RSN June 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Greenwald writes: "When you give many interviews in different countries and say essentially the same thing over and over, as I do, media outlets often attempt to re-package what you've said to make their interview seem new and newsworthy, even when it isn't."

Glenn Greenwald. (photo: AP)
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: AP)



The Latest Effort to Distract From the NSA Revelations

By Glenn Greenwald, Guardian UK

14 July 13

 

The latest effort to distract attention from the NSA revelations is more absurd than most

hen you give many interviews in different countries and say essentially the same thing over and over, as I do, media outlets often attempt to re-package what you've said to make their interview seem new and newsworthy, even when it isn't. Such is the case with this Reuters article today, that purports to summarize an interview I gave to the daily newspaper La Nacion of Argentina.

Like everything in the matter of these NSA leaks, this interview is being wildly distorted to attract attention away from the revelations themselves. It's particularly being seized on to attack Edward Snowden and, secondarily, me, for supposedly "blackmailing" and "threatening" the US government. That is just absurd.

That Snowden has created some sort of "dead man's switch" - whereby documents get released in the event that he is killed by the US government - was previously reported weeks ago, and Snowden himself has strongly implied much the same thing. That doesn't mean he thinks the US government is attempting to kill him - he doesn't - just that he's taken precautions against all eventualities, including that one (just incidentally, the notion that a government that has spent the last decade invading, bombing, torturing, rendering, kidnapping, imprisoning without charges, droning, partnering with the worst dictators and murderers, and targeting its own citizens for assassination would be above such conduct is charmingly quaint).

I made three points in this La Nacion interview, all of which are true and none of which has anything remotely to do with threats:

1) The oft-repeated claim that Snowden's intent is to harm the US is completely negated by the reality that he has all sorts of documents that could quickly and seriously harm the US if disclosed, yet he has published none of those. When he gave us the documents he provided, he repeatedly insisted that we exercise rigorous journalistic judgment in deciding which documents should be published in the public interest and which ones should be concealed on the ground that the harm of publication outweighs the public value. If his intent were to harm the US, he could have sold all the documents he had for a great deal of money, or indiscriminately published them, or passed them to a foreign adversary. He did none of that.

He carefully vetted every document he gave us, and then on top of that, asked that we only publish those which ought to be disclosed and would not cause gratuitous harm: the same analytical judgment that all media outlets and whistleblowers make all the time. The overwhelming majority of his disclosures were to blow the whistle on US government deceit and radical, hidden domestic surveillance.

My point in this interview was clear, one I've repeated over and over: had he wanted to harm the US government, he easily could have, but hasn't, as evidenced by the fact that - as I said - he has all sorts of documents that could inflict serious harm to the US government's programs. That demonstrates how irrational is the claim that his intent is to harm the US. His intent is to shine a light on these programs so they can be democratically debated. That's why none of the disclosures we've published can be remotely described as harming US national security: all they've harmed are the reputation and credibility of US officials who did these things and then lied about them.

2) The US government has acted with wild irrationality. The current criticism of Snowden is that he's in Russia. But the reason he's in Russia isn't that he chose to be there. It's because the US blocked him from leaving: first by revoking his passport (with no due process or trial), then by pressuring its allies to deny airspace rights to any plane they thought might be carrying him to asylum (even one carrying the democratically elected president of a sovereign state), then by bullying small countries out of letting him land for re-fueling.

Given the extraordinary amount of documents he has and their sensitivity, I pointed out in the interview that it is incredibly foolish for the US government to force him to remain in Russia. From the perspective of the US government and the purported concerns about him being in Russia, that makes zero sense given the documents he has.

3) I was asked whether I thought the US government would take physical action against him if he tried to go to Latin America or even force his plane down. That's when I said that doing so would be completely counter-productive given that - as has been reported before - such an attack could easily result in far more disclosures than allowing us as journalists to vet and responsibly report them, as we've doing. As a result of the documents he has, I said in the interview, the US government should be praying for his safety, not threatening or harming it.

That has nothing to do with me: I don't have access to those "insurance" documents and have no role in whatever dead man switch he's arranged. I'm reporting what documents he says he has and what precautions he says he has taken to protect himself from what he perceives to be the threat to his well-being. That's not a threat. Those are facts. I'm sorry if some people find them to be unpleasant. But they're still facts.

Before Snowden's identity was revealed as the whistleblower here, I wrote:

"Ever since the Nixon administration broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychoanalyst's office, the tactic of the US government has been to attack and demonize whistleblowers as a means of distracting attention from their own exposed wrongdoing and destroying the credibility of the messenger so that everyone tunes out the message. That attempt will undoubtedly be made here."

That's what all of this is. And it's all it is: an ongoing effort to distract attention away from the substance of the revelations. (This morning, MSNBC show host Melissa Harris-Parry blamed Snowden for the fact that there is so much media attention on him and so little on the NSA revelations: as though she doesn't have a twice-weekly TV show where she's free to focus as much as she wants on the NSA revelations she claims to find so important).

Compare the attention paid to Snowden's asylum drama and alleged personality traits to the attention paid to the disclosures about mass, indiscriminate NSA spying. Or compare the media calls that Snowden (and others who worked to expose mass NSA surveillance) be treated like a criminal to the virtually non-existent calls that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper be treated like a criminal for lying to Congress.

This "threat" fiction is just today's concoction to focus on anything but the revelations about US government lying to Congress and constitutionally and legally dubious NSA spying. Yesterday, it was something else, and tomorrow it will be something else again. As I said in an interview with Falguni Sheth published today by Salon, this only happens in the US: everywhere else, the media attention and political focus is on NSA surveillance, while US media figures are singularly obsessed with focusing on everything but that.

There are all sorts of ways that Snowden could have chosen to make these documents be public. He chose the most responsible way possible: coming to media outlets and journalists he trusted and asking that they be reported on responsibly. The effort to depict him as some sort of malicious traitor is completely negated by the facts. That was the point of the interview. If you're looking for people who have actually harmed the US with criminal behavior, look here and here and here - not to those who took risks to blow the whistle on all of that. As always, none of this will detain us even for a moment in continuing to report on the many NSA stories that remain.

UPDATE

The original La Nacion interview which Reuters claimed to summarize is now online; the rough English translation is here. Here's the context for my quote about what documents he possesses:

"Q: Beyond the revelations about the spying system performance in general, what extra information has Snowden?
"A: Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States. But that's not his goal. [His] objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy. [He] has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the US government if they were made public."

And exactly as I said, the answer about the dead man's switch came in response to my being asked: "Are you afraid that someone will try to kill him?" That's when I explained that I thought it was so unlikely because his claimed dead man's switch meant that it would produce more harm than good from the perspective of the US government. The only people who would claim any of this was a "threat" or "blackmail" are people with serious problems of reading comprehension or honesty, or both.

UPDATE II

For those who say that they wish there was more attention paid to the substance of the NSA stories than Snowden: here is the list of the NSA revelations we've published over the last month. Feel free to focus on them any time.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-221 # katela 2013-07-14 13:05
I am a consistent RSN supporter so I reserve the right to say fuck Glenn Greenwald.
 
 
+87 # Bourbaki 2013-07-14 13:44
I was not aware that being a "consistant supporter" was a kitchen pass for ignoring the concern regarding a recent drift towards vitriol.....

Now where is that ignore button?
 
 
-113 # BostonPundit 2013-07-14 13:55
Katela

You are absolutely correct, yet, within less than 5 hours, without a single other post, you've garnered 16 negative points.

Greenwald is disingenuous. Here is why:

He writes:



Really? How could a person who tries so hard to claim that he is a journalist make such a claim unless he has actually seen the documents?

But he also writes:



No, they are not facts, they are threats because either you are lying when you say you don't know what's in the documents, or you are blowing smoke.
 
 
+34 # engelbach 2013-07-14 18:13
Yes, how strange that the infant katela should garner all those negative points for writing a childish schoolyard rant on an adult discussion forum.

Your post, too, actually agrees with katela's offensive and unsubstantiated outburst.

The only reason for the two of you being here is to make provocative statements devoid of substance. Trolls.
 
 
+82 # pbbrodie 2013-07-14 14:00
You could, at the very least, explain why you say this about an incredible reporter, who in all liklihood, has never done anything to cause such a vehement comment from you.
 
 
-54 # BostonPundit 2013-07-14 18:00
Well, I did give my reasons by reference to Greenwald's specific comments but RSN - probably a software issue has not included the text of his quotes.

Essentially, Greenwald says he reported as a "fact" that Snowden had material that he says could hurt the US. And that the US would not want Snowden in Russia with such information in his possession.

Then he goes on to say that he has not seen the documents that Snowden claims to have.

Well, first, he's not reporting a FACT, but just a CLAIM.

Second, he's acknowledging the point I made about the dangerous nature of Snowden's theft of classified documents.

And third, Greenwald IS issuing threats because despite saying he doesn't know what is in the documents, he threatens that they could hurt the US.

This is no journalist. He's a self-promoting panderer.
 
 
+25 # EternalTruth 2013-07-14 19:47
I'd explain the many reasons your post is wrong (and stupid), but I know from experience that it won't help, and you'll go on and on,hoping to waste as many people's time engaging with you as possible. Do you work for the government, or are you a college republican?
 
 
+7 # CTPatriot 2013-07-14 23:24
You forgot to include ObamaBots and OFA members as one of the options. They can't stand anyone who is critical of Obama and will stop at nothing to trash them. Greenwald has been a prime target of their vitriol for a long time.
 
 
-31 # BostonPundit 2013-07-15 04:08
Eternal Truth - what an oxymoronic moniker!

This morning, Carl Bernstein, a guy who stands for freedom of speech and whistle-blowing , the co-author with Woodward on the Watergate book, said what I say in stronger words.

He calls what Greenwald did "outrageous" and "non-reportoria l" and he is absolutely correct.

What you and others seem to miss is that Snowden made a calculated move to issue a blackmail threat - if anything happens to me, information damaging to the US will be released. So much for his pious protestations that he had and has no intent to hurt the US.

Greenwald publicized that threat while admitting that he doesn't know if it is true or not - he claims not to have seen the documents. If he knows the threat is valid, he's not writing the truth.

So much for eternal truth.

Let me make it clear that I am deeply troubled by the idea of a secret court that has secret proceedings and secret decisions. That is antithetical to what this country is about.

I am not troubled with the collection and review of meta data - because it does not involve intruding on the CONTENT of the communication.

I am troubled with the government storing that information after the limited review is done.

I would be outraged if the NSA or anyone else used the information for any purpose outside what the FISC authorized, i.e., to look for links to terrorists.

And I can't forgive a guy who threatens to hurt this country.

Now, go away.
 
 
+5 # jimmykeys 2013-07-15 07:18
If Greenwald is touting as a fact that Snowden has documents that could hurt the US, it might be because he HAS seen them. This is not something he can reveal if the US government is actually on the hunt. He would not be able to claim he has seen them and not become one of the hunted.

I don't know if BostonPundit has considered that possibility because he has not raised it. I do believe that journalistic ethics are not impugned if these men consider the US government at war with its citizens. They would only equivocate on certain essential facts such as you've indicated. The US government is a powerful enemy. Snowden would say "kill me and I reveal the damaging information" NOT because of fear but in order to keep the game going and engage the world in debate. Greenwald would also need to keep his game going as long as possible and so must imply the damaging documents exist.

I'm glad you noticed the discrepancies, but consider the possibility that they advocate ending of a world system that advances the current power interests, and they are working to keep the information flowing, not trying to lie to you for some obscure reason. Spies do this stuff all the time!
 
 
-10 # BostonPundit 2013-07-15 12:04
jimmykeys

My comment was based on Greenwald's own disclaimer that he had not seen the documents.

In a column posted on RSN he now claims that Snowden has a blueprint of how the NSA works.

Again, either he's seen it or he has not.

However, he (Greenwald) does claim to have taken security precautions and that a laptop of his has gone missing. I don't know what was on the laptop.

Getting back to your point, if Greenwald has seen the documents, why would he say he has not?
 
 
+19 # EternalTruth 2013-07-15 08:59
I promised myself to stop arguing with trolls, but just in case anyone reading has bought into your government talking points, I feel the need to refute them as briefly as possible.

Re: metadata: Who we talk to can be just as personal and private as what we are saying. If I want to talk to my enlargement-spe cialist-plastic surgeon, and my (legal) prostitutes, and my various non-violent activist groups, that is my personal, private business, and the government has no moral or legal right to that information. The fact that I pay a phone company to facitate that communication, doesn't in any way negate my privacy rights.

Re: government assurances of legal and responsible use of private information:
Hey BP, bend over and lube up. The government promises not to rape you like last time. We KNOW the government will use this info in any way it can to further entrench its power. That's one main reason why they're not allowed to collect it in the first place.

Re: Threats: A country that would illegally silence those who would expose its crimes deserves to be hurt. Snowden's insurance policy is is a very smart move on his part. Thus far he's done nothing but bolster the cause of freedom and democracy without releasing info that endangers anyone. If our fascist government silences him for that, then they deserve any consequences of that action. Unfortunately, "we the people" usually bear the brunt of the consequences, which is why "we" must demand change.
 
 
-11 # BostonPundit 2013-07-15 12:12
Eternal Truth

I have tried in all my postings to remain polite and not call people names.

I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts after this, but we can agree to disagree. To WHOM you speak is not a matter of privacy. It's WHAT you say that may be private (if you don't broadcast it - and let's agree that content of emails and phone calls remains private) but there are certain matters which you may be compelled to reveal, say in a civil suit. Not so in a criminal case if you are the defendant, and not so if the communication falls withing recognized privileges: attorney-client , priest-penitent , patient-psychotherapist.

We can also agree to disagree with your statement that "that's one main reason why they're not allowed to collect it in the first place." I don't know where you get this notion from, but it is incorrect. Whether the government should be prohibited is another matter and the subject of a policy debate or effort to amend the Constitution for those who want to do so.

Anyhow, it's impossible to have a rational discourse with people who are yelling and calling people names.

This is a difficult subject, made all the more difficult because of the serious threats to our country. That those threats not be a vehicle for constraining the rights of citizens of this country is a very important issue. But I can assure you that with mistaken notions and irrelevant screaming and name calling you are not getting to first base.

Good luck.
 
 
+2 # Arden 2013-07-15 17:54
You trust the government. Now can you trust a person?
 
 
+32 # Artemis 2013-07-14 14:27
What is that for a senseless and stupid comment? Have you learned anything through reading RSN? Will you deign to give us any reasons for this tantrum?
 
 
-33 # BostonPundit 2013-07-14 18:02
Artemis, despite you diatribe, see my response to to pbbrodie.

Have you learned that you must reason for yourself and not let RSN or anyone else reason for you?

Read what Greenwald wrote.

He issues provocative threats and then plays the innocent fool - he hasn't seen the documents he says could hurt the US. If so, how does he know? Because Snowden said so?

Gimme a break.
 
 
+14 # Artemis 2013-07-15 08:23
Very confused reasoning. All I can say is, go back and study all the material and listen to Snowden's interviews. They are interesting and revealing about his motives, impressive too. Many can be seen on Democracy Now!'s website.
There is a consensus amongst the majority of law-abiding citizens in our countries that our laws are there to be respected by our leaders and representatives . When they abuse our trust, resistance is necessary.
 
 
+12 # freelybe 2013-07-14 14:49
Unfortunately, you can't buy credibility.
 
 
+23 # Maluminse 2013-07-14 14:51
GG = First Amendment. Simple as that. Shoot the messengee is what attackers engage while eviscerating the First.
 
 
+56 # 6thextinction 2013-07-14 15:04
RSN readers, do not be taken in by katela or BostonPundit. It's only their effort to distract from the NSA revelations. We need to focus our attention on the three points made in the piece; and particularly GG's quoted paragraph on "destroying the credibility of the messenger so that everyone tunes out the message."

Those two commenters are examples of exactly that kind of attempted distraction. Ignore them and others who try the same.
 
 
-15 # larrypayne 2013-07-14 17:03
I disagree.

At a time in history when the media has so much power over what most people believe, we should question everything we read or hear or see on the media. I, too want to make Greenwald and Snowden out to be heroes but my common sense tells me to be wary. The Guardian, UK, has a reputation of exposing criminal behavior but recent financial troubles have made a search for who owns the Guardian a bit murky.

The Guardian's hiring of Bush speechwriter Joshua Trevino raises some other questions:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201281814239801229.html
 
 
+26 # curmudgeon 2013-07-14 18:17
Quoting 6thextinction:
RSN readers, do not be taken in by katela or BostonPundit. It's only their effort to distract from the NSA revelations. We need to focus our attention on the three points made in the piece; and particularly GG's quoted paragraph on "destroying the credibility of the messenger so that everyone tunes out the message."

Those two commenters are examples of exactly that kind of attempted distraction. Ignore them and others who try the same.


Thank you 6th !!!!
This is exactly the same tactic used by all the bought and paid for 'swift boater' wannabes....get people sucked in to their comments and forgetting what the article contained and that importance.

I, like many are puzzled by RSN allowing such obvious lurker tactics, especially by allowing profanity descriptions. I have no problem with those who disagree...just those who can't express themselves civilly.
 
 
+13 # soularddave 2013-07-14 18:55
Quoting 6thextinction:
Those two commenters are examples of exactly that kind of attempted distraction. Ignore them and others who try the same.


One has to wonder if they're "official" sock puppets or just amateurs. I have trouble grasping *why* some folks just don't "get it", unless they feel they're benefiting from the corruption. I also wonder if these same people are just now finding out about, or are surprised at these "revelations" that the rest of us have known about for many years.
 
 
+28 # James38 2013-07-14 16:35
By publishing this useless and crude comment, RSN has made a mockery of its own policy of reviewing comments and avoiding vitriol, unless this was some sort of humorous attempt to show fairness. I have submitted far less objectionable comments that were not published. Come on, RSN, if you are pulling our leg a little, say so.

That said, I fully support Greenwald. I find his article the most even-handed and useful and informative piece I have seen yet on the Snowden events.

Thanks, Glenn. And thanks for the three links to "here". They were quite revealing.
 
 
+4 # Feral Dogz 2013-07-15 07:03
When I wrote a comment suggesting replacing the bronze bull on Wall St. with a guillotine, RSN declined to publish. If I had written that its OK to kill people with drones, I'll bet that would be published.
 
 
+13 # engelbach 2013-07-14 18:08
You have the right to say whatever you like on your own soapbox.

But not here.

This is a discussion by adults about a serious issue.

You're free to present arguments disagreeing with Greenwald.

But your infantile venting forfeits your right to participate on this thread.

So please shove it.
 
 
+10 # EternalTruth 2013-07-14 20:34
"I am a consistent RSN supporter..."

According to earlier (May 10) comments you are no longer supporting RSN. Your rights are hereby revoked! (Even though I have no idea why supporting RSN would give you the right to spew irrelevant profanity)
 
 
+49 # leftcoast 2013-07-14 13:26
I'm a sustaining supporter so I reserve the right to question why anyone would dis somebody without saying why.
Or is it beyond your vocabulary?
(A Teamster)
 
 
+46 # larrypayne 2013-07-14 13:29
If Snowden really does have all kinds of documents that would seriously hurt U.S. government programs, wouldn't it be better if they were released?

What programs does the U.S. have in place at this time that could be judged to be good programs? Rendition and torture? Arming mercenary Syrian rebels? Drone killings of "suspected" terrorists? Bringing about the presidential coup in Egypt?

Anyone paying attention knows that the war on terror is a hoax. If the documents in Snowden's possession reveal why it is a hoax, then we would all be better off.
 
 
0 # EternalTruth 2013-07-14 22:46
Presumably, he has information pertaining to the identities of spies working abroad, among other things. He hinted at this in earlier articles.
 
 
+5 # larrypayne 2013-07-16 03:42
I haven't seen anything that says Snowden was threatening to reveal the names of U.S.spies. At any rate, that must be legal now since no one went to prison for outing Valerie Plame and the CIA front company she worked for.
 
 
+71 # dickbd 2013-07-14 13:32
I am a RSN supporter, and I appreciate the reporting that Glenn Greenwald does. We need some real journalism to make up for those who just cater to our taste for the lurid. Just look how the Zimmerman case has dominated the news! That was not an important case, but the media made it one. And I think it was a shame that the media tended to make it an avatar for race relations, and the reason for my thinking that is that we knew from the start that it would be a difficult case for the prosecution to win.

But the point is that we need real journalists, and Glenn Greenwald is one, and Jeremy Scahill is another.
 
 
+12 # Jack Gibson 2013-07-14 17:50
And Chris Hedges, John Pilger, Chris Floyd, Norman Solomon, Marjorie Cohn, Dahr Jamail, David Swanson, Juan Cole, Pepe Escobar, Brian and Robert Becker (A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition--Answ er- Coalition.org), Paul Joseph Watson, Steve Watson and Kurt Nimmo, etc. (InfoWars.com), the writers at Centre for Research on Globalization (GlobalResearch .ca), and Information Clearinghouse (InformationCle aringhouse.info ), et al.
 
 
0 # larrypayne 2013-07-15 04:43
The real test of whether a journalist can be trusted is whether they support 9/11 truth or not.

If a journalist supports the ridiculous official conspiracy theory that the three towers collapsed from fire, then they do not possess the analytical skills necessary to be a journalist--or they have been corrupted by the news media oligarchy which writes their paycheck.

The only journalists on your list who I am sure support 9/11 truth are John Pilger and Chris Floyd and the Infowars group. What does Greenwald say about 9/11 truth?
 
 
0 # Jack Gibson 2013-07-15 18:32
You make a VERY GOOD point, "LarryPayne", and that's why I voted your reply comment "up". I don't like the fact, at all, that many of those journalists who otherwise tell it like it is, refuse to even touch 9/11 Truth, but they get a great deal of other very important truth, and true journalism, out to people that wouldn't get to those people in almost any other way(s). Do I fully trust those "non-9/11-Truth " journalists who I listed? No, I don't. I pray for discernment when reading them and make certain that what they say is as close to 100% truth as probable, and "judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24) from that point accordingly. But, as far as I'm concerned, that does NOT mean that I should reject everything they say outright because they are, evidently, not 9/11 Truthers. Look at InfoWars, etc., for instance; they post the articles of non-9/11-Truth journalists like Glenn Greenwald; because they correctly discern that, on what they are writing about, they are telling it like it is.

- Continued -
 
 
0 # Jack Gibson 2013-07-16 03:49
If those journalists speak against 9/11 Truth, and/or against True Christianity (which is the ONLY Christianity that I believe in WHATSOEVER, rejecting ALL organized religion and counterfeit "Christianity" as I do), then I will have little or nothing to do with what they have to say. A prime example is Noam Chomsky. He and Howard Zinn helped completely wake me up to what's really going on with the U.S. government; but, when they both spoke against 9/11 Truth, and I found out Zinn supported globalism, I was pretty much done with them.

Btw, Global Research and Information Clearinghouse are pro-9/11-Truth to the best of my knowledge. I reject some so-called "9/11 Truth" writers and website operators like Michael Rivero and his "WhatReallyHapp ened(.com)" website, because the last I heard he is a so-called "9/11 Truther" who ridiculously believes that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, which is completely absurd---both that a huge 757 hit the Pentagon and left almost no debris, etc., and that he believes that absurdity, and/or many of the absurdities of the "official fairy tale" and/or "official conspiracy theory".

If you haven't already, check out my website, at:

http://www.form-legal.net/
 
 
-2 # larrypayne 2013-07-16 03:58
Journalists such as Bill Moyers have a large following. Moyers actively speaks out against 9/11 truth. He said in a 2011 speech that " 'Truthers' are guilty of disinformation, of sophistry and of cherry-picking anomalies in order to perpetrate a “Big Lie.”

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/26/911-an-open-letter-to-bill-moyers/

Does all the "good" reporting Moyers does make up for that statement? He's covering up for mass murderers who are not only responsible for the thousands killed at the World Trade Towers and Pentagon, but also for the hundreds of thousands killed in the wars 9/11 enabled.
 
 
+1 # Jack Gibson 2013-07-16 19:13
Of course not! Do you see me support Bill Moyers in any way(s)? He is a globalist (or pro-globalism) establishment hack and government propagandist. Yes, he does tell some truth and supposedly stand up against some extremes of the U.S. government, as the controlled, so-called "opposition" that he is. But I have seen through him and not promoted him or what he says for some time.

I appreciate your informing me about Moyers' attack(s) on 9/11 Truth. I wasn't aware that he made such scathing, false claims against 9/11 Truth; and, as a result of them, some 9/11 Truthers should sue him for libel and slander. Did he give any proof of the statement that he made which you quoted? I doubt it very much, because he cannot have proof for something that is totally false, as that statement of his was and is. All he can have is SO-CALLED "proof", made up of nothing but lies, for that claim.

What are any other non-9/11-Truth journalists and/or their organizations which I listed doing to speak against 9/11 Truth? To the best of my knowledge, I don't believe they are. Like I said, if I find out they are speaking against 9/11 Truth, then I will take a stand against them, as I have done with Zinn and especially Chomsky.

You may make me regret asking this, but should I reject all truth that doesn't come from pro-9/11-Truth( ers)? Particularly when most of that truth isn't covered, much if at all, by 9/11 Truth(ers), who concentrate on 9/11 Truth? I seek ALL TRUTH, wherever I can find it.
 
 
+6 # soularddave 2013-07-14 19:04
Quoting dickbd:
Just look how the Zimmerman case has dominated the news! That was not an important case,


I suspect murder case was intentionally scheduled and juiced up so as to allow for the overshadowing of the Manning case, and to take the spotlight from Snowden's revelations.
 
 
-1 # Arden 2013-07-15 18:30
It IS an important case, and it also distracts from Snowden somewhat.
 
 
+41 # turtleislander 2013-07-14 14:38
The fact that we have to go to overseas or non-mainstream US news to even get decent coverage indicates something that ought to be a little scary. It is more comfortable, at least in the short term, to cling to denial of an unpleasant truth than it is to face it.
 
 
+21 # Rita Walpole Ague 2013-07-14 16:30
Right on, dickbd, so do I, an old journalist who shifted into legal work, appreciate and then some Glenn G. and Jeremy S. and all the great, intelligent plus, brave and determined plaintiffs (journalists, whistleblowers, justice and peace activists) in the 'case of the century': Hedges, et. al. v. Obama, et. al..

And, agree I do also re. overlitigation and overcoverage by the 'mess media' of the Zimmerman case. Should've been a far shorter trial that ended in a slamdunk guilty as charged (particularly with manslaughter added), had prosecutor hammered home essentials. I truly detest racism, and have since my mama had me and my little brother in tow while she protested Jim Crow at the same time another Parks woman, Rosa, also was protesting. Mama refused to leave the back of a bus and the balcony in a theater. In both situations, she'd been told to move, and had been yelled at that "This is for blacks only." Mama, in a very ladylike but 'little colonel' manner, had told the Jim Crow enforcers that she and her children were not moving, in that she absolutely was opposed to segregation and racism. I follow 100% in mama's tradition. And, like my precious mama, I'll always take action to force into place liberty and justice for all. And, also like her, I will recognize being manipulated, spun, distracted (MSD'd), while opening the door for more states enacting similar 'kill at will' laws.
 
 
+9 # Jack Gibson 2013-07-14 17:57
Your comment brought tears to my eyes. Right-on!
 
 
+25 # Jack Gibson 2013-07-14 16:36
Right-on yet again Glenn Greenwald!! The U.S. government will do ANYTHING, including murdering innocent people, in order to get attention off of their own extreme wrongdoing!! Duh!! But the U.S. government's evil-propaganda arm, the mainstream/lame stream media, is OF COURSE distracting from the most important truth(s), of the government's extreme criminality, and seeking to direct that attention to the limited, by comparison, so-called "criminality" of the whistleblower(s )!! Again, duh!! They are seeking to de-emphasize the FAR WORSE criminality of themselves; and, because most "Amerikans" usually fall for this tactic just as they were indoctrinated, conditioned, programmed, dumbed-down and "washed-of-(tru e-)brains" to do, of course, again, that's what the "Amerikan" people are doing!! Heck, most of them don't even know anymore what THE SUPREME LAW(S) OF THE LAND, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights say, let alone that they ALL have the duty to obey them, and uphold, defend, protect and preserve them FROM *ALL* ENEMIES, foreign AND DOMESTIC, especially from the domestic enemies WITHIN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT!! And that, of course, includes all members of the U.S. mainstream/lame stream propaganda ministry; which, traitorously, they are failing to do!! No, instead, they are aiding and abetting the U.S. government's coverups of, whitewashing of, and distractions from, the truth and the extreme level of their criminality, and obstruction of TRUE Justice, etc.!! Traitors all!!
 
 
+15 # brux 2013-07-14 17:15
I have to say that Glen Greenwald has earned my interest,
if not respect by the way he has born up under the observance of the world. I have to tentatively say that I agree with a lot of what he is saying and doing, and the story from the other side against what he is saying has all the money power and attention, but is sounding constantly incoherent.

Which is exactly how illegitimate power does and should sound, but the what's missing" part is that we seem to have ABOSLUTELY NO WAY TO INSTITUTIONALLY BRING ABOUT CHANGE IN THIS COUNTRY.

THIS IS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION FOR THE WORLD WHEN THE UNITED STATES, THE BIGGEST SUPER POWER has a government that is being pushed and is moving more rapidly towards ILLEGITIMACY faster than it is being corrected, and that is what everyone in the country and the world ought to be demanding a way to resolve.

Read this please and think about it ... post if you have any ideas about an answer to it. I'd love to discuss this.
 
 
+1 # Arden 2013-07-15 18:48
I'm glad you said "seem". My only suggestion is to work on the ONE thing that you think is THE most important thing.
 
 
+15 # tomo 2013-07-14 17:43
If America can be identified as the military/indust rial complex against which Eisenhower warned, than there is some sense to the government's case against Snowden. As we see that our officials are doing all they can to turn America into this nightmare of a complex while, at the same time, distracting ordinary Americans from what the government is doing, we can understand why the current administration regards Snowden as an enemy.

Snowden is letting the cat out of the bag. He is helping us to see that our government is pretending to be our friend while, in reality, it is profoundly distrustful of us. This disclosure deeply undercuts the government's efforts to con us. So, quite naturally, the government is doing all it can to recruit us back into partnership by offering Snowden (plus Manning, plus Greenwald, plus...plus...? ??) as a common scapegoat.

When it suited his purposes, Nixon attempted this strategy--but he wasn't as good at it as the present administration. And the major newsmedia were not so tame then.

Therefore, it is very important that we not get distracted by the chase-after-Sno wden, and keep our eyes on the core of the story: that our government has lied to us, and is mad as hell that we've found out.
 
 
+4 # brux 2013-07-14 19:43
Tomo, there is no doubt that America is a military-indust rial complex. However uneasy however many people may be with that, it simply is not going to change ... in a sense it is the largest "thing" going on the planet for good or bad.

But, there is nothing that says a military-indust rial complex has to be bad, evil, totalitarian, or undemocratic.

There is nothing that says the military-indust rial complex has to or should be ALL that America is.

The problem to me is not that America is a military-indust rial complex, but that it has come to serve and react ONLY the military industrial complex with all kinds of illogic and questionable and unanswerable actions racked up to make us not trust it and even be against it one many issues.

AND ... we have no representation if some Commander-In-Ch ief that says he was elected by all of us decides to go along with the people in the background of the military-indust rial complex every time there is a disagreement.

Even if it is a minority of people that do not like the militaristic totalitarian ways the we are moving towards, they should not be required to give up Constitutional rights because the totalitarian state tells us that is how we need to live under it's domination.

It is the people in the background, in the government and in the private sector that are the problem - people that we do not know and who control our government.
 
 
-1 # Arden 2013-07-15 19:13
You deserve a reply, and then I am staying out of it, I hope.

My opinion, it's already gone to bad; but now hopes to get better. Weird as that sounds. At being good. Which is really scary, but they would tell us, shouldn't be. I believe the problem IS the military-indust rial complex which has given us a war economy. Now we want a peace economy. War has got to end. It's that simple. So we DEMAND a peace economy.

I can hardly bring myself to write this, but the two sides have each other dead to rights. If we can, at this moment in time, co-exist...and extend this time...forever. ..in peace and harmony......
 
 
0 # brux 2013-07-22 00:19
The war thing cannot end. We Amercans, and Westerners, need to come to some kind of compromise about this. To consolidate the world under a non-religious, brand of freedom war is the bottom line. I is not going away ... I'd guess for another 200-1000 years.

This breaks my heart, as I and most of my generation, and I'd bet you too, would love to see that happen in our lifespans. I feel sick to see that the world has actually gotten much worse in the time I have been on this planet, and not only that, but even the discussion about the subject has been corrupted and co-opted - every day we move farther away from the ultimate goal of peace, justice and prosperity for everyone.

This is not going to come from Islam ... it's not going to come from China ... it's not going to come from Russia ... it's not going to come from India ... or Africa. The West and western ideals and Western transformation and evolution are the one hope for this planet. I say this as they are being corrupted and perverted by private greed - from outside, even as these outside influences talk about peace and non-violence.

The US and the West needs to get back on-track in the direction they were making progress ... which is along the lines of FDRs extended freedoms. We need a summit and compromise between the military and the civil powers - both of them need to get what they need - not just one or the other.
 
 
+8 # ladypyrates 2013-07-14 17:52
Each time an American president has been killed, the corresponding behind-the-scen es-action has been to usurp a little more of our citizen led government away from us and incrementaly replace it with oligarch led fascism. With the NSA revelations out in public view, one would like to think that the citizenry gets the significance of what's happening and is pondering how to bring enough bankers, government leaders and military command people to trial so as to allow us to regain control of our country.
 
 
+19 # JSRaleigh 2013-07-14 18:09
Another thing that's getting lost in the concentration on Snowden is that the spying on American citizens is outsourced to private companies. With who else do the private companies share the data they collect ostensibly for the NSA? And what do those others do with the data?
 
 
+4 # Cdesignpdx 2013-07-14 20:11
[To damage the U.S] But that's not his goal. [His] objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing that they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy.
I find it ironic that my actions and communications are fair game for the NSA, but put that shoe on the other foot and guns are drawn! If Snowden has all this sensitive information, others can obtain it as well. Hydra anyone?
 
 
+3 # ishmael 2013-07-14 20:12
Mr Greenwald's implicit assertions about what Mr Snowden "could" do with the information about US surveillance are quite revealing.

Mr Greenwald is sharing a lot here without being explicit, and is not focusing on the revelations themselves.

Quite interesting to "read between the lines" in this piece.
 
 
+3 # Milarepa 2013-07-14 22:37
I'm straining my brain trying to imagine just what I could hear or read that would hurt the US image more than what I've already heard and read. Do they have actual extermination camps somewhere like the Nazis did? Are they condemning people to death, without trial or proof? Are they planning to take over the world and make slaves out of everybody? Sound familiar?
 
 
+1 # barbaratodish 2013-07-14 22:38
Perhaps Edward Snowden needs to watch the film "Terminal"! The protagonist in "Terminal" (Tom Hanks) is stateless and "lives" in an airport. I was thge oricingal HOMELESS AIRPORT "RESIDENT" Maybe that is where "they" got the story idea for "Terminal" from, n amely I submitted my story to many people, on line. Perhaps someone read my story, "tweaked" it, so they avoided being sued lol
 
 
0 # Dr Peter Sloane 2013-07-14 22:50
Considering the documents which have not been published unless, of course something were to 'happen' to Ed Snowden, it may be an idea for the American Government to adopt the age old policy "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" "If someone owes you a thousand dollars, you'll harass them no end, if they owe you a million dollars, you'll hold their hand when they cross the street just in case they may get run over" Might I suggest that the government learns to hold hands.
 
 
0 # Maturus 2013-07-15 01:59
The "dead man's switch" could have been spelt "target pinned to his chest" as it would now seem that anyone who wants to harm the US can do so easiest by taking out Edward Snowden. If no-one does, will there be any chance that the rabid dogs who see enemies everywhere - and therefore the need for the US's massive 'defence' expenditure - might perhaps moderate their world-view?
 
 
0 # treadlightly 2013-07-15 11:21
Old spy trick : Deliver top secret but harmless material to convince the intended target of your willingness to betray your country.
Example : Trot out a couple of "defectors" and see who comes to their aid.

Can you think of a better way for an organization to strengthen its position than by performing the ultimate test of loyalty?

Could this be a false flag operation intended to help the NSA locate and target anyone who they perceive to be a threat?
What better way of purging the system of anyone not 100% committed to whatever comes next.
Treadlightly
 
 
+4 # Innocent Victim 2013-07-15 15:46
Meanwhile, Mr Snowden's request for asylum seems not to be a formal request, because the Russian Ministry of Migration denies it has received his application. If it has not been submitted, we can understand why:

Pres. Putin has stated that Mr Snowden could have asylum in Russia but he must not "harm" the US as a Russian grantee. Further, Russian spokespeople have said that he must "stop" harming the US, an even more problematical description.

Snowden denies that he has harmed the US or that he intends to harm the US in the future.

The difference is clear: Snowden means the nation or the people of the US.

Putin means what the US government really means: the government of the US. Russia's relations are with the US government, not with the people of the US.

I don't think Snowden is willing to affirm, on an application for asylum, that he will not act against the government of the US, as he already has.

It is an impasse that leaves Snowden in the Moscow airport and Putin with a continuing problem.
 
 
0 # nsmorris 2013-07-15 15:51
The problem I see on this site is that the bulk of comments here represents group-think. (I hear the sighs already) There are exceptions. Few, however. And any disagreement is inherently posted as(stupid;incorrect;unproven;malicious;
servile to government,the FBI,NSA;CIA;med ia;Obama etc.)
You absolutely cannot even entertain the possibility that your perceptions may be tilted. You've chosen your heroes and your demons. You can't be dissuaded; that much is obvious and your anger is at a flashpoint. But Democracy is a sloppy process. It needs the patience many of you don't appear to have. You want immediate gratification. It won't happen. No matter what spiffy neat words you come up with to disagree with mine. No doubt someone born after 1970 will demand clarification.
 
 
-1 # BostonPundit 2013-07-17 00:52
nsmorris

Absolutely correct.

The vast majority of groupthink posters here seem to be incapable of simple analytic thinking and routinely conflate condition with cause.

The vitriol and palpable hatred is remarkable.

Most of all, the illogic of people posting rants against the government - and doing so freely, thus enjoying one of the great liberties enshrined in the First Amendment - while saying that the government's analysis of meta data is aimed at preventing them from exercising those very freedoms will be viewed in years to come as one of the great examples of how America came to be dumbed down on both the lefty liberal and right wing yahoo extremes.

Probably my last post - but not necessarily so.
 
 
0 # Jack Gibson 2013-07-17 20:54
Absolutely NOT! You and your ilk constantly describe nothing but yourselves with what you claim those who decry against your lies "do". You and your ilk simply hide your "vitriol and palpable hatred" which it is YOU that have, not those who, only rightly, speak out against your troll-shilling, brainwashed-wil lful-ignorance, hubris (aka, arrogance), love of tyrannical, despotic dictatorial and anti-True-Liber ty-and-Freedom government, hatred of True Freedom and Liberty, vitriol against the truth, belief in the lie(s) of false "liberty" and "freedom" that the U.S. dictatorial, despotic and tyrannical government promulgates, your lies, and your deception(s), etc.; all while putting on a false facade of being so "reasonable". You and your ilk are therefore nothing but sickening and disgusting. And people have a free right to more than understandably get angry against all of that and more.

What you pro- authoritarianis m, totalitarianism , oppression and repression proponents don't understand, or feign ignorance of because of how extremely evil you are, is that the expression of anger is a free speech human and civil right, "protected" by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, aka Article One of the Bill of Rights, and other law(s). Also, you completely controlled-by-e vil, brainwashed, willfully-ignor ant people believe that, when you do, you supposedly have a "right" to get angry, but True Patriots allegedly "do not". Therefore, you are enemies of True Freedom and Liberty.
 
 
+3 # Milarepa 2013-07-15 23:03
Well, nsmorris, I was born 1934 in Berlin, Germany and I don't need no clarification to see that the United Stasi is fracked.
 
 
-1 # nsmorris 2013-07-16 03:34
No, Milarepa. Just maybe a course in English grammar. Still thx for not disappointing.
 
 
+2 # Milarepa 2013-07-16 06:08
Quoting nsmorris:
No, Milarepa. Just maybe a course in English grammar. Still thx for not disappointing.

You may remember The Wall - we don't need no education, we don't need no thought control. And I don't need no clarification. Just another brick in the wall.
 
 
+1 # Milarepa 2013-07-16 03:40
Or rather, a little gentler, the United Snoopy is fracked. Remember, you read it here first: United Snoopy of America.
 
 
-3 # nsmorris 2013-07-16 04:50
Milarepa,thank you for proving my point.
As you say, you may not need no clarification, just a course in grammar.
 
 
+3 # Milarepa 2013-07-16 07:55
Quoting nsmorris:
Milarepa,thank you for proving my point.
As you say, you may not need no clarification, just a course in grammar.

You ain't gonna get nuthin outa repeatin' yowself till da cows come home neither, Mr. Faultlessgramma rknowitall.
 
 
+1 # Kathymoi 2013-07-16 08:31
We have so much information about how our government is not by us, the people, or for us, the people, or of us, the people! Any direction you look in, there it is. Today, I am feeling strongly that it is time for us, the people, to simply come together and know ourselves as a people. I'm not talking about a mass, angry or defiant, confrontive public demonstration. I am talking about getting together-just us--without the police, without the edifice of fence of a multinational corporation's building or a bank building---just us. We need to come together and know ourselves as a united people. The songs of the 60's helped unite the peace protesters and civil rights protesters of that era, and we need to come together in that sort of togetherness of heart now, again. We need our songs of purpose and intent. The 60's songs "This land is our land" and the 80's songs "We are the World" and we need a 2013 song, too, that everyone who is a human not living to increase the profits of his/her multinational billion dollar corporation can identify with. We need to come together in togetherness, just us, and know ourselves as the people. We know too much already that the government is not of us.
 
 
+1 # Jack Gibson 2013-07-16 19:32
We, the few who face it do; but most "Amerikans" don't know, and/or won't face, what's really going on. So, they don't "know too much already that the government is not of (by and for) us". Rather, they believe that it supposedly "IS" of, by and for them; otherwise, at least half of the population of this country would already be rising up en masse against the absolute evil, madness that is taking over completely. But they're not. Because they don't know that the U.S. government is no longer a government of, by and for The People; and, most of them don't want to know it. They would rather continue to live in their fantasy world(s), and living (a) lie(s), than to face what's really going on. That's how effectively they have been dumbed-down, "washed-of-brai ns" and indoctrinated, conditioned, programmed and brainwashed to believe that the present- and increasingly- constituted U.S. government "has their best interests at heart". LOL That's a laugh, isn't it (to us like you and I who have broken out of all of the foregoing)? But it's not a laugh to most "Amerikans". And, short of a literal miracle individually with each of them, chances are that they will never break out of it, or enough of them anyway, just as intentionally engineered by the PTB. Yet, as I've said many times before, miracles ARE possible, and probable; so many of them will wake up and break out of it; but I still "despair" that it will be enough of them; that's how successful the brainwashing, etc., have been.
 
 
+1 # Milarepa 2013-07-16 08:46
(lyrics for a 2013 song by Peter Edler)

Free the fighters
Free them now
Free, free Bradley Manning

Free the patriots
Never mind how
Free, free Edward Snowden

Free the freedom zealots
Bust them loose
Free, free Julian Assange

Free Barrett Brown and John Kiriakou
Bust them out of jail
Let them walk in freedom
They don't need no bail

Free the freedom fighters
Free them all
And let them go
Free them all
And let them go
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN