The Truth Continues to Trickle Out on the Greenwald Family Reality Show

greenwald_miranda_airportJust two weeks after the melodrama of Edward Snowden’s bizarre trans-Asian sojourn came to a rather anti-climactic conclusion at a Moscow airport, the melodrama of David Miranda’s airport detention began in earnest.

Miranda, the husband of polemicist Glenn Greenwald for whom he served as a top secret NSA document courier, is now the subject of a criminal investigation by British law enforcement for transporting “tens of thousands of pages of digital material” to Brazil. He was detained for nine hours and questioned at Heathrow airport in London on Sunday.

U.K. authorities can’t possibly believe that by seizing the documents from Miranda that they’re somehow obstructing the ability of The Guardian and Greenwald to write about the content of the documents. Clearly, they’re simply attempting to ascertain which specific stolen documents were attained by Greenwald and filmmaker Laura Poitras from Snowden. Greenwald himself told the New York Times on Sunday that Miranda was delivering and receiving Snowden documents in Berlin where Poitras is working on a trilogy of documentaries about post-9/11 national security issues.

This is so vastly different than what everyone was led to believe by The Guardian and Greenwald in the hours after Miranda’s detention ended. During that time, these self-proclaimed truth-and-justice seekers wailed about how the U.K. was attempting to intimidate Greenwald by harassing his innocent spouse who was only detained because of his relationship with Greenwald — a tactic that not even the Mafia uses, Greenwald wrote. They even denied Miranda the use of a lawyer, Greenwald and The Guardian reported, but, like most things orbiting this story, the lawyer thing turned out to be untrue.

In the process of spreading the false “innocent spouse” narrative, with all of its accompanying finger wagging and shrieks of despotism run amok, Greenwald wrote that security officials prevented Miranda from having legal representation during the airport interrogation. Greenwald wrote:

The official – who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 – said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.

Either Greenwald was lying about what he was told, or this mysterious Official 203654 didn’t know what he was talking about. In a separate article about the incident, however, Greenwald said:

“To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ.”

Surely Greenwald had already communicated with lawyers from The Guardian who went to the airport to help Miranda and who likely spoke with both Miranda and security officials before the Brazilian national boarded his flight back to Rio de Janeiro. But he was still running with the “denied a lawyer” line anyway. By the way, this article, published in the middle of the night London time, made zero mention of the fact that Miranda was transporting Snowden documents for Greenwald and Poitras nor the fact that The Guardian paid for the trip.

I think you can see where all of this is headed. Like nearly every one of The Guardian‘s articles on this beat, especially Greenwald’s, this key fact turned out to be flatly untrue. On Monday, another article in The Guardian appeared, this time featuring some of the first remarks from Miranda himself. Fourteen paragraphs deep in the article the following line appeared:

He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities.

Miranda refused the offer for representation due to his suspicions about the veracity and motives of the authorities. Perhaps he thought, according to this account, that the British police would disguise an officer as a lawyer and double-cross Miranda. Who knows? Neither Miranda nor Greenwald have clarified this latest example of shifty reporting. And they probably ought to considering how on Thursday, the following paragraph appeared in an article in The Guardian about the criminal investigation into Miranda:

He was compelled to provide passwords for the devices. His lawyers said he only had a lawyer for the last hour of his detention and was not allowed a pen to write down the officers questions or a translator even though English was not his first language.

Indeed, there was, in reality, a lawyer present during his interrogation. So, to recap:

1) Thuggish despots prevented Miranda from having a lawyer.

2) Miranda refused a lawyer because of thuggish despots.

3) Miranda actually had a lawyer with him, in spite of previous reports about thuggish despots.

I’m not sure if this can become more ridiculous, but I’m sure they’ll find a way to top it.

You can be sure this event will continue to fuel Greenwald’s penchant for raking his tin cup across the prison bars of his own victimization — his sanctimonious, indignant hyperbole about how the big, bad U.S. and U.K. governments are trying to suppress his ability to deliver this (misleading) version of the truth to his paranoid, apoplectic herd of disciples.

By overplaying this victim posture, Greenwald has skewed the debate he so desperately wanted into a Kardashian-style tangent better reserved for the E! channel than serious news headlines. And given the utter inability to preserve any minuscule thread of journalistic integrity by following the basic rules of News Reporting 101 (such as “when in doubt, leave it out” for starters), Greenwald and The Guardian have descended to the same level of transparent fakery as seen on so many of TV’s staged and scripted “reality shows.”

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.

  • condew

    On the one hand, I have the U.S. Government, which has done a lot to allow me to succeed, realize much of my potential, and given me hope that I may live to a ripe old age. From winning WWII so I did not grow up in a Nazi world, to public education and land grant colleges, to childhood immunization and outlawing lead paint. Many successes all of which are just taken for granted.

    On the other hand, I have Libertarian asswipes, who’ve never done a damn thing, let a lone a damn thing that helped anybody. They even object to the idea they should be expected to help anybody and are livid that they are asked to pay taxes that might enable the government to do things for people. They continue to campaign for the repeal of programs that help people. As they say the only way to never make a mistake is to never do anything.

    So now we have this opportunity for the Libertarian asswipes to attack the government that helps most of the people most of the time. We asked the NSA to do a complex and difficult job after 9/11; find terrorists so that future plots like 9/11 can be prevented. A dozen years later, there hasn’t been another 9/11 size attack. Can’t prove their efforts helped, but they tried and they did not fail. In the process of doing the job they were asked to do, the NSA made a few mistakes, told the court overseeing their efforts about those mistakes, and corrected them. The Libertarian asswipes would not know of the mistakes had the NSA not released the court records. Court records, not hype and bluster.

    So who do I believe, the best government the world has ever seen, or Libertarian asswipes who apparently would have done nothing to lessen the chances of another attack?

  • heyjude999

    Inane article hey Bob defend this ?

    Report: NSA Bugged United Nations Headquarters, Spied on European Union Diplomats

    By Daniel Politi

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ … rters.html
    Posted Sunday, Aug. 25, 2013, at 2:43 PM

    So
    much for the claims that the National Security Agency has been carrying
    out massive surveillance solely as a way to prevent terrorists from
    carrying out attacks. In the latest claims that will likely further
    complicate relations between Washington and its allies, Germany’s Der
    Spiegel, a weekly publication, says documents obtained by former
    contractor Edward Snowden showed the NSA bugged the United Nations’ New
    York headquarters. If confirmed, the spying would be illegal because the
    United States has a long-standing agreement with the United Nations
    regarding covert operations, notes Deutsche Welle. According to the
    German weekly, the NSA appears to have been able to access the video
    conferencing system used at the U.N. headquarters.

    And it doesn’t
    stop there. Der Spiegel says it has seen documents showing how the NSA
    also spied on European Union diplomats in New York. The U.N.’s
    Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency
    was also targeted by U.S. spies, according to the Reuters report on the
    German story. Der Spiegel claims the NSA has eavesdropping programs in
    more than 80 embassies and consulates across the world. “The
    surveillance is intensive and well organised and has little or nothing
    to do with warding off terrorists,” wrote Der Spiegel.

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

    Here’s another link for all you ditto heads to educate yourselves. http://barryeisler.blogspot.com/2013/08/david-miranda-and-preclusion-of-privacy.html. The opening shows Bob to be an unreasonable person: “I think it’s obvious to any reasonable observer that the UK authorities detained David Miranda, spouse of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, to intimidate journalists and whistleblowers” Practice reading the whole article to see why he thinks the UK detained Miranda.

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

    Do you really think a mistake GG made in the first few hours of the strange situation of Miranda being held under a *Terrorism* law used to its extreme discredits GG or anything he’s reported? Straws and thin reeds are Greek columns compared to this tripe. Of course there will be small mistakes made in the first draft of history, but when the textbook comes out, you and other government defending “journalists” will be examples of who got the story wrong. See Nyt media columnist David Carr on this http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/business/media/war-on-leaks-is-pitting-journalist-vs-journalist.html.

    • condew

      It’s not just one mistake, it’s a pattern of leaving out important facts that would blunt the outrage Genn is trying to create. So first we hear his poor inocent spouse was detained and not even allowed a lawyer. Then we hear that well, yes, he was couriering encrypted thumb drives, so not innocent. Then we hear he was offered a lawyer but refused. Then we hear that in the end he did get a lawyer. So the initial story was just outraged blather intended to misrepresent the situation.

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

        Not so innocent? What is illegal about assisting in journalism? Note that Miranda was detained with an extreme provision of the *Terrorism Act*. Are you saying Miranda is a terrorist?

        The story is about the fact the detention occurred, with the foreknowledge, if not the request from, the USG. A mistake about whether Miranda had a lawyer or not is immaterial.

        If Bob or anyone else here wants a debate on surveillance, all he has to do is start writing about it. I’ll be waiting, but not holding my breath.

        • condew

          Miranda is not a journalist, and he was transporting stolen secrets. He should probably re-evaluate his relationship with Greenwald.

          • yestradamous

            If he was on his way back from Berlin, hadn’t he already dropped off the documents to Poitras? How was he a mule at that point?
            Also, I believe he had a lawyer in London available but they wouldn’t let him in. Why not? Why can’t he have the lawyer of his choice? Because that lawyer wouldn’t be wired?

  • Bill

    While I am late to this conversation, after being trolled by Twi-walds for questioning what ever it is he really believes in , it is nice to know I am not alone on my confusion for what this man stands for and his motives.. For example, I always wondered why he takes such a stance for Islam when he is married to a man. He came out and justified the beheading of the poor man in London . I thought well, perhaps he should of offered his head instead.

    Why not?

    He would get the virgins and get the hero status would he not? He would be making a stand would he not and being brave right? That seems to be the extreme Islam view, die for your god. But then it dawned on me, he would have to divorce Miranda because well we all know how Islam feels about gays.

    Brazil has its own form of NSA and it’s own issues with journalism right now as we speak. Greenwald lives there yet says nothing.

    (One can look up links on this I did post one to someone else on here on disqus, the key board and google are your best friend)

    Nothing is wrong with asking and sticking up to ones government, but think that Greenwald is so obsessed with this that he has forgot what it is he is standing up to as my examples above. Those are just a few too. I don’t know how I am supposed to take this guy seriously nice to know I am not the only one. For a minute, I thought was I going crazy. But trying to discus anything with TWI-walds has a tendency of doing that I suppose.

  • bariola

    And what does this have to do with the main issue at hand, namely, that the NSA spies on innocent Americans in violation of the 4rth Amendment? Frankly, I could care less about the above.

    • jjasonham

      Everything. The NSA stories is inextricably linked to GG’s credibility. The sooner we can remove his name from this story, the sooner we can have a much needed discussion on real solutions to the issue at hand.

      • bariola

        I’ll think about that. Thanx for giving me a thoughtful answer instead of merely giving me a thumbs down with no explanation like most do.

      • kfreed

        And the credibility (not to mention motives) of Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Koch-funded Cato Institute is questionable to begin with. Check this out…

        For a “progressive” Greenwald sure does keep odd company:
        “The Convergence of Glenn Greenwald and Rand Paul’s [White Supremacist] “Southern Avenger (Video)”
        http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42436_The_Convergence_of_Glenn_Greenwald_and_Rand_Pauls_Southern_Avenger

        A bit of explanation is in order as the inspiration for the post at Little Green Footballs originated with the reportage of Mark Ames of NWSCorp (subscription required, but the piece may be unocked periodically for public consumption which is how I accessed it):

        “Every traveling circus needs a good emcee, and the Greenwald-Fein-Hornberger “Monsters Of Libertarian Rawq Tour 2012″ didn’t disappoint: each of their college campus performances featured “moderator” Jack Hunter, “a.k.a. “The Southern Avenger.” Yes, that Jack Hunter — Rand Paul’s white supremaciststaffer and ghost writer forced to resign in July after Hunter’s bizarre pro-Confederacy
        puke (“John Wilkes Booth Was Right”) was exposed. The “Southern Avenger” is a staffer at Young Americans for Liberty, sponsor of the Greenwald-Fein-Horberger college campus tour.

        That’s a lot of right-wing Confederate puke to process, I know. And believe me it gets much worse than this, so let me back up and repeat the scenario for you: Bruce Fein is Lon Snowden’s attorney; Glenn Greenwald, civil liberties attorney and journalist, is Edward Snowden’s closest confidant and the journalist to whom the NSA leaks have been entrusted. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have managed most of Edward Snowden’s life in exile, including his
        defection to Russia. Bruce Fein, Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are all fans of Ron Paul and Rand Paul.

        Bruce Fein and Glenn Greenwald toured college campuses together last year speaking about “civil liberties” on a tour that included “Southern Avenger” neo-Confederate Rand Paul aide Jack
        Hunter, and the president of a far-right libertarian outfit that pushes
        neo-Confederate revisionist propaganda, and which also sponsored the tour. We also learned over the past few days that Julian Assange has allied with far-right parties in his native Australia.”
        https://www.nsfwcorp.com/scribble/5699/c2d2ec58365dffdd3ad9de31e9c75b7d356db3c4/

        If anyone does get a chance to read the Ames piece, note that Bruce Fein, the attorney now representing Edward Snowden’s father, is a neo-con war-monger, NSA cheerleader, of old who is suddently “anti-war”/’anti-NSA”… ROFLMAO. Bunch of right-wing con arists.

        Wikileaks, Assange and the Australian fascist party: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2013/08/17/assanges-politics-rand-paul-and-libertarian-wing-of-gop-represent-only-hope-in-u-s/
        Been sayin’… Greenwald is a RW Koch libertrian. What’s it gonna take before we admit it to ourselves?

    • truthzone333

      The many outright lies from those promoting the story don’t bother you? Must be a wingnut.

      • bariola

        Yes douche, I’m a wingnut concerned with the government spying on Americans 24/7. That’s doesn’t bother you? Are you naïve or on drugs?

        • nathkatun7

          Wow! bariola!You have been spied on by the government “24/7,” yet you are not in detention, jail, or prison. In fact, despite the “24/7″ spying that you’ve been subjected to, you are is still free to post lies on the internet blogs while persistently attacking and demonizing the government.

          Please forgive some of us who refuse to buy into your hype, and your hair on fire delusions, because we see no concrete evidence that the NSA is spying on innocent Americans.

          • bariola

            Okay, fine. No evidence, aye? I didn’t say we live in a full-blown police-state. However, if such agencies as the NSA aren’t reigned in or dismantled completely, we will be living in an Orwellian hell within our lifetime or our children’s lifetime.
            All of the mega-banks have been repeatedly caught laundering billions in drug money and no one ever goes to jail. NDAA for 2013 contains the indefinite detention clause which states that any president has the “right” to indefinitely detain any American without any formal charges, evidence or due process. Legislation like the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. have eviscerated the Bill of Rights and have made spying on American citizens “legal.” For god sake, COINTELPRO never died.
            The DOJ hacked into AP reporters’ computers – all in the name of national security. The IRS spied on conservative groups. We were lied to about Benghazi. Our police have been militarized gradually for the last decade. The TSA irradiates and/or molests Americans in violation of the 4rth Amendment to protect us from the same terrorists that we are arming in Syria as we did in Libya. Our Attorney General gave thousands of weapons to the Sinaloa drug cartel via Fast and Furious and he is not in jail and still holds his position. I could go on for quite awhile.
            But nevermind, continue to be a chump and believe everything that our mafia government spews out via its lapdog msm.

          • nathkatun7

            You know what, I think you need to stop watching too much Fox news and listening to Alex Jones,Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

          • bariola

            And I think you need to rethink your naïve belief in American Exceptionalism.

          • kfreed

            I think you need to:

            1) stop repeating “American Exceptionalism”
            2) Get your facts straight.
            3) Get a grip.

          • bariola

            Did I lie about anything in the post above?

          • kfreed

            Yes, see above.

          • kfreed

            Ah, COINTELPRO… the currency of conspiracy theorists everywhere.

            NDAA does NOT call for indefinite detention of Americans:

            “(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

            (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

            http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2013/02/indefinitedetentionbs.html

            The Fast and Furious “scandal” was debunked ages ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/us/politics/operation-fast-and-furious-report-by-democrats-clears-obama-administration.html?_r=0

            IRS “scandal” debunked ages ago: “Full Transcript Reveals That Darrell Issa Lied About Obama Involvement In IRS Scandal”
            http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/18/full-transcript-reveals-darrell-issa-lied-obama-involvement-irs-scandal.html

            Subpoena’s were issued in the AP case: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022879063

            You know who DOES illegally hack phones? Fox (Newscorp): http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/17/murdoch-news-international-corporate-charges

          • kfreed

            P.S. Last but not least, I find it intersting that the very people demanding the dismantling/defunding of the federal government and deregulating the financial industry (Koch Libertarians) are simultaneously demanding the federal government prosecute bankers. I would so like to see them prosecduted, seeing as corporations are people now.

            “Lawmakers rip into regulators over money-laundering prosecution”
            http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-07/business/37532516_1_regulators-criminal-charges-cartels

          • yestradamous

            That’s the largest pile of straw men I’ve ever seen. Next you’ll be saying there’s no NSA scandal because the only way an analyst could abuse the process was if Obama personally directed them to do so. And since he would never do such a thing, the idea that there could ever be abuse has been “debunked.”

            Nice try.

          • YankinBrazil

            Thanks again for chiming in, Glenn.

    • Schneibster

      What it has to do with it is they’re lying, and so are you.

      • bariola

        I’m lying. About what genius, that the government spies on us 24/7 in violation of the 4rth Amendment? If you don’t know that by now then please, go back to watching “Dancing with the Stars.”

        • Schneibster

          The NSA doesn’t spy in violation of the 4th Amendment.

          Lie all you like but none of the articles you have quoted have ever claimed that.

          The fact you don’t know that tells everything that needs to be known about you.

          In short, people who make shit up can’t be trusted.

          Bye, liar.

        • nathkatun7

          Apparently you are not personally suffering any harm from the government spying on you “24/7….” Then again it may be because you are so unimportant that whatever dirt you are involved in, the government could care less.

          Seriously, if the government were truly spying on you, you wouldn’t be here freely trashing it without any consequences. I hope you won’t let your ignorance and paranoia get the best of you! To this date, neither you, nor Greenwald and Snowden, have cited an example, or produced evidence, that shows that any innocent Americans were harmed by the NSA “spying.” The fear is all about the indoctrination you’ve received from Greenwald and others.

          Bottom line, It’s still on you to decide whether you want to act sane or continue to be guided by delusions and the irrational hatred of President Obama.

    • kfreed

      Well, it has much to do with the issue as Bob Cesca, among others, has spent considerable time and effort in pointing out (rightly) that Greenwald hasn’t yet provided any actual evidence that the NSA spies on innocent Americans. Perhaps you’d like to go back and read the running account of Greenwald’s lies and the corrections thereof:

      http://thedailybanter.com/tag/glenn-greenwald/

      Not eveyone, you see, swallows Greenwald whole:)

      • Schneibster

        Worse yet, Bob has provided extensive and repeated evidence that the NSA looks for ways their nets scoop up innocents and tries to find ways to eliminate them from the catch. To their minds these false detections of innocents are not merely useless but actively anti-helpful; wasting time on innocents isn’t just bad constitutional law, it’s also a waste of public money. Think about it.

      • bariola

        I see, so Snowden leaves the country and seeks asylum in Russia and brings down the wrath of the traitors in D.C. upon himself, and at any rate, the government spying on us is an old story without Snowden, but you people need to try and disprove this somehow because apparently, you numbskulls believe the puerile of myth in American Exceptionalism. Sorry to burst your bubble.

        • nathkatun7

          OK, bariola, you made it personal by unequivocally claiming that “the government (is) spying on us….” Shouldn’t you then be obligated to cite concrete evidence, and not just hype, to concretely show how you, or any one else, has been personally harmed by the government that is “spying on us’?

          Just as an aside, are you by any means asserting that the United States is just as bad, or, even worse, when it comes to protecting individual rights of privacy and free speech as Russia? Finally, if the United States government is run by evil traitors how come you can come to this blog and trash it knowing fully well that nothing would happen to you? But then again I may be wrong! May be, like Snowden and Greenwald, you are so afraid of these evil traitors running the the U.S. government, and you intend to join Snowden in that paragon of freedom, Russia; or may be you intend to join Greenwald in Brazil, which is undoubtedly the most free country in the world because of it’s superior protections of the 1st and 4th Amendments’ rights.

          Looking forward to you commentaries from “Free Moscow,” or “Free Rio.” By the way, I am not at all persuded that seeking asylum in Russia, or residing in Brazil instead of the U.S., are likely to “burst the bubble” of all those who subscribe to the “myth in American Exceptionalism.” Most knowledgeable Americans are very aware that neither country is more protective of privacy rights than the United States. Only you Greenwald/Snowden cult members have been indoctrinated, irrespective of facts and reality, to believe otherwise.

          Until we hear that you’ve immigrated to a country which is freer than the United States when it comes to
          privacy and free speech, I am just not going to take you seriously as someone really interested in improving the freedom and privacy of all Americans who love their country.

        • kfreed

          What “wrath”? “We’re not going to scramble the jets” is the opposite of wrath.

      • CygnusX1isaHole

        …Greenwald hasn’t yet provided any actual evidence that the NSA, under Obama, has spied on innocent Americans or that President Obama

        ———–

        Using your logic I’m sure you wouldn’t mind slavery being rewritten into Federal law as long as no evidence of buying and selling human beings is brought to light.

        • kfreed

          Interesting you should mention “logic and slavery” in the same sentence… I have my doubts as to the Libertarian handle on “logic”:

          “The Libertarian Case for Slavery” (generously supplied by our friend, the Schneibster):
          http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm

          Liberarian Glenn Greenwald of Koch-funded Cato is a con artist. Some of us are just now discovering the many ways he presents the con.

          • CygnusX1isaHole

            Glenn has spoken at the Socialism conference several years in a row. Here’s his 2013 speech:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uulv4ve6RJ8

            Kind of hard to be a socialist and a Cato Libertarian at the same time.

          • kfreed

            “Kind of hard to be a socialist and a Cato Libertarian at the same time.”

            Not really. Greenwald’s a right-wing mole; i.e. “ratfucker”

          • CygnusX1isaHole

            President Obama is the Libertarian. He continually praises the “Free Market”. Obama sounds like a brain washed devotee of Ayn Rand.

            “So I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history.”

            April 3, 2012 – http://tinyurl.com/7kyuxgw

          • kfreed

            LOL. Right, that’s why the Libertarian Koch bros love him so:) Your IQ is plummeting as we “speak”…

            “MEMO: Health Insurance, Banking, Oil Industries Met With Koch, Chamber, Glenn Beck To Plot 2010 Election”
            http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/20/124642/beck-koch-chamber-meeting/

          • CygnusX1isaHole

            Barack “Ayn Rand” Obama, defender of the Libertarian “Free Market”:

            “I believe that the free market is one of the greatest forces for progress in human history, and that the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector, not the government,”

            - October 27, 2012 – http://tinyurl.com/lvejp9h

          • kfreed

            P.S. In this inkblot, I see a camel.

    • nathkatun7

      Can you name any “innocent Americans” who have been harmed by NSA spying on them “in violation of the 4th Amendment?” Are you one of those “innocent Americans” whose 4th Amendment rights have been violated?

      Until you can cite real evidence about real innocent Americans violated by the NSA, I could care less about your hype, exaggerations, and feigned victimhood. It’s mighty ironic that all of you Greenwald cultists, who are absolutely convinced that the NSA is spying on you, have no fear or qualms about visiting this blog to post your vicious (mostly unfounded) attacks on, and outrage about, NSA and President Obama. Do you honestly think you could do the same thing if you were actually living in what you claim is a police state under President Obama? I am absolutely certain that Glenn Greenwald, now a resident of Brazil, would never dare to viciously attack the Brazilian president, the way he has been attacking President Obama. What I find truly tragic is the fact that Greenwald’s cult followers in the U.S. simply regurgitate everything Glenny and his associates say without any critical thinking. All this hair on fire about NSA’s tyranny has not produced any shred of evidence that NSA has harmed any innocent American.

      • yestradamous

        The data gathering could in the end be fully justified, there could never ever have been nor will there ever be a hint of abuse by any govt employee ever, and I would still want to know that this data is being gathered. I would rather know than not know, wouldn’t you?

  • Schneibster

    Felonious Grammar has pointed out below that Greenwald is a concern troll.

    I think it’s a great point and worth repeating.

    • missliberties

      Here’s Glenn as a guest speak at the Freedom Rally hosted by the Southern Avenger.

      http://vimeo.com/36900138

      • truthzone333

        Oh really? Isn’t the “Southern Avenger” the white supremacist racist nutcase employed by Rand Paul? Why am I totally not surprised that Greenwald would have absolutely no qualms about associating with that ilk? And neither would his fan base.

        • Schneibster

          Every time you turn Rant Paul or Wrong Paul over you find more racism.

          • kfreed

            Probably because Rand Paul was reared by his white supremacist dad to be a full-on racist (it ain’t for nothin’ that both oppose the Civil Rights Act):

            History Commons: “Context of ‘July 22, 2007: Ron Paul Says He Agrees with Almost All Positions of John Birch Society'”
            http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a072207paulbirch

            Racism pretty much comes with Libertarian Party territory, seeing as the Libertarian Party (rebranded as the Tea Party) is, in fact, Ye Olde John Birch Society… not that a lot of young libertarians realize this, mind you.

          • Schneibster

            Hang loose a minnit, I got a little thing to scratch up that ain’t where I thought it was. I think you’ll find it amusing.

          • kfreed

            If you find it… I’m all eyeballs:)

          • Schneibster

            This dumb thing reverses the comments kinda sorta. It was the Libertarian justification for slavery. Hope you’re not too disappointed. :D

          • kfreed

            Oops, my bad. I was so looking forward to more Libertarian comedy.

          • Schneibster

            I have some more but there’s always tomorrow. Best not to shoot my wad all at once. :D

          • kfreed

            Tomorrow then:)

          • Schneibster

            Here we go.

            http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm

            The Libertarian case for (yes, in favor of, yes, totally doctrinaire Libertarian) slavery. It’s beneficial to the slaves! Yes, that’s right, Libertarians think slaves are better off than free people and they make a cogent argument to support it.

            Enjoy.

            ETA: Yes, I do have reams and reams of snark. Why? :D

          • kfreed

            “Since slavery was abolished, human earning power is forbidden by law to be capitalized. A man is not even free to sell himself: he must rent himself at a wage.”

            You mean I’m NOT allowed to sell myself into slavery? I DEMAND the right to sell myself into slavery! Liberty!

            The argument is flawed, however, as I believe such a right exists. We call it “working at Walmart.”

            Perfect example of “what stupid people think smart people sound like”:)

            (Thanks… saving this.)

          • Schneibster

            My pleasure. Glad you enjoyed it.

          • kfreed

            P.S. What else CAN you do with this besides snark? My outrage meter is kaput.

          • Schneibster

            Gotta say, I find snark very rewarding. I even occasionally manage to make one think.

        • kfreed

          Yep. See my comment above… long-winded background:) Noticed Missliberties post a bit late… still could use some clarification, generously provided by Mark Ames in his recent peice on this very topic.

      • kfreed

        Saw this after posting a rather lengthy comment about this very thing (above you). :)

  • ForsettiJustice

    Advocacy is a great but when the ends justifies the means becomes part of your standard operating procedure, you lose all credibility and any moral high ground you might of had.

    • Schneibster

      Precisely.

      If you’ll tell any lie, why should anyone believe you?

      The lesson of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

      • Jeff Cramer

        Also when anyone offers any constructive criticism like Carl Bernstein like did about Glenn’s “The US should be begging on its knees”, they are dismissed. If you can’t accept criticism or admit mistakes like Glenn, rational people will not deal with you because you are a “My Way or the Highway” type.

        • Schneibster

          The Libertarians will do anything to take votes away from the Democrats. Racism, specious accusations about personal freedom and surveillance, sexism, even violation of their supposed first principle, liberty. They’re shameless.

          What can’t happen is they reduce the Democrats to their level.

  • D_C_Wilson

    The most ridiculous thing about this story is the that idea that Miranda was transporting hard copies of “tens of thousands of pages of digital material” across national borders like he was in some kind of 1950s spy movie. I’m surprised he didn’t transfer them to microfilm and hide them in his shoe. I wonder if he had a suicide pill hidden inside a hollow tooth.

    It’s 2013. Hasn’t anyone at the Guardian heard of Dropbox? Flashdrives?

    It’s almost like they were trying to bait the UK government into doing exactly what they did.

    • Schneibster

      It sounds like they broke the encryption, too.

      Snicker. These guys are the Keystone Greenwalds. Or maybe Greenwald is Ollie and Miranda is Stan.

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

        Are you referencing the Independent article?

        • Richard_thunderbay

          In light of the Independent article, I think that the Guardian folks should be asked:

          1) How many people have the encryption key to the Snowden files?

          2) Have the Wikileaks people been entrusted with the files?

          3) If the answer to 2) is yes, did their recent document dump done for “safety” purposes include Snowden material?

          • Schneibster

            And that’s just for starters I can think of more without even trying.

        • Schneibster

          Yes.

          And making a cryptic reference as well to Assange and the publishing of the Wikileaks key which was equally inept.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Greenwald, Miranda, Snowden, and Assange.
            Moe, Larry, Curly, and Shemp.

          • Schneibster

            LOL

            Congratz you are Da Schneib’s Laugh O Da Day. You are, as Wally says, the Wind Beneath my Wings. Kudoz 2 Da Schneibsteress.

  • Schneibster

    Keep this detail coming, Bob. Far better you should watch it than me. :D

  • Schneibster

    Buried in paragraph 13 again.

  • Semanticleo

    “A firestorm erupted between Knight and Johnson, consequently, while Foust surreptitiously removed the “government entities” reference from the LinkedIn page, and stepped out of the conversation. However, a cached version of the page from August 5 proves that he plied his services to the federal government as a freelance consultant since the beginning of 2013. This does not necessarily mean he has actually worked with the federal government. However, both Knight and Kade have pushed Foust to explain what work he has done with the federal government, if any, and the latter has been unresponsive”

    Can we agree that if he’s still a contractor, his is a conflict of interest?

  • blackdaug

    Apparently, all of the Snowden files are now copied decrypted and out in the world.
    Now the race is on to see who can get what out as fast as possible.
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/new-york-times-guardian-snowden
    ….and Greenwald is claiming the US and UK governments are leaking sensitive information themselves to discredit…Greenwald?
    They have lost control of the story and the information and are desperately trying to spin the narrative their way before it is all out.
    What an enormous, predictable amatuer hour clusterfuck…..

    • Iowadem

      NY Times

    • Schneibster

      I read this but forgot. +1. :D

  • Richard_thunderbay

    The latest from Greenwald…

    Snowden: UK government now leaking documents about itself
    The NSA whistleblower says: ‘I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent’
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base

    Yes, the UK government is leaking damaging information about itself simply to try and discredit him.

    Given the recent upheavals in Wikileaks circles, I suspect that a disgruntled staffer gave the Independent the Snowden material.

    • Badgerite

      You know the NSA representatives on news shows when Snowden was in China did say that whatever he had in his various computers and thumb drives were clearly now in the possession of Chinese Intelligence Services. That whatever he had in his computers, whether he was aware of it or not, had been drained out of them. So, really, this particular leak could have come from anywhere. I am remembering the incident of Climategate where some Scandinavian scientists computers were hacked and their emails released which some credited to the Chinese.
      He really must be an arrogant little shit that it hadn’t occurred to him that that could happen. He’s so good and all.
      The Guardian, ever the apologist, claims the British government did it. And they did it just to make the Guardian and Greenwald look bad.
      I wonder if they think that there is anything that goes on in the world does NOT have to do with them?

      • kfreed

        Wasn’t “climategate” the work of Wikileaks?

        “More precisely, Assange self-identifies as a free-market libertarian who dislikes regulation. His personal libertarian ideology would explain why Assange was eager to take credit for Climategate: when he later gushed “We released over ten years of emails from the CRU and those climate scientists!” maybe he was just thrilled (as a friend of free markets and foe of regulation) to have played a role in scuttling the Copenhagen Summit”
        http://www.democraticunderground.com/125179195

        Do we detect patterns emerging?

        Union of Concerened Scientists: “Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the “Climategate” Manufactured Controversy”
        http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

        • Badgerite

          I don’t believe they ever nailed down who was initially responsible for the leaks. But I had heard some speculation that China may have wanted to scuttle the summit as well, since they are busy modernizing and don’t really relish pressure for restrictions at this point in their development. And China, of course, has been known to do a bit of international hacking itself. But I can certainly believe that Assange was involved. He is a real slug, as far as I’m concerned, and does not deserve his radical chic hero status.

  • trgahan

    Question: If Miranda didn’t trust British authorities to such an extent as to not accept a right to a lawyer and even a glass of water, how did he react when Glenn told him he was going to tranport some documents to Germany..and oh yeah BTW…you’re flying through London! Have fun! Call when you get there…

    • Badgerite

      According to Miranda he had no idea what he was carrying. Why it could have been anything and totally innocent. And that will elicit from me a ‘Yeah, right’ and eye roll.

      • trgahan

        I don’t know. The way the story is “evolving” (being generous) I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes out that Miranda was wearing a T-Shirt with “Carrying Stolen Top Secret Government Documents!” on the front and “Just Try and Stop Me Bitches!” on the back.

  • missliberties

    It appears that the whole Greenwald/Snowden/wikileaks/Assange episode is NOT what the outraged left thought it was.

    This has been all about the global movement to create an international wikileaks party, which isn’t so interested in democracy or transparency after all. It speaks volumes that Lew Rockwell is on this train.

    It also helps explain, seemingly, how Snowden ended up in Russia.

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

    Just let this all soak in and ponder it for a while. This is a global anti-US movement, supported by the Guardian, Greenwald, Snowden, WikiLeaks, Assange, Rand Paul and the Outraged fucking Left.

    • Badgerite

      Nice company they keep.

      • missliberties

        very authoritarian.

        It’s all starting to make sense now. It looks like GG was the weak link in this chain of command with his crappy reporting.

        Oh and the fact that Assange running on the wiki tickets embraced fascism, guns right and just general an uber conservative agenda.

        Fascinating to he posed as an leftist, when his heart is totalitarian authoritarian hard core conservative libertarian. What a rat.

        • Schneibster

          I keep telling people that Libertarians are not libertarians and I wonder if they hear me.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Nah! They all got their fingers stuck deep inside their ears screaming “LA-LA-LA-LA!!! I-CAN’T-HEAR-YOU!!! I-CAN’T-HEAR-YOU!!!”

          • Schneibster

            There’s stupid, and then there’s ignorant. Stupid’s just bad luck; ignorant is by choice.

        • Iowadem

          So, how does GG reconcile the anti gay, pro gun fascists politics?

          • Schneibster

            By not ever talking about it.

          • kfreed

            As I understand libertarian-speak, “free markets” = “liberty”… they’re a study in contradictions. They don’t spend a lot of time reconciling their contradictory politics.

          • missliberties

            The goalposts for liberties are always moving in libertarian land, like shapeshifters in the sand.

    • kfreed

      Thank you. I just spent the morning pasting this all over the InterWebz. The more, the merrier:)

      • missliberties

        I contacted Think Progress and asked them to investigate the facts.

        What? Assange is running as a fascist in Australia? Really?

        And will the OUTRAGED American left now report the story, the Greenwald lies, the anti-American agenda, the ultra-conservative bent to all this? All disguised as an interest in transparency. Or will the outraged left ignore this story just pretend it never happened, and ask everyone could we please play nice now.

        • Schneibster

          I find “poutrage” a good term for this stuff when the Republican-Amurcn teatraitors do it.

          • missliberties

            I am just beyond poutraged at outrage! :)

        • kfreed

          Cool:) Turning the tables. They’re not shoving this under the carpet as far as I’m concerned.

        • Iowadem

          The greenies will now all e fascists and wear it as a badge of honor.

        • kfreed

          Assange’s Australian Wikileaks Party pulled a bait and switch, preferencing candidates of right-wing fascist parites over progressive Green candidates, who have been supporting his “party” in Australia… causing a masive mutiny and rats jumping the Wikileak Party ship:) At least now they know they were conned.

          http://paulocanning.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/assange-getting-kicked-in-nuts-in.html

          • missliberties

            Isn’t that delicious.

      • Schneibster

        LOL, good for you.

    • trgahan

      Could it be that currently the ONE demographic in first world nations that conservatives can peel away voters from more progressive candidates is middle and upper class white male self-identified faux-libertarians convinced “the other” is stealing their birthright?

      • missliberties

        It delights me endlessly that Assanges supporters in Australia, the wikiparty, are fleeing like rats on a sinking ship.

    • Richard_thunderbay

      Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks Party running mate Leslie Cannold quits

      http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/julian-assanges-wikileaks-party-running-mate-leslie-cannold-quits-20130821-2sb99.html

      She said a campaign staffer also received a phone call that
      contradicted the public statement issued by the WikiLeaks Party on
      Wednesday that the review of preferences would be immediate and
      independent.

      Instead, the review would be delayed until after the election and would not be independent, Ms Cannold said.

      ‘‘This is the final straw,’’ she said.

      ‘‘As long as I believed there was a chance that democracy,
      transparency and accountability could prevail in the party I was willing to stay on and fight for it. But where a party member makes a bid to subvert the party’s own processes, asking others to join in a secret, alternative power centre that subverts the properly constituted one, nothing makes sense anymore.

      ‘‘This is an unacceptable mode of operation for any
      organisation but even more so for an organisation explicitly committed
      to democracy, transparency and accountability.’’

      • Badgerite

        I am shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!

        When people like ( Assange, etc ) actually have to do what political parties and governments have to do over time, they come apart. It never is so clear cut or so easy as they make it out to be.

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

          I haven’t done a formal study, but it was in the sixth grade— ’72-’73— when my peers and I were being encouraged to believe that opinion was something as mighty as a vote. That has blossomed into opinion polls asking people to decide what will happen in the future. Who will win the Presidential Election? And now we’ve come to a soldier turning over 700,000 classified documents because he had an opinion, an internet sensation readying to take over the governing of nations because he has opinions, and an NSA contractor trying to tear down the National Security apparatus of the U.S.A. because he has opinions (and precious little understanding or even curiosity of what that institution is constitutionally required to do, how it does it, and how its oversight works).

          Idiots. People who have probably had zero experience in democratically operating anything and the compromise and struggle that that entails, have these “visions” of greatness and imagine their influence sufficient to bring down powerful nations.

          Delusional. Entitled. Self-aggrandizing. Stupid white men with “problems”.

    • Schneibster

      And think about this too: it looks like Assange talked Manning into it. And Manning finally figured it out.

    • drspittle

      I’ve thought this was the agenda from the beginning. I think it would be interesting to know who all the players are and the scope of the agenda.

  • Garrett

    Just to be clear: Greenwald was contacted over telephone after Miranda had been detained for *3 hours*, and the security official told him Miranda was denied a lawyer. Greenwald had lawyers sent *after* being contacted. The Guardian reported he was given counsel for the *last hour* of a nine hour detention. So he was only given a lawyer after 8 hours. That’s a problem in any civilized country.

    • answerfrog

      1) As a journalist, he could actually check the facts before bloviating out falsehoods 2) he refused an attorney because he wanted his own, which took 8 hours to arrive. That’s his or his lawyers fault.

      • Richard_thunderbay

        Of course, 2) is a crucial detail no doubt left out of the early accounts to inspire outrage.

        Moreover, note how we have someone here who came in unaware that the story had changed. I think most Greenwald fans never make it beyond the initial outrageous version of the story. What’s pretty funny is that I’ve found that, when such mitigating details are pointed out, a common response is they can’t be true because “why would Greenwald debunk his own story?”. Why? He’s using a very old “journalistic” trick, exploiting the fact that retractions never get the same attention that the original story does.

        If the new version does get acknowledged, it is then pushed as evidence of Greenwald being “honest” all while the emerging details continue to get ignored in favor of pushing the original line.

        • FlipYrWhig

          They never follow the story. They swallow the first version, then bark at any complicating factors by saying that Greenwald’s detractors obviously hate him for telling the truth (about Obama).

          • Schneibster

            The easiest way to fool someone is convince them they want to be fooled and then let them take care of the details. Once they want it they’ll filter all the evidence for themselves.

      • Victor_the_Crab

        As a journalist, he could actually check the facts before bloviating out falsehoods

        FACTS?!! Glenn Greenwald don’t need no stinkin’ facts!!!

    • Badgerite

      Just to be clear, according to the Guardian story published after time for reflection and fact gathering, Miranda was offered a lawyer but refused it as well as the refreshments offered. He would have been given a lawyer sooner if he had not turned the one provided to him and immediately available down. He waited for the Guardian lawyers to arrive and it took them 8 hours. Turning down the lawyer provided was his right. But don’t blame the authorities for that.

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

        So, he was the reason he was detained for 9 hours.

        • Iowadem

          Good point – had he taken the first offer he could have been released in a couple of hours.

          • Schneibster

            Well, once the lawyers arrived he was out in an hour.

            Draw your own conclusions.

      • Garrett

        Personally, I am not going to assume that Greenwald lied about what the security official told him over the telephone. You can assume that if it confirms what you already think. Either way it has no bearing on the fact that it was an illegal detention, so I will blame the authorities for that. It also has no bearing on the integrity of Greenwald’s other investigative journalism.

        • Schneibster

          Neither Badger nor I assume Greenwald outright lied.

          I think it’s obvious Miranda had to wait for eight hours for the Grauniad scheisters to show up and that the interrogation took an hour once they were there.

          IOW it’s Miranda’s fault it took nine hours instead of one hour. It’s not harassment at all; it’s Miranda asserting his rights. And that’s fine, and guess what, the British allowed him to.

          To then blame the British for it taking nine hours is silly. Blame the lawyers who took eight hours to show up.

          I don’t even blame Miranda or the Grauniad. That’s how long it took, and good for Miranda for asserting his rights. It’s Greenwald who’s making a fuss; maybe he should sue the Grauniad lawyers.

          Or anyway not blame the British for their faults.

        • Badgerite

          I didn’t say Greenwald outright lied but tell me, do you accept his characterization of his earlier reporting when the NSA story first broke that “the NSA claimed” it had direct access to internet servers of major internet companies. The NSA claimed no such thing. In fact the NSA and the internet companies mentioned in the article all vigorously denied it. So, is that honest reporting or is that playing fast and loose with the facts? Words have precise meanings. Greenwald tends to stretch their meaning to the point of untruthfulness and bury disclaimers.

          • Garrett

            The documents released by Snowden said that Prism allows “collection directly from the servers of these US service providers”. So it came straight from the donkey’s mouth; he didn’t stretch anything. It’s not about accepting Greenwald’s reporting, but whether you accept the wording in offical NSA documents. It is the burden of the NSA to clarify.

            And any reasonable observer can determine that that law allows detention of people involved in the instigation or commission of acts of terrorism, not the spouses of journalists who may have secret documents that may, someday, cause some undefined harm to some ill-defined national interest. That’s why one of the authors of the law, Lord Falconer, said it was an illegal detention.

          • Badgerite

            A courier is a courier. And I am reasonably sure that it is a crime to transport stolen government documents across international borders. Spouse or no spouse. So, if the detention was illegal under British law, sue them. But it will be hard to get around transporting stolen government documents around the world. That would be a crime no matter how he was detained.

            The documents released were training slides which are usually pretty cursory lowest common denominator kinds of things, not some in depth document. And as training slides they were quite ambiguous. “Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers” does not necessarily mean direct access to their servers. The collections were made by the providers themselves after being served with a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. A rather crucial bit of truthful information completely left out of the initial story, even though a later document dump included one of the FISC warrants. So, they were either seriously slipshod or they were misrepresenting in their initial reporting. The data was then stored in NSA databases for analysts to access. That is a wholly different ball of wax then ‘direct access’. I believe it is part of journalististic ethics, when publishing this kind of story , to allow the party to defend themselves by allowing them a chance to comment and include that in the story.
            Greenwald, of course, did no such thing and after the story was printed both the NSA and the internet providers involved denied the ‘direct access’ claims of Greenwald. Again, the claims of Greenwald, not the NSA. When you print stolen documents without allowing for comment, it is you who are interpreting them and claiming things. Not the agency involved. When your alleged profession is dealing with the precise meaning of words, this would have been obvious, even to a dope.

          • Garrett

            Has he been charged (or let alone convicted) of a crime? Do you think employees (and their significant others) of other newspapers should be prosecuted for transporting classified documents, which is a regular practice among investigative journalists? Your disdain for a free press is mind-boggling.

            How did Greenwald fail to give them a chance to comment? I encourage you to read this article a little bit closer: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

            It includes comments and denials from Apple, Google, and senior US administration officials.

            Once again, the “precise words” you speak of came from NSA documents. You can try to make excuses, but you can’t blame GG for quoting them.

          • Badgerite

            I can blame GG for doing just exactly what he did which was to say he printed what ‘the NSA claimed’. Again, words have precise meanings and in no one’s universe does the statement so and so claimed mean I am printing stolen training slides that use certain words out of context and that equals the agency involved ‘claimed’ anything. Greenwald claimed it and then the agency and the companies involved DENIED it. He had in his possession at the time of the first story the NSA Guidelines for minimization, warrant requirements and privacy protections as well as a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which somehow the Guardian didn’t get around to mentioning in their first article breaking the story. And when they did finally reluctantly mention it it was to characterize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as a ‘rubber stamp’ that never said no. Until, of course, it became known through a FOIA request that the Court had indeed said no and in no uncertain terms. Again. An example of Greenwald mischaracterizing something.

            Well, if Miranda wasn’t carrying stolen classified US government documents across international borders then he should, under the law,be able to get those documents back. I won’t hold my breath on that one. I think they could charge him with a crime. Whether that is worth the trouble to them is anybodies guess. I think they were after the documents, not the courier. I don’t have a disdain for the free press. I have a disdain for Greenwald.

          • Garrett

            Just remember, if you don’t believe in freedom of the press for GG, then you don’t believe in freedom of press for any journalist. The illegal detention of a journalist’s family member or spouse is a direct attack on a very basic freedom enjoyed in Western countries.

            Everybody knows that the NSA has publicly denied that extent of surveillance. But this is inconsistent with what was actually contained in the PRISM documents. In the those documents, did the NSA “claim” they could collect directly from the servers of those companies? Absolutely and categorically yes. Deny that all you want, but it seems a little desperate on your part.

            Whether or not it is true is for them to clarify. GG was just the messenger. The truth is that these programs were secret and hidden from all of us. Of course there’s now a debate regarding the fine details of the program, but that’s only because of Snowden and GG. Personally, I am happy not to be living in ignorance of the PRISM program.

          • YankinBrazil

            Thank you Glenn, for sock-puppeting into this thread.

          • Garrett

            Actually I used my real name, but if believing that feeds into your weird cultish hatred towards Greenwald, then all the power to you.

    • FlipYrWhig

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the idea that Miranda was denied a lawyer was either a misunderstanding or a deliberate misstatement. Consider an exchange like “Does he have a lawyer present?” “No.” That could easily go from “he didn’t have a lawyer present” to “he was kept from having a lawyer present” in the telling. It’s kind of Greenwald’s M.O. to do that.

  • Badgerite

    This is the problem with the Greenwaldians. First Greenwald publishes slightly untrue depiction of events. You get a “See” from the Greenwaldians. Then you get a ‘how can you defend such and such’. And then, following the 24 Hour rule, it is clear the ‘such and such’ didn’t actually happen. But the Greenwaldians never feel compelled to admit that they got that little tidbit of ‘authoritarian abuse’ story, wrong. Or to alter their perceptions of this story or the people reporting it in any way.

  • TheKInKC

    Come on guys, he’s just an innocent journalist who was targeted because of who his partner is..no other reason…geez.
    (Sarcasm)

  • Kelly McGee

    great story!

  • JoeJMO

    I really enjoy your columns, Bob. It seems lately that one of the few sites that gives consistent and fair coverage (with a progressive point of view) of the whole NSA story (and Greenwald’s antics) is the Daily Banter. When I have been on other “progressive” sites, I have been really disappointed by the lack of any objective discussion about these issues. And, it seems when I voice a different point of view on those sites, I usually get attacked pretty harshly by other readers. Keep up the good work, Daily Banter!

    • kfreed

      So, what you’re saying is reality has a progressive bias. This isn’t “progressive” reporting. This is fact-checking and it just so happens that the facts don’t mesh with what Greenwald is cranking out.

  • butterflybesos9

    greenwald an egotistical maniac and full of crap. that’s the entire story.

  • missliberties

    Great writing Bob. I love the way you use words to paint pictures.

    “…..Greenwald’s penchant for raking his tin cup across the prison bars of his own victimization —….”

    “…..Greenwald has skewed the debate he so desperately wanted to generate into a Kardashian-style tangent….”

    Perfect description. The best part of this Kardashian style reveal has been the pictures of Glenn’s boy friend who is totally HOT! The worst part of this reveal has been Greenwalds vicious mean spirited fans, who apparently get some kind of high from their sanctimonious outrage!!!

    I am still waiting for The Guardian to come to it’s senses, before it’s too late and they undermine all of their journalistic integrity. Fire Greenwald, tell the truth and liberate your news outlet from its glaring anti-American bias.

  • chilisize

    “U.K. authorities can’t possibly believe that by seizing the documents from Miranda that they’re somehow obstructing the ability of The Guardian and Greenwald to write about the content of the documents.”

    Nor could they possibly believe that Miranda was potentially engaged in terrorism. What could their motives have been? Thinking, thinking.

    It’s great that every inexact or contradictory statement made by Greenwald gets hightlighted and questioned by Mr Cesca (I’m not being sarcastic in the least).

    What a shame he do the same for our president.

    • 624LC .

      How is that denial phase of your greenwald grief process going? You seem stuck.

      • chilisize

        You should ask how well recycled “hilarious” quips, unaccompanied by anything interesting to say about anything, is going for you. You seem boring. Let me check that: Yes, you are fucking boring.

        • 624LC .

          Not nearly as thoroughly fucking boring as you are. Same shit different day with your lame emo posing and flinging every bit of deflection you are able to squeeze out of that greenwald addled brain of yours to cover up the fact that you got jack shit to counter facts.

          But by all means, keep posting. If there was ever any doubt that greenwald minions are giant twats, you fix that. God bless ya…

        • nathkatun7

          Do you really think you are an exciting writer with something important to say? If you do, you need help.

          • chilisize

            All I know is, I want to talk about the NSA and related topics, and you want to talk about *me*

    • Norbrook

      It’s nice if you are a “liberal,” and like me you want voting rights and
      civil rights and pre-school and free lunches at that school and free
      college and regulated banking and regulated energy

      And what exactly does this have to do with Greenwald?

      Oh, and while you’re at it, would you like to explain how the President is supposed to do all these wonderful wish list things of yours. Apparently you don’t quite understand that there’s this institution called “Congress,” and that half of it is controlled by conservatives. You know, the people who don’t want any of that stuff, and got in because liberals like you decided to sit your asses home in 2010 to “teach the president a lesson.” Worked out really well, didn’t it?

      • chilisize

        Where did you get that I expected the president alone to do those things?

        And my point re “liberals” of the Bob Cesca/Bob Cesca fanboy stripe absolutely had *nothing* to do with Greenwald.

        Maybe read it again, slowly, for clues.

        • Norbrook

          The line right above the quote, for one. Then your extended emoprog grievance list.

          • chilisize

            Wasn’t an “emoprog greviance list,” it was a list of things that I *imagined* liberals mostly agree on.

            But fine if you’re *against* voting rights and
            civil rights and pre-school and free lunches at that school and free college and regulated banking and regulated energy. Had no idea any of that stuff was “emoprog.”

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

            What on earth, in this thread or any other, would make you think we’re against those things? Stop changing the subject and answer Badgerite’s questions. She was clearly trying to engage you in an insult free way. I would think you’d be happy to have a civil, reasoned discussion. Geez…

          • Badgerite

            No real response to said question is pretty much what I expected.

          • chilisize

            “What on earth, in this thread or any other, would make you think we’re against those things?”

            The point was that I *didn’t* think “we” were against those things, read it again, or get a responsible adult to read it for you.

          • Badgerite

            Can’t answer my question then? I didn’t think so.

          • chilisize

            Your question, which was basically what I would do to stop the thousands being killed *in Iraq* as an alternative to drone strikes in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and beyond?

            Ask an incoherent question, get mocking.

          • Badgerite

            No, my question was what would you do to combat the mortal enemies of the US (specifically Al Qaeda ) which you admitted in one of your other post do indeed exist. And you have no answer because it would require you to actually theorize in real world conditions as opposed to Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. I love Mr. Rogers too. And I wish to God the world WERE like his neighborhood because I would love to be his neighbor. But it is not. And I believe the cumulative death toll of all drone strikes, some of which even you would have to admit actually targeted and killed terrorists, is under 2000. As I noted previously, in Iraq alone, terrorist bombings have killed 3000 Iraqis just since April of this year.

          • chilisize

            You don’t know that drone strikes have done *anything* to make Americans safer. And the country has been misled again and again about the scope of the program.

            It’s silly that anyone should have to name an alternative to it. The alternative to lying to the country is: Don’t lie to the country.

          • Norbrook

            The “emoprog grievance list” started when you went off on drones, whistleblowers, etc. In case you missed it, and you obviously did.

        • missliberties

          Where did you get the idea that the US doesn’t have enemies around the world that are interested in murdering thousands of people around the world for the sake of ‘taking it to’ the US.

          If you had secret intel that if revealed would rile up Egypt’s fanatical conservatives to murder thousands of protesters, should Greenwald and the gang reveal said info in the Guardian, because Outrage, Secrecy Spying. Honestly your view of the world is very very naive. Sometimes keeping secrets saves lives. And sometimes murdering serial killers in Yemen with dronezz is the right thing to do.

          • chilisize

            “Where did you get the idea that the US doesn’t have enemies around the world that are interested in murdering thousands of people around the world for the sake of ‘taking it to’ the US.”

            You think I said that? I’m pretty sure I didn’t.

          • Badgerite

            Well, your method of dealing with the US enemies around the world that are interested in murdering thousands of people around the world for the sake of taking it to the US is—what? Bake them cupcakes? Duck and cover? What?

          • chilisize

            Really, so, all the Yemeni and Afghan and Pakistanis our drones have killed were out to “murder thousands of people around the world for the sake of taking it to the US”?

            Call me an emoprog or a firebagger or a dirty hippie or whatever insult the authoritarian bootlicks of “liberal” are slinging these days, but that notion is more than doubtful.

          • Badgerite

            I didn’t call you anything. I asked you a question. How would you deal with the threat? I also didn’t say ‘all’ anything. Your contention seems to be that whatever the US does to counteract the threat, there can be NO innocent casualties. That is just not realistic. Interesting fact, in Iraq alone since April there have been 3000 deaths due to the bombs of radical Islamists. How, exactly, would you counter act that violence? Otherwise known as war.
            This particular topic is really just designed to give you the moral high ground while attacking anything the US does in the world to secure its security or national interests. Which, by the way, all nations do.

          • chilisize

            “Interesting fact, in Iraq alone since April there have been 3000 deaths due to the bombs of radical Islamists. How, exactly, would you counter act that violence?”

            Is your answer to this violence in Iraq, to bomb Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan?

            Brilliant.

          • Badgerite

            Well, what is YOUR answer? I believe that was the point of my post.

          • formerlywhatithink

            They never answer. Ask some far left loony what they would propose in lieu of the NSA or any other intelligence outfit and all you get is crickets. They want to tear the whole thing down but offer no alternatives in an extremely naive belief that if the US were to cease all intelligence operations that somehow the rest of the world wouldn’t seize that opportunity in a heartbeat.

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

            They are a burning fire truck with a siren that never dies.

          • Matthew Ryan

            You might not have called him anything, but even as he took offense to the perceived slight, he called you an “authoritarian bootlick”. Irony.

          • Iowadem

            Also, Greenwald wrote articles praising Bush for invading Iraq even AFTER it was known there were no WMD

        • 624LC .

          Why bother? Like all your writing, it is worse the second time around.

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

          “with the tendency found here to fixate on who belongs to the *authentic* real estate on the political spectrum”

          You’re the one that is accusing Bob of not being a liberal….IF what you say about us is true (and I don’t think it is), then “pot meet kettle”

        • Iowadem

          Don’t forget it was Greenwald who praised Bush for the going to war with Iraq- this was after the evidence that there were no WMD in Iraq

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

      “And it’s great that every inexact or contradictory statement made by Greenwald gets hightlighted and questioned by Mr Cesca”

      GG is a reporter and they are professionally dedicated to publishing the truth and accuracy. The details of things like whether Miranda was allowed to have an attorney or not go directly to GG’s credibility as a reporter. On this point, Cesca is being a better reporter than GG could ever hope to be.

    • condew

      I really like how you hid that turd among the roses. Are we playing “these are a few of my favorite things”, or “one of these things is not like the others”?

    • Badgerite

      What could their motives have been. Thinking. Thinking.
      When someone is a KNOWN courier for someone KNOWN to be in possession of stolen US government documents and you are the UK authorities, you basically use any means within the letter of the law to detain that courier and recover said documents. Whether the UK authorities actions were within the letter of the law is for the UK Courts to determine, if it goes that far.
      Interesting fact, the First Amendment freedom of the press rights do not include the right to be in possession of stolen US government documents. You can certainly print them, but I don’t believe you can be in physical possession of them or transport them around the world via courier. I’m not absolutely sure, but I think that is the case.

    • Schneibster

      It’s not so many excuses, it’s that he was doing so many things wrong at the same time.

      Just sayin’.

    • kfreed

      So, your suggestion for revising our bootlick authoritarianism is to forget Greenwald’s misreporting and go with right-wing authoritarians presently undermining the democrat in the White House and unquestioningly join in the mass hsteria over conjecture delivered by right-wing authoritarians?

      Ahem: “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/

      Um… no thank you.

  • judi

    Has anyone considered this as a “gotcha” moment by Snowden…to keep his story alive???

    • Iowadem

      Greenwald for sure set this up to keep himself relevant.

  • Vipsanius

    Greenwald reminds me of Peewee Herman.

  • kfreed

    The Snowden, Greenwald, Wikileaks RW Trifecta… is it too soon to say, “Told Ya”?

    Forbes UPDATE regarding Wikileaks: ““they want the fascist Australia First Party” – yes, really.

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

    “The praise for the conservative Paul wing of the Republican Party in the U.S., aligned with Tea Party and anti-government activists, comes on the heels of the establishment of the Wikileaks Party in Australia, where Assange is standing for election to the Senate from Victoria.”

    Pg. 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.”

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

    • Badgerite

      Oh this is rich. The Guardian has a story claiming that the ballot preference allocations were a ‘clerical error’ and carrying the statement of the martyr Assange that he was just ‘so busy saving the life of a young man’ ( exact words and that would be Edward Snowden) that this one just got away from him. He has promised a review. Uh huh! Interesting. So how does that square with him coming out in support of Ron and Rand Paul. Personally, I see a PATTERN of political preference here. An agenda, even. (Pardon, I’m trying to keep from guffawing here).

      And according to the Sidney Morning Herald there is a mass exodus underway at the WikiLeaks Australian Alliance Party.
      “In damaging resignation statements late on Wednesday, the party’s number two Senate candidate in Victoria, ethicist Leslie Cannold, and a member of the National Council, Daniel Mathews, lashed out at what they said was a mishandling of the preference decisions by the party.—–”
      “Three other WikiLeaks Council members Sam Castro, Kaz Cochrane, and Luke Pearson and three campaign staff were also resigning late on Wednesday.”
      “Dr. Cannold claimed she had learnt that a party member was allegedly subverting the decision of the council about the review, and she no longer had faith in the organizations ability to operate according the principles of ‘democracy, transparency and accountability.’ “

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

        Good catch! It’s so rich I need a big ol glass of whole milk (to wipe the smile off my face)

      • Richard_thunderbay

        Bait and switch.

      • kfreed

        In case anyone would like to shove this down the throat of the nearest Greenwald fanster…

        The Assange Hearts Ron/Rand Paul video courtesy of Little Green Footballs (making an honest living of exploding Libertarian heads on a regular basis):

        http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42405_Wikileaks_Founder_Assange-_Im_a_Big_Admirer_of_Ron_Paul_and_Rand_Paul#rss

      • formerlywhatithink

        I posted this on another comment thread, but I think it bears repeating since Wikileaks has dubbed themselves the brave defenders of transparency.

        she no longer had faith in the organizations ability to operate according to the principles of ‘democracy, transparency and accountability.

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        • Badgerite

          Yeah, that’s good. Mr. Transparency is having trouble being transparent.

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

        The Snowaldens do seem to have the same sort of persecution complex that so many the POTUS speak on issues and ask questions. He’s working on strengthening democracy and making life better for working people.

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/a-better-bargain

        Greenwald is talking about Greenwald, his fans are talking about Greenwald, and Greenwald is doing jack for this country, in spite, of his trollish ‘concerns”. fundamentalist Christians do. They don’t know the meaning of the word or the experience of being persecuted. However unwitting it may be, they mock persecuted persons and peoples; which explains why these concern trolls who are so concerned about “liberty” and “Civil Rights” and “freedom,” don’t apparently give a damn about reproductive freedom for women and voter disenfranchisement for people of color.

        Persecution envy and narcissism is not admirable or honorable.

  • RilesSD

    What if, after all this is said and done, it’s Miranda that ends up being found guilty of a crime and in jail.

    • missliberties

      Greenwald would be forced to find a new boyfriend?

      • condew

        I think Greenwald would be single for the rest of his life after sending his hubby on a little “vacation”.

      • nathkatun7

        I am sure that won’t be hard with all his cultist admirers.

  • kfreed

    “Greenwald himself told the New York Times on Sunday that Miranda was delivering and receiving Snowden documents”

    In other words, Greenwald unceremoniously threw his boyfriend under the bus. If I were Miranda, I’d be pissed.

    Miranda “was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities.”

    Libertarians’ notorious paranoia… this is what happens when your entire existence is wrapped up in RW anti-government conspiracy theories. Interesting, though, that they only bubble over whenever there’s a democrat in the White House.

    • JozefAL

      From the pics I’ve seen of Miranda and Greenwald, I just wonder what Miranda sees in Greenwald. Usually, you’d expect this kind of physical mismatch would involve sums of money on the part of the much-less attractive partner to the more attractive or the less attractive partner would be a “name” but Greenwald doesn’t seem to be rich enough for the first situation to be in play and his name (until lately) doesn’t really have the cachet that would allow him to mingle with “the” set (whoever that may be at the time).

      • kfreed

        Personally, I don’t see what anybody, anywhere sees in Greenwald.

        Because I read this at some point and about died laughing, I always picture Greenwald as Joe Camel (can’t help it): http://blog.paulcarr.com/war-nerd-is-a-liar-lies-glenn-greenwald/

        • Schneibster

          The camel looks better.

          Nice second source for the Cato Institute thing, too. And the Libertarian thing.

    • Schneibster

      “democrat in the White House”

      Butbutbut…

      They’reallthesame™, aren’t they?

  • Sinnach

    Is it worth piling on to note that Miranda was offered a cup of water but refused because ‘he did not trust the authorities’? That speaks volumes about his mindset and outlook. These people think they’re living in their own cloak-and-dagger spy novella where they fight an international cabal of iron-fisted overlords, complete with ever-present threat of assassination and poisoning. It’s not hard to guess why their reporting reads like a work of fiction if their perception of reality matches it.

    Worse still is that he still manages to complain about not getting that drink. You know, the one he turned down. This whole series of events has been one extended circus.

    • Richard_thunderbay

      In that regard, the funny thing about the Snowden “dead man switch” threat is that it provides a huge incentive for any country or organization that wants to feast on his secret goodies to simply murder the bastard. It turns him into a human pinata. If he does kick the bucket in the near future, my guess it will be as a result of a car “accident” in Russia.

      • condew

        I’me beginning to believe Greenwald himself is that dead man switch.

    • Victor_the_Crab

      All Miranda’s trying to do is protect his precious bodily fluids from that flouride they’re trying to slip him.

      • dbtheonly

        Purity of Essence.

        The more things change…

        And we’re coming up on the 50th anniversary.

        • Schneibster

          Feed me, Mandrake!

    • Bubble Genius

      Reminds me of that joke about the Jewish bubbe who complains to the waiter that the soup is terrible, “and such small portions!”

    • Lady Willpower

      How M-Fing paranoid do you have to be to think that the lawyer they offer you is actually a cop in disguise? How nuts is that?
      SMH

  • blackdaug

    Given we know Poitras is working on a “documentary” , it would appear they are running out of material, and are having to create dramatic narrative to spice up the story..
    Snowden was playing out the crazy Borne movie in his head, now Glenn is picking up where he left off.
    Meanwhile back at the Guardian, the sage editor is definitely smashing computers nobody really asked to examine.
    I bet Glenn already has the actor picked out to play him in the upcoming film adaptation.
    Like they say in Hollywood, if all else fails, just start making shit up.

    • Richard_thunderbay

      As I have stated here before, I’d be extremely surprised if the Miranda incident was not deliberately staged as a publicity stunt. They no doubt had a very good idea going in what was going to happen. These guys are now operating from the James O’Keefe handbook.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

      • formerlywhatithink

        I’m also wondering why Miranda was traveling to meet Poitras and not Greenwald himself. On the face of it, it doesn’t make sense. If Greenwald and Poitras are collaborating on a story, wouldn’t it make more sense for Greenwald to travel to Germany for a face to face meeting and review the documents Poitras was giving him in person? There’s something about this entire incident to indeed make a good argument that it was a contrived affair.

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

          It seems to say more about their relationship than it does about privacy or the NSA. No-drama-Obama seems to be most often attacked with melodrama and prevarication. They’ve got nothing and do as much as they can with that and what gall they can muster.

          The President is currently touring the country talking about bringing down the cost of higher education and improving public schools.

          The White House has a website, and the public is invited to hear the POTUS speak on issues and ask questions. He’s working on strengthening democracy and making life better for working people.

          http://www.whitehouse.gov/a-better-bargain

          Greenwald is talking about Greenwald, his fans are talking about Greenwald, and Greenwald is doing jack for this country, in spite, of his trollish ‘concerns’.

          • Schneibster

            This.

            Greenwald is definitely a concern troll.

    • Rita D. Lipshutz

      maybe matt damon

  • Richard_thunderbay

    Of course, if one mentions this kind of deliberate deception anywhere where Greenwaldians congregate, you will be accused of being a liar, an Obot, a troll, an NSA operative on the government payroll, or all of the above. Suggesting any deviation from the Greenwald narrative means that you have committed the heresy of “trying to distract us from the issues”. In other words, how dare you tug on our horse-blinders.

    I also find it amusing how they want to have things both ways- if some uncomfortable piece of information comes up, we are told that the NSA story isn’t about Snowden or Greenwald,and they are just the messengers, at the the same time, we are told what heroes they are, the modern day Martin Luther Kings. It’s all about them, except when it isn’t.

    In terms of cults of personality, the Greenwaldians remind me a lot of Ron Paul supporters.

    • kfreed

      “the Greenwaldians remind me a lot of Ron Paul supporters”

      That’s because most of them ARE Ron Paul supporters.
      We’ve got Ron Paul’s #1 fan Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute, Paulbot Snowden who before meetng up with Greenwald thought leakers should be “shot in the balls”… and this just in:

      “Wikileaks Founder Assange: ‘I’m a Big Admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul'”
      http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42405_Wikileaks_Founder_Assange-_Im_a_Big_Admirer_of_Ron_Paul_and_Rand_Paul#rss
      Surprise. Surprise.

      • Iowadem

        Why are the paranoid always Ron and Rand Paul devotees?

        • kfreed

          If you’re in the Ron/Rand Paul fan club, it’s an absolute requirement. They breed it.

          • Philip Weigel

            It’s comments like the above that makes me sad for the human race. *shakes head in pity* Seriously, you guys are honestly as bad as the Ron/Rand Paul supporters you claim are nut jobs.

            Instead of being paranoid though, you just have the attitude of “what can one person do” and “the government sucks, there’s nothing we can do to change anything” while ignoring that people have stopped SOPA, PIPA and Europe stopped ACTA pretty hard when they were up.

    • missliberties

      Ask yourself, whose national iterests are being served, given that Russia has a vested interest in maintaining control over the ports in Syria and Egypt.

    • nathkatun7

      “In terms of cults of personality, the Greenwaldians remind me a lot of Ron Paul supporters.”

      Richard, may be they are, in reality, Ron and Rand Paul supporters despite their claims that they are liberals/progressives.

  • Robert

    The Kardashians. Fresh reference!

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

      Good response! I retract all of it.

      • Lady Willpower

        Robert created an account just to tell you that.

        • condew

          Checked his profile, he really did!

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

        /snort

    • RilesSD

      Funny, I took it as a purposeful dig at Glenn. He’s that thin-skinned it would really piss him off.