The Guardian’s Computer Smash-Up Story Grows Increasingly Bizarre & Ridiculous

The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger and Morton Downey Jr.

The Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger and Morton Downey Jr.

Every publication makes mistakes. Every major publication has, at some point, botched a story. But the way things are going with The Guardian as it publishes this series of Edward Snowden “bombshells,” we’re well beyond isolated glitches. The publication has botched nearly every story on this beat — arguably one of the biggest stories of the Summer. The ongoing trend of highly suspect coverage of various trespasses orchestrated by the U.S. or U.K. governments continues unabated, and even a cursory degree of scrutiny has revealed vague reporting or self-debunking details, then, after reader outrage has been sufficiently peaked, a slow drip of mitigating information emerges.

Were it not for the melodramatic personal struggles of the reporters and their source, along with the link-bait and bad reporting that constantly demands careful inspection, we might be talking about ways to improve and reform America’s surveillance operations. There’d be heated disagreements to be sure, but no matter where the debaters would sit on the political spectrum, we’d be considerably closer to sharing a mutual understanding of what the government, specifically NSA, is up to. And, gratefully, with the shrieking at a much lower decibel level.

Instead, it’s nearly impossible to settle on the terms of the debate, chiefly due to an ongoing trend of deliberately incomplete bombshell articles combined with short-attention-span readings of hyper-complicated operations. Together, these elements serve to reinforce both confirmation bias and hair-trigger sanctimony. This is what The Guardian is primarily (though not solely) responsible for, and it’s this lens of deception through which we have no choice but to view the latest episode in the saga: The Goon Squad Computer Smash-up Caper.

In keeping with the 24 Hour Rule, Tuesday brought to light a series of new details and raised more questions about how a British intelligence goon squad forced staffers from The Guardian to destroy one or more computers containing Snowden-related documents. First and foremost, and contrary to what was implied in editor Alan Rusbridger’s think-piece, it turns out that the British GCHQ officials didn’t force The Guardian staffers to destroy the computers.

On July 20, 2013, without any photographs or video to document any of it (inside a newsroom no less) three employees under the direction of Rusbridger voluntarily destroyed the computer(s).

Rusbridger took the decision that if the government was determined to stop UK-based reporting on the Snowden files, the best option was destroy the London copy and to continue to edit and report from America and Brazil.

The destruction was overseen by two agents allegedly from the GCHQ, the U.K.’s counterpart to NSA. Three staffers destroyed the computers using “angle grinders and drills.” No, the GCHQ guys didn’t raid The Guardian‘s office. They didn’t force anyone to destroy anything.

Viewed from either side, this was a purely symbolic move since the files could’ve been stashed on any one of dozens of Apple computers seen in a photograph of The Guardian‘s newsroom, not to mention the use of offsite storage. By the way, I’ll overlook the fact that The Guardian article said there was just one copy in England. Clearly, they had multiple copies on various computers.

And that’s where this gets really wacky. The Guardian included the following photograph with the caption: “The remains of a computer that held files leaked by Edward Snowden to the Guardian and destroyed at the behest of the UK government. Photograph: Roger Tooth.” That’s “a computer,” singular.

guardian_computers

Meanwhile, Rusbridger tweeted the photograph and described it as the remains of a MacBook Pro.

rusbridger_tweet_1

He also claimed in his initial story that it was a MacBook Pro that was destroyed.

The first thing I noticed was that none of the pieces shown in the photo are hard drives. Computer experts online noticed that two of the pieces weren’t from a Mac at all, but instead from a PC — and not a recent model PC but a PC that looked to be quite old. And, of course, there’s a very obvious shell of a MacBook on the right. Needless to say, this didn’t appear to be what The Guardian or its editor-in-chief had described.

Later via Twitter, Rusbridger again wrote that there was just one computer that was destroyed.

rusbridger_tweet_2

Finally, after more and more people began to question why there were PC parts in a photograph of a destroyed MacBook Pro, Rusbridger tweeted the following:

rusbridger_tweet_3

Interesting. Now there’s more than one “hapless machine?” Further down in the thread, Rusbridger tweeted, “We were using macs *and* pcs!”

Sorry, no. Given the precedent of serially misleading claims, combined with what appears to be a slowly emerging tall tale, it doesn’t take a sleuth to notice that Rusbridger was caught in a deception and was hastily covering his ass.

So what really happened? It’s difficult to know, but obviously Rusbridger’s version of the episode isn’t holding water. Not only was The Guardian not forced to destroy its computers (there are many articles in need of a headline edit), but there was just one computer, a MacBook Pro, and then, mysteriously, there was suddenly a PC, too — a crappy, obsolete PC evidently left over from the days of dial-up and Windows 95, possibly the most rickety storage choice imaginable for stashing sensitive national security files.

It could be that The Guardian fabricated the whole thing, based on some shred of truth. Or it could be they pulled a fast one on the British government by sacrificing a MacBook Pro and, ostensibly, an antique PC they horked from a staffer’s grandmum. Perhaps they did so under the symbolic ruse that these random, mismatched computers contained the stolen documents. But then, if that’s the case, why all of the mentions of one computer: a MacBook Pro? And where are the hard drives? If the GCHQ didn’t seize the destroyed drives, then they must be somewhere. The Guardian hasn’t addressed this one yet.

Combine all of this with the fact that Rusbridger said he decided to not publish this story until it could ride on the coattails of another Snowden revelation about the GCHQ. And then what? Bury it deep within a think-piece about something else? So we’re supposed to believe this harrowing episode happened exactly as described, and instead of immediately writing it up and publishing it, they decided to wait until… whenever? (Note to journalism students: this isn’t how it works.)

All of this came to light against the backdrop of David Miranda, Glenn Greenwald’s partner who was detained at Heathrow on Sunday, who was confusingly described by Greenwald and The Guardian as an innocent spouse, then as a journalist, then as a non-journalist helper, then as a courier financed by The Guardian. It’s almost as if the publication thinks we’re idiots, thoughtlessly gawking at contrived headlines like tabloids at a grocery store checkout counter. Are we seriously supposed to just accept these fish stories at face value and proceed with an anti-government freakout based on innuendo, prevarication and utter hogwash?

As the hours tick away, this whole computer caper is appearing more and more like that time when Morton Downey Jr., with his ratings in decline, staged an assault in which he shaved his own head and drew several badly rendered swastikas on his body with a Sharpie. It’s getting to be just that silly. And it would be equally entertaining to observe if it wasn’t orbiting such a deadly serious topic.

UPDATE: The BBC attained confirmation that the government was in contact with Rusbridger.

David Cameron ordered Britain’s most senior civil servant to contact the Guardian over classified information leaked by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, it has emerged.

Whitehall sources confirmed Sir Jeremy Heywood approached the newspaper.

This still doesn’t resolve the issue about the computer(s) and what exactly was destroyed, or whether it was witnessed by GCHQ operatives.

Bob Cesca is the managing editor for The Daily Banter, the editor of BobCesca.com, the host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Huffington Post contributor.

  • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

    You sir, are a maroon. Your update link contained the sentence “Two GCHQ security experts oversaw the destruction in a basement of computer files containing information from the US National Security Agency leaked by Mr Snowden.”

  • CygnusX1isaHole

    In his UPDATE Cesca intentionally leaves out the following sentence from the BBc article:

    “But the government insisted that the material be either destroyed or surrendered.”.

    Cesca intentionally censored the crucial part of the update so as not to unravel his entire article.

    Any person who claims to be exposing the lies of another yet intentionally censors new information to protect his now broken thesis is not to be trusted.

    Cesca’s credibility has now instantly and forever dissolved to ZERO.

  • Lucretius Carus

    This, “…we would be talking about serious reforms of the NSA right now if Greenwald and crew didn’t insist on “fixing the facts around the policy” in order to make their case.”, seems to be the gist of the “argument” being forwarded here, and yet not one shred of what would actually be considered proof by a reasonably intelligent person.

    This appears to be yet again some poser simply stirring the pot; “Look at me, look at me!” is what this Cesca fellow seems to be saying, and little more. Weak tea for the outrage-but-not-truth-inclined.

    • kfreed

      What pot would that be? The fact-checking pot?

  • Dr,WeedLover

    “Arguably one of the biggest stories of the Summer” – Wow. Bob Cesca is nothing more than a Democratic party shill. A hack, with no writing ability, nothing profound or interesting to say, just another Dem Party worshipper with his tongue deeply embedded in Obama’s neo-totalitarian ass. The readers of this site are moronic, self-assured war-lovers. What the fuck happened to all of you idiots? Or, is the money that good?

    • kfreed

      You’re not at all shilling for Dr. Weed himself, eh?

      I’ve been saying that the NSA “scandal” (involving Libertarian Glenn
      Greenwald of Cato Institute and Paulbot Snowden) is another RW fake scandal. It’s not about privacy. It’s about undermining government, specifically the democrat in the White House, for political purposes.

      “Assange’s Emerging Politics: Rand Paul And Libertarian Wing of GOP
      Represent ‘Only Hope'”

      Forbes (Page 2): UPDATE: Wikileaks Party under fire in Australia for what
      some are describing its “lurch to the right,” revealing in filings that “they
      want the fascist Australia First Party, the pro-shooting-in-National-Parks
      Shooters and Fishers Party , and the “mens rights activist” Non-Custodial
      Parents Party to win a seat instead of the Australian Greens. Maybe this really is an international conservative movement.”

      NOTE THIS: “What’s fascinating is that Paul (the father, less so the son,
      who still has aspirations to actual head up the vast government he says he
      despises) largely rejects a modern view of democracy, claiming that “pure
      democracy is dangerous” and that the founders never intended actual democratic rule. “Democracy is majority rule at the expense of the minority,” wrote Paul last year. “Our system has certain democratic elements, but the founders never mentioned democracy in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence.”

      READ IN FULL: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2013/08/17/assanges-politics-rand-paul-and-libertarian-wing-of-gop-represent-only-hope-in-u-s/

      Finally, somebody had the balls to say it.

      Here’s the Assange for Ron/Rand Paul video:
      http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42405_Wikileaks_Founder_Assange-_Im_a_Big_Admirer_of_Ron_Paul_and_Rand_Paul#rss

      Tea partying Rand Paul’s premature 2016 ad sounds suspiciously like Glenn Greenwald, don’t it?
      http://www.dailypaul.com/285884/rand-paul-beyond-the-left-right-paradigm

      Glenn Greenwald is not a liberal, he’s a RW Libertarian associated with the
      brothers Koch and their Cato think tank: http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

      THIS Cato think tank:

      The Nation: “John Yoo, author of the notorious “torture memo,” served on
      the Cato editorial board for Cato Supreme Court Review during the Bush
      presidency. At the same time, Yoo was writing the Bush administration’s legal justifications for waterboarding, Guantánamo, warrantless wiretapping and more. Yoo also contributed articles to Cato Supreme Court Review and a chapter to a Cato book titled The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton criticizing President Clinton’s “imperial presidency.”<<<< [SOUND FAMILIAR?]

      The “Cato Policy Report” attacked progressive critics of Bush’s “War on
      Terror” as “Terrorism’s Fellow Travelers“ in its November/December 2001 issue. Former Vice President of Research Brink Lindsey wrote, “Most of the America haters flushed out by September 11 are huddled on the left wing of the conventional political spectrum.”

      Another Cato executive, Ted Galen Carpenter, former VP for defense and
      foreign policy studies, enthusiastically supported Bush’s “war on terror” and
      called on Bush to invade Pakistan.

      The Cato Institute advised the 2002–04 Republican-dominated Congress to
      commence military strikes in Pakistan in its Cato Handbook for Congress arguing, “Ultimately, Afghanistan becomes less important as a place to conduct military operations in the war on terrorism and more important as a place from which to launch military operations. And those operations should be directed across the border into neighboring Pakistan.”

      Another Cato Institute executive, Roger Pilon, vigorously supported Bush’s
      attacks on civil liberties. Pilon, Cato’s VP for legal affairs and founding
      director of the Cato Institute’s “Center for Constitutional Studies,” supported
      expanded FBI wiretapping in 2002 and called on Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act as late as 2008."
      http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth#

      Greenwald's only purpose in life is getting Tea party lunatics elected:

      "At a talk given the day after the 2010 election — one that was a disaster
      for Democrats — “progressive” writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.

      Greenwald’s speech mainly focused on civil liberties and terrorism policy
      “in the age of Obama.” But it was his approach to politics that got members of the Young Americans for Liberty — a Paulite Libertarian group that co-sponsored the event — excited:

      [Paulites]: "The speech was stellar with too many good points to touch on in
      a single blog post. I would like to point out that in the Q&A at 38:00
      Greenwald specifically addresses a possible alliance between progressives and Ron Paul libertarians."
      http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

  • Schneibster

    I’m gonna mark this thread and get a lotta laughs out of it over the next year or two.

    You don’t usually get to see quite so much of the stupid all in one place very often.

  • BillAndersoot

    MacBook Pro hard drive replacement:

    1). Remove the keyboard.
    2). Slide out and discard any little square or rectangular bits you find underneath the keyboard. (They’re unnecessary pieces and your computer will run faster without them.)
    3). Remove all logic boards. (There are three: two Apple logic boards for super-extra redundancy, and one PC “motherboard” which is only used for Boot Camp. If you don’t use Boot Camp, you may safely send this bit to the shredder.)
    4). Slide out any remaining PCI or ATA cards and toss them. Some of these are quite toxic, so wear gloves and a respirator.
    5). Send the case to the shredder. No need to destroy the screen–it will shred quite easily.
    6). Visit your nearest Apple store for a replacement computer, or “hard drive”.

    Good luck!

  • Vipsanius

    Bizarre story.
    Hard to take it seriously.

  • naugiedoggie

    Every hysteri-monkey should click through and read the BBC article, which contains the facts of the matter, — facts somehow not making it into the anti-Guardian screed preceding the link.

    Considering that the BBC reporting (and other reporting in London, as well — this information was being reported on SkyNews early this morning, ET) completely trumps the article, does this mean that the 24 hour rule applies also to Big C’s hysterical rants?

    • Schneibster

      What facts are you claiming?

      Because I didn’t see you mention any.

      Just sayin’.

      • naugiedoggie

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776063

        Read. Analyze. Think.

        As Samuel Johnson said, “Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.”

        • Schneibster

          Still no facts, just more linkbait.

          Look, you’re not claiming any point of fact whatsoever. Haven’t mentioned one yet.

          You’re not even lying; you’re not saying anything.

          • Vipsanius

            True

          • Schneibster

            I confess, I stole it: Pauli (I think it was Pauli- coulda been Weinberg) once called something “not even wrong.” You can look it up it’s prolly not hard to find.

            Still good for a giggle though.

          • naugiedoggie

            Yeah, I’m saying, “Go look at the original article,” — for which I even provided you a link, — “and compare it to Big C’s rewrite of the events.” And you’re responding, “No, explain it to me.”

            I don’t know if that is because you prefer Big C’s version, if you just can’t do the “read analyze think” process, or if you just don’t give a damn what the actual facts of the matter were. Whichever way, this story is much bigger in UK than in US. I was watching it on Sky News at 7:30 ET yesterday morning. I then read it on the BBC (link) and then I came here, to find the story mangled. It’s easy to see why Big C feels that he owes no apology to the truth, when his readership is composed of the center-left equivalent of Faux News watchers. “Bob said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it.”

            Good luck with that.

          • Schneibster

            Sorry, that’s your job.

            If you can’t do it you’re obviously lying.

            No tickee no laundry.

          • http://www.prospectctucc.org/ Michael Powe

            Nope, I have three kids, as I know for a biological fact. Two are teenagers living with me and I know you’re not the other one. I’m not your daddy.

            I get that you don’t do your own research. I’ve been on these boards long enough to know your game — no matter how much time I spent writing up the obvious for you, you would just continue with the name-calling and attempting to drag me along on your descent into the cavern of irrelevancy.

            I do my homework before I come to the discussion. I recommend the same for you. Of course, if you had done your own research, you wouldn’t be bawling like this now.

            You, the Big C and other members of the Cesca/Obama Axis are doing a fine job of shunting off the real issue, the actual activities of the NSA spies, and amusing yourselves with name-calling and self-congratulatory circle-jerking. Yes, you’re the pride of America.

            No matter how many times you call me names, it won’t change the fact that gov’t agencies continue to spy on Americans, in flagrant violation of the terms of the Constitution; and you have taken your eye off the ball.

          • Schneibster

            Unfortunately none of that makes any difference. Still no facts stated.

            Which means you’re lying again.

        • nathkatun7

          “Read. Analyze. Think.”

          It’s plainly obvious that you are incapable of doing any of those three.

          • naugiedoggie

            Yes, plainly obvious. You should consider a career on 1-800-psychics-r-us. You’ve got the talent.

      • nathkatun7

        I think doggie thinks that what he/she says=facts. These Greenwald cultists are useless.

        • Schneibster

          It’s the difference between opinions, and facts to back them up.

  • Schneibster

    So what’s the red PC graphics board for? It sure ain’t from the Macbook.

    • missliberties

      Hello! Did the G editor think no one would notice? Seriously.

      • Schneibster

        Apparently either he or (more likely) a photographer decided there wasn’t enough color so they put a red circuit board in there. After all nobody’s gonna notice, right?

  • stone

    Bob, I think you forgot to tag this “conspiracy theories” because that is clearly what this is.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      No, a government plot to destroy and imprison journalists — that’s a conspiracy theory.

      • FollowtheDough

        A conspiracy theory could also fall under the tag line what you and others were tweeting excitedly about w/ theories that the hard drive photo was a fraud. Maybe you just got it wrong completely, you didn’t have any physical evidence. It was the same type of methodology that truthers used for 9/11 evidence.

        You want to be fair, the same rules should apply to everyone.

        • Schneibster

          What hard drive photo? There’s no hard drive there.

      • ohminus

        Of course, because it couldn’t possibly happen….never has there been any effort by any western government to suppress publication of embarassing facts by the press.

        Except, of course, that that’s bullshit, and that a variety of western countries have tried to do so.

        • Schneibster

          Which of course proves this one is true.

          Oops. Lazy analogy fallacy.

          • ohminus

            Oops, I didn’t claim so at all.

            But thanks for making it so evident that you will happily make fraudulent accusations, that at least makes clear what your credibility is – that of a mindless claqueur of Cesca.

            It is Cesca who is accusing others of a conspiracy theory. We have yet to see any evidence for that claim. But as you prove, you think it’s perfectly ok to engage in a libel campaign.

          • Schneibster

            So it’s even worse.

            You don’t even have the courage to actually say it, or to back it up when you get caught.

            You only implied it.

            Coward.

            ETA: Propaganda alert.

          • ohminus

            Hilarious. You present no evidence for your accusations but accuse others of the same

            A liar accusing others of cowardice because they do not confirm his lies is rich.

          • Schneibster

            What “no evidence?” Your posts are the evidence.

            You’re lying again.

          • missliberties

            Lazy analogies are literally destroying the world, or at mimimum amurika.

          • Schneibster

            Well, there are other kinds of fallacies.

            But I wouldn’t disagree if you included them all.

        • Vipsanius

          The fact that it occurred at other times and places does not mean it it happened in this case.
          But you know that

    • Schneibster

      You mean other than the faked up “destroyed” laptop computer with a frankenstein desktop PC graphics board they claim came from it?

      • stone

        If the Guardian had faked this incident don’t you think the GCHQ would be vociferously denying the accusations? The fact that they are not blows this stupid conspiracy theory out of the water. If you want to go on believing it, it just shows how gullible Cesca’s readers really are.

        • Schneibster

          Why would they bother? The Grauniad has already turned into the UK version of the National Enquirer, apparently angling for the News Of the World market segment.

          Of course the UK has a much larger market for that kind of thing than the US, but I think they take it less seriously.

          It will be a long cold day in hell before I quote or link anything they say as proof of anything.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          Intelligence agencies don’t make press statements about the details of an ongoing investigation and they certainly don’t give a sh*t about discussions or accusations like this. GCHQ isn’t out to look good in the eyes of The Guardian’s readership. Their only motive is to ensure that people don’t commit crimes and travel through their country and if they do, they want to catch them, gather evidence, etc, etc. To believe that GCHQ should and would do such a thing shows quite a bit of naivete.

        • CL Nicholson

          You want a spy agency to talk about investigating a spy? Hence, not knowing the meaning of the word spy.

  • BlueTrooth

    Regarding the David Cameron angle…well NO SHIT! Geez, pardon my outburst please, but I’ve seen exploiters claiming Cameron ordered the destruction of the Mac Pro PERSONALLY. British journalism is traditionally “cheeky”, so I’m not exactly shocked by Rusbridger’s embellished tale of “thug tactics by the Police State”. But once again I am asking what the “end game” of this Picadilly Circus might actually be. Is it really just about “traffic”? In many ways, I’m more concerned with the “journalists” involved than the friggin NSA because as far as I know the NSA isn’t tossing citizens into Gitmo by the thousands or even contributing to our overpopulation of prisons in any noticeable way. Is there a story THERE? Or must we be made to wade through this sewer of rubbish before the “real journalism” finally begins?

    • nathkatun7

      THIS!!!

  • CL Nicholson

    The Guardian is making the British Intelligence agencies sound like the Keystone cops. If the Brits pretty much have spies as good as ours (or access to the Geek Squad at Best Buy) they wouldn’t fall for the Okey-Doke that the Guardian would store all their classified, super secret “bombshells” on a 10 year old PC that has less storage than my PS Vita**. So either MI-5 are the dumbest spies in the Western world, or the Guardian thinks their readers are as gullible as the Fox News audience.

    ** (Oh BTW, can someone please explain to Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes that yes, you can smuggle data out on a modern, portable gaming system. This isn’t the days of those $20 Tiger Electronics games my pops bought me on Summer vacations. Hell, Bradley Manning walked out with tons of State Department cables a DVD while downloading Lady Gaga tracks. My wife’s does her entire legal brief drafts on her IPad. So yes, Greenwald’s partner could conceivably smuggle loads of classified data on a Nintendo DS. Again, either they’re complete idiots about technology or think we are. ).

    • Badgerite

      Am I really supposed to be shedding tears that they took his Nintendo DS.

  • XanderWijs

    This is such a bullshit article!

    1. The Guardian said the government gave them a choice, either handover the laptops or destroy them yourself. That’s coercion, which is perhaps less worse than force, but the same effect. If I blackmail you into eating dirt, rather than groud your face into the sand, which is worse?

    2. As IF we would be talking seriously about NSA reform!! Total hypocrisy. Oh wait …. SOME PEOPLE ( we call them real journalists) ARE talking about NSA reform! But ya, gutter tabloid worker like you Bob, are inexplicably forced to pay attention to this.

    3. NO BODY IS STOPPING YOU from talking about NSA reform! Don’t go whine about how you’re being FORCED to pay attention to whatever happens to ACTUAL JOURNALISTS from Guardian. Even if you aren’t a real journalist, the government might still force you to undergo the same.

    For all these reasons we can safely conclude: Bob Cesca, you’re a whiny little beeyatch.

    • condew

      I don’t see any recommendations for NSA reform in your screed. You’re just adding wood to the fire and then complaining it’s too hot in here.

    • Vipsanius

      fail.
      get a new insult book

    • Badgerite

      Yes, but the FILES would be what the government would be after. Not the computer itself. So the story told by the Guardian really just doesn’t make any sense. Visually it is like the ‘destroying of the printing presses’ but in actual fact, they just destroyed an old computer. They haven’t slapped them with a prior restraint order or anything. The Guardian is not being charged with anything for what they have printed. The Government may be looking for what has NOT been printed. But you would confiscate computers , preferably with the files on them since that would be were the information sought would be, not destroy them. The Guardian story and subsequent hissy fit makes no sense.

      • GwenKillerby

        which is why the guardian said: do you really want to do this, we have copies elsewhere. but the govt replied, yes we want you to e ither destroy the laptop or hand it in.

        sooo your point makes no sense.

        • Badgerite

          And so they displayed computer parts that DON’T match. How did that happen?

        • Badgerite

          Actually my point does. The point is that this may have been the result of laws saying that the Guardian cannot be ‘in possession’ of such and such that the authorities had to make an effort to enforce. But unless there is some actual interference with the publishing part, I can’t see any significance to this story at all. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Not to mention, their computer part apparently don’t match up. So it sort of looks staged. Just a bit.

          • GwenKillerby

            And again the story that cesca tells you is not true and he admitted that. with his latest: “The Guardian’s Editor: We Voluntarily Smashed Our Computers While Government Goons Observed” <=== also not what happened, but closer than "The Guardian whines that the government forced us to destroy computers"

            Also amazing: The photos are the Whole Holy Truth and Nothing But the Whole Holy Truth, but the article accompanying those photos is all LIES?? Seems like hysteric nitpicking to me.

          • Badgerite

            It would!

          • Schneibster

            Looks like somebody who doesn’t know much about computers trying to make up a plausible lie about them to me.

            Kinda like you are. Funny that.

        • Schneibster

          But there’s no picture of the hard drive, and there’s a completely extraneous board there that cannot be in a laptop. And you never explain these obvious facts.

          So, are you a troll?

          Just askin’.

          • GwenKillerby

            OMG ! no picture of the HDD!!! Because … that photo magically showed the entire offices of the Guardian???

            no picture of the HDD, this is proof of what exactly?

          • Schneibster

            It’s supposed to be a computer.

            It’s not. It’s a bunch of parts that don’t fit together with the most important one missing.

            You’re lying.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      Did you write “beeyatch?” I should totally take you seriously.

      • stacib23

        He did, and it made me giggle. The guy that uses all caps to make a point also uses fake words like beeyatch.
        And the funny just keeps on coming.

      • CL Nicholson

        He’s Rick James, Beeyatch!

      • GwenKillerby

        Did Bob Cesca just the word beeyatch, while giggling like a
        little kid, as the flimsiest of reasons to not address any of the 3 points
        that XanderWijs is making?

        That’s very brave, Bob. You’ve got to be soooo glad that he gave you
        that way out to not address the serious point he made: no-one is holding
        whatever to your head to stop you from discussing anything, Bob

        No, you’re no little bitch bob, you’re such a brave, brave man!

        Bob,
        unlike you Greenwald zombies has discovered that exposing the slightest
        of exaggerations by political friends is much more important than say,
        massive government spying on us. The UK directly taps the internet
        cable, but oh, talking about Greenwald, that’s more important, right?

        • Schneibster

          But what about the fake “destroyed” computer and the missing hard drive?

          Maybe you forgot.

          • GwenKillerby

            so you finally admit that what Bob claims is a lie?
            Did the Guardian say: Yes, these are ALL the parts?

            I simply think Cesca is less credible, or NOT credible at all because he keeps lying about Greenwald and the Guardian.

            them, I know and trust because their stories are backed up. The first thing I got to know about Cesca is that he LIED
            Also, he blocks people who disagree with him of this site.
            /shrugs/

          • Schneibster

            I’m looking at the picture, and it’s obvious he’s NOT lying. That’s the most pitiful try at imitating a “destroyed computer” I’ve ever seen.

    • Schneibster

      So if all this is true why is there a desktop PC graphics board sitting in the middle of the supposed Macbook remains? And where’s the destroyed hard drive? That’s where all the data is. Duh. Taking the laptop without the hard drive is like catching the crooks and taking the leather and canvas money bags back and leaving them the money.

      Not to mention six months probation for stealing leather and canvas money bags since it’s only a first offense. Kinda like for stealing milk crates or shopping carts or whatnot.

  • sealiagh

    It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Greenwald, et al do not actually want a discussion of how we reform NSA.

    • NOTANEMOPROG

      lol

      • sealiagh

        You are a very cheery fellow indeed with all your LOLs.

        • NOTANEMOPROG

          I am. It’s always funny to come on here and read all the idiotic Government tools parroting the NSA talking points of the day.

          • sealiagh

            Oh, oh, oh, oh wait “UNCLE!!!!” you win with your brilliant debating !! I denounce the government tools here and their parroting of NSA talking points; I denounce their gullibility and stupidity – I denounce them in the name of the Great and Glorious Greenwald.

    • bedrockq

      Ya think!

      • NOTANEMOPROG

        He really doesn’t think. Nor do you, sparky. You are just parroting the Government lines. And that does not constitute thinking.

    • Badgerite

      No, I think they just want to harm and vilify the US capabilities in this area. I have always thought that they have an agenda that they are not being honest about with this story.

    • Schneibster

      Damn straight, they’re makin’ money off this!

  • js hooper

    How many times does the Guardian / Greenwald have to get caught lying before people stop reporting everything they say as 100% hair on fire truth.Why are people so reluctant to put their claims under the same scrutiny we give Fox News?

    I had to endure Rachel Maddow (my favorite news anchor) breathlessly report the story of Greenwald’s partner getting “detained”….She acted as if it was the greatest crime against humanity.About 10 minutes in to her rambling rant I had to change the channel…I don’t even know if she ever mentioned the FACT that Greenwald was using his boyfriend as a Mule to smuggle stolen govt. info internationally.

    It was almost as if that element of the story was irrelevant to her. The professional left has become reduced to being a hipster copy of the Alex Jones right.

    This isn’t about reporting govt. abuses….this is about pushing a political agenda and manipulating events to gain an audience.

    • NOTANEMOPROG

      “About 10 minutes in to her rambling rant I had to change the channel”

      Typical behavior of a toddler. Close your eyes, and the world goes away, right?

      • js hooper

        Whatever fool…believe what you want.

        I changed the channel because I began to realize she wasn’t presenting any new facts that i hadn’t already read online.

        I also was getting frustrated that she was LEAVING OUT key elements of the story that made it clear Miranda wasn’t an innocent person traveling abroad who just happened to be married to Greenwald.

        • NOTANEMOPROG

          He was an innocent person, you moron. That is why he was not arrested, was released, and no charges were filed.

          How thick are you Cesca-reading idiots?

          • CL Nicholson

            He was an innocent person, you moron. That is why he was not arrested, was released, and no charges were filed.

            No, Fool. No, he was release because they had no evidence. But he wasn’t “innocent”, Greenwald said so himself. Mirandsa was smuggling data between him & Poitras. Personally, I think its a dick move to use your own husband or wife as a mule for your shenanigans.

          • ohminus

            No, fool. He was released because they held him under a terrorism law. And whatever he might be guilty of, it certainly isn’t terrorism. But you might want to explain how Greenwald stating that he was shuttling data makes him “smuggling” anything or “not innocent”.

            Annoying the government happens not to be a crime, and the fact that the US classified these documents is highly irrelevant outside the US. Inasmuch as the data includes UK government, they should take things up with the US for their fumbling security, not with the courier of a journalist.

          • CL Nicholson

            Hey, releasing classified documents without permission is a crime no matter what Greenwald says. If your running around with classified documents – the government has the right under the law after your ass. If you don’t think its just – change the damn law.

          • condew

            I would not call him innocent. If GCHQ had been able to read what he was smuggling, he might well be sitting in jail right now.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        If js hooper is a toddler, then you must be a shit-flinging monkey.

        • NOTANEMOPROG

          Only overgrown toddlers refuse to face facts.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            You’ve yet to show us facts. You can start this debate you want so badly any time.

          • stacib23

            You should have qualified that statement with the following – “but you can only use statements based in fact to support your arguments”.

    • MrDHalen

      Things are getting bad if Rachel has now jumped on the Greenwald bandwagon. Are the ratings this summer so bad that the left has no choice but to sell Greenwald’s cheap cardboard stories to pay the bills? Am I in a Twlight Zone episode?

    • missliberties

      This reminds me so much of the medias willingness to take Donald Trump seriously. It was good for their ratings, but Donald Trump is an irrepressible azz.

      I still like Rachel, and always will, but she is on the wrong end of this story. I e-mailed her to ask her if she could dig a little deeper. Because she is just wrong here.

      • Raina

        yeah she’s been disappointing. Remember how she used to debunk Republican talking points by fact-checking them? Why is she just taking whatever GG says as fact?

        • missliberties

          I will let her slide on this one, just because I think she doesn’t really understand the whole story. It’s easy to get caught up in these brushfires. I don’t think for one second she would be trolling for Greenwald, with insults presented as facts, like we see here in these comments. She has way more class than that.

          • Schneibster

            I been studiously ignoring MSNBC since I saw they were going to pump this story no matter what the facts were. I’m pretty disgusted with them. I expected better. They’ve devolved into demagogues.

            I see why Keith left.

          • stacib23

            With the exception of Lawrence O’Donnell, I wholeheartedly agree.

          • Schneibster

            LOL

            Sorry but Lawrence is my least favorite one! Goes to show ya, dunnit?

            I’d take Ed, but I readily acknowledge he gets caught up on the wrong side sometimes. It’s OK, it’s not like I’m gonna come out hating Rachel, either; she’s got enough integrity she’ll admit it before she’s done. I just don’t want to watch her embarrass herself.

            With Rachel you know she’s not making it up herself, she doesn’t believe in that. Her Deep Horizons early coverage was the best on Earth.

    • 6cmzumquadrat

      Since you seem so keen on self-scrutiny, let me ask you to establish a few things:

      1. That the information Miranda shared with Poitras in Berlin was “stolen government information”;

      2. That it is legal to investigate someone in you believe to be in possession of information as a terrorist; and

      3. That there is a political agenda to be pushed regarding the surveillance of the private data of citizens by their own governments

      I put to you that you can’t prove the first, have absolutely no fucking clue as to the second, and are almost deliriously naive to believe that Greenwald is pushing a political agenda, whereas the state is not.

      • ultraviolet_uk

        1. We have Greenwald’s word that it was. Now, I know that is not worth a lot, but I would be surprised to see you arguing that we should discount what Greenwald says. Actualy, no I wouldn’t. His supporters always do that when Greenwald’s own words condemn him.

        2. As a British lawyer who has long protested against the over-broad definition of terrorism in our Terrorism Acts, I can confirm that it is entirely legal to do so. No suspicion is required to detain someone for up to nine hours, and the powers granted under the Act are extremely wide.

        3. Of course there is a political agenda, on all sides. But Greenwald’s actions, and in particular his repeated blatant lies and deliberately misleading half-truths have completely destroyed any prospect of having the debate about reining in the State’s powers that we need to have. We can’t have a debate when three quarters of the people trying to have the debate are starting from a completely false belief as to what is actually happening, thanks to Greenwald’s irresponsibility.

    • ohminus

      “I don’t even know if she ever mentioned the FACT that Greenwald was using his boyfriend as a Mule to smuggle stolen govt. info internationally.”

      Perhaps because it is a)nonsense and b)irrelevant for being held under a terrorism law?

      “It was almost as if that element of the story was irrelevant to her. The professional left has become reduced to being a hipster copy of the Alex Jones right.”

      That element of the story IS irrelevant. But it’s hilarious that you want to make a case through claiming the paradox that a)British police were acting correctly while b)Britain is not really a sovereign country but rather within US jurisdiction.

      Because, you know, without b), that the US declared these documents classified isn’t really relevant at all. And without that, you cannot “steal” US government documents.

  • Norbrook

    There were a number of holes in Rusberger’s story which, as the 24 hour rule ended up showing, became bigger holes.

    They “ordered them destroyed” has now morphed to “we destroyed them voluntarily while they watched.” From the technical standpoint, and I’d assume that GCHQ has good technical staff, just destroying one computer physically to get rid of the files is beyond stupid. As this article points out, there could be multiple copies in other computers. Also physical destruction of the entire computer? Please. Remove the hard drive, overwrite it 7-10 times, and reflash the BIOS a couple of times. Done, here’s your computer back, hope you have the original copies of the OS and software for install. Oh, and we’ll be taking all your recordable DVD’s and CD’s, and thumb drives, thank you.

    This continuously strikes me as Greenwald and the others attempting to pass off as “reality” every bad spy novel or movie, with themselves written into the “heroes” role.

    • NOTANEMOPROG

      You are an idiot if you think Alan Rusbridger would lie about this episode. A real idiot.

      Then again, you look like a regular Cesca reader, so that kinda explains it.

      • condew

        I think Alan Rusbridger thinks we’re all idiots. The story he tells is probably true on some level, a computer got destroyed somewhere. The rest is all inconsistent. I’ve seen no documentation that any government rep required the destruction. There’s no video, the picture provided is not the remains of the equipment he said was destroyed, and certainly does not indicate the key component, the hard drive, was destroyed. It all sounds like a story concocted by someone with no technical savvy who didn’t think anybody who knew better would be reading his tweet.

        • Badgerite

          Good summing up!

        • Schneibster

          I see nothing to disagree with.

    • Badgerite

      It’s a frigging soap opera.

  • NOTANEMOPROG

    “we might be talking about ways to improve and reform America’s surveillance operations. ”

    What a pathetically disingenuous line. What is stopping you? I’ll tell you what – you are an insignificant pretend-journalist, jealous that the scoop of the decade went to proper journalists in Guardian and WaPo. And you are a supporter of the Government lawlessness. Your intention precisely IS to keep the real NSA story in the background.

    • condew

      Go read you news on some site like Americablog, where they swallowed the fairytale whole and like you can’t believe everyone else didn’t believe it. too.

  • missliberties

    Gag!

    I am inclined to think that these so called ‘left wingers’ reporting on the evils of big government spying, or in fact not left wingers at all. They are right wing operatives intent on tanking Obama’s political standing and influence.

    Of note was Greenwald’s push to label Obama followers as cultists immediately after he won election, which is where the O-bot reference originated. ANd they if I disagree with you you are trying to silence me meme is all right wing bs.

    Someone needs to pull Glenn’s pants down and expose him and this Rutsie fellow for the Guardian hacks they are.

    • NOTANEMOPROG

      “tanking Obama’s political standing and influence.”

      Lol, you poor deluded tool. You Obama-brainwashed people are the saddest example in recent memory of where cultish behavior and leader adoration can lead – straight into lunacy where you suddenly support the very lawlessness you supposedly fought against during those awful, awful W years.

      • http://www.dlancystreet.com reginahny

        I wouldn’t call you, or anyone I only interact with online a tool. So there’s that. As for the rest of it:

        You Greenwald-brainwashed people are the saddest example in recent memory of where cultish behavior and leader adoration can lead – straight into lunacy

        OOOPs! had to slightly edit this part for the Messiah Greenwald:

        where you suddenly support the very lawlessness you (never) supposedly fought against (and actually encouraged and praised) during those awful, awful W years.

        • missliberties

          It’s awful.

          I do think they have an agenda, and it seems like it is to surpess Obummer’s once raging popularity and turn the electorate towards the Paulites. Greenwald praised Ron Paul prolifically has having the most well thought out ideas.

          So I suppose next, maybe Greenwald could focus on destroying the Fed.

          I also think that Greenwald and his cohorts are sympathic to muslims in the sane sense that David Duke is sympathetic to muslims, and eventually ended up living in Syria. (if I remember correctly).

          • 6cmzumquadrat

            Speaking of conspiracy theories.

          • Schneibster

            Actually I think there’s a pretty strong argument to be made that Greenwald is a US Libertarian and is just as stupid about economics as the rest of the Libertarians. As far as I can tell they haven’t heard of anything since the beginning of the 20th century.

          • drspittle

            I agree with you.

          • Schneibster

            “Greenwald praised Ron Paul prolifically”

            I’m prolly totally lazy, but could you link that? I’ve been accusing him of this (and of deliberate Obama sabotage) ever since this crap started, it would be nice for my “Politics->conspiracies” link folder.

          • missliberties

            I don’t have the link handy. In 09 I believe I recall him being thoroughly impressed with the Paul dudes. Sorry I am as lazy as you are. It a spurt of ambition hits me I will post the link if I can find it. To me he isn’t worth the effort, since I really can’t stand him.

          • Schneibster

            Here’s Greenwald writing on Salon not supporting Ron Paul:
            http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

            “even though I don’t support him for President, Ron Paul is the only major candidate from either party advocating crucial views on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates important benefits” emphasis mine.

            I’m no supporter of Greenwald’s; in fact, I aim to avoid contaminating the claims against him with anything questionable. But having looked into it this looks like a bunk claim.

            Luckily, it’s not one Bob ever claimed. Nor have I heard it claimed by anyone credible. ETA: I’m sorry, that was mean; I didn’t mean it that way. Anyone credible but you. My apologies.

          • mrbrink

            “… Paul is the only major candidate from either party advocating crucial views on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates important benefits.”

            That whole paragraph is ass to mouth.

          • Schneibster

            You might argue Greenwald’s been sneaking up on supporting Rant Paul and I might not disagree. But be a little more specific, K?

          • nathkatun7

            My grandma called that talking from both sides of your mouth. At the time, Greenwald was pushing another libertarian for President, the former governor of New Mexico. That’s why he was not supporting Paul for President. But he certainly was very effusive about Ron Paul; just as Assange was, a few days ago, about both Papa and Baby Paul.

          • Schneibster

            I usually call them Wrong Paul and Rant Paul. :D

          • nathkatun7

            That will do also! I prefer Papa and Baby because they remind me of Haitian dictators Papa Doc and Baby Doc!

  • chilisize

    “(there are many articles in need of a headline edit)”

    Start with the one right here claiming with no support in the story that follows that Miranda “Was Transporting Top Secret Documents.”

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      He was.

      • 6cmzumquadrat

        [Source needed]

        • Schneibster

          RTA

        • nathkatun7

          Greenwald himself was the source!

          • GwenKillerby

            Source still! needed…

          • Schneibster

            RTFAI still needed

        • GwenKillerby

          It’s amazing how much resistance bob has to actually backing up his ridiculous statements! even his minions don’t do it. it’s almost like talking to a Creationist

          • Schneibster

            RTFAI

          • GwenKillerby

            Yeah, Read the Fucking Anal Idiot to you too.

          • Schneibster

            Umm, Read The F’ing Article Idiot.

            Duh.

            Teh stupid, it burns.

    • nathkatun7

      So what was he transporting? Duty free perfume or duty free German beer? Is that what the Guardian paid him to do? Do you think we are all idiots, like many cult followers of Greenwald?

  • Vipsanius

    This has nothing to to do with the USA Government.. It took place in the UK and the person concerned is a citizen of Brazil.

    • chilisize

      Of course. The UK just felt, for some mysterious reason, that Miranda looked like he could be involved in “terrorism.”

      • formerlywhatithink

        Just ignore the gist of Vipsanius’s post and move the goal posts. Greenwald would be proud of you.

      • Vipsanius

        Post has no content

    • NOTANEMOPROG

      Sure thing.

  • Bill Hirschi

    I don’t know whether or not The Guardian thinks we’re stupid, but an awful lot of people I regard as smart seem to be swallowing their line without question. Several “Front Pagers” at DailyKos (though not Markos himself) are hyping Snowden-Greenwald, Charlie Pierce is pushing it almost daily on his blog at Esquire, and now Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes have been sucked in. I agree with Bob – NSA data-mining is an issue we need to discuss. But Greenwald & The Guardian are generating far more heat than light, and too many liberal pundits I’m still trying desperately to respect are being taken in by it, to the point where their reports are becoming almost indistinguishable from the anti-government conspiracy theorizing of the Tea Party. When even Rachel Maddow is reporting the Greenwald hype as credible, I get worried. All I can say is thank goodness for Bob and Stephanie Miller, who are at least trying to push back and keep the left sane.

    • Lex

      Reuters and bbc have confirmed this story, if you somehow think bob cesca has more credibility then Reuters and bbc you are insane,

      • Bill Hirschi

        Reuters and the BBC have confirmed that UK officials spoke to execs at The Guardian and expressed concern about the newspaper possessing top secret files stolen by Snowden. I would expect that, just as I would expect the newspaper to stand its ground against government pressure. But neither story was able to confirm that Rusbridger was ordered to destroy computers – the Reuters and BBC reports have only Rusbridger’s word on that, as government spokespeople refused to comment. As a journalist myself, I think Bob Cesca has made an excellent case for that aspect of the story being total BS made up to hype The Guardian’s reporting. There are just way too many holes in Rusbridger’s version of events for it to be credible. I’m not arguing that the Cameron and Obama administrations are lily-white in this. They’re not. But they’re not turning the UK and US into East Germany or the Soviet Union, either.

        • missliberties

          Bob Cesca, and Charles Johnson of LGF both deserve medals for debunking all the myths but out by these hacks.

          • NOTANEMOPROG

            lol. Heroes in the minds of the imbeciles :)

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            This is your big chance to debate the issues that are important to you.

          • ohminus

            Sorry, but there aren’t any medals for countering hack jobs with hack jobs. Fraud is fraud, no matter with which goal it is committed.

          • Schneibster

            What “hack jobs” do you allege?

            You keep saying this without actually ever saying precisely what you believed happen or why you believe it was wrong.

            You’re not even lying. You’re not making any claims.

        • Dr,WeedLover

          Its been confirmed that Cameron ordered it. Keep denying it. Its a wonderful way to lose whatever credibility you had.

          • Bubble Genius

            And it’s been confirmed by Rusbridger that it wasn’t quite as he made it sound in his original report.

      • missliberties

        Reuters and other news outlets also confirmed the story that Donald Trump was demanding to see Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

        • Schneibster

          Personally I wanna see Ted Cruz’ long form Canadian burf certificate. :D

          I think he’s a illegul Aliens.

          From Teh Canada.

          Or Teh Cuba.

          Or whatever socialist communist place.

          /sarcasm <-please do not ignore this or I will make fun of you (not you miss lib, I've had some amusing adventures here lately).

      • Schneibster

        What exactly do you mean when you say “confirmed?”

        Please provide quotes from Reuters and the BBC, and source them with links.

        Thanks.

        Be aware that if they don’t say what you claim I won’t even bother. That if the links do not contain your quotes I will bother. That if the links do not exist I will bother. That if the links are not to Reuters and the BBC I will bother.

        I think you’re lying and it’s my intention to make you admit it or run and hide.

      • Dr,WeedLover

        So true Lex. Bob Cesca – who the fuck is this clown? Who pays his salary? Why should we trust a word he says? He seems to have a vendetta against GG – could that be because he hates criticism of the people that pay him?

    • chilisize

      “NSA data-mining is an issue we need to discuss.”

      Yet, if Mr Cesca had his way, none of us would be discussing it.

      • missliberties

        The question is why does the Guardian keep getting caught lying?

        This isn’t the first story they have put out based on non-facts. You see when someone says Mac, and shows pictures of PC bits that is actually a lie, a falsehood other wise known as hack journalism.

        Nevermind that this story is old news. Why did the Guardian bring it up now? To add more Drudge good sensationalism to the story.

        It’s bad enough that we have to spend hours debunking myths on the right, which of course we expect, but when the so called left keeps engaging in lies and hack stories then we have to assume their motives are impure.

        • NOTANEMOPROG

          You need a brain transplant. Hope your Messiahcare covers that :)

          • Badgerite

            That is quite an interesting reply. It kind of shows an agenda. An agenda that is not about ‘debate’, or policy.

          • missliberties

            I am curious what you think the agenda is? I suspect it is related to Obama, but it seems there is another thread there.

          • Badgerite

            The reply about an agenda was directed at a comment that was deleted. Not directed at your comment. And I can’t remember what they guy said. It was just off the deep end, as usual.

          • Schneibster

            Which is why it got deleted. :D

            Good for you, BTW. Many people just get embarrassed and don’t bother to acknowledge an error a mess. (You didn’t do anything wrong; it was just the sequence of events. (Apparently it’s contagious.))

          • missliberties

            Well, I am still curious what this agenda is. I am not sure what these people are after, exactly.

          • Schneibster

            Wow, you’ve got a real fan there. They’ll go away; the butthurt ones always do. Don’t let ‘em get to you.

            If I’d have to state the agenda it looks like racism to me. When people start making up reasons you can tell because they’re flimsy, and flimsy reasons make it obvious they’re hiding something. And the most common thing to hide is racism.

          • missliberties

            I have had time to think about it, and I have come to the conclusion that ‘the agenda, of The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald is anti-Americanism.

            Did you see that Greenwald’s claim that his boyfriend didn’t have a lawyer was a LIE! For Christ’s sake. The Guardian is intentionally lying to make the US look bad.

          • Schneibster

            I’m thinking about that. You have a point.

        • Schneibster

          You’ve got to keep your eye on the details and not get caught up in the juicy shiny bits.

      • formerlywhatithink

        Yet, if Mr Cesca had his way, none of us would be discussing it.

        No, Mr. Cesca has said, many, many times that a serious discussions is needed. A serious discussion, not a Monty Pythonesque parody where people are more interested in scary headlines and sensationalizing themselves, writing articles which debunk themselves, making claims without supporting evidence or when they do provide supporting documents from the Snowden data dump, it hilariously defeats their very assertions. You can’t have a discussion when one side is only interested in self promotion, facts be damned.

        • ohminus

          You mean like this one on this very page, with a headline that is a joke, photo-ops right after it that prime people towards a specific conclusion instead of letting the data speak for itself?

          Your concept of a serious discussion gets people kicked out of academic institutions.

          • formerlywhatithink

            You mean how Bob actually backed up his headline with a detailed analysis? Which doesn’t contain countless updates to correct errors in his story?

          • ohminus

            Backed up?

            Sorry to say, but you don’t “back up” tendentious phrasing. Nor do you back up biased photo ops.

            And it is a hilarious demonstration of your double standards if you grant him the right to gradually correct errors but expect everyone else to get it right first hand.

          • formerlywhatithink

            What did he correct? He acknowledged that the government confirmed they had contacted the Guardian, but also explains it doesn’t explain the issues at hand. For someone arguing about the accuracy of words, you seem to have a problem with it yourself. As for the photo, he clearly explained the relevance of using it.

          • ohminus

            “He acknowledged that the government confirmed they had contacted the Guardian, but also explains it doesn’t explain the issues at hand”

            Yes. Because he defines what is critical and what isn’t, right?

            “As for the photo, he clearly explained the relevance of using it.”

            And because he is always right(TM), it is of course perfectly ok? It is not being used right at the beginning of the text to make sure everything else he presents is interpreted in a very specific light?

            Sorry. You still don’t grasp the concept of how credible criticism is written. Stop being a claqueur, and most importantly, stop allowing him standards you don’t allow others.

          • formerlywhatithink

            Because he defines what is critical and what isn’t, right?

            Apparently, that seems the job you’ve assigned to yourself. He defined an argument, that there is something fishy in what the Guardian is saying about their computers, he detailed his reasons for why he thinks so, he provided an update from the BBC and explained how that update doesn’t detract from his argument. Wow, the nerve of the guy to put forth what he believes and then explaining why.

          • ohminus

            “Wow, the nerve of the guy to put forth what he believes and then explaining why.”

            Except that’s not what he did. He presented accusations as factual, primed readers with a tendentious photo op to interpret everything he put forth in light of his claims, and then, and ONLY then provided his data, having made sure that his claqueurs would believe every claim he puts forth.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            So now your beef is the order in which he wrote his post? Whether the facts are at the beginning of the post or the end does not matter. Only the presence of the facts matter.

          • ohminus

            Yes, it does matter. Because what is there isn’t “facts”, but data and interpretations thereof. And what you bring at the beginning can shape what interpretations are being deemed credible.

          • Schneibster

            Ummm, the Sun will rise tomorrow, and that is a fact.

            I don’t think you have any idea what a fact is.

            Now you’re engaged in, well, frankly

            >hackpthoosplat<

            philosophy.

            This here is not a

            >pthoosplat<

            philosophy

            board.

        • ess emm

          Well, why isnt Cesca having his discussion with the WSJ, Gellman, Charlie Savage, Marcy Wheeler? They are building off of the Guardian documents. And other documents, IG reports, FISC opinion, lying testimony before Congress and FISC, FOIAs, and interviews.

          Instead of discussion all I’ve seen Cesca do is throw peanuts from the gallery at the journalists.

      • Vipsanius

        wrong

      • Dr,WeedLover

        Right you are chilisize. Dem operatives don’t want to discuss things embarassing to Party or Country.

    • formerlywhatithink

      The Daily Kos is ground zero for the Greenwald circle jerk. There is one user, Reggid, who’s been trying to stem the tide, but you should see some of the comments by the Greenwald cult in his diaries. Wow.

      • missliberties

        More than one user, but Reggid has been all over it. It is just like the tea party. Not very many voices are making a whole lot of noise screaming the same thing over and over and over. The Greenwald supporters are absolutely the rudest people ever. The irony that they thought Obama’s supporters were like a cult, called them fanboys and O-bots is apparently lost on them.

        These people are seriously discrediting dKos and anyone else who choses to associate with them.

        • Dr,WeedLover

          Not a cult. Just typical, uninformed, apologizers for power.

        • Schneibster

          It started on FireBagLake.

      • Bubble Genius

        I don’t know how you guys can stomach reading all that stuff. My brains start leaking out my ears just reading some of the wackaloons that pop up out of the woodwork on Bob’s blog, I can only imagine the din when they’re multiplied.

        • Dr,WeedLover

          “I only like to read things that confirm things I already think, like how great the corporatist Dems are and how things are getting better and better even though they’re not and how if they’re not that must be the fault of Republicans or “the Libertarian left” like our faithful leader Cespool tells us.

          • Bubble Genius

            Thanks for extracting a bunch of bullshit from my statement – what hope have you to be discerning when reading bullshit-meister Greenwald? All due respect, doc, there can be a massive amount of discourse amongst rational, pragmatic human beings without having to bring in fictions to stoke an imaginary fire.

            I certainly wouldn’t say things are getting better and better – I’d like to get behind what’s making a not insignificant portion of the population gullible idiots who don’t understand the meaning of the word “research.”

            Perhaps you should ease up off the weed.

          • Dr,WeedLover

            When the topic is classified information about surveillance, or anything with a high level of secrecy that the government doesn’t want release, the truth is we cannot know what exactly is fiction. We can guess but the bottom line is we don’t have the information. We know there is wrongdoing occurring. The story is not Snowden, and not Greenwald, it is the NSA and surveillance. Attacking Snowden or Greenwald or the Guardian is either a misguided distraction from something far more important (the NSA spying) or a deliberate attempt to shift the debate for the government’s political purposes.

          • Bubble Genius

            I’m sick of people saying this. When the journalists are PROVEN liars over and over, and their accusations are PROVEN to be inaccurate at best, it sullies the conversation. The Little Greenwald That Cried Wolf has blown it, and so has The Guardian.

          • Dr,WeedLover

            Where are the lies? I haven’t seen one. Except for the multitude coming from Obama, Feinstein, Republicans on the Senate, Clapper, etc.

    • Dr,WeedLover

      Yeah, sucks when everybody believes the stories that are true. Sucks for you that is. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

      • Schneibster

        I think it’s a shame Rachel doesn’t recognize or realize that the picture above does not show a hard drive without which there is no point in destroying a computer, nor that it claims a desktop PC graphics card that uses more amps than any laptop ever dreamed of having- you’d need a Thinsulate pad to keep it from raising blisters on your thighs- is part of a Macbook.

        What I want to know, which is what I ask all doctors, is how much are they paying you?

    • Schneibster

      +1. More if I could.

      I’m really embarrassed for Rachel. I hope it doesn’t blow back on her.

  • Lex

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-usa-security-snowden-britain-idUSBRE97K0G920130821

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776063

    Retuers and bbc have confirmed the story, so bob cesca you goona keep staying in your denial to defending the current administration

    • Vipsanius

      Take up your complaint with the UK Government

      • Lex

        whatever it proves my point, bob cesca is a partisan hack who has no problem spewing lies to protect the democratic administration

        • Vipsanius

          post has no meaning

        • Badgerite

          And what ‘lies’ would those be? Precisely?
          You sound a lot like Reince Preibus.

        • Schneibster

          BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          He thinks “the democrats” are “in charge” of Britain (actually he’s probably stupid enough to call it “England”, AHAHAHAHAHAHA)

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh jebus I’m gonna fuckin’ die but at least it will be laughing MMMMMMFFFFFFBWAHAHAHAHAHA, oh HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

          • Schneibster

            Bob, dude, Best Blog Evar, AHAHAHAHA!

        • nathkatun7

          And for you sir/madam, you are nothing but an ignorant member of the Greenwald cult. You don’t even know that the United Kingdom is a sovereign country which is not subject to the U.S. “democratic administration.” The last time I checked, the British Prime Minister was a member of Britain’s Conservative Party.

          • Lex

            OF COURSE I DO KNOW THAT, your disingenuous attacks and twisting what i wrote is flat out disgusting.

            My point was that Usa and Uk work extremely close to each other and Uk is notorious for being a usa lapdog

          • nathkatun7

            “OF COURSE I DO KNOW THAT”

            You could have fooled me! If that was your point, you should have spelled it out and then provided evidence that the United Kingdom was “being usa lapdog.”

          • GwenKillerby

            and last we checked, the UK is the 51st state of USA

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xVea25IH4g from 3:48

            “The ammunition’s being passed
            And the Lord’s been praised
            But the wars on the televisions will never be explained
            All the bankers gettin sweaty beneath their white collars
            As the pound in our pocket turns into a dollar
            This is the 51st state of the USA”

          • Schneibster

            So, about 12 are we?

            Your mommy and daddy don’t work here.

            Go away.

          • GwenKillerby

            Great response, Schyder
            Well-reasoned, good solid arguments. Try again.

          • Schneibster

            I can tell a temper tantrum when I see one.

    • ultraviolet_uk

      They have confirmed that a Government official spoke to the Guardian. That does not prove the story, just that one single fact within it. It certainly doesn’t prove as true the blatant lie about the Mac Book Pro that Rusbridger chose to place at the heart of his story.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      Did you read my update from eight hours ago?

      • Schneibster

        No. He didn’t.

        Snicker.

      • nathkatun7

        He may have read but I doubt that he understood it. He strikes me as another of those “True Believers” sen’t here to defend Greenwald by attacking you personally.

    • nathkatun7

      Do you think the “current administration” (I suppose you mean President Obama’s administration) is in charge of the government of United . You are such a genius!

  • Thomas Denny

    Anything to get readers

    • NOTANEMOPROG

      Yep. And Bob Cesca’s gullible readers are among the most stupid around.

      • sealiagh

        It might feel good to call people who disagree with you “gullible” and “stupid” but I fail to understand how such name-calling promotes serious discussion of very serious issues. Unless what you want is to not actually have a discussion…..

    • stacib23

      And, on whose blog are you replying??? It looks like Bob’s little trick to get readers worked. I sure hope there are some income enhancements directly tied to the number of clicks you folks are providing him.

  • mrbrink

    Destroying evidence is weird. What would Sherlock Holmes say? I’ll tell you what he’d say. He’d say something about how a lack of consistency implies deception and something about ‘the trifles’ and the first rule of an investigation not being weird tampering, burying, and the destruction of an evidence trail. Watson would have been bludgeoned with a still-warm Calabash pipe for this.

    • beulahmo

      You are a delight.

    • Dr,WeedLover

      Except, oops, Cespool was wrong.

      David Cameron ordered Britain’s most senior civil servant
      to contact the Guardian over classified information leaked by the
      whistleblower Edward Snowden, it has emerged.

      Whitehall sources confirmed Sir Jeremy Heywood approached the newspaper.

    • GwenKillerby

      but the Guardian didn’t “destroy evidence”, that what bob’s twisted this into. Or you. /care/
      Even this site now admits to the following: David Camerons stooge went to the Guardian, asking for laptop(s), and giving them the alternative to destroy it.
      NOT Cescas faked version of events.

      Perhaps if Cesca followed the journalistic principle of fact checking and not having a hard on for Greenwald, he wouldn’t make these embarrassing mistakes.

      • Schneibster

        Then where’s the hard drive?

        You’re lying again.

      • mrbrink

        You put “destroy evidence” in quotes like it was a total mischaracterization. Is that how they do journalism where you come from?

  • That River Gal

    Keep it up, Bob. Epic!

    • NOTANEMOPROG

      lol. Only a complete moron would think that this embarrassing anti-Greenwald vendetta by a jealous incompetent partisan hack could be described as “epic”.

  • condew

    Perhaps the whole demolition farce is to say “See, we don’t have a copy of anything Snowden stole”, and thereby abdicate editorial responsibility on everything Greenwald sends them. No files means no checking the veracity of Greenwald’s stories. So if Greenwald quotes a document that also included unmentioned information on oversight and auditing, the Guardian can say “How were we to know it was all half-true?”.

    • Schneibster

      Desktop PC graphics cards and missing hard drives aren’t going to fool GCHQ. It’s ludicrous.

  • ChrisAndersen

    I didn’t appreciate it when people lied to me about WMD and lead us into a war. I still don’t appreciate being lied to even when it is nominally by people who allegedly support the same things I support (reforming our national security system).

    In fact, I consider it to be worse, because I expect people who support policies I despise to lie to get me to support them. But when someone lies to me about something I do support, then they make me question my whole perspective on things.

    Bob is right, we would be talking about serious reforms of the NSA right now if Greenwald and crew didn’t insist on “fixing the facts around the policy” in order to make their case.

    • NOTANEMOPROG

      “we would be talking about serious reforms of the NSA right now if Greenwald and crew didn’t insist ”

      LOL. NSA is the LAST thing partisan jealous little anti-Greenwald hacks like Cesca want to talk about. What is stopping them?

      • stacib23

        He’s so busy debunking the bullshit you guys keep parroting, there is no room left for any other discussion. Everyday, there’s another lie to squish, another person like you who would rather challenge Bob than talk about the stuff that supposedly important to you. It’s almost funny that you and your GG friends that visit this site everyday don’t want conversation – you want to aggravate and irritate and then complain that there is no “real” conversation. Although you imagine yourself as the liberal savior, you, sir, are a big part of the problem.

        • NOTANEMOPROG

          “there is no room left for any other discussion.”

          LOL. What a pathetic excuse.

          Fact: in all these months the pretend-journalist Bob Cesca did not contribute a single substantial line to that NSA conversation he supposedly wants. Not a single line.

          • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

            You Greendrone Groupies are all the same. Name calling with no critical thinking. You were the same dupes who fell hook line and sinker for the Guardian ‘pressure cooker’ farce too if I remember correctly.

          • NOTANEMOPROG

            You remember incorrectly.

          • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

            Nope, the whole lot of you were running around with your hair on fire screaming NSA ABUSE! NSA ABUSE! until the guardian was shown to be lying and distorting yet again.
            If Greendrone Disciples weren’t so juvenile and vicious, I’d almost feel sorry for them.

          • stacib23

            They were also the same group yelling John Lewis agreed with him because of the “reporting” in the Guardian. Once JL came out and called bullshit, they backed away from that piece of discrepancy as if it never existed.

        • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

          Yes. Now that they “know” what they “know” about the NSA spying on everybody! Everywhere! All of the time! Citizens of the U.S.A.! Fourth Amendment! Freedom! Liberty! —

          merely commenting on the internet is an act of bravery.

          • condew

            I wonder if there is an accepted formula for estimating the manpower it would take to spy on everybody, everywhere, all the time.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            A mirror world completely devoted to monitoring the first one.

          • Schneibster

            Great minds think alike.

          • Schneibster

            I heard there are 20 trillion — as in, 20,000,000,000,000 — or several thousand sessions per Earth human per month, average. This strikes me as reasonable considering banking telephones email and the Web. A disproportionate number of corporations are using many sessions to do business with each other, more I think than the six billion real humans do.

            That’s not individual packets. That’s entire sessions, with two 3-way handshakes and at least one query/response.

            The NSA could, I suppose, employ one half of the population of the world to monitor the other.

            Snicker.

          • amva55

            Feloniousgrammar by a misdemeanor wanna be.

          • Dr,WeedLover

            Yes, the NSA are. You still DENY this? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

          • Schneibster

            Good luck with that Dr. WeedHighNightmare.

          • Dr,WeedLover

            Good luck with what? A careful observation of facts leading to an irrevocable conclusion? The NSA is a rogue agency, spying on everyone, blackmailing officials, and undoubtedly using information they illegally acquire for purposes COMPLETELY UNRELATED to terrorism. And the people you support will do NOTHING about any of it.

          • Schneibster

            You’re alleging half the US is working for the NSA spying on the other half.

            I’m not sure whether you’re lying or insane, and I’m not sure it matters which.

            Don’t take so many bong hits before posting, sport.

          • Dr,WeedLover

            No, I’m not alleging anything of the kind, and only an idiot could think so. Given the searching and sorting capabilities of Prism and Xkeystone and the rest of the program Snowden brought to light, the NSA’s estimated 60,000 employees are fully capably of doing the spying by themselves.

          • Dr,WeedLover

            As far as the blackmail goes, take a look at the allegations of Russ Tice. Of course you might not think him credible. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly didn’t when he initially blew the whistle on the illegal activities of the NSA. Wouldn’t surprise me if you agree with them.

          • Schneibster

            No, only an idiot could think you weren’t after you said ” The NSA is a rogue agency, spying on everyone.” You’re insane, and you can’t count.

          • Dr,WeedLover

            How am I not counting? 60,000 employees. A database of almost all internet traffic. The best search algorithims known to man.

            If you actually read the Guardian and WaPo stories, as well as the assertions of all the other NSA whistleblowers (Drake, Tice, Binney, etc.) you would see that in fact, the NSA is indeed a rogue agency, routinely violating the 4th amendment and even the weak-ass FISA court in its unconstitutional spying on all Americans (and not just Americans).

            Prove me wrong. You haven’t even tried.

        • ohminus

          You wouldn’t know what “debunking” looks like if your life depended on it.

          • stacib23

            Oh, minus. Quit it with the flirty talk.

        • Steve Granger

          What we have is a classic definition of a troll.

        • GwenKillerby

          Cesca has indeed become a tool for the Teabaggers

    • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

      Agreed!
      I contend that Greenwald and Snowden have done the impossible…..they have actually united many republicans and Democrats on the hill.
      In doing so, these two clowns have made it nearly impossible for repeal of the Patriot Act any time soon.

      • NOTANEMOPROG

        Yep. If by unite you mean all the people who supported the NSA-reining-in Amash amendment.

        • ChrisAndersen

          That may very well be the high water mark of reform and much of that came from the early days of the Snowden affair. What progress, legislatively, has been made since then?

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            Yes, but government lies, Obamabots, Fourth Amendment, Boomers Ruined Everything!

          • Dr,WeedLover

            Oh no, Obama is wonderful and the 4th amendment is well-protected. What kind of denialist bullshit is this? i’d accuse you of being on drugs but wouldn’t want to denigrate drugs.

      • Dr,WeedLover

        Wow, this clown actually went full idiot.

      • GwenKillerby

        Hmm, I suspect that Obama would have been quite happy if the result had been a weakening of the Patriot Act. Obama is still so naive that he thinks Dems and some Repubs will do the right thing.

    • Dr,WeedLover

      Right. Like you idiots actually care one tiny bit about NSA reform.

      • Schneibster

        Well, you’ve succeeded, we’re not discussing it.

        Good for you.

        • GwenKillerby

          who, exactly, is forcing you to NOT discuss it? NO BODY!!!
          i asked Cesca the same, and he STILL hasn’t answered.

          but I am prepared for the hilarious “GG used mind control to force me to not discus NSA reform”

          • Schneibster

            You are. We’re discussing your bullshit instead.

  • Indict Clapper

    Case closed: the Guardian is not making this up. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776063

    “Number 10 was involved in discussions with the Guardian about material it had obtained from American whistle-blower Edward Snowden, it has emerged.

    Prime Minister David Cameron ordered Britain’s top civil servant Sir Jeremy Heywood to contact the newspaper.

    It came after the Guardian published details about secret US and British surveillance programmes.

    Editor Alan Rusbridger said it was later forced to destroy the computer hard drives storing the information.

    Mr Rusbridger said his conversations with the government were with “a very senior official claiming to represent the views of the prime minister”.

    But he did not say exactly who he had spoken to.

    Explicit approval

    The Independent and Daily Mail now report that Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy made contact with the Guardian.

    BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said these reports were accurate.

    Whitehall sources emphasised it would have been a “total abdication of their responsibilities” not to talk to the Guardian.

    The government feared that if secret data held by the newspaper fell into what it called “the wrong hands” it could have been a threat to the UK.

  • Paul Morgan

    There’s fire to this story, although old fire – considering it first broke almost 10 years ago. Nothing about what the NSA doing is right. But the Guardian is muddying the waters under an avalanche of self-serving BS.

    • That River Gal

      This.

    • NOTANEMOPROG

      You are an idiot.

  • Schneibster

    That would be “horked up by a staffer’s grandmum.”

    Carry on.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      You’re clearly not fluent in McKenzie-speak.

      • chilisize

        Too much self-important TeeVee can really hurt impressionable minds

        • Schneibster

          Obviously you’ve never been owned by a cat.

      • Schneibster

        I usually use it for a cat evacuating a hairball. It’s onomatopoeia.

  • Indict Clapper

    Has anyone from GCHQ denied that this happened? No? Don’t you think that’s odd? When people fabricate serious accusations about misconduct, isn’t it reasonable to expect the accused to deny those claims?

    Your suggestion that the Guardian made this incident up is a conspiracy theory, is it not?

    • drsquid

      The evidence that the Guardian made the whole thing up is pretty plain. But I suppose I should believe them and you instead of my lying eyes. Denials are simply unnecessary, tinfoiler.

      • Indict Clapper

        No, it’s not “pretty plain.”. Bob Cesca calling something odd is not evidence. The rest of the world outside of a handful of rabid bloggers seems to be accepting the Guardian’s central claims. If they are false, why doesn’t GCHQ say so?

        • Paul Morgan

          But something is odd, right? As a journalistic operation, you would think the Guardian would offer something solid. My problem is I don’t hear a lot of straight talk coming out of that newsroom.

          • Indict Clapper

            Thats funny. It seems quite straight to me. They are making straightforward claims about things that happened at their own offices. Those claims have not been denied by the agencies involved.

            Cesca using his favorite word–“bizarre”– doesn’t make it bizarre.

          • ohminus

            Since Cesca doesn’t adhere to proper standards himself, he’s ill-qualified to call out others on it.

          • Vipsanius

            sentence has no content

      • chilisize

        “The evidence that the Guardian made the whole thing up is pretty plain.”

        No such “evidence” is cited in the story posted by Mr Bob Cesca.

        • ultraviolet_uk

          Apart from concrete proof that the photo of the “mac book pro” was a fake. What Rusbridger said about that photo was a lie, which calls everything else into question.

          • ohminus

            And the fact that Cesca has a headline followed immediately by a photo op that both are incredibly manipulative call nothing into question?

            But I guess the fact that the BBC got confirmation from the government doesn’t matter to you, either?

          • ultraviolet_uk

            Can I have that again with subtitles please?

          • NOTANEMOPROG

            There is, sadly, no google translate function into stupid.

          • condew

            If you start from lies and rumors, you’ll never get to the truth.

          • drsquid

            Maybe Sarah Palin can translate it into something more coherent.

          • Badgerite

            The confirmation was only that they contacted the Guardian.

          • ohminus

            Because they would confirm they destroyed private property?

            At least you did not totally drift off to Disneyland and denied that the title and photo op were a piece of unadulterated manure.

          • Badgerite

            That is because I do not have the expertise to do so. But I will take the word of the people who do about that.

          • ultraviolet_uk

            “Because they would confirm they destroyed private property?”

            Speaking of lying lies and the liars who tell them…

            Even Rusbridger himself admits that it was he who destroyed the property, not the officials who visited him, and that they gave him the option of arguing in Court as to why he should not be required to hand the data over.

          • NOTANEMOPROG

            You idiot.

      • NOTANEMOPROG

        LOL. You idiot.

      • chilisize

        You don’t know that the UK government has copped to putting pressure on The Guardian to destroy the drives?

        Maybe getting all of your “thoughts” and “facts” from Bob Cesca isn’t such a great idea.

        • Badgerite

          Well, as was pointed out, you don’t need to destroy the whole frigging computer to destroy the hard drive. In fact, you can take the hard drive out. And the files would be what the story would imply the government was after, not the computer. And files can be stored almost anywhere on anything and destroying one little computer is hardly going to ensure press ‘muzzling’. You are saying it makes sense that the British government is THAT incompetent. None of this story makes any real sense. And usually you want your ‘hair on fire’, the ‘sky is falling’ stories to comport somewhat with real world occurrences and considerations. Like, what’s the point of destroying the whole computer and leaving the actual files on the loose?

      • chilisize

        Yet, the government has pretty much owned up to doing exactly what the paper said they did.

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-usa-security-snowden-britain-idUSBRE97K0G920130821

        • ess emm

          It’s apparent Cesca doesnt bother himself with facts that are not consistent with his wishful thinking.

    • Paul Morgan

      There are pretty obvious and stupid holes in the story, are there not? As a former journalist myself, I’d want to have the story straight before sending it out into the world.

    • chilisize

      Mr Cesca at first concluded that the Guardian is lying about this. *Then* he began looking into it.

      • ultraviolet_uk

        Or, to put it another way, he had a theory based on previous experience. He looked to see whether there was evidence to support that theory, and he found plenty.

        • ohminus

          Of course he did. And the pertinent word for it is in the article itself: “Confirmation bias”. When you want to confirm a hypothesis, you find all sorts of evidence for it, because you interpret all data in the light of your hypothesis being true.

          Unfortunately, that doesn’t fly with anyone who actually knows how to confirm a hypothesis in a manner that’s actually solid.

          • Vipsanius

            ya think?

          • ultraviolet_uk

            A newspaper presents a story which it wants us to believe is 100% true. Cesca theorised that it was not 100% true. Cesca has proved that there was a whopping great lie in the middle of it.
            By your claim of “confirmation bias”, you are implicitly saying that you believe the Guardian story to be 100% true despite the whopping great proven lie in the middle of it. Sorry, I can’t twist my mind into that sort of pretzel logic.

          • ohminus

            You should stop lecturing other people as to what they are thinking – you are not particularly good at drawing conclusions. It is totally irrelevant whether the Guardian story is true for Cesca to be guilty of confirmation bias, but thanks for playing. The pretzel logic is entirely on your part, but we would expect that from someone for whom the outcome is more important than proper method.

          • condew

            The people who cannot accept as true any fact that disagrees with their worship of Greenwald whine about “confirmation bias”. That’s rich.

            Actually, it’s very Tea Party Republican; its the very reason why we can’t make any progress on any of the problems the country is facing. If the facts don’t support the story they are pushing, they never conceed the facts are true.

          • ohminus

            “The people who cannot accept as true any fact that disagrees with their worship of Greenwald whine about “confirmation bias”. That’s rich.”

            What’s rich is your making claims without any evidence whatsoever.

            “Actually, it’s very Tea Party Republican; its the very reason why we can’t make any progress on any of the problems the country is facing. If the facts don’t support the story they are pushing, they never conceed the facts are true”

            Thanks for making it clear that you are writing straight out of fantasy land. You do not have the slightest idea which country I live in but call me “Tea Party Republican” and responsible for the problems in your country”

            Here’s news to you: There are more countries in the world than your front yard, and if anyone is behaving like a tea party republican, it is you: Knowing nothing on this planet but the good old US of A, having no idea about a topic, but trying to play expert anyway, and believing that if you just sling enough mud at other people, what they say will turn out to be untrue.

            Try getting an education, so that someone might actually take you seriously.

          • ohminus

            What do you know about facts? You fabricate information as to where I live and what political allegiance I have.

            What is rich is someone who evidently has no qualms of commiting outright fraud to make his case such as you are accusing others of not being able to accept the truth.

            If anyone is like tea party republicans, it is you: Scientifically illiterate, considering no other country on the planet as having any relevance at all, and having no qualms to simply come up with BS as “evidence” for your mudslinging.

            Here’s a hint for you: There are more countries in the world. And the reason you can’t make any progress with any of the problems in your country is that it requires switching on your brain to do so.

          • condew

            All invective and accusation, no facts.

          • stacib23

            This from a card holding member of the GG fan club. Hysterical.

          • ohminus

            Hysterical is certainly the right word for mindless claqueurs such as you whose concept of “argumentation” consists of mudslinging against anyone they disagree with, but would be unable to get a passing grade on a freshman year term paper.

            Better luck next time. Maybe try presenting some evidence.

          • FollowtheDough

            You could say Daily Banter suffers from Confirmation Bias as well, you could likely prove it easily in Cesca’s writings. There seems to be a hard line of protecting the establishment. Maybe for honorable reasons but it is kind of obvious now. There is no such thing as objective journalism in politics, biggest myth of all time. Politics will always be emotional even if it isn’t

            The problem w/ being majorly supportive of an administration is you sweep away the honest criticisms to protect your vested interest. And one day you wake up and you aren’t a news organization, you basically became a sounding board for talking points for the Beltway democrats. That’s the danger of taking this direction.

            Just some thoughts on a highly contested issue.

      • Vipsanius

        You cannot prove that assertion

        • ultraviolet_uk

          Even if he could, Bob did prove that the Guardian lied, so what does it matter why he suspected that to be the case in the first place?

          • chilisize

            “Bob did prove that the Guardian lied, …”

            Uh, no. Bob “proved,” that is, pointed out, that the Guardian wasn’t “forced” to destroy the hard drives.

            Thing is, Rusbridger *didn’t say* they were forced.

            You know what a “lie” would be? A lie would be to assert that Rusbridger said the paper was “forced” to destroy the hard drives. He clearly did not do that.

          • stacib23

            Bob’s statement said that Rusbridger implied the government forced him to bust up his old ass desktop. A realy neat trick used by liars the world over is to strongly “imply” a belief, and the minute it’s debunked, it’s the listener’s fault for what they inferred. Again, hilarious.

          • ultraviolet_uk

            You know what else would be a lie? To post a photo saying “Here’s a Guardian MacBookPro after dismemberment to the highest UK Government standards”, when the photo is not of a MacBookPro and the Government did not require its destruction, let alone set standards for that destruction.

            Oh, and thanks for confirming that the many on your side of this issue who are saying the Government required the Guardian to destroy their computers, and citing Rusbridger as their source, are indeed lying.

          • chilisize

            Yes, it could also have simply been unclear writing.

            What would the point of lying about the make of the computer be in any case?

            Here, from a story published at Reuters, the office of the deputy prime minister is quoted pretty much confirming that indeed the government put pressure on the paper to destroy the drives:

            “Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition with Cameron’s Conservatives, said through a spokesman it was “reasonable” for Heywood to request that the Guardian destroy data that “would represent a serious threat to national security if it fell into the wrong hands”.

            “The deputy prime minister felt this was a preferable approach to taking legal action. He was keen to protect the Guardian’s freedom to publish, whilst taking the necessary steps to safeguard security,” Clegg’s spokesman said.”

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-usa-security-snowden-britain-idUSBRE97K0G920130821

          • Schneibster

            What harddrives? I don’t see them in the pictures. All I see is a bunch of stuff you can’t actually put together into a computer. No hard drive. A graphics card you can’t plug in anywhere on any laptop ever made. Looks like they chose the red one because it made the picture colorful.

            Pitiful.

          • NOTANEMOPROG

            He proved nothing.

        • NOTANEMOPROG

          Cesca ALWAYS makes conclusions first.

      • condew

        Actually, I think it started with parts of Alan Rusbridger’s story not fitting together, and then upon a closer examination it all starts to look like a fabrication.

      • Kerry Reid

        No, you’re confusing his modus operandi with Greenwald’s.“I approach my journalism as a litigator,” he said. “People say things,
        you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/business/media/anti-surveillance-activist-is-at-center-of-new-leak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)