defend the indefensible: glenn fucking greenwald

Abuse of power and the ignoring of basic human rights here are glaringly staring in everyone's face here. Yet some still can't go beyond 'whaa he didn't see this coming'?

― In the airplane over the .CSS (Le Bateau Ivre), Monday, August 19, 2013 1:37 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tbf seems like people were saying this as an aside

saying this was hardly unexpected does not somehow mean this wasn't unconscionable, lest that weren't obvious from the posts where i said it was a disgrace etc

@fivethirtyeight
"Never connect at Heathrow if you can possibly avoid it" is right up there with "never get involved in a land war in Asia"

otm

True.

Xxxp and xxp

i wouldn't get a partner mixed up in this stuff. but then i wouldn't get myself mixed up in this stuff either.

@fivethirtyeight
"Never connect at Heathrow if you can possibly avoid it" is right up there with "never get involved in a land war in Asia"

― polyphonic, Monday, 19 August 2013 18:41 (2 minutes ago)

yeah i can't imagine greenwald would not know this, or have been told by his wikileaks friends

@GGreenwald
A real mystery: suspenseful RT @OKnox White House won't say whether US tried to discourage UK from detaining @ggreenwald's partner.

hey did we discuss julian assange coming out as an old-right pro lifer anywhere

The White House "was informed" about Miranda being detained at Heathrow, I'm reading. Ow

Lol Goole no I don't think so :) that was o_O though

haha wait he's pro-life?? i saw he was into ron paul, which, of course

You could meet a person in a cafe and pay them $500 plus the cost of their ticket to deliver anything in the world that doesn't smell like drugs or explosives and they'd never be looked at. It just doesn't seem like this could possibly be accidental. This is zero comment on whether it's unscrupulous personal harassment, which it obviously is.

Also in case anyone needs anything, you can pay me $500 plus the cost of my ticket to deliver anything that doesn't smell like drugs or explosives, just ftr.

haha wait he's pro-life?? i saw he was into ron paul, which, of course

― max, Monday, August 19, 2013 1:48 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and RAND paul!

So,

and like, i dunno. come on. if greenwald likes to imagine that he's in a spy novel he should start acting like it.

I mean, I know it's annoying when people think they're in a spy novel. Sure. Is that what GG's actually doing, though? Really?

if you are in possession of info that multiple national governments have classified as confidental and detrimental to national security if disclosed, etc etc then you don't just get a magical shield with "journalist" written on the front of it that means nobody hassles you about it when you're crossing borders with it.

I'm still following up this story, and cannot for the life of me work out whether or not Miranda had anything on him. Did he or did he not? Help me out here.

a thumb drive w secrets

a thumb drive w <s>secrets</s> next season's line of cargo shorts

shit

I've got a fistful of secrets if yaknowwhatImean

a friend of mine told me that in israel a sandisk is a big employer and everyone calls thumbdrives disc-on-key

Nilmar is basically saying GG is not one of the smart -- naaaahhhh

k

I do think Greenwald's biggest mistake today was saying he will write more aggressively and release more classified info now. He should have released the anyway.mnow it almost sounds like "ok guys I was going to give youse a break but you've gone too far now!' Which is nagl a motivation for a journalist.

yeah journalism is not really his natural habitat

Nilmar is basically saying GG is not one of the smart -- naaaahhhh

― Miss Arlington twirls for the Coal Heavers (Dr Morbius), Monday, 19 August 2013 18:58 (3 minutes ago)

did you actually read this post

defend the indefensible: glenn fucking greenwald

GG says Reuters tore his remarks out of context.

I will be on the Snowden thread.

I dunno

I'm not sure whether or not I 'give a fuck' about GG either but it's kind of the principle of the thing isn't it

yeah you can't read either

Also Nilmar are you coming from a 'giving away classified documents is a dangerous, stupid thing to do' angle or a 'This man is annoying to me' angle?

I'm open to the first (but probably need to have it spelled out to me) and the second is understandable in that people find people annoying

Lagoon, all I'm saying is it makes him come across as someone acting out of vengeance instead of just journalism. He's making it personal. I know it was made personal by detaining his husband but you need to try and separate the two, no?

Nilmar isn't coming of neither angles iirc, he's better than that.

Either, not neither

xp and Nilmar I'm not a Snowden/GG/Assange 'fan' or whatever, just trying to get a handle on all this. Spare a thought for people whose comprehension moves slightly slower than political events

i just want to make sure i understand--i'm being willfully naive if i think it's a problem that a guy publishing information about government spying by one country has his partner detained at an airport for 9 hours to be questioned about further publications by another country? is that the general idea? whether he should have 'expected' it or not is entirely beside the point--that it occurred at all is outrageous, and to deny that is to make peace with the notion that this is normal. and fuck that.

I don't really like that the whole NSA discussion is done in those thread, because for future reference/posterity, it'll be troublesome to locate some info, but anyway.

I've not read everything everyone has said, but my take is pretty simple, and I do make a few inferences, so take it with a grain of salt.

My conclusion is that Greenwald was very suspicious that there was a high probability of this happening to his partner--even higher if it was Greenwald himself transporting the data, so why not make it more interesting? Yes, I feel very strongly that this is a game to see who outwits the other. I have no problems with him doing this, because it is what moronic governments deserve. I'm not singling out a country, I am referring to my own country of Canada, plus the UK, and the USA.

Exhibit A: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?pagewanted=10&_r=1&

"Their discussion turned to the question of coming back to the United States. Greenwald said, half-jokingly, that if he was arrested, WikiLeaks would become the new traffic cop for publishing N.S.A. documents. “I would just say: ‘O.K., let me introduce you to my friend Julian Assange, who’s going to take my place. Have fun dealing with him.'"

Poitras prodded him: “So you’re going back to the States?"

I had a problem with this article because of its long-form. It puts people off. I question whether it got anywhere near the same amount of reads as other shorter articles, making certain details inaccessible to readers who are put off by 10 pages of literature.

We also have this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html

“When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”

When asked if Greenwald believed his computer was being monitored by the U.S. government. “I would be shocked if the U.S. government were not trying to access the information on my computer. I carry my computers and data with me everywhere I go.”

Greenwald knows. People who are keeping up with the story know.

WikiLeaks leaked an AES256 encrypted insurance file. It's on the Internet. I'm not going to link to it but a simple Google search will locate it. The assumption is that they used openSSL and is something the NSA can easily crack. I tend to agree with this line of thought.

This was a test. To see what the gov't would react. Just as the gov't played along, seeing how Greenwald would react.

In that sense, it might've been a decoy, but their is also the assumption that the NSA already know everything Snowden/Greenwald/Poitras have. So all this confiscation is part of the theatrical drama played out for the mainstream public. Link/bait/etc.

Thing is, Greenwald is playing that game and trying to use it against them.

Just my opinion.

to be expected or not, it should not be fucking occurring. that simple.

xp

I'm with you Hoos, but tbf everyone here acknowledged it shouldn't have happened already.

saying this was hardly unexpected does not somehow mean this wasn't unconscionable, lest that weren't obvious from the posts where i said it was a disgrace etc

― No results found for "churl sweatshirt" (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Monday, August 19, 2013 5:41 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sorry i flew off the handle, i missed this post. my bad.

there's a pretty simple narrative here and it keeps getting clouded up. like the history of this thread itself is ppl basically saying 'greenwald is occasionally ok i guess, but he keeps making outrageous accusations' and then you get leaks that substantiate those outrageous accusations and more and then ppl say 'oh man, i guess its ok greenwald published this stuff, but i wish someone less prone to outrageous accusations did' and then the next thing happens and its amnesia all over again: wait? on what basis is greenwald suspecting the worst? we live in a nation of laws lololol.

and then this triple-layer spy vs. spy shit projected on top -- maybe snowden was a false flag and greenwald false-flagged that and then secretly they're both false flags of the big cover-up from the athletic-doping complex, i mean really?

i mean i guess nutty conspiracy theories are easier to accept than just the government is spying on everyone and detaining whoever it likes and that's the world we live in, full stop.

i just want to make sure i understand--i'm being willfully naive if i think it's a problem that a guy publishing information about government spying by one country has his partner detained at an airport for 9 hours to be questioned about further publications by another country? is that the general idea? whether he should have 'expected' it or not is entirely beside the point--that it occurred at all is outrageous, and to deny that is to make peace with the notion that this is normal. and fuck that.

― BIG HOOS aka the denigrated boogeyman (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 19 August 2013 19:13

just summarizing my prior posts, though they weren't that ambiguous

- this detention is an affront to justice in letter and spirit, even if you aren't a greenwald fanboy
- greenwald has plenty of useful acolytes including the main leftwing uk newspaper so he probably was not taken completely by surprise at the shitty conduct of uk authorities
- just maybe he was aware that if it happened, a few hours inconvenience for his boyfriend would yield good optics & the data was securely encrypted anyway
- now it has happened and greenwald is getting the most sympathetic press since the first round of snowden stories broke, his boyfriend is free and unharmed

glen greenwald's boyfriend was an inside job

my issue with greenwald's article is the issue i always have with him, which is that the truth is bad enough, he doesn't need to gild the lily by claiming that the UK Border Agency is "sending a message" to journalists. he has no fucking idea what the UK Border Agency was thinking, or who was directing them.

every day people are detained for an hour, two hours, three hours for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL, other than like, they once bought a car from a guy who donated to a church that had a congregation member arrested on suspicion of having a telephone call with a member of hezbollah. now here we have a guy who is carrying classified national security documents. like, actually carrying them. it is entirely predictable that, as greenwald's partner, he will be nabbed with these. having re-read the NYTimes Mag article on poitras and greenwald, it really is hard to believe that she and greenwald were this naive. it's REALLY hard. they took endless precautions. so i kinda suspect when the NSA finally cracks the USB sticks it's gonna be rickroll.jpg?

just to make things clear to hoos and underrated aerosmith bootlegs et al, yes i also think it's despicable that he was detained for nine hours and completely loco that his stuff was essentially stolen even though has wasn't charged with anything.

having re-read the NYTimes Mag article on poitras and greenwald, it really is hard to believe that she and greenwald were this naive. it's REALLY hard. they took endless precautions.

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 19 August 2013 19:35 (5 minutes ago)

this is what lends credibility the INSIDE JOB narrative, the holographic missiles or the tnt or whatever

america had several sovereign nations refuse airspace and force a foreign president's aeroplane to land on the mere suspicion snowden was aboard, the chance that the most deferent nation of all would somehow neglect to intercept a snowden accomplice is virtually nil, it's just implausible that greenwald would be so naive not to know this

can we just say what this really is, which is now that ostensibly democratic governments are targeting and detaining white dudes for talking shit about them, it's finally unacceptable?

theyve gone too far this time

ctrl-f "buttlips" - found

They came for the white dudes, and I said nothing, because I was not a white dude.
(oh wait...)

yeah nobody gave a fuck when they sent chuck d to nicaragua and tortured him to death for stealing documents from the nsa