Oh good, David Gregory, Serious Journalist, is on the scene to ask the important questions re: the NSA metadata/PRISM/wiretapping/ megadata scandal. Like: how can we have a thriving democracy if we are subjected to cradle-to-grave surveillance what are the repercussions of a perpetual surveillance state, perceived or actual, on the administration's ability to exert pressure on other countries with poor human rights records
OT if you are watching Tweety and his live on-the-street interview on Hardball right now, all those horrible noises and come-and-go microphones are why broadcast sound guys suck...
Does DG&#039;s question seem any less ridiculous in light of the fact that Chuck Schumer&#039;s shield law bill &quot;does not include [within the shield] any person who is or is reasonably likely to be ... <b>aiding, abetting, or conspiring</b> in illegal activity with a person or organization defined in clauses (i) through (vii)&quot;?
Admittedly Snowden is not a person defined in clauses (i)-(vii), where (i) is a normal understanding of the word &quot;spy&quot;, and (ii)-(vii) are all terrorist-related. But perhaps Gregory wasn&#039;t reading <em>exclusively</em> from GOP talking points. Our side isn&#039;t all smelling of roses right now.
my problem with Gregory et al is the hypocrisy between last week&#039;s pearl clutching case of the vapors about the Fox/AP revelations and this week&#039;s &quot;throw him in jail&quot; tone. If the villagers showed the slightest bit of consistency in their supposed core beliefs (either way, just be consistent and not simply protective of those &quot;in the club&quot;) I&#039;d be more willing to cut them some slack
I think the real problem here is that the important questions regarding the current surveillance state and security vs. privacy are already being ignored in order to obsess about the personality driven BS of where&#039;s Waldo? We&#039;re seeing that the Snowden/Greenwald express is proving to be a very imperfect vehicle by which to discuss some serious issues. And I&#039;d bet my bottom dollar that the NSA has been working tirelessly to change the topic from &quot;who did we spy on?&quot; to &quot;what&#039;s up with Snowden?&quot;. And thanks to our feckless MSM, who not only will carry water for authority every chance they get, but cannot resist chasing a bright shiny object to save their lives, the NSA will be completely successful in making this go away as the ADHD American public once again forgets what the fuck they were just talking about...
Right. And I would add this: shills like Gregory serve the useful (to the government) purpose of mouthing its position while claiming a position of neutrality.
Not only is this slimy and dishonest (nothing new there); it&#039;s extremely dangerous, particularly in a case where press freedom is at the heart of the issue. Gregory is rallying support for a willing public to shout down criticism and dissent. That&#039;s his role, and he needs to be called out on it.
I sometimes think we&#039;ve completely forgotten the J. Edgar Hoover years, when government spied on political opponents, destroyed their reputations, bankrupted them, killed them when convenient. What destroyed Hoover&#039;s FBI? Not the fact that he died, but the fact that the press finally (finally!) called out the government. That&#039;s what Watergate was about; that&#039;s what Ellsberg was about--not just the whistleblowers, but the *press* standing up to power.
<i>I think the real problem here is that the important questions regarding the current surveillance state and security vs. privacy are already being ignored in order to obsess about the personality driven BS </i>
Google the name &quot;Frank Snepp.&quot; Frank Snepp did the same, and is a hero. A real one.
If Gregory meant his question to be anything more than a bit of gotcha grandstanding, he would have asked it differently. I&#039;m sure he&#039;s very pleased with the stir he&#039;s attracted.
What the wiki doesn&#039;t make clear is that the CIA didn&#039;t just try to stop publication of &quot;Decent Interval&quot; (one of the most important books about the Vietnam War); it tried to prosecute Snepp as a traitor. It tried to have the book pulped. It didn&#039;t have a leg to stand on, and settled for collecting Snepp&#039;s royalties.
That was before 9/11. Today, the CIA would have a leg to stand on and Snepp would probably be in jail.
OT if you are watching Tweety and his live on-the-street interview on Hardball right now, all those horrible noises and come-and-go microphones are why broadcast sound guys suck...
Does DG&#039;s question seem any less ridiculous in light of the fact that Chuck Schumer&#039;s shield law bill &quot;does not include [within the shield] any person who is or is reasonably likely to be ... <b>aiding, abetting, or conspiring</b> in illegal activity with a person or organization defined in clauses (i) through (vii)&quot;?
Admittedly Snowden is not a person defined in clauses (i)-(vii), where (i) is a normal understanding of the word &quot;spy&quot;, and (ii)-(vii) are all terrorist-related. But perhaps Gregory wasn&#039;t reading <em>exclusively</em> from GOP talking points. Our side isn&#039;t all smelling of roses right now.
my problem with Gregory et al is the hypocrisy between last week&#039;s pearl clutching case of the vapors about the Fox/AP revelations and this week&#039;s &quot;throw him in jail&quot; tone. If the villagers showed the slightest bit of consistency in their supposed core beliefs (either way, just be consistent and not simply protective of those &quot;in the club&quot;) I&#039;d be more willing to cut them some slack
EDIT: Now with actual link to masthead showing that yes, Glenn <em>does</em> have an editor.
<a href="http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/help\/2011\/sep\/14\/guardian-us-staff-list" target="_blank">Check out the third guy</a>.
I think the real problem here is that the important questions regarding the current surveillance state and security vs. privacy are already being ignored in order to obsess about the personality driven BS of where&#039;s Waldo? We&#039;re seeing that the Snowden/Greenwald express is proving to be a very imperfect vehicle by which to discuss some serious issues. And I&#039;d bet my bottom dollar that the NSA has been working tirelessly to change the topic from &quot;who did we spy on?&quot; to &quot;what&#039;s up with Snowden?&quot;. And thanks to our feckless MSM, who not only will carry water for authority every chance they get, but cannot resist chasing a bright shiny object to save their lives, the NSA will be completely successful in making this go away as the ADHD American public once again forgets what the fuck they were just talking about...
That question has been raised by lawmakers...
I&#039;ve met guitarist Dave Gregory - and he was far too nice to be a &quot;journalist.&quot;
It&#039;s a change from the snoozing they did on air when they were alive.
No, but the comment will be recorded and the NSA will correct your grammar for you.
Right. And I would add this: shills like Gregory serve the useful (to the government) purpose of mouthing its position while claiming a position of neutrality.
Not only is this slimy and dishonest (nothing new there); it&#039;s extremely dangerous, particularly in a case where press freedom is at the heart of the issue. Gregory is rallying support for a willing public to shout down criticism and dissent. That&#039;s his role, and he needs to be called out on it.
I sometimes think we&#039;ve completely forgotten the J. Edgar Hoover years, when government spied on political opponents, destroyed their reputations, bankrupted them, killed them when convenient. What destroyed Hoover&#039;s FBI? Not the fact that he died, but the fact that the press finally (finally!) called out the government. That&#039;s what Watergate was about; that&#039;s what Ellsberg was about--not just the whistleblowers, but the *press* standing up to power.
/hobbyhorse
<i>I think the real problem here is that the important questions regarding the current surveillance state and security vs. privacy are already being ignored in order to obsess about the personality driven BS </i>
This, 1,000 times.
Google the name &quot;Frank Snepp.&quot; Frank Snepp did the same, and is a hero. A real one.
If Gregory meant his question to be anything more than a bit of gotcha grandstanding, he would have asked it differently. I&#039;m sure he&#039;s very pleased with the stir he&#039;s attracted.
At the risk of being repetitious, I want to invoke this guy: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Snepp">http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
What the wiki doesn&#039;t make clear is that the CIA didn&#039;t just try to stop publication of &quot;Decent Interval&quot; (one of the most important books about the Vietnam War); it tried to prosecute Snepp as a traitor. It tried to have the book pulped. It didn&#039;t have a leg to stand on, and settled for collecting Snepp&#039;s royalties.
That was before 9/11. Today, the CIA would have a leg to stand on and Snepp would probably be in jail.
This...
i would go with &#039;her name&#039; and &#039;iran&#039; but i take your point.
this.