Glenn Greenwald is a target

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Jul 5, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member NiemanJournalismLab (Nieman Journalism Lab)
    Greenwald and the “who’s a journalist?” debate
    : As U.S. National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden tries to find a home (more on him later), the debate around the professional legitimacy of the journalists who broke his story — especially The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald — continued this week. Two pieces in particular drew the bulk of the criticism: At The Wall Street Journal, Edward Jay Epstein
    accused Greenwald
    and filmmaker Laura Poitras of going beyond reporting to engage in “aiding and abetting” theft in their work with Snowden. And a Washington Post editorial
    advised the U.S. government
    on how to stop the leaks from Snowden and others like him.[/quote]
    • Like Like x 1
  2. The Washington Post has been an intelligence community mouthpiece and apologist since forever, so this comes as no surprise to the informed.

    Greenwald, time to go underground and start carrying a weapon for self-defense.
  3. Anonymous Member

    These are excerpts. The article is a short summation of the security companies threats against Glenn Greenwald.

  4. Anonymous Member

  5. Asheera Member

    When a newspaper, in this case the Washington Post, essentially argues for the prosecution of their own whistleblower then something is badly wrong....
    • Like Like x 4
  6. Anonymous Member

  7. Anonymous Member
    If It's Wednesday, Peter King is Accusing the Media of Treason

    • Like Like x 1
  8. Anonymous Member

  9. Anonymous Member

  10. Anonymous Member
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Anonymous Member

    Dear Mr. Pincus:

    That you decided to write an entire column grounded solely in baseless innuendo is between you and your editors. But your assertion of several factually false claims about me, Laura Poitras, and others is not:

    (1) "On April 10, 2012, Greenwald wrote for the WikiLeaks Press’s blog about Poitras and WikiLeaks being targeted by U.S. government officials."

    I have no idea what you're talking about here, and neither do you. I never wrote anything "for the WikiLeaks Press's blog". How you decided to pull that fact out of thin air is a genuine mystery.

    The April 10, 2012, article of mine you seem to be referencing - about the serial border harassment of the filmmaker Laura Poitras - was written for Salon, where I was a Contributing Writer and daily columnist. Neither it, nor anything else I've ever written, was written "for the WikiLeaks Press's blog".

    (2) "In that same interview, Assange previewed the first Greenwald Guardian story based on Snowden documents that landed a week later."

    This claim is not just obviously false, but deeply embarrassing for someone who claims even a passing familiarity with surveillance issues.

    The sentence you quoted from Assange's May 29 interview about the collection of phone records was preceded by this: "The National Security Agency — and this has come out in one court case after another — was involved in a project called Stellar Wind to collect all the calling records of the United States."

    Stellar Wind, as you rather amazingly do not know, is the code name for the 2001-2007 Bush NSA spying program. As part of that program, the NSA (as you also rather amazingly did not know) engaged in the bulk collection of Americans' phone records.

    Back in April, 2012, NSA whistleblower William Binney went on Democracy Now and detailed how, under Stellar Wind, the NSA argued that the Patriot Act "gives them license to take all the commercially held data about us" and has thus "assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about U.S. citizens with other U.S. citizens."

    When "Assange described how NSA had been collecting 'all the calling records of the United States, every record of everyone calling everyone over years'", he was not "preview[ing] the first Greenwald Guardian story based on Snowden documents that landed a week later" (a story that revealed for the first time that a radical interpretation of section 215 of the Patriot Act was being used by the FISA court and the Obama DOJ to justify the bulk collection of Americans' communications record and that this indiscriminate domestic surveillance program was active under the Obama administration).

    Instead, Assange was describing - explicitly - a Bush program from 8 years earlier, one that was widely reported at the time and thus known to the entire world (except, apparently, to you and your editors).

    (3) "He [Snowden] worked less than three months at Booz Allen, but by the time he reached Hong Kong in mid-May, Snowden had four computers with NSA documents."

    Edward Snowden has worked more or less continuously at the NSA for various contractors since 2009 - not since March, 2013. See this July 4, 2013, New York Times article on Snowden's four-year history at the NSA as a sophisticated cyber-operative:

    "In 2010, while working for a National Security Agency contractor, Edward J. Snowden learned to be a hacker. . . .By 2010, he had switched agencies and moved to Japan to work for Dell as an N.S.A. contractor, and he led a project to modernize the backup computer infrastructure, he said on the résumé. That year also appears to have been pivotal in his shift toward more sophisticated cybersecurity."

    By the time he contacted us, he had already been working at the NSA with extensive top secret authorization for almost four years. To conceal this vital fact from your readers - in order to leave them with the false impression that he only began working at the NSA after he spoke with me, Laura Poitras and your Washington Post colleague Bart Gellman - is deceitful and reckless.

    (4) "Was he encouraged or directed by WikiLeaks personnel or others to take the job as part of a broader plan to expose NSA operations to selected journalists?"

    Although you also conceal this from your readers, both Poitras and I have repeatedly, publicly and in great detail addressed all of these questions. I did so in a newspaper called "the Washington Post" ("It was only in May — and not before — that Snowden told [Greenwald] who he was, who he worked for (at that point he identified himself as affiliated with the NSA) and what sort of documents he had to share, Greenwald says. It wasn’t until June — when Greenwald visited Snowden in Hong Kong — that Snowden told him he worked specifically for Booz Allen"), as well as in the New York Times.

    Poitras did so in an interview with Salon: "I didn’t know where he worked, I didn’t know he was NSA, I didn’t know how — nothing. There was no like, Oh do you think you …, no nudging. It’s like the crazy correlations that the NSA does. There’s no connection here. We were contacted, we didn’t know what he was up to, and at some point he came forward with documents".

    You're free to disbelieve those answers in pursuit of your frenzied conspiracy theorizing. But you should not feel free to pretend those answers haven't been provided and thus hide them from your readers.

    Apparently, some establishment journalists have decided that the way to save a discredited and dying industry is to fill articles and columns speculating about the news-gathering process on a significant story in which they had no involvement, and thus traffic in innuendo-laden "questions" designed to imply elaborate and nefarious conspiracy theories. So be it: I don't think that will work - I think what readers want are fact-based revelations about those in power - but feel free to try.

    But making up facts along the way, as you've done, should still be deemed unacceptable. At the very least, they merit a prominent correction.

    All of this is independent of the fact that the conspiracy theory you've concocted is just laughable on its own terms. The very notion that Julian Assange would have masterminded this leak from the start, but then chose to remain demurely and shyly in the background so that others would receive credit for it, would prompt choking fits of laughter among anyone who knows him. Your suggestion that Assange would refrain from having WikiLeaks publish these documents, and instead direct these news-breaking leaks to The Guardian of all places - with which he has a bitter, highly publicized and long-standing feud - is even more hilarious.

    Our NSA stories have been published and discussed in countless countries around the world, where they have sparked shock, indignation and demands for investigation. So revealingly, it is only American journalists - and them alone - who have decided to focus their intrepid journalistic attention not on the extremist and legally dubious surveillance behavior of the US government and serial deceit by its top officials, but on those who revealed all of that to the world.

    This is an important news story and journalists should be free to ask all sorts of questions about who was involved and how. That's why we've been so forthcoming - unusually so - about addressing all these questions. Read your Washington Post colleague Erik Wemple as he explains that to you: "In response to various questions going back to the days just after his first NSA stories, Greenwald has delivered a remarkable amount of disclosures about how he got the story, how he executed it and how he plans to continue pursuing it."

    But when those questions are posed by fabricating events that never happened and ignoring the answers that have already been provided, it strongly suggests that something other than truth-seeking is the objective.

    Glenn Greenwald
    • Like Like x 7
  12. Anonymous Member

    Damn, that is a put down and a half. You go Glenn!
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Anonymous Member
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Anonymous Member

  15. Anonymous Member

    Yeah I know. Lo how the mighty have fallen.
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Anonymous Member
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Anonymous Member
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Anonymous Member
    • Like Like x 3
  19. Anonymous Member

    This is old but not posted here
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Anonymous Member
    She's right about Assange promoting his own interests, that's one of his endearing qualities. Ya gotta admire such self interest.
    However the rest of it is bullshit.
    • Like Like x 3
  21. Anonymous Member
    IOW, they simply robbed this man of his stuff and sent him on his way. Government at its douchebaggery best
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Bump.
    The UK gov suckling at the teats of the NSA.
  23. A.O.T.F Member

    Try to avoid slipping on your own bullshit as you head for the door.
  24. Kilia Member

  25. Anonymous Member

    Link plox
  26. Anonymous Member

  27. Anonymous Member

  28. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  29. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  30. Anonymous Member

    What to do? All of this shit and...protest? Where, what, halp.
  31. Anonymous Member

    Ideas? I can't make it to Brazil. Or Heathrow.
  32. Anonymous Member

    one thing Chanology knows how to do is put on a protest.
    • Like Like x 2
  33. Anonymous Member
  34. Anonymous Member

    There is a "public key" there. What is it and what is it for?
  35. Anonymous Member

    You can use it to encrypt a message when emailing Glenn.

    PGP encryption comprises two keys. One key encrypts the message and the second key decrypts it. Glenn is (in theory) the only one with the private key, so should anyone intercept an encrypted email to him they will be unable to read the contents. Only Glenn will be able to decrypt your message.

    Glenn's key is 4096bit, which is the strongest PGP you can get these days.
    • Like Like x 3
  36. Asheera Member
    ^ You can use that software to encode a message using Glenn's public key. Software, in my experience, is a bit buggy though.
  37. A.O.T.F Member

  38. Anonymous Member

    cross post,0,849
    This concerns Glenn Greenwald
  39. Anonymous Member

    Parsing the accusation I think I Baker is accusing Greenwald of deliberately withholding information. His accusation is that there exists ‘minimisation procedures’ in the NSA documents, and he is charging that Greenwald misled his audience by not disclosing these procedures. However, given what is now known regarding NSA practices, it is clear he is full of shit on this for two reasons:

    1) The hearing where Baker made this claim was June 25th. Here is the FULL minimisation document that published by Greenwald a full five days before Baker’s accusation:

    As is clear from Greenwald’s articles, written in collaboration with other Guardian reporters, there is a tremendous amount of context and parsing of nomenclature needed to communicate the contents of these documents. I think Baker knows this, and this was him merely throwing out a talking point. The comparison to Breitbart was a scummy thing to do, which illustrates where he stands on his willingness to smear. It is only thanks to the careful reporting process used in slowly parsing the documents that the public can understand what the documents are truly saying, and not what gov spokesholes want us to think they say (the massive disparity in how they use the word ‘collect’ being a great example).

    2) The minimisation procedures are utterly worthless. It took time to penetrate the NSA terminology to recognise just how worthless though. The judges’ sign off on it, but since the NSA is interpreting the language completely differently to the rest of the English speaking world that doesn’t mean much. It means even less since the Greenwald reported on how section 702 of the FAA act provides a loophole to those procedures.

    Baker can go suck a dick. Whether he is ignorant or a lying rat-bag makes no difference – he should still go suck a dick.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins