect even they could come up with data of where my car was and when. If i have an in dash gps, thats almost a given. The grocery stores could tell them what I buy and when, if I use either a store rewards card or a credit/debit card. My bank can tell them how much money I have and where it came from, and when, and where I shop and what my bills are. Ad of course, anything on Facebook, twitter, linked in, etc, is pretty much an open book.

      And those big corps can certainly hack things as well - Murdoch and his minions certainly have, for years, and some of the most secure phones as well. You really want to argue that they couldn't kidnap you, torture you, or kill you if they really wanted?

      The genie is out of the bottle, and has been for years. If you thought otherwise, IMHO you're pretty naive.

      •  Leads down a non-CT path re gov. Vs. corp. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dizzydean

        At time around here (and even with me), it seems as if government and corporate interests and activities seem to align.  We have diarists who in fact state that the gornment is now merely an extension of corporate desires.  So if you subscribe to that, then the difference between the NSA receding my Internet activities and United airlines bombarding me with advertisements for their credit card right here on Kos because I - on another search - went looking or information about that card is really only one of degree, yes?  But all in the interests of advancing the well being and future stability of the (corporate) state, yes?

  •  I always figured this stuff (15+ / 0-)

    was going on. Some of it I knew, like you have to take the battery out of your phone in order for it not to be able to be effectively a bug for instance, and other things because people work for the government around here and we just take it for granted and there are total dragnet zones where everything is recorded here and people know it. I mean if you paid too much attention you'd be creeped out.

    There's Onstar and GPS navigators and our phones......they all work by satellite and the gov't has first dibs on queueing no matter what so they can definitely get whatever info they want and always could. Patriot Games is very illustrative of this but on a small scale, the satellite capabilities would blow your mind 30 years ago, I can't imagine what they can do now [Enemy of the State]. To think Snowden is exaggerating is to be naive. I assume whatever is let known is not that shocking and the gov't is light years above and beyond what we can imagine. It's always worse than you think.

    But the process is important. Secret courts and secret orders with no oversight is not the way we do things and keep a viable society.

  •  It's not necessary to take Snowden and (20+ / 0-)

    Greenwald's word for it, there is plenty of evidence to show that we have an out of control surveillance/spying system.  Overwhelming evidence imo.  We've known much of what they're doing since the 90's, we've had other whistleblowers who gave similar information, we know about the massive security clearance system, the massive buildings for intelligence gathering and analysis, the number of people hired and contracted for spying and surveillance, the size of the national budget and how it's increased, etc.  All the pieces are available regardless of Snowden and Greenwald.  
    You can try to make the case that those two are bringing out information that surpasses anything we've known.  I know believe that, I've known it, others have known it and even so, so what?  Does that make what was revealed before Snowden small stuff we don't need to worry about or protest about?  Hell no, most of it is illegal and not for the purpose they're telling us, i.e., terrorism.  
    Snowden and Greenwald or not, the question is what to do about it.  Snowden and Greenwald are secondary factors that are legit.  Whistleblowers are important.  Reporters that report the truth are important.  So yes, those two should be protected and supported by those citizens against the attack on whistleblowers and the free press.  

    "America is the Terror State. The Global War OF Terror is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:27:57 AM PDT

  •  There is no equivalence, other than a false one. (35+ / 0-)

    Think it through: Greenwald has editors.

    There's not a way to publish in a paper without the editors say "this is good to publish." Does.Not.Happen.

    With a story like this, if editors did not say "GG, show us what you've got" then The Guardian is not run by editors, but by 20 paisley unicorns, all named Fred.

    It is impossible that the editors did not ask for, and see, what Greenwald has.

    If they omitted to do the job they're paid to do, they must have looked over at Judith Miller and some BBC execs and said to themselves "By golly! That's how we'll ruin our livelihoods and bring this paper down! Let's do it!"

    The fact that the stories have been published is proof that the claims have been verified beyond Greenwald.

    Add:

    • Several former NSA and intelligence officials have confirmed different parts of the stories.
    • Congress people with oversight on Intelligence have confirmed parts of the stories
    • Officials lied to Congress about the extent of spying, and then, caught, apologized for "mis-" or whatever the fuck they said to avoid saying "we lied"
    • And just Friday, if I understood correctly, the President said there's nothing wrong going on. And he's working on fixing it.
    • Meanwhile, all of Europe and a lot of the rest of the world has acknowledged the truth of this story. That's why they're outraged.

    Therefore, anyone busy trying to make the story go away, especially on the basis of the credibility of Greenwald, Snowden, et al., is concerned with something other than what's true.

    Think of global warming: we all know here that global warming deniers are either crackpots, ignorant, or spouting lies which benefit their personal allies.

    Same thing here, with our Reality Deniers.


    Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

    by Jim P on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:31:25 AM PDT

  •  Perry Mason may have had... (9+ / 0-)

    ...a few details wrong when he reported about that giant fire-breathing lizard tromping all over Tokyo, but did it really matter?

    THERE WAS A GIANT FIRE-BREATHING LIZARD TROMPING ALL OVER TOKYO!

    Same with Snowden, Greenwald and their detractors.

    OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

    by Lupin on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:37:11 AM PDT

  •  Here's me: (15+ / 0-)

    1. Discuss the program.  Discuss the capabilities of the program.  But do not go making wild accusations willy nilly of some guy listening in to your phone call to  Aunt Mabel or going through your internet porn stash without some kind of proof that they are indeed doing so.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 02:57:30 AM PDT

  •  No, the motivations of Snowden and Greenwald... (21+ / 0-)

    ...are irrelevant.

    ---People who are more than suspicious of the motivations of Greenwald and Snowden, or at least the judgement of either, also have a legitimate story to tell.
    No, they don't. Not in the least. Whether Snowden and Greenwald are libertarians, Obama-haters, anarchists, New Deal Democrats, ACLU and EFF members, Constitutional scholars, narcissists, drama queens, traitors, pole dancers or Russian spies has zero bearing on the facts about the NSA's activities.

    In short: A message is accurate or it is not. The motivations of the messenger have no bearing on its accuracy. Why is this so hard for so many people to understand?

    People who insist on discussing Snowden's and Greenwald's motivations are distracting attention from whether and to what extent our civil liberties are being violated and whether and to what extent it is either legal or justified. They are also, more often than not, engaging in the ad hominem fallacy.

    Thanks to everyone, whether they agree with me or not, for making this such an outstanding community. I know we usually want to see the same things for the country even when we disagree over individual politicians.

    by expatjourno on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:38:52 AM PDT

    •  yes: a message is accurate or it's not. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      expatjourno, CroneWit, chuckvw, Joieau

      the motives of those bringing the message are also important and, depending on the message, perhaps more important than the blah blah blah.

      Snowden and Greenwald are important to this story because they are willing to put their asses on the line for that in which they believe.

      right or wrong, in these empty-headed times when people LOVE to talk, I salute all those willing to carry a picket sign, get arrested, face para military police, or are willing never to come home again...

      we have lots of hard messages and most of them not good.

      perhaps the real good in this scenario is a man reminding us that we used to cross oceans in terrible conditions to get to a new world... we braved death and unknowns crossing continents. we were willing to be jettisoned into space... the first person to inject a vaccine... or undergo a heart transplant or march in Selma, or even Princess Diana willing to hold an AIDS patient when most of the rest of us were terrified...

      we used to have the ability to invoke courage. and that, more than all the bad news, is something to take to heart.

      “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

      by pfiore8 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:16:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Their credibility matters (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cherish0708, Hey338Too, WB Reeves

      especially for claims that they have so far not proffered any evidence to support.

  •  Here's my concern: In real time with real people (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, CroneWit, chuckvw

    with a serious time constraint on taking action where do I tell them they can go with the spy thing.  Err on the side of security or liberty.  I bet you can't always decide easily so what do I want done with me.  I take liberty.  Now to the hard one, in the case of a person who has some attached data that concerns a reviewer.  Here is the nub of our concern:  at what point is a judge asked to ok spying of an intrusive nature.  If there is an eminent then cancerrted action can and will take place.  However as soon as I enter a court of law this become an adversarial process and we know that no one presents a case against further intrusion because it is just the governent and the judge.  Obviously a counter balance needs to be present in the person of someone to argue against government intrusion.  All this spying and keeping my records somewhere in the cloud for years or forever is unacceptable unless a citizen could give direct written consent to the government to do this and terminate it at anytime also.

  •  Thank you, StellaRay (15+ / 0-)

    As Justice Sotomajor said when ruling on another case, our laws have not caught up with our technology and desperately need too.

    I'm hoping that changes sooner rather than later.

    There's a great deal to discuss and everything boiling down to either Snowden/Greenwald as gods or satans is a distraction, to say the least.

    What pressures can be brought on Congress to at least change, if not repeal, the Patriot Act?

    Etc, etc, etc.

    For it is Congress who has oversight of the NSA and who passes the laws.

    I'm with you on what is happening here - much sound and fury and accomplishing nothing.

  •  Even the accuracy of Snowden/GG largely irrelevant (8+ / 0-)

    There will be plenty of time (and evidence), after the Government has been compelled to accept reforms, for determining how Snowden and Greenwald's accuracy and motivations should be described in history books.

    Compelling these reforms requires focus – urgently before the inevitable fading of the public shock and concern, and before unaccountability becomes irreversible.

    The necessary subject of this focus is the fact the public and Congress lack access to the information needed to evaluate the existence and reliability of precautions against various abuses, including those asserted Snowden and/or Greenwald.

    This necessity would not be fundamentally changed even if most allegations by Snowden or Greenwald were pure speculation and totally false.  The key point would remain that even members of relevant Congressional committees lack access to sufficient information to ascertain this. Any particular type of abuse that has never actually occurred could easily occur tomorrow, unless there is an increase in Congressional and public access, and checks and balances.

    In addition to public focus on this issue likely being limited in duration, there is also limited mental and political bandwidth available to focus on this issue, on the part of the Public, Congress and Dkos readers and posters.

    Thus, devoting much attention now to Snowden or Greenwald mainly has the effect of distracting focus and diverting bandwidth from the key issue and process, at this moment when it is most urgent.

    •  Prelim evaluation of credibility? See incentives (5+ / 0-)

      For those who demand a bit more attention to accuracy:

      When evaluating credibility, I pay much attention to incentives.  What deterrents, risks and rewards have incentivized Snowden’s conduct? Even Greenwald, whose rewards include professional recognition, has faced important deterrents and risks in my view. In contrast:

      Does any Dkos reader doubt that there are great incentives for the following?

      •    surveillance bureaucracies to protect and expand their power,

      •    some portion of surveillance personnel to abuse their access and/or information,

      •    surveillance contractors to maximize their profits,

      •    Government spokespersons to cover up embarrassing information,

      •    All of the above to discredit and deter critics.

  •  I'm skeptical. Greenwald was a low-level (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    J M F, Empty Vessel, Just Bob

    3rd party analyst.  I don't believe he had access to nearly as much as actually is going on.  The reality is probably far worse than Greenwald or Snowden know.

    •  Greenwald has had a number of jobs (0+ / 0-)

      in a wide variety of fields, but I don't believe he was ever an analyst. Likewise, Snowden was never an analyst, either, although he seems to fancy himself as one. He was an IT guy.

      If you're an IT specialist at a law firm, that doesn't mean you can consider yourself a lawyer, or even a paralegal.

    •  You mean Snowden? He was a system administrator, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      congenitalefty

      not an analyst. My understanding is that the documents that have been published were available for anyone with a certain level of security clearance. And since he was a sysadmin, he had a good idea how about the databases.

    •  Snowden was an infrastructure analyst (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, Brooke In Seattle, Tool

      NYT reported this and it was diaried here.  More than a systems analyst (which in itself would have given him broad access) as infrastructure analyst his job was to look for vulnerabilities in the system and test them by trying to break them.  This gave him even more access, because the job made it OK for him to move around into different areas and to carry thumb drives used to transport testing programs.

  •  Would you trust President Ted Cruz? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheMeansAreTheEnd

    The even-handed approach doesn't quite fit here

    Snowden and Greenwald do not have the capability of spying on all of your communications; the US Government does.

    The only argument on the government side is that the government can be trusted not to misuse its powers. Or if it has, certain adjustments can be made to assure more oversight and more stringent guidelines.

    But whatever the rules or laws on the books, the US Government always reflects the values of whoever is president. That is why this debate really has little to do with Obama, whose term expires in 3 years, and much more to do with future administrations.

    So, the real question loyal democrats should ask themselves is: Would you trust President Ted Cruz with the power to spy on you?

    If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks. -Frederick the Great

    by Valatius on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:14:42 AM PDT

  •  I felt the way you do at first. (0+ / 0-)

    But when I put myself in the president's position I honestly think I would be doing the same thing.

    I trust him more than I trust them.

    "You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Bob Dylan

    by Jim Riggs on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:18:52 AM PDT

  •  Denialism isn't skepticism n/t (6+ / 0-)
    •  And skepticism that only goes one way isn't either (6+ / 0-)

      It's just bias.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:16:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, bias is central to Denialism (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        burlydee, ukit, CroneWit, Joieau

        You can't make someone see evidence they don't want to see if they have an interest in not seeing it. There would be no reason to deny if one didn't have a bias.

        This is interesting to me because right now I have been reading a great deal of scientific research (its a hobby) into various new revolutions that are happening in biological research, and you can see the differences there as well- skepticism (which we should want) v denialism (which is just the entrenched interest denying the idea).  Its a form of religion no matter what the belief system is about.  

        "Dinosaur bones exists here to test my faith in God" That's the comment that I once received from a Hasidic guy when I asked him what he thought of the evidence that contradicted religious text. He had these complex set of reasons that he then argued. But the key is where he started, and what he wasn't willing to question.

        These "debates," if they involve President Obama (and the Democratic Party), follow a well worn pattern of deny, deny deny, and when that fails, parse and deny, parse and deny, parse and deny, and, when that fails, excuse, and finally, up is down, right is left, it's "progressive." whatever the policy or action may be.

        That pattern has nothing to do with evidence or a method or metric for backing up arguments being made. Its the circular "I don't believe because I don't want to believe" What can any of us do with such 'skepticism" Nothing because its not a fact  and logic based analysis no matter how many times they say it is. its a belief driven one with the appearance of reason.

        There is nothing that can be said or done to convince. Even if PResident OBama admitted to everything, the process above, that I describe would turn admission into a season for excuse making. My evidence is that we have seen this before and I don't see this as following down a path that's any different.

        •  And everyone wants to respect skepticism. (5+ / 0-)

          The denialists exploit that attitude.

          Anyway, I think you're misplacing the problem here. You just wrote an explanation of why the arguments of people who have a disagreement with you can be dismissed as merely expressions of loyalty to Obama.

          Maybe you should actually focus on the content of what people are saying, and not merely conclude that if it isn't an attack on the President, it's dishonest.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:02:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The difference is pattern (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            burlydee, CroneWit, Joieau

            If over a range of issues, I see the same pattern again and again (the one that I describe), this is evidence that the pattern has nothing to do with the individual issue being discussed. I focus on the content of those with whom I am no certain whether the substance matters or those for whom I am certain it does matter. I focus on the pattern when it repeats itself.

            •  Pattern is another term for narrative. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              StellaRay, alain2112

              Your "certainty" about people's motivations is an excuse to avoid engaging with ideas.

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:39:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So, to be clear: (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CroneWit, Joieau

                Are you arguing that, upon seeing a pattern of behavior. one is to pretend that the pattern is not there?

                Contrast a real debate: hey, sure, I know what the evidence says is happening with the NSA, but I am scared of terrorism, and therefore, I agree with what the NSA is doing or I don't think its a big deal.

                That's something I can debate because although I disagree its based in reality.

                Your "substance" as you call it would have me going in endless circles (as these sorts of diaries already have others doing) arguing over whether there is even a problem with the NSA

                I suppose mechanically applied reasoning skills to not come to judgment as to what a pattern means, I might go along with your argument

                But as it is, "engaging" here merely serves the purpose of validating bad behavior that doesn't serve to help me understand what's happening with the NSA or how to solve it.

                In other words, I love real debate. bring it. That's now hat's being brought so don't expect me to pretend it is because you think there's something meaningful in an exercise is denialism

                Their motivation by the way is "certain' because we are on a Democratic site so I can extrapolate from there because I can also extrapolate that were this a Repubican administration or issue alone the response would be different

                What I see lacking in your comments is sophisticated analysis

                it works as long as no one thinks about it in terms of actually moving forward

                If the goal is to chase one's tail all day arguing with people about things that have been proven, then sure, its a great idea

                There's a reason I left it at a simple phrase to start- that's because i don't much see the point of debating denialism that quite clearly is driven by partisan rancor. Why? We are on a partisan site and it doesn't take much telepathy to realize that motivates the bias

                This again is what I mean by denialism and its power. You expect me to spin in circles arguing with a partisan denialism because I haven't "proven' on a partisan site that people are partisan.

                •  I'm saying that you imagine a pattern... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WB Reeves, alain2112

                  because it conforms to what you want to believe, and allows you to keep believing it.

                  You've come up with a nice little system that allows you to dismiss out of hand anything that challenged your narrative, purely on the grounds that it challenges your narrative.

                  Art is the handmaid of human good.

                  by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:44:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  We are in a diary about a pattern (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CroneWit, Joieau

            by the way rather than substance

            Substance is what do we do now knowing through multiple sources that there is a problem with the NSA

            Just like the same would be true of climate change

            Not someone skeptical there's a problem because of what they feel about the personality of the parties

            •  I manage to both think we need reforms... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alain2112

              to how electronic intelligence is being done, and overseen, and find the spin and claims of Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden to be full of errors.

              And I'm sick and tired of being told my beliefs aren't really my beliefs, or that I'm an agent of the NSA who backs the status quo 100%.

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:49:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Except my post isn't about (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joieau

                whethere there are errors or not in Snowden's claims (Greendwald is a reporter here so his claims are irrelevant).
                '
                Its about the fact that I don't care because its simply a form of denialism at this point in the news cycle to even care about their errors or not errors

                Reality is that there's a problem with the NSA spying. Period. the rest is just changing t he subject.

                •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                  and it would be different if a substantial point was being argued for.

                  Like X, claimed by Snowden, is false because of A, B and C.

                  Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                  by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:56:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, and that's what i said above (0+ / 0-)

                    too.

                    There's a real "reasoning skill" problem here.

                    But I have seen that in multiple exchanges here so I think there's the overall problem at a site like this that if someone doesn't want to get something, they can pretend not to get it.

                    Ive seen it as far ranging as the Zimmerman trial to this. Same sorts of "what evidence. There's no evidence' analysis. It goes no where, which is why I am cutting Joe off below.

                •  "simply a form of denialism" to want truth? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  alain2112

                  What you just wrote - that is the problem.

                  I can't believe anyone would openly admit to believing what you just argued.

                  Art is the handmaid of human good.

                  by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:42:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am going to ignore you at this point (0+ / 0-)

                    On each step along the way, when there was any wiggle room in my statement, you choose to take the most fucked up view you could come up as to what I was saying.

                    That's nto the behavior of someone who is trying to have a conversation. Its the behavior of someone trying to manipulate.

    •  Now, that really reminds me (0+ / 0-)

      of the attitude that some of the cheerleaders for the Iraq War had towards those of us who wanted to see some credible evidence that Iraq actually had WMD.

      Yeah, we were in denial. Right.

      •  There's sufficient evidence to (5+ / 0-)

        demonstrate that there are abuses and problems at the NSA

        Even the release of documents by the President yesterday advocating for the actions of the NSA relies on questionable interpretations of the law, without even having to go into the actual abuses:

        http://www.theguardian.com/...

        We have further evidence that NSA data is being used by both the FBI and IRS

        Not to mention the multiple other sources of information from ex-NSA analysts backing up Snowden

        So at this point, this isn't an WMD situation.

        •  I don't see the metadata collection program (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alain2112

          as an example of an abuse. And I have to disagree with you about whether this involves a questionable interpretation of law, based on Smith v. Maryland.

          I can readily believe that warrantless searches of Americans were done during the Bush Administration. They admitted it! But those ex-NSA analysts who you view as "backing up" Snowden haven't worked for the NSA since before Obama took office. So I can't see how their observations are relevant to what is going on now.

          I'm going to have to part ways with you again on the question of whether the use of intelligence collected by the NSA that is provided to the FBI to nab big time drug traffickers is an "abuse."

          •  In a diary about skepticism, your over (0+ / 0-)

            reliance on what you are willing to believe constitutes irony.

            And as for your definition of "abuse" its really not worth debating. This is something that should be determined with clear legal standards. Not ones that are subjective to your opinion , or frankly those of the executive.

  •  If people want to discuss motivations of leakers (6+ / 0-)

    that's just fine with me, so long as they make it clear that the speculation being engaged in to discuss said motivation is a separate issue and should never ever be bundled in with the discussion on relevant documentation and admission by the agencies themselves concerning government surveillance abuse because in the current DK climate that reduces everything to sux/rox.

    •  But the claims of Snowden and Greenwald.... (0+ / 0-)

      their statements about that information, consistently form the basis of the conversation, and they often go well beyond what the evidence shows.

      It's not merely their motivation at issue.

      I'd love to see the discussion firmly grounded in the data. Unfortunately, what we get instead are diaries that say "Glenn Greenwald says...," and then any criticism of Glenn Greenwald's take on the information gets cast as a refusal to deal with the underlying information.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:38:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Forgetting context (10+ / 0-)

    Outside of Greenwald/Snowden

    They are just another piece here. A big and important piece but still just a piece. There are others who have been corroborating much of the details in the documents that Snowden has provided. Tice, Binney, Drake, Manning...are just a few, but there are others out there who have investigated this subject using material outside of what we learned from Snowden and have written extensively on this including Tim Shorrock, Marcy Wheeler who often analyze and rely on government documents for their supporting corroboration.

    That is the context within people need to look into the claims of Greenwald and Snowden...people need to get outside thinking they are the only 2 people who have ever said any of this. As an example, the other day on a PBS report with Judy Woodruff, she had a clip of an FBI analyst who in the aftermath of the Marathon incident came out point blank and said yes, they listen to content and it is not just metadata and numbers. Our govt has denied doing the content piece from the beginning, but even yesterday in a white paper they released it was noted that yes they have a backdoor loophole to have and continue to be able to do that. And the President has continue to let that happen. There is reporting outside of the excellent Guardian that people are forgetting here. We have reports from another news organziation even earlier on how people were listening in on phone sex conversation of our servicemen and women in Iraq. The FBI even discovered Petraeus's mistress (biographer) by snooping on his underwear drawer of emails. And I am just pointing out information off the top of my head that I have read...I am sure there is far more out there. The EFF,ACLU,Wired are also other great sources and a wealth of information.

    So my point being, people need to investigate the claims being made, but more often than not, there are plenty of other resources and people in addition to Greenwald and Snowden to rely on for corroboration here. This information they have brought to light isn't  happening in isolation. Just take a look around and read information from others who are independently analyzing this stoy using other resources and are basically confirming the bigger narrative, that Big Brother is watching, listening and reading but most importantly storing all this information should they ever need to go back and query up the information for use their use at a future date if they not have listened/ read it in real time.

    Big Picture. ...Big context...on Big Brother

    Waves...

    Government of, for, and by the wealthy corporate political ruling class elites. We are the 99%-OWS.

    by emal on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:04:27 AM PDT

  •  I don't understand (6+ / 0-)

    the skepticism about Greenwald. I think he has always been one of the most unimpeachable voices out there. Criticisms of what he writes are almost always about tone, rarely about his facts. He goes to great lengths to source his information. He always addresses his critics directly (and viciously). Greenwald is vicious and rude and condescending but not wrong. Civil liberties need to be vigorously defended if we are to have any chance of keeping them. Those who would diminish them don't deserve to be cut any slack.

    •  He is "anti-Obama" by publishing what he does (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DrTerwilliker, CroneWit, artisan

      He is more of a threat to this Democratic administration than any of the dumbass Republicans with their stupid made up scandals.

      He is an Enemy to the Party, and that cannot stand.

      Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

      by The Dead Man on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:48:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He is anti-Obama, like he was anti-Bush (5+ / 0-)

        He said this years ago:

        Here again, we see one of the principal and longest-lasting effect[s] of the Obama presidency: to put a pretty, eloquent, progressive face on what (until quite recently) were considered by a large segment of the citizenry to be tyrannical right-wing extremism (e.g., indefinite detention, military commissions, an endless and always-expanding "War on Terror," immunity for war criminals, rampant corporatism -- and now unchecked presidential assassinations of Americans), and thus to transform what were once bitter, partisan controversies into harmonious, bipartisan consensus
        Now, armed with Snowden's revelations, he may be able to put an end to the harmonious consensus.
    •  He's been caught bullshitting any number of times. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sviscusi

      Remember when he went on a tear about Bradley Manning not being allowed to watch TV?

      Remember when he said, over and over again, that it was "standard whistleblower treatment" to "disappear leakers for decades?" Not a single leaker has ever been sentenced to prison for decades.

      This cult of Greenwald has to end. He argues like a lawyer advocating for a client, and plays fast and loose with the facts.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:35:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Standard whistleblower treatment (6+ / 0-)

        When charging whistleblowers with espionage, the intent is to send them to prison for decades as is what most certainly will happen to Manning. Drake was facing 35 years before his case fell apart. Kiriakou was also charged with espionage but sentenced to 30 months on a lesser charge. Tamm wasn't charged but his life was ruined after a five year investigation. Assange may be facing a secret indictment.

        Because whistleblowers haven't been sentenced to prison for decades is not for the government's want of trying. Standard whistleblower treatment.

  •  Yay! Excellent diary! My feeling exactly! (7+ / 0-)

    I am so disgusted by the way this issue has degenerated into yet another arena for the stupid "Obots vs. Firebaggers" pissing match.

    You read a diary that points out problems with Greenwald's claims and discusses what the evidence shows, and half the comments are "You Obama defenders blah blah blah...and oh, you're making it all about personality."

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:15:51 AM PDT

    •  Yes, it's plain to see that you are totally impart (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quagmiremonkey, emal

      ial and open to skepticism. Of course only when it's skepticism of Greenwald's "claims" vs. the diaries who present "evidence"

      Yeah, no bias in your analysis. You're open to all positions.

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:26:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are part of the problem. (4+ / 0-)

        Look at what you just did. You have to attack me because I'm not on your "side," and because I'm not, you've decided I'm on the other "side."

        It's like fucking Stalin's Russia in here.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:30:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I'm calling you on your hypocrisy. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          quagmiremonkey, emal

          I would say hypocrisy and lack of self awareness are more of a problem than taking sides in an argument. Pretending to be impartial while your clearly biased is a much bigger problem than admitting which side of a debate you are on.

          Nice ridiculous hyperbole though.

          "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

          by ranger995 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:34:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, that's what you want to do. (4+ / 0-)

            Call me out on something.

            That's obviously what matters the most to you. Not anything going on with the NSA.

            Calling out the heretics. I'm sure it makes you feel very puffed up with your own awesomeness.

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:38:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can't have an honest discussion with dishonest (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              quagmiremonkey, GideonAB, emal

              people.

              "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

              by ranger995 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:41:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ...who you define as "Anyone not echoing me." (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alain2112, sviscusi

                Nice little excuse not to have a discussion.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:43:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Read the link provided and tell me you are (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  quagmiremonkey, burlydee, chuckvw, Tool

                  even being close to honest. I noticed you didn't show up in that diary to discuss the documents, but you rec pretty much every diary that slams Snowden and Greenwald. I don't give a shit if you echo me, I just give a shit that you recognize your own position before claiming to be on some high road. Can't have an honest discussion with someone who won't even admit their own biases.

                  link

                  "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                  by ranger995 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:46:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So you track everyone on the site (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joe from Lowell, alain2112, zed, sviscusi

                    who disagrees with you?  Interesting.  That explains a lot.  There's an enemies list, then, and We Know Who You Are?

                    No wonder I get so many strange responses to comments I make.  Doesn't matter what I say, I'm in infidel!

                    Seriously, I'd like to know if this is true, if there's really some organized decision about who's a true progressive and who isn't.  Is it the passion of the moment or are there rules about what I have to believe in order to qualify?  

                    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                    by I love OCD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:55:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Seriously, who does this? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      I love OCD, alain2112, sviscusi

                      Art is the handmaid of human good.

                      by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:59:25 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  What the fuck are you talking about? (4+ / 0-)

                      It was my diary, and he was accusing me of something that wasn't true and my diary proves it. I just noted that he didn't comment in my diary, not did any of the other GG bashers who say they want an honest discussion about the NSA.  

                      I am not tracking anyone. Get the fuck out of here with that paranoid bullshit.

                      I'm not, nor will I ever be, a part of composing any lists. I am on the side that is AGAINST McCarthyism.

                      You are projecting an awful lot with that statement.

                       

                      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                      by ranger995 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:00:50 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No I'm picking up on a comment you (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        alain2112, sviscusi

                        made suggesting that you know there are people here who rec every anti-GG diary and not pro-GG diaries.  So I asked.  So far the antis are not really prolific but the pros are.  Unless you consider this an anti diary.  

                        I've read some over-the-top shit here on both sides.  Snowden-humpers deserved an HR.  so did Clapper-wankers.  Note who got them.  At this point it seems that if you're not 100% on board with the folks who think this is the worst moment in the history of the US you're an enemy.  How sad.

                        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                        by I love OCD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:09:46 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't consider this an anti-diary. I consider (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          quagmiremonkey, Tool

                          it a false equivalency diary, but I am definitely biased based on the evidence I have seen.

                          It doesn't take much to search things on this site, you don't have to track anything.

                          In fact you could search my comments quite easily to try to gain supporting evidence for your argument against me. It woudln't freak me out. I am not paranoid about that kind of thing.

                          Why do you put words in my mouth, when did I ever say this is the "worst moment in the history of the US"

                          I think the Civil War was probably the worst moment

                          "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                          by ranger995 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:17:44 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I know about search functions. (5+ / 0-)

                            It just sounded personal and I wondered if the "sides" are organized in some way.

                            My comment about the worst moment ever was an observation about intensity not about you.  It has been my experience here, in the last 3 months, that even something as simple as asking for skepticism from both sides of this furor is reduced to what you reduced it to, false equivalency, or cheer leading, or even a need to pull my nose out of Obama's ass long enough to get what's happening.  That little gem was a response to a question, IIRC, about whether or not there's any proof that widespread spying on ordinary citizens is actually happening.  The fact that asking for some breathing room while the facts come out has to be dismissed as false equivalency really underlines the intensity of the debate and the hard lines that are drawn.  That's how I see it.  That's what I'm being told repeatedly- if I'm not furious and ready to fight this with every fibre of my being I'm a good German, an apologist for facism.  Way to build a coalition!  Maybe I want some details, some proof, not Greenwald's hypotheses on where we're headed.  He says there are huge databases.  That's true.  He hypothesizes that every US citizen is at risk.  That's not proven, there's not even colloquial evidence.  Snowden says he could have accessed every one of those records at any time.  Where's his proof?  Obama says there's a process for that kind of access, and it's onerous.  Where's the proof of that?  I'd like to know.  On Obama's side we have documents outlining the safety measures in place, I'm curious if anyone will come forward with proof that those measures are failing.  So far Snowden's only corroborater appears to be corroborating the abuses Obama and Congress ended in 2008.  And Obama tightened the safeguards in 2011 after a 2 year review.  

                            But I can't trust Obama or Congress, I have to believe Greenwald and Snowden.  Or I could watch and see if Congress and Obama take further action that is believeable.  At this point, absent new genuine whistle-blowing, I'm in wait and watch mode.  And I'm delighted we're talking about this at the national level.

                            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                            by I love OCD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:11:31 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OK, you have valid points. I don't like you (6+ / 0-)

                            being called a good German either, because that doesn't really help win anybody over on this.

                            In any case, you have to appreciate the double-edged irony in this.

                            It would be ironic if anti-NSA people were tracking other kossacks and making lists.

                            It would also be ironic is pro-NSA people were worried about other kossacks making lists and tracking them.

                            You have to love that.

                            FYI -- I don't think I have rec'd any comment calling someone a Good German, and I am sorry if I have. I did rec OPOL's diary that had the shower comment. I thought it gave added value to the rant, but after seeing how many people were offended by it, I have stayed away from even reccing that kind of thing. At the very least, it is distracting.

                            I also don't like the patronizing, condescending, and hypocritical tone of many in the self-proclaimed "reality-based" community.
                            It reminds me of the Republican idea of bipartisanship-My Way or the Highway!

                            OK, have a nice day.  

                            "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                            by ranger995 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:19:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think we're in agreement on (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ranger995, WB Reeves, Onomastic, StellaRay

                            more than a few issues.  And I'm inclined to think there's passion and hard-lining on both sides.  AND I'm fairly pissed about being reduced to a caricature if and when I ask questions or refute non-factual statements.  The hostility and personal attacks have hardened my attitudes toward some people here and that's a bad outcome.

                            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                            by I love OCD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:52:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I was ready to blast you (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            I love OCD, Onomastic

                            until I read this comment. You display character and integrity regardless of any disagreements I might have with you. Hold on to them both.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:04:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is probably the best discussion I've (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves, Onomastic

                            had on this subject, and the character and integrity you highlighted makes it so much easier to listen to other viewpoints with an open mind and heart.  Amazing!

                            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                            by I love OCD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 05:04:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  this site is not about asking (0+ / 0-)

                            You do not get to ask for skepticism on both sides of an argument.

                            Only evidence counts.

                            Would you stay undecided about 6 million Jews being killed?

                            At some point, one is really able to take a side

                            Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                            by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:49:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Whoa, way to go from 0 to supersonic. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Onomastic, StellaRay

                            There are facts presented by both sides that can't yet be confirmed.  I'm awaiting confirmation before I pack and head for the bunker, that's all.  

                            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                            by I love OCD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:54:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  not sure what to make of (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            I love OCD

                            that.

                            I am not putting anyone sane from this thread on dkos in the bunker.

                            A lot of the stuff has been confirmed explicitly or implicitly.

                            Obama is even defending it as necessary (!).

                            However, he seems just to be going with the flow on that one, rather than confirming that any significant plots have been thwarted by the NSA system.

                            I am not optimistic that anything will change with regard to this white elephant, an elephant being a good symbol considering the support from Republicans for this

                            Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                            by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:24:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm inclined to think, since he's already (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            GideonAB, Onomastic, StellaRay

                            on record opposing the Bush abuses and has put specific policies in place to clean them out, that he's probably more on the side of privacy than uncontrolled spying on everyone.  My problem with "keeping us safe" is that it's a myth.  We take off our shoes AFTER there's a shoe bomb, we leave shampoo at home AFTER some liquid was found that's dangerous.  We don't know what's next so we can't guarantee safety.  If someone detonates a butt bomb I'm NOT having my anus scanned or my insides probed every time I fly.  There are limits.  Actually shampoo was my limit.  I drive now.  

                            Boston happened despite the NSA.  Ruling out additional plotters happened because of the NSA.  (As far as possible). It's not clear, it's mushy and messy and facts are thin on the ground.  I prefer clear, neat, and orderly.  

                            And as much as I dislike spying on citizens I'd cheer if someone was tracking Cheney and friends.  I'd cheer if there was surveillance on the One World Order folks, or the Koch brothers, and that distresses me.  20 years ago I'd have been horrified by that.  Now I'm more afraid of corporate destruction of our "fragile experiment" than I am of terrorism

                            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                            by I love OCD on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:49:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the above (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            I love OCD, WB Reeves

                            is pretty much my view, so nothing to discuss here.

                            sorry about that

                            Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                            by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:18:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  See what can happen (0+ / 0-)

                            when you take time to listen?

                            This despite your comparing him to a Holocaust denier, something that would court a punch in the nose face to face.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:09:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            I love OCD
                            The fact that asking for some breathing room while the facts come out has to be dismissed as false equivalency really underlines the intensity of the debate and the hard lines that are drawn.
                            Thanks I love OCD, for saying what I've been trying to say so well. It's late and very quiet on this thread, at last, and I'm sick as a dog and can't sleep.

                            But at least I have the time to get back to people I had no chance to do today in this long comment section. I too am delighted we're talking about this, even if it's painful.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:02:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Why do you put words in my mouth?" (0+ / 0-)

                            I feel your pain.

                            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                            by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:54:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  What are you, the comment police? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    alain2112, sviscusi

                    Jesus, what a freaking creep.

                    Art is the handmaid of human good.

                    by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:58:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Somebody has a split personality (0+ / 0-)

      Because you are neck-deep in the pissing match. Physician heal thyself.

      The cave, the Matrix, America.

      by Grassee on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:52:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We see what you did there (0+ / 0-)

      This comment alone does exactly what you state you dislike. It is an example of the problem. Carefully crafting your own inflammatory commentary and word choices in a  clever almost detached both sides do it, way...but actually....It instigates  the very personality debate you say you wish didn't occur...and then you continue to perpetrate right here.

      While also claiming you are so disgusted by the thing you then perpetrate in this little sub thread conversation.

      Bye bye.

      Government of, for, and by the wealthy corporate political ruling class elites. We are the 99%-OWS.

      by emal on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:57:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We? How many of you are in there? (0+ / 0-)

        Can I talk to Sybil now?

        The only worthwhile part of your reply is 'Bye bye.'

        Please, stick to that. Do not waste my time ever again.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:49:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Last I checked this was a public (0+ / 0-)

          forum and I most certainly have the right to comment in response to anyone I wish. As do you. Unless there is some rule I have violated that I am unaware of I will continue to make comments to others, and that includes any that you make.

          You don't like it that's your issue....take it up with the administrators.

          Enjoy your day.

          Government of, for, and by the wealthy corporate political ruling class elites. We are the 99%-OWS.

          by emal on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:05:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's the same thing with Climate Change debate, (9+ / 0-)

    we have two perfectly legitimate sides of the story that need to be heard.

    On one side there are scientists with their facts and evidence and on the other serious people like Inhofe, backed by large corporations, who have raised important questions.

    There is an "incredible lack of skepticism on both sides" of that issue to.

    /snark

    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

    by ranger995 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:16:54 AM PDT

  •  Snowden/Greenwald are huge (9+ / 0-)

    distractions. Their role started and ended with forcing a public discussion of  snooping by the government. It is most apparent that Snowden/Greenwald have misrepresented and misunderstood how government snooping actually works.

    But, at the same time, it is apparent in the admissions of the NSA that the system for snooping is not as limited as it should be and is not properly overseen by Congress. None of this is new news to those of us who have been paying attention to this sort of thing. After all, the intelligence establishment has been an over funded and out of control behemoth for decades, with absurdly timid and ineffective oversight by Congress and CIA/NSA tools like Sen. Feinstein in positions of key responsibility.

    And then there is the complete lack of privacy protections as to what the private sector is doing with our Internet data. The most real threat that most of us face on a daily basis is the massive selling and trading of data about our most personal Internet-based transactions. Why aren't people outraged when they are targeted with ads about what they thought was a very private and personal medical condition (as I have been)? Why aren't people outraged that Internet-based merchants seem to know so much about our buying habits?

    Yes, it is good for Americans to be engaged in the ongoing debate but most of the key points are lost in a sea of extreme emotionalism largely spawned by the Snowden/Greenwald duo.

    •  Agree. Their role in this was significant up (0+ / 0-)

      until maybe July 1st.  Now they are pretty much irrelevant since their stuff is being confirmed (in so many words) through national security testimony to Congress, presidential reviews of the entire surveillance infrastructure, and legal filings being made by US companies like Apple, Amazon, and Google asking that they no longer be complicit in such surveillance.

      Discussion of Snowden/Greenwald now more than a month after their reason for notoriety petered out is just overkill, a distraction, a shiny object - a total waste of time.

  •  I feel similar about this. (12+ / 0-)

    While I definitely think that the whole national security apparatus needs more oversight and checks and balances, I also am not naive enough to think that there aren't some very real and very dangerous threats out there, and they're just getting worse as our technological capabilities advance.  

    Just as the whole NSA/Snowden thing was becoming a topic, I watched an Al Jazeera documentary about biological weapons and it really made me think long and hard about how hard and complex it is to balance liberty and individual rights with the need for security in the face of some truly significant threats.

    I find none of the people who are proclaiming that they have the definitive answer to this complex issue convincing, no matter which angle they are coming from.

    Tipped and recced for writing a diary that represents, more or less, the conflicted feelings that many are dealing with when struggling with this complex issue.  

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:37:44 AM PDT

  •  You are totally not alone. (9+ / 0-)

    And I have to be honest, the people here labeling people "authoritarians" or worse for their opinions (or lack thereof) about this controversy are not furthering their cause.

    Of course, that assumes their "cause" includes convincing more people that they are right.

    Lisa

    All Kossacks are my allies, but if you can't express your thoughts in a civil and kind manner, I won't be engaging in a conversation with you.

    by Boston to Salem on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:38:01 AM PDT

    •  Yes. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alain2112, Boston to Salem, Onomastic

      I've been called all sorts of things here because I had the gaul to say I question all the moving parts of this story, and need to know more before I'm as sure about everything as some are. It is a common irony here that some of those most concerned about NSA spying take an extremely authoritarian attitude to any questioning of the party line.

      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:31:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Skeptics are silent (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell, zed

    Skeptics are doubtful, and so they learn early that the best course is to think and think. No.

    We read, consider the likelihoods, filter, and stand back.

    Everyone's innocent of some crime.

    by The Geogre on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:39:03 AM PDT

  •  Anyone who questions the motivation of anyone (11+ / 0-)

    whose opinions and activities they "coincidentally" happen to disagree with, without offering hard evidence to support their skepticism, is trolling.

    I.e. being skeptical of what the NSA is doing is in no way shape or form comparable to being skeptical of the motivations of people like Snowden and Greenwald, and any such attempts to conflate the two sets of doubts are willful misdirection akin to propagandizing, whether intentional or naive.

    I'm not saying that Snowden and Greenwald are pure as the driven snow or 100% correct, but to cast doubts on their motivations in order to cast doubts on whether the NSA is up to no good is to broker in dishonest argumentation.

    Then again Woodward & Bernstein weren't perfect human beings and one of them even cheated on Nora Efron, therefore Watergate wasn't a big deal.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:40:29 AM PDT

    •  edit thusly: (12+ / 0-)
      Anyone who questions the motivation of anyone (1+ / 0-)

      whose opinions and activities they "coincidentally" happen to disagree with, without offering hard evidence to support their [mindreading], is trolling.

      and then you're right.  ANYONE.

      people here constantly go straight to "you only say that because you think..." which is stupid.  meanwhile those same people won't stand for the same being done to them.  hypocricy.

      it's eating the site alive.  and I think what I'm saying goes to Stella's overall point.

      This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

      by mallyroyal on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:53:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And the funny thing is Mally, (7+ / 0-)

        all I had to do to send Kovie into a tiz  was mention in my diary that people who have questions about Greenwald and Snowdon have their reasons, as I also mentioned that people who doubt the credibility of the NSA have theirs. Can you imagine anything more heinous?

        The irony here is so deep it gets suffocating. Some who are most concerned about NSA spying are some of the most authoritarian, my way or the high way folks I have ever encountered.  They are "You are entitled to my opinion"
        people.

         

        "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

        by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:42:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  nope (0+ / 0-)

          authoritarianism is about government.

          It is not about individual being persistent in persuading others.

          I can supply links

          Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

          by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:02:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  it's a form of government. AND a personality (4+ / 0-)

            trait that blindly follows any authority figure.

            it's NOT just about government.

            I can supply links too.

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:54:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  okay (0+ / 0-)

              give me a link which shows that an individual poster here is blindly following a particular individual

              Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

              by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:56:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I meant links to support my definition. I assumed (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FiredUpInCA

                thats what you meant too.

                but peruse any "Greenwald" diary to see what you're asking me for.

                This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                by mallyroyal on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:57:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  there is a difference (0+ / 0-)

                  between those who are criticial of the government because of facts and reason, and those who are critical for other reasons.

                  In Greenwald diaries, what I see is people who are critical because of facts and thus I do not accept Stella's suggestion.

                  In fact, it seems that Stella may have resorted to that idea because he/she ran out of arguments

                  Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                  by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:11:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Gideon, if that's all you see (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Onomastic, FiredUpInCA, StellaRay

                    then I regret to say that I think you are wearing blinders.

                    Twice in the past week we have had people rushing to tout stories that supposedly confirmed or supported GG and Snowden's allegations. In both cases the stories blew up in their faces. That isn't the product of an allegiance to fact. That's the result placing political prejudice ahead of fact.

                    Just yesterday I had someone insist to me that the Reuter's story about NSA tips to the DEA validated GG and Snowden's claims. When I read the piece I had to wonder if the person who touted it had actually read it, since it did nothing of the kind.

                    To save time, let me stipulate that such behavior isn't limited to one "side".

                    Nothing human is alien to me.

                    by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 04:30:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  LOL. (0+ / 0-)

                    I assure you that Stella is a she, as most might suspect. And I also assure you that Stella did not "resort" to anything because "she ran out of arguments."

                    Actually, Stella isn't afraid of an argument. And she doesn't expect everyone to agree with her or else.

                    "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                    by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:24:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  At the very least they don't (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit, Joieau

      understand that skepticism has a definition that doesn't begin with "I believe"

    •  "My skepticism is good. Yours is bad." (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WB Reeves, sviscusi

      Skepticism that only goes one way isn't skepticism. It's bias.

      You're using the same definition of skepticism that "climate change skeptics" use.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:25:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emal, CroneWit, congenitalefty

        Skepticism that's based on facts is good. Skepticism that's based on feelings is bad. People who conflate the two are arguing in bad faith.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:27:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Also, you refuted your own "argument" here (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GideonAB, emal

        It's actually climate change deniers who engage in "Well, both sides are kind of wrong" false equivalence. Your second sentence contradicts the first one.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:28:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, they don't. What climate change deniers (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alain2112

          say the scientific community and environmentalists have a point, and that the deniers are wrong?

          I tend not to read "The other side is a conspiracy of lies" as a statement that "Both sides have a point."

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:03:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Seriously? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GideonAB, bruh1, emal, congenitalefty

            You've not heard "arguments" that try to discredit global warming by claiming that both sides go too far, etc.? This is a common tactic used to put doubts in the minds of somewhat more intelligent people. It's David Brooks' core MO.

            It's sort of the Intelligent Design style of sophistry.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:12:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It fact its called triangulation (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              emal

              and the Democratic party perfected it starting with Clinton and continuing on now wit the current leadership

              So, I think is interest as well that someone is saying this is somehow unheard of it here on a democratic blog.

              To me, that's like denying the GOP's Southern strategy

  •  "current disarray in the GOP...it can happen to us (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrooth, CroneWit, congenitalefty
    See the current disarray in the GOP. Yummy. But it can happen to us too
    Thanks for this diary, I tend to side with those who think the President is wrong on NSA spying. As for disarray, I think we're there and 2014 is in jeopardy.

    I've only been on this site a short time, but here and elsewhere on the Internet and in meatspace I've seen a split. Those who like me are to the political left of the President and criticize him are compared to the Tea Party, to "breathless" conspiracy theorists.... I've even see people compare us to Stormfront. Wow. I've seen this attitude on the internet and in real life.

    Next year do I really want to sit in a room making calls with or go door to door entrusting my safety to people who think I'm as bad as Stormfront? Not really. And it's been made clear that they don't really want us anyway, they want "normal people" that agree with them that NSA spying, chained CPI and the like are OK. But when I mention this split I get responses like "Waaahh! Take your ball and go home!"

    The nasty split on NSA spying is a symptom of a huge problem for the political left. We are sharply divided, and  one side seems to think that the other is worse than the Tea Party. Thanks for taking about this, because it spells trouble for us in the near future.

  •  The Democratic Party needs a civil war (5+ / 0-)

    They need to decide if they will continue to be the DLC/corporate drones that the party leadership is composed of, or if they will be the party of the people.  Because saying they're a party of the people while never doing anything for the people is a dead end.

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:59:16 AM PDT

  •  Remember that time a controversy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StellaRay, alain2112

    arose but was quickly and quietly resolved throughout the country in a matter of days after polite and meaningful conversation?

    Oh right, me neither.

    •  Ah, the Good Old Days (0+ / 0-)

      "Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided - that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 - but by iron and blood."

      Prince Bismark

      Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies have nothing to lose but their chains -Marx (-8.75,-8.36)

      by alain2112 on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:53:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I dont HAVE to trust Snowden and GG (8+ / 0-)

    The total apocalyptic  Defcon 4 freakout by the entire US govt and its court stenographers about this tells me as much about just how f&cked over we are as any particulars of what Snowden says or GG writes about.

  •  Tipped and recced for important discussion (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, Lawrence, StellaRay

    even though I don't entirely agree that there's some kind of symmetry here.

    "That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything ... There would be no place to hide." - Senator Frank Church

    by jrooth on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:19:44 AM PDT

    •  I really wasn't trying to present (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic

      any kind of symmetry. Nor was I trying to present a false equivalence, even though someone thought they were entitled to tag my diary with their opinion.

      I was simply trying to say that I don't understand why more here aren't skeptical, meaning questioning, of all the moving parts in this story. There's a lot of information out there on this  and it doesn't all agree on much.

      The threads here between dueling computer geeks are particularly interesting to me, as this is far from my expertise. But it's clear that amongst people who do know what they're talking about, there is not anything near consensus.

      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

      by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:51:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well (0+ / 0-)

        I would need to see the specifics.

        What point of view is being generally espoused which goes beyond the evidence and facts?

        If you can identify a specific idea that is ripe for discussion, then perhaps you can put it forward in a future diary

        Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

        by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:09:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Read my diary. (0+ / 0-)

          There is a list of questions I have that I think are ripe for conversation. But that can be a hard thing to come by here. Lots of my way or the highway stuff---and I'm not talking about those here who have made thoughtful, substantive comments on their beliefs.

          I have enjoyed reading the comments and I have learned some things. Learning things always makes me realize how much more I have to learn.

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:19:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  actually I have (0+ / 0-)

            read it.

            that is how commenters generally work.  They read the diary, then comment.

            I do not see an argument specifically put forward by, say, Dallasdoc that you are disputing with evidence or reason.

            It seems mostly just asking some general questions.

            Stream of consciousness stuff can be interesting to some but I tend to want something like the following.

            Dallasdoc said "we must close X airport in the light of this revelation" and then you would argue against that, citing your reasons

            Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

            by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:26:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting patten developing in these comments. (6+ / 0-)

    The generally pro-Greenwald side keeps insisting that, no, there aren't good points on both sides and the angriest, most absolutist voices don't need to listen more, while the side that has been more skeptical of his claims is generally acknowledging that there are good points on the other side and wants a more respectful dialogue.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 07:59:43 AM PDT

    •  We're not "pro-Greenwald" (7+ / 0-)

      We're anti-unwarranted spying, and pro-facts.

      Nice try, though. It almost seems like you believe yourself.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:46:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I just got through making that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emal

        argument to this particular poster, and his response it seems was to  post the same attempt to change the subject as he was doing with me

        I wrote that the issue is that skepticism is being confused with denialism as far as whether there's a problem with the NSA

        Indeed, others, such as Lewis abouve made the same statement

        Skimming other comments, they are all saying the same things- who cares about this, let's discuss the NSA because there are problems there, and that part can't be denied.

        •  It's no different from the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emal

          "Look, a bunch of climate scientists exchanged some questionable emails, therefore global warming is a hoax" line of "argumentation". It's sophistry.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:45:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, it is. Its also a pattern here (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            congenitalefty

            I was just discussing this with a friend in terms of race

            That the way racism plays out is through denial these days.

            The value of the sophistry is that it exhausts the person trying to address the underling issue

            We spend days on end just trying to prove what has already been proven so that by the time you get to the solutions, you are playing catch up with whatever bullshit reform that is being proposed

          •  Remembe (0+ / 0-)

            these sorts of diaries aren't new here

            We have seen it the grand bargain, and just about every thing that may be seen as a negative with the base of the Democratic party

            So its spun until people are too tired to fight properly

            •  And they're being posted here deliberately (0+ / 0-)

              for a reason, that's not entirely honorable (unless you consider winning a dishonorable battle by any means necessary to be honorable). Now, far be it for me to accuse this or that SPECIFIC person of willfully and deliberately engaging in such political misdirection. Many are just caught up in this pattern without realizing that they're helping it along. But that it's going on is clear.

              I.e. we're being played, by pros, using the tired old PR tactics of deny, misdirect, discredit, confuse, conflate, and wear out.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:18:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The site allows games to be played (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joieau

                So people keep playing them. Its really that simple.

                •  need to build (0+ / 0-)

                  a criticial mass to persuade kos to install a better system of moderation

                  Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                  by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:11:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's all but impossible to moderate (0+ / 0-)

                    against "Well, I'm not SAYING that X is true, just suggesting that it maybe kinda sorta is kinda sorta true, sorta kinda" types of sophistry.

                    And when the community tries to, it ends up wasting time and energy. Which is kinda sorta its purpose, kinda sorta.

                    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                    by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:34:34 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  not impossible (0+ / 0-)

                      I would think.

                      A good first step would be to get rid of those who habitually reach for insults when they are stumped in debate.

                      In the past, republican talking point have been eligible for HRs.  We could probably devise a system to talk sophistry.

                      Actually, compromise is a dirty word. Without Democrats, we would not have had the 2008 banking crisis

                      by GideonAB on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:54:29 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you for proving my point. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  alain2112

                  Everything you don't want to hear is "playing games," and only people who agree with you are operating in good faith.

                  Art is the handmaid of human good.

                  by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:40:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Joe, please give me a break (0+ / 0-)

                    Your response when I was making my points about denialism v. skepticism was to continiously mischaracterize it.

                    Your response when people are trying to say they don't care about the personalities of the messenger, its about whether their arguments are being born out, its to mischaracterize what people have said,

                    Those are not the acts of someone trying to debate with intellectual honesty. So yes, I consider what you are doing a game because it occurs again as a pattern here with way too much people.

              •  LOL. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WB Reeves
                Now, far be it for me to accuse this or that SPECIFIC person of willfully and deliberately engaging in such political misdirection.
                Talk about "deny, misdirect, discredit, confuse, conflate and wear out." Hello projection. Hilarious.

                "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                by StellaRay on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 03:41:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  who is "we?" you're speaking for yourself right? (4+ / 0-)

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 10:50:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  NSA & Obama critics (0+ / 0-)

          Who are not twisting themselves into knots trying to justify what's going on and/or discredit those who've brought these things to light.

          Yeah, I think there's a "we".

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:40:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and yeah a lot of you are PRO snowden. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi

            what site are you reading?  anyone who criticizes him is a "troll" apparently.

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:50:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not pro or anti anyone (0+ / 0-)

              I'm pro good policy, the constitution and the facts. I'm anti the opposite. I could care less if Snowden has sex with iguanas if what he's revealed is true. Too many have corroborated what he's revealed for it to matter what his credibility or personality is at this point. Keep trying though, it's funny.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:57:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  which is why I asked were you speaking for (0+ / 0-)

                YOURSELF.

                geez, kovie.

                This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                by mallyroyal on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:58:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Most of the NSA critics here aren't pro or anti (0+ / 0-)

                  anyone, at least in some fundamental sense. If I have a problem with Obama or Snowden or Greenwald or whoever then I'll say it and why, but ultimately it's about the policies, not people. And I'm pretty sure that I speak for many here when I say that. Ergo "we".

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:08:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  sigh. "most?" c'mon. but ok whatever. (0+ / 0-)

                    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                    by mallyroyal on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 12:15:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I haven't come across anyone here (0+ / 0-)

                      who strikes me as despising Obama independent of his policies, or Bush for that matter. Progressives tend not to be partisan that way. A lot of people consistently mistake disliking his policies for disliking the man. Although, the more one objects to his policies, the harder it is to like or respect him. That's only natural. But the policies came first.

                      I'm not saying that there aren't people who despised him from well before he was even president, but they're in the minority here. A very small minority from my perspective. Myself, I was one of his "defenders" up until the '08 FISA vote. Against the PUMAs, against the Edwardians, against the Kucinichites, etc.

                      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                      by kovie on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 06:35:33 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  We're ALL anti-unwarranted spying and pro-facts. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kj in missouri, alain2112, Lawrence

        Some of us realize that.

        Some others fail to.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:39:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Or, rather, most people on both sides are... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kj in missouri

        anti-unwarranted spying and pro-facts.

        Claiming that only one side of this debate can claim those titles is just an indication of your bias.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 11:54:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Your comments have no connection (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      congenitalefty

      to what people are actually saying here.

      You just got through doing this with my comment.

      is there a reason you jumped down there to say essentially the same thing once I pointed out you didn't understand what I was saying?

  •  In the same way that I wouldn't care about (5+ / 0-)

    the motivations of someone who shouted an alarm that my house was on fire, I'm not terribly interested in the reasons Glen Greenwald, Edward Snowden, or the U.S. Senators may (or may not) have for alerting us.

    The government has a responsibility to provide a reasonable degree of security, but also to protect our liberties.

    In the best case scenarios, finding a healthy balance in the government's efforts to achieve these dual goals would be daunting.

    The old cliche that the best disinfectant is sunlight applies here, imo.

    The greatest possible degree of transparency and openness should be our government leader's preference not only because of the PR advantage, but also because it would strengthen surveillance programs.

    The burden of proof must rest with the government, due to the inherent disparity in power. My mind is open. As is the case of a brute with a dull axe, should they rely on raw force they will mostly increase the risk only for themselves.

    Especially as the programs are revealed, explained, and hopefully modified we may recognize them as imperfect but improving efforts by our government to satisfy more than one goal.

    I won't pretend that my view of domestic spying programs wouldn't be altered if the Administration were a Republican one. I try to always be skeptical, but the GOPers raise the level to suspicion. Even with a Democratic Commander-in-Chief we shouldn't pretend that abuses are impossible--rather we should address how they should be dealt with.

    It matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. Henry David Thoreau, in Civil Disobedience

    by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:09:11 AM PDT

  •  It is often good to be skeptical. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Choco8, bruh1

    particularly when a government is caught lying to you. Or the head of the NSA admits lying to congress. BUT when you start believing their lies and question the persons who raised the issue, it suggests that you are a Catholic, and that there is no child abuse scandal, because your authorities told you that there was none.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:15:59 AM PDT

  •  What about the legislation?? (7+ / 0-)

    This whole debate has to be one of the most frustrating I've seen on DK.  We have four diaries up on the rec list right now, not including this one, yet not a single damn one talks about what has already been proposed in Congress--NOT ONE.  

    This whole thing has devolved into an Outrage of the Day followed by "The Thing Your Are Outraged About Is a Lie!" followed by "Is NOT!!" "IS TOO!" bullshit.  Oh yes, then there is the "Why Don't You Care?"  "You're an Authoritarian" BS too.  

    In the meantime, there has been a bunch of stuff proposed which could use our help in getting some attention--see poopdogcomedy's diary here from August 1st that got all of 13 recs and jamess's diary here from August 3rd that got 23.

    To my knowledge, those are the only diaries on what has been proposed in Congress since 7/31.  Yet how many screaming, hollering, scandalized diaries have we had?  

    When we had the fights about health care reform, at least folks were calling for action on a regular basis and not just being outraged.  Outrage is just that--it is impotent without being channeled into the avenues to bring about change.  

    Until then, the latest "revelation" or "look what Very Important Person said about Snowden" stuff is just Fucking Flaming Bullshit.

    C'mon folks--we're better than this and have proven it in the past.  Help those senators and House members who have already stood up and proposed something by calling attention to what they have done and hammering your own congresscritters to support them.  That's what we're supposed to be doing around here....

    To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

    by dizzydean on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:18:58 AM PDT

  •  Secrets in a democracy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Onomastic, Lawrence
    </