-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
One Last Dance with Snowden
Author: BobR
Date: 2013-12-18 11:55:01
Back at the beginning of this year, the news cycles were exploding with the exploits of a then-unknown government contractor who stole a bunch of documentation that purported to show extensive illegal data collection by the NSA and/or CIA. The charge was that the government was collecting the metadata (send/receive address and subject) of every email sent by everyone in the United States, as well as phone records. There was initially false reporting that the government was listening to calls or reading emails or other deeper intrusions, but these turned out not to be true.
The man behind these leaks was revealed to be Edward Snowden, who fled to Hong Kong with documents in tow. As the pieces started to come together, it became clear that he was working with self-styled journalist Glenn Greenwald before he ever took the job. It became apparent that he took the job for the singular purpose of stealing the documents.
As the story erupted, the media coverage focused on Edward Snowden and - to a lesser extent - Glenn Greenwald. That irritated Greenwald to no end, as he felt the real story was the government surveilance, not he nor Snowden. He blasted the media for their coverage and their less than flattering evaluations of him and Snowden. The problem with the story, was that it was old news for those on the left. Most of us had known this was going on since 2006. That didn't mean we liked it or that we supported it, but we had raised hell 7 years prior, and nothing was done, so we moved on to things we could change, like the party of the president occupying the White House. So when the story broke, it didn't feel as earth-shattering as Greenwald had hoped.
That's why it was a bit odd when Time magazine chose to name Pope Francis as their Person of the Year, rather than Snowden, and Greenwald got upset. He was so upset, that he simultaneously complained that Snowden didn't get the nod while dissing the award itself:
In the vernacular, I believe that is known as "sour grapes".
In an odd turn of events, the story itself does indeed appear to be the story after all. A federal court in DC ruled on Monday that the mass collection of data likely violates the 4th Amendment:
So after all this time, someone gets a case before a judge who decides it's unconstitutional. Why didn't this happen 7 years ago? It's unfortunate, because it seems to validate espionage as a means to an end.
Meanwhile, Snowden is trying to work a deal with Brazil, which just happens to be where Glenn Greenwald lives:
So perhaps he and Greenwald can nibble on their sour grapes together, while we in the United States try to find a balance between safety and privacy, and keep our networks safe from hackers and malcontents like Snowden who might feel righteously entitled to do more than just steal some files.
The man behind these leaks was revealed to be Edward Snowden, who fled to Hong Kong with documents in tow. As the pieces started to come together, it became clear that he was working with self-styled journalist Glenn Greenwald before he ever took the job. It became apparent that he took the job for the singular purpose of stealing the documents.
As the story erupted, the media coverage focused on Edward Snowden and - to a lesser extent - Glenn Greenwald. That irritated Greenwald to no end, as he felt the real story was the government surveilance, not he nor Snowden. He blasted the media for their coverage and their less than flattering evaluations of him and Snowden. The problem with the story, was that it was old news for those on the left. Most of us had known this was going on since 2006. That didn't mean we liked it or that we supported it, but we had raised hell 7 years prior, and nothing was done, so we moved on to things we could change, like the party of the president occupying the White House. So when the story broke, it didn't feel as earth-shattering as Greenwald had hoped.
That's why it was a bit odd when Time magazine chose to name Pope Francis as their Person of the Year, rather than Snowden, and Greenwald got upset. He was so upset, that he simultaneously complained that Snowden didn't get the nod while dissing the award itself:
"It's a meaningless award from a meaningless magazine, designed to achieve the impossible: to make TIME relevant and interesting for a few fleeting moments," Greenwald told TPM.
In the vernacular, I believe that is known as "sour grapes".
In an odd turn of events, the story itself does indeed appear to be the story after all. A federal court in DC ruled on Monday that the mass collection of data likely violates the 4th Amendment:
The ruling, by the US district court for the District of Columbia, is a blow to the Obama administration, and sets up a legal battle that will drag on for months, almost certainly destined to end up in the supreme court. It was welcomed by campaigners pressing to rein in the NSA, and by Snowden, who issued a rare public statement saying it had vindicated his disclosures. It is also likely to influence other legal challenges to the NSA, currently working their way through federal courts.
The case was brought by Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer, and Charles Strange, father of a cryptologist killed in Afghanistan when his helicopter was shot down in 2011. His son worked for the NSA and carried out support work for Navy Seal Team Six, the elite force that killed Osama bin Laden.
In Monday’s ruling, the judge concluded that the pair's constitutional challenge was likely to be successful. In what was the only comfort to the NSA in a stinging judgment, Leon put the ruling on hold, pending an appeal by the government.
So after all this time, someone gets a case before a judge who decides it's unconstitutional. Why didn't this happen 7 years ago? It's unfortunate, because it seems to validate espionage as a means to an end.
Meanwhile, Snowden is trying to work a deal with Brazil, which just happens to be where Glenn Greenwald lives:
US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden offered to help Brazil defeat US spying Tuesday but, in an open letter, said he needs permanent political asylum to do so.
[..]
Snowden does not request asylum from Brazil in the letter, but notes Brazilian senators “have asked for my assistance with their investigations of suspected crimes against Brazilian citizens.”
Snowden says he is willing to help “wherever appropriate and lawful” but adds that “unfortunately the United States government has worked very hard to limit my ability to do so.”
“Until a country grants permanent political asylum, the US government will continue to interfere with my ability to speak,” he says.
So perhaps he and Greenwald can nibble on their sour grapes together, while we in the United States try to find a balance between safety and privacy, and keep our networks safe from hackers and malcontents like Snowden who might feel righteously entitled to do more than just steal some files.
