home

Friday Night Open Thread

There's lots of news I haven't gotten to this week.

It looks like the court didn't issue its Frye ruling today on expert voice/speech testimony in the George Zimmerman trial. Opening arguments are Monday. How do you effectively prepare and deliver opening statements without knowing whether there will be expert testimony on the issue of who was crying out for help in the background of a 911 call?

The defense filed a motion this afternoon following up on this morning's hearing on statements George Zimmerman made at the scene that it says are res gestae and not covered by the court's order excluding self-serving hearsay. The motion is here.

Enough law for the week. This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< WAPO: Edward Snowden Charged With Espionage | Zimmerman Trial: Judge Excludes Voice Experts >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 44 (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 08:43:46 AM EST
    Jesus Tap Dancing Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:18:45 AM EST
    Juan Cole this morning...

    Charging leakers with espionage is outrageous, but it is par for the course with the Obama administration.

    The same theory under which Edward Snowden is guilty of espionage could easily be applied to former vice president Dick Cheney.
    [...snip...]
    What Cheney did in ordering his aides Scooter Libby and Karl Rove to release the information about Plame's identity was no different from Snowden's decision to contact the press.

    And yet, Cheney mysteriously has not been charged with Espionage. Hmmm...

    -- So When will Dick Cheney be charged with Espionage? His Crime was the Same as Snowden's

    Bumble bee deaths now doubled to 50,000. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:52:53 PM EST
    This is so shocking to me. It is happening in Wilsonville, OR, just outside of Portland on I-5.

    A landscaping company sprayed 55 European Linden trees with the insecticide Safari in an attempt to combat aphids even though aphids can be controlled with a non-toxic spray of water mixed with soap. The tree were blossoming which attracted the bees. Death was quick and massive.

    This is the largest killing of bees ever anywhere. And we need to pay attention because Safari is not banned in the U.S. And it is not just commercial landscapers who use these deathly chemicals. People use them in their yards all the time.

    The bee population is already under severe strain due to colony collapse disorder. And without bees well, there goes our food supply. Bees are prolific pollinators, and without pollinators no fruits and vegetables.

    This story remains front page news here, as it should. People should be shocked and disturbed and angry about this.

    Just like we do not yet have those flying cars we were promised when I was a kid, we also do not have Star Trek-type replicators to magically create our food products. We need the damn bees.

    Save the bees!

    All we are saying is (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:27:26 AM EST
    give bees a chance.

    (courtesy Northern Sun)


    Parent
    I would think these were probably (none / 0) (#104)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:41:51 AM EST
    honey bees, not bumble bees, and as a frame of reference, an average honey bee hive can be populated with 50,000 to 60,000 bees.

    It sounds like this could have been a swarm, where bees leave a hive in search of larger quarters.

    In any event, any time honey bees are killed, it affects the pollination of the local flora.  When my husband used to keep bees, he and another beekeeper friend used to take their hives to the eastern shore of MD to help pollinate the lima bean fields.

    Honey bees have not been having an easy time of it in the last couple years - colony collapse disorder and other mysterious deaths of entire hives have been happening with some frequency - and this is not good news for agriculture.

    Parent

    Curious (none / 0) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:10:53 AM EST
    Why do you think they are honey bees when the Oregon Department of Agriculture has already identified them as bumble bees?

    On a side note, my first thoughts on the Aaron Hernandez story were also of Ray Lewis. Thoughts that have always remained mixed.

    Parent

    I didn't see a link in casey's comment, and (none / 0) (#109)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    the article I found didn't mention what type of bees they were.

    And I have some experience - through my husband, who kept honey bees for years.

    I'm not disputing that these were bumblebees, it's just that the number of bees seemed more typical of honey bees.

    [not touching the whole Ray Lewis subject - I should have kept my thoughts to myself the first time!]

    Parent

    I thought they were honey bees, too, Anne, (none / 0) (#113)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 02:40:27 PM EST
    but all the news reports identify them as bumblebees. And there is a second die-off in Hillsboro, another town in the Portland metro area.

    Parent
    Has this McClatchy article on (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by shoephone on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 01:36:31 AM EST
    Obama's Insider Threat Program been linked to or commented on here?

    Read the whole thing. It's unfrigginbelievable! Forget about the whole Bushian "If you see something, say something" nonsense. This is so far into authoritarian/fascist territory, I'm really starting to think Mr. Phony in the White House needs to be impeached over it. NO KIDDING. Yeah, I said it.

    Digby says it reminds her of the Stasi. I'd say she's not wrong about that.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 45 (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Dadler on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 07:12:06 PM EST
    ... the nearly 51 million people of multi-cultural and multi-racial South Africa. President Jacob Zuma's office announced earlier this evening that former President Nelson Mandela's condition has deteriorated significantly over the past 24 hours, and was downgraded tonight to critical by his doctors at the Pretoria hospital where he's staying. In short, he's dying.

    (Unofficially, but according to sources within his immediate family who apparently talked to CBS News, "Madiba" is unresponsive, and they are presently discussing whether he should be removed from life support.)

    A true giant amongst men and women is very soon to leave us, and what happens in his beloved country in the immediate wake of his inevitable passing will undoubtedly bear very close watching.

    Nkosi Sikekel iAfrika. God Bless Africa.

    Peter G, I'd be interested in your (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 09:49:38 PM EST
    Take on this recent SCOTUS decision:  NYT.

    I was gratified (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 11:24:29 PM EST
    and pleasantly surprised, frankly, to see Chief Justice Roberts rally a six-Justice majority (including Kennedy and Alito) in AID v Open Society Int'l for a non-obvious application of the freedom of speech.  The Court strongly held that the government can refuse to allow federal funds to be used on projects Congress does not support, but cannot withhold those funds from groups that simply refuse to "pledge allegiance" to the government's favored policy positions, so long as they are willing to abide by the use-of-funds restriction. This allows Open Society, for example, to continue to get federal funds for its international HIV-prevention/education work without professing that it seeks the eradication of prostitution.

    In your opinion, might this decision, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 11:28:25 PM EST
    given its author, pave the way for federal funds to groups such as Planned Parenthood?

    Parent
    That is exactly what I was thinking, (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:29:25 AM EST
    as would anyone, after reading the opinion.  I'm absolutely sure it's what Planned Parenthood's lawyers are studying -- to what extent this new opinion offers further support for their fight all over the country against the short-sighted, mean-spirited, and ill-informed legislative restrictions on their excellent and important work.

    Parent
    Baseball season is over for the Oregon State (none / 0) (#4)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:32:34 AM EST
    Beavers. Today they lost, again, to Mississippi State. The score was 4-1.

    It was a good run and an exciting season.

    Good work, guys.

    Now, who is going to win the CWS?

    Four letters, casey: (none / 0) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:09:40 AM EST
    U.C.L.A.

    The Bruins had to beat No. 6 Cal State Fullerton twice on the Titans' home field, and then No. 4 LSU, No. 7 N.C. State and No. 1 North Carolina in Omaha to gain the CWS finals against Mississippi State. They're underrated, battle-tested, hungry and due.

    Further, the UCLA athletic program, with 108 various NCAA national titles on display in its trophy cases, have never won one in baseball, so I say that this is Bruin time.

    (CSU-Fullerton was my pick to win it all at the start of the NCAA tournament.)

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Regarding direct server access to (none / 0) (#6)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:22:04 AM EST
    PRISM discussed in the last open thread (I think the last one). The Washington Post edited their article about it, I believe, to take out the direct access part the next morning. One of the national magazine blogs has an article about it with the before and after. I'm sorry I don't remember which one, but I'll look. If it's a right-wing one, I might now own up to reading it though, ha ha. I was reading an article with so many links to other sources, there's no telling where I ended up, but I was careful to look at other articles to be sure I wasn't at a Drudge-like site.

    The Guardian also changed this. I don't know if they changed GW's article or not, but in an article with responses from all the internet providers, they wrote this:

    The Guardian understands that the NSA approached those companies and asked them to enable a "dropbox" system whereby legally requested data could be copied from their own server out to an NSA-owned system. That has allowed the companies to deny that there is "direct or indirect" NSA access, to deny that there is a "back door" to their systems, and that they only comply with "legal" requests - while not explaining the scope of that access.

    I'm not arguing any of this is necessarily right, but I do believe GW had that part wrong. I think the Guardian should correct it in his article, too, if they didn't. This correction or rewording was on June 12, about six days later. Guardian link to quote

    Every time I see "GW" referenced, (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:05:48 AM EST
    I think "George W." which can't be what you mean - I'm thinking it's "GG" - for Glenn Greenwald - is that right?

    Anyway, I believe Glenn has an arrangement with The Guardian whereby he is not edited, or even assigned an editor - he didn't want to be filtered in any way, so that may be one reason you aren't seeing The Guardian making the corrections that that WaPo has made.

    The other reason - or one of them - could be the very stubbornness that others have mentioned about Glenn.  

    Or...he isn't going to admit to an error if he has in his possession other materials, yet to be revealed, that would make what he initially claimed not a mistake.  I think he may be willing to let the accusations fly for now because he knows he will eventually be proven to be right.

    And it's possible that the conversation is devolving into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and by joining in, the conversations stops being about the larger question of whether the government really has the right to do what they're doing.

    So...lots of questions, and I think we may have to have some patience in getting to the answers.

    Glenn does have some thought-provoking questions and opinions about the Espionage Act charges against Snowden, here, which may be worth a read.

    From the post:

    Few people - likely including Snowden himself - would contest that his actions constitute some sort of breach of the law. He made his choice based on basic theories of civil disobedience: that those who control the law have become corrupt, that the law in this case (by concealing the actions of government officials in building this massive spying apparatus in secret) is a tool of injustice, and that he felt compelled to act in violation of it in order to expose these official bad acts and enable debate and reform.

    But that's a far cry from charging Snowden, who just turned 30 yesterday, with multiple felonies under the Espionage Act that will send him to prison for decades if not life upon conviction. In what conceivable sense are Snowden's actions "espionage"? He could have - but chose not - sold the information he had to a foreign intelligence service for vast sums of money, or covertly passed it to one of America's enemies, or worked at the direction of a foreign government. That is espionage. He did none of those things.

    What he did instead was give up his life of career stability and economic prosperity, living with his long-time girlfriend in Hawaii, in order to inform his fellow citizens (both in America and around the world) of what the US government and its allies are doing to them and their privacy. He did that by very carefully selecting which documents he thought should be disclosed and concealed, then gave them to a newspaper with a team of editors and journalists and repeatedly insisted that journalistic judgments be exercised about which of those documents should be published in the public interest and which should be withheld.

    That's what every single whistle-blower and source for investigative journalism, in every case, does - by definition. In what conceivable sense does that merit felony charges under the Espionage Act?

    [It's a gorgeous day here, too nice to be inside on the computer - so time to get out and enjoy the day, even if some of it will be taken up with errands and chores!]

    Parent

    Vetted vs edited??? (none / 0) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    Thus far we have revealed four independent programs: the bulk collection of telephone records, the Prism program, Obama's implementation of an aggressive foreign and domestic cyber-operations policy, and false claims by NSA officials to Congress. Every one of those articles was vetted by multiple Guardian editors and journalists - not just me. Democratic partisans have raised questions about only one of the stories - the only one that happened to be also published by the Washington Post (and presumably vetted by multiple Post editors and journalists) - in order to claim that an alleged inaccuracy in it means our journalism in general is discredited. link


    Parent
    As I understand it, the changes (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:28:50 AM EST
    The Guardian made, that Teresa referenced, above, were less about correcting Glenn than they were to make it clear that the arrangement between the NSA and these companies was one where plausible deniability was provided for the companies as part of the deal - in other words, "we'll give you access, if you'll give us some cover."

    Given the vetting Glenn says The Guardian editors did, this may be why the paper has not come out and said Glenn is wrong, they've come out to explain the rhetorical framework created around the cooperation with the NSA.

    I think there's a big difference there that a lot of people are avoiding/ignoring.

    Parent

    That Is Not Correct (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:13:05 PM EST
    The issue was clear. Glen Greenwald said that the PRISM program connects the US government directly to the main servers of Google, Facebook, et al.

    Expert's who praise Greenwald for his work, and condemn him for his self-destructive slash and burn, I am never wrong mentality, have pointed out that Greenwald was wrong and that the US government does not have instant complete access to all the servers of Google Facebook et al. This would be tantamount the US government having access to everything Google owns, instantly.

    The experts say that the term Servers is more akin to a dropbox where said companies can respond to NSA and FISA requests by dumping requested info into a server that the government is plugged into.

    I guess that supporters of Greenwald are so blind to his possibly making a mistake, and a big one, that they go on about plausible deniability..  

    I saw similar stuff around Hillary and Obama..   blind allegiance is stupid, imo.

    Here is the Post that describes the mistake by Greenwald, the one repeated by Ann above.

    Parent

    Plausible Deniability vs. Limited Hangout. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:09:00 PM EST
    We have no idea what the underlying facts are and we will probably never know.

    No one has grounds for smearing anyone.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    No one has grounds for smearing anyone.

    Greenwald should apologize, imo.

    Parent

    Apologize for what??? (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by bmaz on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:29:23 PM EST
    Every expert I have talked to near the program states that the box is effectively direct access for the purposes desired by the government. Furthermore, the ACTUAL NSA DOCUMENTS on PRISM stated clearly on their face the words "direct access".

    Glenn owes nobody any "apology" whatsoever, and people trying to make this some type of gotcha moment are simply haters trying to shoot the messenger instead of addressing the real issue, which is the government surveillance.

    Parent

    What was said in GG's articles (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    The Guardian has not revised any of our articles and, to my knowledge, has no intention to do so. That's because we did not claim that the NSA document alleging direct collection from the servers was true; we reported - accurately - that the NSA document claims that the program allows direct collection from the companies' servers. Before publishing, we went to the internet companies named in the documents and asked about these claims. When they denied it, we purposely presented the story as one of a major discrepancy between what the NSA document claims and what the internet companies claim....

    That appears to be true from what I read in his article regarding PRISM. IMO this a distraction from the real issue.

    Parent

    Distraction? (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:54:30 PM EST
    More like hyperbole on your part. Many of us can think about two things at the same time. And, from what I have read, the point about what is meant by servers, appears to be crucial about how PRISM works, not a distraction.

    I am 100% behind Greenwald's efforts, but to make believe that this point is minor and just a distraction makes no sense to me.

    What Greenwald has written implies that the government has total access to everything all the time, and that all the social network and information companies are either unaware of the governments ability with PRISM, or are lying.

    I love conspiracy, am no fan of Google et al, but the scenario above seems like a lot to swallow.

    Parent

    I notified you of the fact that your quote (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:04:02 PM EST
    from John McCain was not a true quote only to keep you from continuing to spread misinformation.

    A while back you and I agreed that we would refrain from debating issues with one another. I would prefer that we continued to honored that agreement rather than for me to respond to your comment since you have difficulty making a point without including some discounting statement or personal insult.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:43:28 PM EST
    And nice swipe.

    And if you do not want me to respond to your comments, please refrain from commenting, or get your own site.

    And seems like you are the one making personal attacks here.

    Parent

    Please point out the personal (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:10:16 PM EST
    insults contained in the first comment I made to you in years:

    FYI, the quote from John McCain is from the Daily Current. From wikipedia:

    The Daily Currant is an American satirical news blog that focuses on politics, technology, and entertainment.[1] A number of its satirical stories have been taken for true news reports by press and members of the public.

    A lot of room for me to demand that you adhere to the standards that you says others ignore. I chose not to take such an easy shot.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:22:42 PM EST
    I acknowledged your correction that it was not a true McCain quote, but an on the mark parody of Mr Bomb Bomb..

    I assumed it was real.

    As far as your personal attack:

    you have difficulty making a point without including some discounting statement or personal insult.

    that is a personal attack, it has nothing to do with the discussion.

    Parent

    Oh, you assumed it was real. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    No need for you to check your sources Maybe you are too busy demanding apologies from others or labeling comments as "hyperbole" or

    thinking about two things at the same time to apply the same standard to yourself as you demand of others. Your comment to my reply to bmaz:  

    More like hyperbole on your part. Many of us can think about two things at the same time.

    that is a discounting statement and it has nothing to do with the discussion.

    Parent

    Distraction (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:53:46 PM EST
    I see what is good for the goose is irrelevant for the gander.

    IMO this a distraction from the real issue.

    discounting statement??

    Yes, I should have written IMO, before suggesting that your accusation that my comment was a distraction from the real issue. And, to be clearer have said that your comment was hyperbole, rather than ascribe the hyperbole to you.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:25:14 PM EST
    that you adhere to that principle in the majority of your comments.

    I see what is good for the goose is irrelevant for the gander.

    Writers must be careful sourcing their information. You do not need to source your information. You can just assume that something that is completely absurd is accurate. You evidently don't even need to read the entire article to jump to your assumptions. I guess you thought that this part of the quote regarding Hong Kong was also accurate:

    "Luckily this is a tiny country with no real military to speak of. I don't expect any resistance. We could probably destroy their infrastructure and occupy the entire country by the end of the week."

    You rely on discounting labels and personal insults, distraction techniques and misstating what people actually say and then whine about someone insulting you. Tiresome. So to quote you...stop it.

    Parent

    Now let's address your demand that (none / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:22:59 PM EST
    Glenn Greenwald apologize for what you "think" is misrepresentation.

    You posted the following as a direct quote from John McCain:

    "and predictably from the near miss: bomb bomb bomb McCain

    "I don't want to hear about extradition or rendition or any of that nonsense. This man is a traitor and if we don't get him within 24 hours I say we need to start bombing the hell out of Hong Kong."


    Your apology for misrepresenting the facts:

    "OK so he did not really say that, he only said that Snowden's act is treasonous..

    He is a walking satire though.

    The politicians are looking hard at the polls

    We are waiting for Hillary."

    No real apology there.  Just throwing in Hillary using the royal "we" to inflate who is waiting for Hillary and another distraction from the real issue.
     

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:28:35 PM EST
    Gettting personal aren't you. Clever too..  guess you got me!!!

    So your claim that I am willfully spreading disinformation on this site must be true. Implying that is my intention here..

    Great work, better write to Jeralyn about it, as you have some serious proof.

    And again you exaggerate, I never demanded anything of Glenn Greenwald,

    I was responding to Mr Natural's comment that it is not right for anyone to smear, and Greenwald smeared Pearlstein. So in that context he should apologize to Pearlstein.

    Parent

    No I'm implying that you do not (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:47:57 PM EST
    carefully look at your sources before making accusations against other people. I am implying that you do not hold yourself to the same standards as you do others and that you discount and  misrepresent what people say thinking somehow that wins you the discussion.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    I should have double checked on the bomb bomb bomb McSame's quote, but him wanting to bomb Hong Kong seemed so plausible, particularly considering he likes to put his genocidal thought to song... bomb bomb hong kong.. catchy, no?

    ..  anyway glad to see that you are looking after his reputation, and of course putting mine into question.  

    Parent

    Ah, I see (none / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 06:24:50 PM EST
    Accuracy is only important to you if someone else must meet the standard. As I clearly stated in my comment:

    I am implying that you do not hold yourself to the same standards as you do others and that you discount and misrepresent what people say thinking somehow that wins you the discussion.


    Parent
    Discussion? (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 06:39:56 PM EST
    There has been no discussion. Just personal attacks. I have provided several links. No evidence that you were interested in discussing any of this, because, I assume my comments are a distraction...?  ok.

    Your focus here, never mind my so called distraction, is attacking me personally. Glad to provide you with so much entertainment.  

    carry on

    Parent

    Nope. You did not provide even one link (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 08:28:06 PM EST
    in any of the comments you made to me. You proceeded to change the subject from my discussion in comment 59 of the issue of what Glenn actually wrote. You chose not to address what was in that comment that related to the actual issue.  

    I just love how you follow up with your discounting statements and completely inaccurate distortions of what people actually say with an accusation that you are the one who is being personally insulted. I am more than willing to continue to point out when you are making totally inaccurate statements if you wish to continue to make them but I don't find you in the least bit entertaining.

    Parent

    Links (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 08:58:57 PM EST
    None of those links were in your comments to me. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:48:26 PM EST
    What was in your comments to me were numerous displays of how well you have adopted Republican techniques of making discounting statements, misstatements of what people say to change the subject, refusing to respond to the actual comment but making things up and numerous examples of how you love to play the victim.

    Parent
    Victim??? (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 11:04:41 PM EST
    Not me... maybe you have me mixed up with someone else.. but I am ok with that, if it helps.

    Parent
    O.K. let's address the issues (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:51:06 PM EST
    according to your rules.

    Many of have the ability to read what people actually write instead of relying on what other have written about them.

    Did the the ACTUAL NSA DOCUMENTS on PRISM state clearly on their face the words "direct access"? Why, yes it did.

    Did Greenwald qualify in the statement in his article ...

    "that he National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

    The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says."

    Did Greenwald's article clearly state that the providers denied direct access. Yes, it did.

    Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

    In a statement, Google said: "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data."

    Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of Prism or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a program. "If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge," one said.

    Are there conflicting viewpoints on what the documents were implying and whether or not Greenwald should apologize. Why yes, there are.

    See bmaz comments in this thread as well as on emplywheel.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:12:21 PM EST
    Greenwald should apologize to Pearlstein, imo. And, no, I am hardly demanding it.. so stop with that.

    Instead of addressing the content of Pearlstein's criticism of Greenwald attacked Pearlstein's and questioned his allegiances.

    Parent

    How is this different from what you (none / 0) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:22:52 PM EST
    do on a regular basis. squeaky:

    I guess that supporters of Greenwald are so blind to his possibly making a mistake, and a big one, that they go on about plausible deniability..  

    I saw similar stuff around Hillary and Obama..   blind allegiance is stupid, imo.

    Here is the Post that describes the mistake by Greenwald, the one repeated by Ann above.

    Using your criteria, you should apologize to Anne.

    Parent

    Personal Attack Again? (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    How is this different from what you do on a regular basis. squeaky...

    It would be more interesting to discuss the PRISM program, what Greenwald wrote, and what others wrote to dispute that NSA has complete unfettered access to Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple.

    Parent

    Personal attacks? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 05:27:29 PM EST
    How amusing...... Not.

    Once again you turn to crying "personal attacks" rather that discuss the issue at hand.

    Instead of addressing the content of Anne's remark you discounted her comments not once but twice:

    I guess that supporters of Greenwald are so blind to his possibly making a mistake, and a big one, that they go on about plausible deniability..  

    I saw similar stuff around Hillary and Obama..   blind allegiance is stupid, imo.

    When Anne stated:

    I never made any claim that Glenn was right.  I commented on what The Guardian wrote about "direct access" - and offered some possible reasons why Glenn has not changed what he wrote.

    You once again did not address the issue but made the following typical squeaky response:

    And, because Greenwald wrote it, it is what you believe. I got it.

    Once again since you must have missed it the first time, according to your own criteria, you owe Anne an apology.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:36:57 PM EST
    and people trying to make this some type of gotcha moment are simply haters trying to shoot the messenger instead of addressing the real issue, which is the government surveillance.

    Surprising for you to cast such a wide net, both in your assumption about "haters" and the intention being a "gotcha moment"..  

    I, for one am a fan of Greenwald, and apparently Pearlstein thinks his work is terrific as well.

    So BMAZ. as a lawyer, why would the government have to bother with warrants, and why would Google et al. spend money contesting government requests, if all the government has to do is turn PRISM on and get whatever it wants?

    Parent

    because due to the relevant statutes (none / 0) (#40)
    by bmaz on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:27:21 PM EST
    ...there is a difference between telephony content and the type of content accessed via the PRISM program. Warrants are necessary (at least according to the alleged legal theories of the government) for one, but not necessarily for the other. Also, when discussing warrants, it should be noted that in many of these cases under FISA warrants only need be obtained by the rubber stamp FISC after the fact (up to seven days after the intrusive conduct).

    Lastly, did not mean to be dismissive, was kind of in a hurry. But, to me, the "direct access/collection" is simply a red herring.

    Parent

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    I will read more about the direct access/collection issue. From what I have read it is central and not a red herring as it has much bigger implications of collusion.

    And, if by red herring it means that because of this we can all heave a sigh of relief, I do not see that happening, even if it turns out that the servers are only drop boxes. Snowden's whistle blowing cannot be diminished by details of how PRISM works.

    And, given that I do not believe Google, Yahoo, et al. care about my privacy as far as their data mining is concerned, I seriously doubt that they would hand over the crap they have mined on individuals so easily, as that is all they have. That would be like handing over their entire inventory to the government for free.

     

    Parent

    What is not correct? That The Guardian (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    didn't write what it did?  Interesting.

    Apparently, you still have the problem of not thoroughly reading what people are posting, and making sure you understand their comments before launching into the argument you want to have.

    I never made any claim that Glenn was right.  I commented on what The Guardian wrote about "direct access" - and offered some possible reasons why Glenn has not changed what he wrote.

    As for my use of "plausible deniability," here's the Guardian quote:

    The Guardian understands that the NSA approached those companies and asked them to enable a "dropbox" system whereby legally requested data could be copied from their own server out to an NSA-owned system. That has allowed the companies to deny that there is "direct or indirect" NSA access, to deny that there is a "back door" to their systems, and that they only comply with "legal" requests - while not explaining the scope of that access.

    Am I the only one who sees "That has allowed the companies to deny..." and understands that to mean "plausible deniability?"  Or is there a definition of that term with which I am not familiar?

    I don't believe I have taken the position that Glenn is never wrong and is incapable of making mistakes.  I don't know who has, but it seems to me that making such accusations serves little purpose other than to try to win some fantasy argument you're essentially having with yourself.

    I agree that blind allegiance is stupid, but your dropping that into a comment in response to one that didn't pledge allegiance or evidence allegiance or was in any way blind is just the usual squeaky shtick that I'm sure many of us are already tired of even though you've only been back for a couple of weeks.

    Maybe your haste to smack people around should be tempered by a better understanding of what those people are actually stating - but, golly, what would be the fun of honest debate, when you can have the disingenuous, dishonest variety you so clearly prefer?

    Parent

    This Is Not Correct, IMO (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:35:02 PM EST
    The Guardian understands....

    in other words, "we'll give you access, if you'll give us some cover."

    That is the Guardians answer (correction?) to Pearlstein's criticism yet and it is exactly what Greenwald said save for the use of dropbox.  And, because Greenwald wrote it, it is what you believe. I got it.

    It is disputed, certainly not fact.

    Parent

    I read somewhere (none / 0) (#41)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:31:37 PM EST
    that GG (not GW) has not allowed editing at Salon or the Guardian, but he made an exception in this case because of its complex nature. I think this was somewhere in the Guardian.

    Parent
    Haha, Anne, of course, you're right. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:42:59 PM EST
    That's what I get for reading and posting at 4:30 in the morning. I think the Greenwald was processing as GW in my tired medicated brain.

    I'm open to change still, but I think what he released publicly is known by our "enemies" even if he didn't sell it. To me, though, the fact that he didn't and the sacrifices he's made personally would make it really hard for me, if I were a juror, to sentence him as if he had sold the information.

    He's sure made my boring life interesting lately. I feel bad for his family most of all. I could never give up what little family I have in order to inform the world of something we're probably entitled to know. I think my problem is, I think Americans should know, but that's not possible without the world knowing. That's what I'm hung up on. And that bothers me. I feel like George Bush, really evil and disappointed in myself.

    After I went to bed, I planned on coming back and correcting something. GG and the WaPo writer aren't really "mistaken", they could only go by what the graphic said and they wrote what it said, whether the graphic is correct or not. So I'd say it's a misunderstanding if it's wrong, not an error.

    Parent

    Here's the Wapo addition (none / 0) (#7)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:51:56 AM EST
    I'd say it's an addition to the article because to be fair to them, the original article went from two pages to four after they had time to contact the companies. I guess the NSA "servers" are installed at those companies? I'm going to sleep, but I'm going to read later dated articles from the Post to see if they say it differently in another article like the Guardian did.

    (I also checked GW's original article & it's unchanged to match that later article in my post above)

    It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author. In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing "collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations," rather than directly to company servers.


    More Info (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    The core of your argument is this: (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:11:01 PM EST
    'yet nothing leaked so far indicates that this is the case,'

    As Donald Rumsfeld loved saying, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

    Parent

    Absence of evidence (3.00 / 2) (#45)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:05:38 PM EST
    But that's the argument WikiLeaks supporters made: Assange and Manning were not cavalier with people's lives because, look, no one has been harmed (as far as we know).

    Another failure in logic: Leftists often criticize conservatives for fear-mongering when they talk about crime. Why wouldn't the same charge apply to Leftists who talk about our govt listening to every phone call and drones hovering over us?

    Parent

    Because far too many white Americans have .. (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:04:51 PM EST
    SuzieTampa: "Leftists often criticize conservatives for fear-mongering when they talk about crime. Why wouldn't the same charge apply to Leftists who talk about our govt listening to every phone call and drones hovering over us?"

    ... already been scared $H!+less by the right's perpetual demonization of non-Christians and people of color, and have been inexplicably convinced by such demagogy that the federal government's ability to eavesdrop at will is the only thing that's standing between them and the summary imposition of Sharia Law. Ergo, the Left's arguments about government surveillance have been falling on mostly deaf ears.

    It should only be called fear-mongering if it actually works.

    Parent

    Not My Argument (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:18:05 PM EST
    But it makes a lot of sense.

    Why would Google, Yahoo et al spend money on lawyers in suits against the government if the government can just turn on their PRISM and have anything that Google et al. owns, or has sitting in its company files.

    Plausible deniability?  That is really absurd.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:20:10 PM EST
    Why would the Government even bother with NSA letters and other requests for information when it can just reach in and get whatever it wants whenever it wants.

    Also plausible deniability?

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#52)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:22:03 PM EST
    And why would the President want the NSA to eavesdrop on him?

    Snowden: "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal e-mail."

    Parent

    Thanks, Squeaky, for the links (none / 0) (#55)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:26:46 PM EST
    (That's all.)

    Parent
    My Pleasure! (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 05:32:35 PM EST
    I've read those. Thanks, Squeaky. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:47:43 PM EST
    Vanity Fair has had a few good articles, too. At least I hope I can believe what they wrote.

    First, the much-ballyhooed PRISM program is not a program and not a secret, and anyone who says it is should not be trusted because they don't know what they're talking about. PRISM is the name for the government computer system that is used to handle the foreign-intelligence data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

    I think he "minimizes" the "minimization" of Americans' records collected accidentally, though. I've been entertained for two weeks from some huge arguments on his (Eichenwald's)twitter. He's taken on all comers, including Greenwald & now Sybel Edmonds about this issue. It's entertaining even if they're both right.

    This one about PRISM and this one mostly about phones.

    Because he thinks the programs are effective and legal, I read it a little skeptically, but it's informative. I haven't read his book, but I read a blog he wrote that was the most blistering I've ever read regarding the Republicans lying and knowing it and not caring in the past year's election.

    Parent

    Thanks For the Links Theresa (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 11:20:51 PM EST
    Because he thinks the programs are effective and legal, I read it a little skeptically, but it's informative.

    yes, I had the same take.

    interesting how the tone of something can make one skeptical..

    Parent

    Yes, it is. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 12:18:05 AM EST
    Squeaky, I agree with you about Greenwald's error, but I'm in the huge minority here on Snowden. It's the China stuff I can't get past. The South China Morning Post has a new article about things he told them. That's just wrong to me. Link to new article

    Like I told Anne, I feel like a failure as a Democrat. Maybe I'm a hardcore liberal but not a civil libertarian? I'm having an identity crisis. I believe in decriminalizing all drugs because it's not hurting anyone but someone who might choose to take too many, so that's libertarian, right?

    I think if he'd left the foreigners have the right to know this stuff, too, not just Americans out, I would be behind him 100%. China is doing this stuff do us. I guess he thinks we should just let that go.

    Sorry to whine. I'm honestly struggling with myself over this one and going back and forth.

    Parent

    There really is no way for Snowden to make (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 01:25:35 AM EST
    this information public to only Americans. The media is global. Information is global. And I doubt the Chinese were surprised by anything they may have learned from Snowden's interview.

    I don't understand this sentence, Teresa:

    I guess he thinks we should just let that go.

    Maybe I've missed it, but has Snowden said that this kind of spying is only wrong if the U.S. does it? I think he is revealing what the NSA is doing because that is what he knows, not because he thinks the Chinese are somehow innocent. He seems to be trying to expose the massive scope of the NSA programs, to make people aware that the United States and its cronies like Great Britain consider everyone in the world fair game for its digital spying. Really everyone.

    And for me, I do think that it isn't just Americans who have a right to know this. I want to know about every program by every government that is spying on me, my communications, my comings and goings, etc. China, Russia, Great Britain, India, any and all of them that are snooping in my private personal business, I want to know.

    Also, i think that libertarian and civil libertarian are not the same thing.

    A civil libertarian :

    having or showing active concern for protection of civil liberties protected by law.
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    A libertarian:

    noun
    1.
    a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.


    Parent
    Casey (none / 0) (#95)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 04:18:25 AM EST
    Your first question is just me putting thoughts in his head. That's my struggle, not his. Sorry.

    I guess I'm a liberal and somewhat Libertarian. For instance, I think the government does belong in our gun laws, but not in our drug laws except for very very strong medical drugs, like for cancer level pain. I guess I pick and choose what I believe. I should stick with plan old liberal. :)

    Parent

    Life isn't all one way or the other (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:09:49 AM EST
    Teresa: While some struggle over what we truly believe periodically is something (I think) that is very beneficial, as well as intellectually honest, please recognize that not falling into the trap of "If I'm this, then I can only see or regard an issue in one, limited way" is growth...not a failing.  There is no moral nor intellectual requirement that one can only adhere to one philosophy, one unchanging "ism."  

    Many people, and clearly including myself, moved from full or partial sympathy for this particular leaker in light of the reports as to his excursion to China (read: Hong Kong -- tho, as some note, he would not have been allowed to leave per the foreign policy aspects of the China-Hong Kong arrangement; and, his leaving actually makes it easier in terms of time & effort for the governments involved or that would have been involved in a drawn out extradition process.)  I suspect that the run to Russia and maybe Venezuela now won't be greeted with joy/appreciation by most in our country either.

    I wish you good will in your internal debate.

    Parent

    China probably already knew.... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 04:43:37 AM EST
    ...as did a bunch of other governments that actively spy on us, so I doubt any of this is news to any of them.

    It was only the US citizenry being kept in the dark.

    Parent

    Yep, I'd agree with that for sure. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:22:31 AM EST
    Label (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 08:32:55 AM EST
    I think that labels are what others put on you.. Also, seems to me that the good old fashioned term Liberal is being reclaimed by aliens. Things change, best to follow what you believe is right and stick with it, but with an open mind. Leave the labels for others.. you appear to know what you believe in, it just does not fit the pre-packaging.

    As for Snowden, I can relate with you being in the minority, but on this issue, I believe he has done the right thing. He had planned to release the China phone hacking, as leverage after getting charged by the US. Smart move for him, to throw China a bone, imo, considering his position.

    And the info, seems to me rather benign, in terms of US security risk, as it mostly affects chinese people. And, I do not think that the chinese people are shocked, considering their government. And I doubt it will thwart the US ability to spy on the Chinese.

    Parent

    Ah, Squeaky, thanks. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:37:36 AM EST
    You made me feel better about myself, and trust me, that's hard to do. I know that I'm as liberal as it gets, especially on social issues and women's issues and the rights of the accused or abused. I guess on the free from government deal it depends on drugs vs guns, etc.

    Thank you. I've checked out of politics for several years and this issue brought me back. I've thought about sticking my nose back in my Kindle and forgetting it. I think it interests me the way a suspense novel would and that's probably a sad thing to say.

    Parent

    Oh, unless the Hong Kong press (none / 0) (#105)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:42:19 AM EST
    is lying, which I just realized is entirely possible, he gave them this information on June 12 during the interview, but they didn't write about it until they had more clarification.

    Reading what you wrote makes me question that now. He may have used it as leverage just for this. I would have probably done the same in his shoes, though, I wouldn't have been in his shoes as you know.

    If I had to bet, I'd bet you're right.

    Parent

    NSA leaks in 1960 (none / 0) (#13)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:53:57 AM EST
    link

    "They were "self-confessed" traitors"
    -President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    "They "ought to be shot,"
    -President Harry Truman

    Eisenhower (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    His warning speech about the Military Industrial Complex could easily and logically be argued to be the highest level leak in the history of leaks. Don't you think that was the entire POINT of that speech? Hello?  Are these working?  "Hey, American people, the truth is being kept from you, and I'm the hero General President here to try to warn you."

    The ridiculous irony is too rich. And Ike's inability to recognize his own hypocrisy, if indeed he were to be unable to do so were he alive, would certainly be no first in human foibles.

    And Truman? Are you serious? Well then, how about this quote?  "I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman."

    And we should trust Truman's judgement about anything, because...?

    Parent

    wrong then, wrong now (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    some things never change.

    Parent
    Eisenhower's Jan. 1961 farewell address ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    ... disclosed no secrets. He merely pointed out the then-baby elephant that was already taking up a third of the living room, and implored us to turn off My Three Sons and The Ed Sullivan Show and start paying closer attention to what was happening right before our eyes.

    And FCC Chairman Newton Minnow provided a perfect bookend two months later when he chastised the National Association of Broadcasters at their March '61 convention, calling network television "a vast wasteland" and telling them that they needed to do a much better job of serving the public interest.

    I'd say both those guys were pretty prescient in their respective observations, and knew our inherent collective weakness. Now, please pass the Cheetos, and let's see when that Dodger game starts this afternoon.
    ;-D

    How's the summertime treating you?

    Parent

    Where's Hillary? (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:03:50 PM EST
    Boehner called Snowden a Traitor and predictably from the near miss: bomb bomb bomb McCain
    "I don't want to hear about extradition or rendition or any of that nonsense. This man is a traitor and if we don't get him within 24 hours I say we need to start bombing the hell out of Hong Kong.

    Glenn Beck, the conservative media mogul, had the exact opposite opinion about PRISM. On his Twitter account, Beck praised Snowden, calling him a "real hero."...

    Bill O'Reilly is standing with Snowden as well. On the O'Reilly Factor he called for the federal government to close the program all together. "You can't just seize everything and say you're doing so and try to root out terrorism ... This PRISM program should be shut down immediately."...

    [Rand] Paul told Piers Morgan, "I think the president ought to send him a thank you letter, because the president ran on transparency, and we're getting a lot of transparency now. So, finally we're getting the president to fulfill his promise about transparency."

    link

    Hillary?

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:32:41 PM EST
    has been courting Obama since she accepted the fact that she wasn't going to get the Democratic nomination in 2008.

    She has endorsed every move he makes.

    Then, in 2016 she will campaign, I suppose, on "change".


    Parent

    Hillary is more conservative than I would like (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:28:56 PM EST
    but why would "we" (the royal we?) be waiting for Hillary at this point in time. She is not currently running for office nor does she currently have any power (other than to muddy the waters) to change the direction the Obama administration is taking regarding civil liberties or in charging Snowden with espionage.

    There is plenty of time to get her opinion on these issues, if she does decide to run in 2016. Why muddy the waters on an important issue even more at this point in time?  

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#46)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:06:15 PM EST
    that a discussion of Hillary is out of place in this blog.

    She has taken no public position on this issue, to my knowledge.

                   ------


    Parent

    And "hope" (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:37:12 PM EST
    Don't forget "hope."

    Parent
    It all makes sense and becomes perfectly clear (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:12:07 PM EST
    when looked at from the proper perspective.

    Parent
    FYI, the quote from John McCain (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    is from the Daily Current. From wikipedia:

    The Daily Currant is an American satirical news blog that focuses on politics, technology, and entertainment.[1] A number of its satirical stories have been taken for true news reports by press and members of the public.


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:23:53 PM EST
    OK so he did not really say that, he only said that Snowden's act is treasonous..

    He is a walking satire though.

    The politicians are looking hard at the polls

    We are waiting for Hillary.

    Parent

    If (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    you're waiting for Hillary, my guess is that you're in for a very very very long wait.

    I think she learned at the feet of the master, Obama:

    Do not take a position on controversial issues.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:18:59 PM EST
    She is going to have to take a position. This is too big for her to avoid..

    In any case the point really was that the GOP are splitting up and destroying themselves over this even more than the tea parties.

    The only one who is going to benefit here is Hillary in 2016.

    She will be a shoe in.

    Parent

    We'll see. (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 05:06:25 PM EST
    I don't think she will take a position.

    We'll see.

    I've seen favorites and shoe-ins disappear suddenly - someone emerges from "nowhere" to take the primaries and the nomination.

    Carter was one.
    Clinton was one.
    Obama was another.

    I will acknowledge that there is no one I can see on the horizon to challenge Hillary for the nomination in 2016.  But the nomination is years away. We'll see.

    Then, the question is: Hillary is a shoe in for what? Supposing she wins everything and is elected president? Then what? What does she stand for anymore? I haven't the remotest idea.

    Parent

    Mainstream Democratic Party (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 05:30:41 PM EST
    What does she stand for anymore? I haven't the remotest idea.

    Pretty predictable, imo, can't imagine much different than what we have now... but miles better than the GOP.. well maybe quarter miles.

    this is an indication of the US voters:

    By 54%-38%, those surveyed say he [Snowden] should be prosecuted. Most Americans say the programs have helped prevent terrorist attacks, by 53%-41%...

    There is an almost even split on the most fundamental question. By 48%-47%, Americans divide over whether they approve or disapprove of the programs as part of the effort to fight terrorism. By another narrow margin, 49%-44%, they say the release of classified information serves rather than harms the public interest.

    link

    we may never recover from 9/11

    Parent

    That's it!!! (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:56:50 PM EST
    You, Squeaky; yes, you, and, don't try to deny it. You did the one deed no one in this debate dared do. You crossed the line, pal

    Glenn Beck?? You invoked his name? You gave him a platform, and, now, standing. I don't know what torment your inner demons suffered during your absence from TL, but, what I do know is that you've accomplished the one thing every scientist in history has agreed upon, the one thing that's truly impossible; impossible like perpetual motion impossible; impossible like waiting for your imbroglio with MO to end...............

    You've made me miss jimakaPPJ.

    Parent

    Now, you are (none / 0) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:52:08 PM EST
    entertaining. (Not snark)

    Parent
    I swear, (none / 0) (#94)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 02:02:49 AM EST
    It was Ali/Frazier!

    (I was hiding under the blanket)

    Parent

    Defense Won Frye Ruling (none / 0) (#19)
    by Michael Masinter on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:12:43 PM EST
    The judge barred both prosecution voice ID experts from testifying, ruling their testimony did not meet the Frye standard.

    Eric Fanning (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:12:53 PM EST
    takes over as Acting Secretary of the Air Force.

    Fanning was nominated by Obama and confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate as Under Secretary of the Air Force on April 18, 2013. He began to serve in the additional role of Acting Secretary of the Air Force yesterday when Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, retired.

    Fanning is responsible for the affairs of the Department of the Air Force, including organizing, training, and equipping the 333,000 men and women on active duty, the 178,000 members of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, and 182,000 civilian employees. He also oversees the Air Force's annual budget of $110 billion.

    This would have never happened if McCain or Romney had won. Eric Fanning is openly gay.

    Progress

    Just curious... (none / 0) (#47)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:09:04 PM EST
    Forgetting for the moment his sexual orientation, is Fanning politically someone who would be acceptable to the likes of McCain or Romney?

    My guess: Yes.


    Parent

    Your guess would likely be wrong (none / 0) (#72)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 05:53:08 PM EST
    But I do know he's someone you wouldn't like.

    Parent
    Why (none / 0) (#83)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:44:51 PM EST
    wouldn't I like him?

    Parent
    Hey, oculus!!! (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:11:10 PM EST
    Can you please do something about those Padres of yours? They were supposed to totally suck this season, and -- well, just look at them.

    Don't make me have to come down to San Diego personally, for the sole purpose of reminding them that their obligatory status as the perennial NL West doormat isn't to be treated so cavalierly ...

    ;-P

    Thanks for the news! I did learn the (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:19:18 PM EST
    Pads won 5 straight. Did not know they were at .500. Amazing. I 've been in German soccer playoff territory.

    Parent
    At any given moment, isn't someone ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:12:21 PM EST
    ... engaged in soccer playoffs somewhere in Europe?
    ;-D

    Parent
    This seemed to be a bigger deal (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:41:20 PM EST
    than usual.

    Link

    Parent

    Just so you know that I'm not ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 07:34:58 PM EST
    ... a complete rube, I've been watching the FIFA Confederation Cup competition in Brazil. The home team, of course, looks awesome as always -- but surprisingly, so does Uruguay.

    Should be a great World Cup tournament next year.

    Parent

    Interesting, but I don't think Special Forces (none / 0) (#91)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 01:02:33 AM EST
    has any women, former or current. Earlier this week the Pentagon announced that sometime in the not to distant future women will start being allowed in Special Forces. Just not now.

    So, the book would appear to be an actual work of fiction. And not in violation of any law. IMO, of course. Do not mistake this for any sort of legal advice.

    Wow, I was checking the Hong Kong (none / 0) (#96)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 04:20:16 AM EST
    SCMP again, & they have a huge headline that Snowden is on a plane to Moscow but that's not his final destination.

    Interesting, because I read he wouldn't be able to fly out of Hong Kong, even on a private plane without the government stopping him, unless they ignored our warrant. I guess we have our answer!

    In realpolitik (none / 0) (#107)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:21:18 AM EST
    of the China-Hong Kong two systems/one country, Snowden's departure undoubtedly accorded with main China's intent.  The "embarrassing" info about our counterspying had been published both in HK and in Beijing's largest paper ... extradition proceedings typically take many months in dicey situations ... and, after our earlier poke at China's cyber-spying and our exposure as to monitoring China's communications, now the two countries can resume "normal" relations.

    Russia, then Venezuela?  Excuse me, but this is what the word "irony" must be made for & should be used as a dictionary example.

    Parent

    Irony, indeed, Christine. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    Thank you for the advice up above. It's always been a big fault of mine - wanting to fit into what I think I'm supposed to think or feel. Then I really struggle when I feel like I'm not seeing things the same way a majority of people whose opinions matter to me are seeing them.

    That's a roundabout sentence or two. I'm sure you know what I'm trying to say, though.

    Parent

    Yes, I do understand (none / 0) (#114)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 03:51:06 PM EST
    Ralph Waldo Emerson advised that "Whosoever would be a man would be a nonconformist."  (Tho--in this century--the progressive Emerson would surely say "man or woman.")

    Parent
    I think if Emerson were living in this century, (none / 0) (#115)
    by shoephone on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:15:36 PM EST
    he would have left the U.S for Canada ages ago. Or, on second thought, maybe the Mexican Sonora, since he had TB and really needed a warmer drier climate. If he'd stayed in the U.S. in current times, he would have been an OWS protester, and been tased and thrown in jail, probably indefinitely, without charges being filed.

    Parent
    Which OWS protester has (3.80 / 5) (#121)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:56:19 PM EST
    been thrown in jail indefintely wihtout ever being charged?

    Look, there are real issues about NSA over reach.....But all this over-the-top hyperbole ruins the chance at a real discussion of revising the FISA statute.

    Parent

    Katherine Olejnik and Matt Duran (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:58:58 AM EST
    First, let me just say that I'm stunned you couldn't tell I was merely riffing off of Christine's comment about Emerson, his philosophy, and how he would rephrase the quote for the 21st century, by offering my own take on what would transpire, were Emerson alive today.

    However, my allusion to people being held without charges is in reference to Katherine Olejnik and Matt Duran, who were taken in and held for questioning after the government's July 2012 raids of the homes of Occupy protesters. Olejnik and Duran are self-described anarchists -- and do not for one moment try to paint me as an anarchist sympathizer, because I am not. The point of this is that they were questioned about people they may (or may not) know that the police thought were responsible for breaking windows at the Federal Building in Seattle during the Occupy May Day protests last year. Neither Olejnik nor Duran were at the May Day events, in fact Olejnik was in Olympia, working at her waitressing job that day. They didn't have any information about the events on May Day, but they refused to answer questions about other people, who those people hang out with, etc. They were called before a grand jury and still refused to testify.

    They were held in solitary confinement for two months at the detention facility near Sea-Tac airport, then jailed with the rest of the incarcerated population. They were never charged with any crime. After five months, the judge finally released them.

    I don't have anything good to say about the anarchist philosophy, but I also don't believe people who have not committed any crimes should be held for five months without charges, part of the time in solitary confinement. Regardless of their philosophical stripe. And this entire incident started because of some broken windows! It's insane. And this is where we have come to.

    So, I'm not making it up. I'm not resorting to hyperbole. It happened. And it could easily happen again. Of that much, I am certain.

    Brendan Kiley of Seattle's newspaper, The Stranger, covered the story extensively.

    Parent

    Mexico is not a safer place (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:21:24 PM EST
    than the U.S.

    Rule of law?  No searches except those authorized by a court upon a factual showing of need?.... Sure

    Parent

    Nope, it's not safer (none / 0) (#119)
    by shoephone on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:27:55 PM EST
    and yet... I still know a few people moving there from the Northwest, this year. Anyway, I was being facetious about Mexico. I think he would have left for Canada, despite his health problems.

    Parent
    OK ... the obvious retort (3.50 / 4) (#122)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 06:35:00 PM EST
    Yep ... all those other free & open places, governments.  Are you thinking about the Snowden Tour of "Free & Open" China, Russia, Venezuela, & Ecuador!  Y'know, MKS makes a good point about wanting a serious conversation....  At this point, the whole thing is getting hard to take seriously...what's next, North Korea.

    Parent
    Christinep (none / 0) (#123)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 06:41:30 PM EST
    I posted how Julian Assange has become a propaganda tool for Putin's regime in another thread. Please read it and let us know your thoughts. I believe that Snowden if going to follow in Assange's footstep since Russia and Wikileaks are organizing his itinerary though a number of countries with despotic regimes.

    Parent
    Get a grip (none / 0) (#133)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 02:09:22 AM EST
    I was merely riffing off your comment about Emerson.

    The fact is, a number of you DON'T want a serious conversation, you only want the conversation where you get to make diversions and focus on what traitors Snowden or Greenwald are (gasp!) rather than on the central issue of whether the spying is even constitutional.

    Round and around and around we go.

    Parent

    The great journalist Ambrose Bierce ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 08:32:46 PM EST
    ... left for Mexico 100 years ago, and look what happened to him. Or more correctly, look at all those people who've ever since tried to figure out whatever happened to him.

    Bierce's last words were written in a letter to a friend on December 26, 1913, and sent from the city of Chihuahua: "As to me, I leave here tomorrow for an unknown destination."

    And so he did.

    Parent

    Even Markos thinks (none / 0) (#111)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 02:10:25 PM EST
    link

    that some liberals are like Tea Partiers. I said exactly the same thing and had some bristling...
    Ha Ha Ha Ha....

    "Moulitsas summed up the differing views among liberals after the revelations of the NSA surveillance program.

    "There are those who think Obama can do no wrong and those who think he's a sellout," Moulitsas said. "It's either - `I trust Obama' or `I told you Obama is terrible.' I don't think it changed anybody's opinion about it. ... The notion that it's one or the other is hyper simplistic."

    And he likened the hardest-line liberals to the Tea Party.

    "There are some people who won't ever be happy," Moulitsas said. "Dennis Kucinich could be elected, and they won't be happy. Their perception of what should happen isn't realistic. Those people are aligned with - have an ideological rigidity very similar to the Tea Party movement." "

    That's because Markos isn't a liberal. (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 02:39:34 PM EST
    His brand of realism is much like Obama's and that's part of the problem.

    And his idea of what the "eithers" are work well for the argument he wants to make, but unfortunately, the universe of Democrats doesn't fit neatly into the only two options he's offering.

    Parent

    Markos has never been a liberal (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by shoephone on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:17:58 PM EST
    and has been tolerant of liberals. Funny how a lot of people active in the blogosphere still don't know that.

    Parent
    Speaking for myself only, ... (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 07:50:49 PM EST
    ... I wrote off Mr. Moulitsas five years ago for all the obvious reasons which many of us have already discussed both at length and ad nauseum since those long-ago Democratic primaries. As a guy raised by a single mother, misogyny is a really big turn off. I just don't get it, nor do I ever want to.

    (Sorry, Jeralyn - I know the guy's a friend of yours.)

    All the Kosbots said back then that I would soon miss them and be back, but I'm happy to say that I haven't missed DKos at all, and that even BTD's posts over there aren't going to tempt me to return. Honestly, I much more prefer the company and conversation here.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Show me anything on "the left..." (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Dadler on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 07:08:40 PM EST
    ...that even comes close to what the Tea Party is either in size, scope or pure irrationality. When was the last time gun-toting lefties showed up at an Obama speech to make "a point"?  When was the last time "lefties" publicly displayed the kind of ignorance about, say, Social Security being a government program that Tea Partiers have? Or had rallies with signs so obviously racist?

    There is ZERO organized "left" in this country of any important size, there hasn't been for a sixty years at least. From the formation of labor unions until their peak was probably it for left power. And that is a long time ago. Since then, mostly a conservative trend in this nation, which means, logically, they are actually vastly more entrenched and establishment in numbers and power than any "left" could be. This spurious comparison is a cop-out of cowardly proportions, ignoring issues in favor of empty labels.

    Pfft.


    Parent

    and, I second your (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 03:31:19 AM EST
    Pfft.

    Parent
    errata: has been INtolerant of liberals (none / 0) (#117)
    by shoephone on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:18:42 PM EST


    Charlie Pierce nails it today, (none / 0) (#120)
    by shoephone on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:50:00 PM EST
    using his inimitable humor as the vehicle.

    Sooner or later, we're all going to start paying more attention to the folks at McClatchy than we do to the kidz at Tiger Beat On The Potomac. It was some of them who kept warning us that the Bush administration case for going to war in Iraq was shot through with moonshine and bullshit, but the courtier press got itself dazzled by mushroom clouds, aluminum tubes, African uranium, and Colin Powell, aka The Most Overrated Man In The World, and off to war we went. Now, they've come out with a gigantic story revealing, in detail, that the Obama administration is the most fertile environment for paranoids since the Nixon people first cut a check to Egil Krogh.

    <snip>

    You want "Nixonian"? This, right here, this is Nixonian, if Nixon had grown up in East Germany. You've got the entire federal bureaucracy looking for signs of "high-risk persons or behaviors" the way Nixon sent Fred Malek out to count the Jews. You've got created within the entire federal bureaucracy a culture of spies and informers, which will inevitably breed fear and deceit and countless acts of interoffice treachery. (Don't like your boss at the Bureau Of Land Management? Hmm, he looks like a high-risk person. Tell someone.) And this is the clincher.

    Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States," says a June 1, 2012, Defense Department strategy for the program that was obtained by McClatchy.

    And, out in Yorba Linda, there is a dark stirring deep in the earth, and a faint chuckling is heard in the midnight breeze.

    Just read the whole thing, which I won't post here, due to copyright issues of over-quoting.

    This thread is closing (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 04:01:41 AM EST
    and murder plots against U.S. Officials are not something that should be discussed, at least not here.