43 votes

New Greenwald Article: "On Partisanship, Propaganda and PRISM"

(Another one, just posted here.) New this morning from The Guardian:

I haven't been able to write this week here because I've been participating in the debate over the fallout from last week's NSA stories, and because we are very busy working on and writing the next series of stories that will begin appearing very shortly. I did, though, want to note a few points, and particularly highlight what Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez said after Congress on Wednesday was given a classified briefing by NSA officials on the agency's previously secret surveillance activities:

"What we learned in there is significantly more than what is out in the media today. . . . I can't speak to what we learned in there, and I don't know if there are other leaks, if there's more information somewhere, if somebody else is going to step up, but I will tell you that I believe it's the tip of the iceberg . . . . I think it's just broader than most people even realize, and I think that's, in one way, what astounded most of us, too."

The Congresswoman is absolutely right: what we have reported thus far is merely "the tip of the iceberg" of what the NSA is doing in spying on Americans and the world. She's also right that when it comes to NSA spying, "there is significantly more than what is out in the media today", and that's exactly what we're working to rectify.

But just consider what she's saying: as a member of Congress, she had no idea how invasive and vast the NSA's surveillance activities are. Sen. Jon Tester, who is a member of the Homeland Security Committee, said the same thing, telling MSNBC about the disclosures that "I don't see how that compromises the security of this country whatsoever" and adding: "quite frankly, it helps people like me become aware of a situation that I wasn't aware of before because I don't sit on that Intelligence Committee."

How can anyone think that it's remotely healthy in a democracy to have the NSA building a massive spying apparatus about which even members of Congress, including Senators on the Homeland Security Committee, are totally ignorant and find "astounding" when they learn of them? How can anyone claim with a straight face that...

Read it in full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-part...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
fireant's picture

Knowing how Alinskyites work,

and knowing they are positioned throughout government bureaucracies, it is inevitable for all this information at their fingertips to have been used to blackmail, coax, and bribe political opposition into impotency. Once a clear case of blackmail is brought forward, this issue will truly be blown wide open, and sleepy Americans will be able to grasp it's magnitude.
This is a very dangerous game for those who are playing it. I pray for their safety, and hope indeed, specific revelations are forthcoming.

Undo what Wilson did

The depth of love

The depth of love I have for Greenwald on this issue underlines how ridiculous it is when people say Christians hate gays. Ha. I love this guy and I'm the biggest Bible thumper you know! So to Glenn, I'd like to say a rousing, "You go girl!"

you know, if was anyone else

you know, if was anyone else saying this, i'd consider that they are just a blowhard with no substance, wondering if their "tip of the iceberg" is different from my "tip of the iceberg" ......but when greenwald says it........it more of a hope, then anything

Come on glenn, give us something to sing about :)

Half hour ago, in response to

Half hour ago, in response to the urging for more he tweeted:

I'm on pins and needles too... But they're coming "shortly."

Which isn't soon enough!

Wow, with that many

Wow, with that many gramamatical errors im surprised you understood what i meant to say

Note to self: Have.to.proofread.better :)

But i digress,

Im also on my tippy tip toes too :D

Glenn needs to get over his

Glenn needs to get over his disillusionment of the "left" . It's a distraction to his focus. A "high five" to the true opposition [ US ] would give us more credibility to those pseudo liberals on the fence, and hopefully enable a joining of forces that will be needed to conquer this beast.

It's not a "distraction to

It's not a "distraction to his focus"; indeed it's been his focus, and for a very long time. He presses to get the left to wake up to its blind partisan loyalty, and to favor principle over party.

In short, he presses the left in the same manner libertarians press the right.


I think he's just addressing the paradigm shift that has occurred, or more accurately supposedly occurred. As we all know the left is just as power hungry, war hungry and monstrous as the right. I think he's doing a great service, helping people of any conscience at all separate themselves from the "party" or "side" that holds sway in their minds. Once they realize that their "side" are not the good guys, but that no "side" is to be trusted, then we can get on with remaking this country without those ridiculous sides, respecting our laws, our constitution and each other.

LittleWing's picture

Tip of the Iceberg

Certainly many already knew a lot of these abuses, for instance, Senators Carl Levin and Tom Coburn have known the extent, the risks and dangers per their own report:

United States Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 2012

2007 ACLU report' Whats Wrong With Fusion Centers?'
and 2008 Update Report

Article from 2009----(The centers are set up to avoid FOIA)

U.S. Intelligence Budget: $75 Billion, 200,000 Operatives. Fusion Centers Will Have Access to Classified Military Intelligence


As the American Civil Liberties Union documented in their 2007 and 2008 reports on fusion center abuses, one motivation is precisely to subvert oversight laws which do not apply to private mercenary contractors.

...since 9/11 "the Central Intelligence Agency has been spending 50 to 60 percent of its budget on for-profit contractors, or about $2.5 billion a year, and its number of contract employees now exceeds the agency's full-time workforce of 17,500."

Indeed, Shorrock learned that "no less than 70 percent of the nation's intelligence budget was being spent on contracts." However, the sharp spike in intelligence outsourcing to well-heeled security corporations comes with very little in the way of effective oversight.

The House Intelligence Committee reported in 2007 that the Bush, and now, the Obama administrations have failed to develop a "clear definition of what functions are 'inherently governmental';" meaning in practice, that much in the way of systematic abuses can be concealed behind veils of "proprietary commercial information."


If Wars Can Be Started by Lies, They Can Be Stopped By Truth.

LittleWing's picture

Digital Blackwater: Meet the contractors analyzing your data

By Tim Shorrock

Private companies are getting rich probing your personal information for the government. Call it Digital Blackwater

Amid the torrent of stories about the shocking new revelations about the National Security Agency, few have bothered to ask a central question. Who’s actually doing the work of analyzing all the data, metadata and personal information pouring into the agency from Verizon and nine key Internet service providers for its ever-expanding surveillance of American citizens?

Well, on Sunday we got part of the answer: Booz Allen Hamilton. In a stunning development in the NSA saga, Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald revealed that the source for his blockbuster stories on the NSA is Edward Snowden, “a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.” Snowden, it turns out, has been working at NSA for the last four years as a contract employee, including stints for Booz and the computer-services firm Dell.

The revelation is not that surprising. With about 70 percent of our national intelligence budgets being spent on the private sector – a discovery I made in 2007 and first reported in Salon – contractors have become essential to the spying and surveillance operations of the NSA.

From Narus, the Israeli-born Boeing subsidiary that makes NSA’s high-speed interception software, to CSC, the “systems integrator” that runs NSA’s internal IT system, defense and intelligence, contractors are making millions of dollars selling technology and services that help the world’s largest surveillance system spy on you. If the 70 percent figure is applied to the NSA’s estimated budget of $8 billion a year (the largest in the intelligence community), NSA contracting could reach as high as $6 billion every year.

But it’s probably much more than that.

Very Informative Full Article ( also read the reports in my above post! )

If Wars Can Be Started by Lies, They Can Be Stopped By Truth.

Greenwald is definitely the hero of 2013

He is not only awakening so many, but he's laying waste to the establishments grip over our realities.

Cyril's picture



"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


Shared on Twitter.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Michael Nystrom's picture

Wow. Incredible.

A breathtaking piece of work. All of it.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Make sure you check out the

Make sure you check out the linked Jay Rosen piece too; it offers a great rebuttal to the holier-than-thou journalists who feign impartiality/objectivity and say Greenwald isn't a journalist because he actually expresses his opinion.

Journalists are also people

Journalists are also people and they naturally have a point of view, however If the journalists opinions overshadow the story they are reporting, they become less of a journalist and more of an advocate. There is a distinction and it appears Greenwald may be blurring that necessary distinction. After all, I never like it when a Brian Williams or other "reporter" hauls water for a popular political figure.

however If the journalists

however If the journalists opinions overshadow the story they are reporting, they become less of a journalist and more of an advocate

That's precisely the point; this is an entirely subjective evaluation which one is only able to make if the journalist's bias is known. GG's biases are all on his sleeve. Reporters hiding behind a fake objectivity may slant their story but it is much harder to perceive because of their feigned impartiality; they are more subtle and deceptive about how they influence.

That has been the lesson we've all learned well from MSM, and which Jan Helfeld teaches us every time he interviews a talking head who pretends not to have an opinion even as they peddle shit for truth wrapped in objective reporting on their shows.

Would you concede that a

Would you concede that a journalist gains credibility along with demonstrated impartiality? I'd appreciate his reporting more if he simply stated the facts, which fall overwhelmingly in the 4th Amendment camp. The bias and partisanship spewing from the mouths of Fox talking heads and politicians is damning and clearly shows their lack of integrity. I see no reason for Greenwald to play the role of partisan liberty advocate as a reporter. Otherwise, he's not "reporting", he's providing an editorial slant (aka commentary)... which is completely fine, but it's not reporting, and it could also conceivably jeopardize his protections as a journalist if he is charged as a co-conspirator.

Would you concede that a

Would you concede that a journalist gains credibility along with demonstrated impartiality?

Oh sure, of course (the impossibility of true impartiality on most of the issues nothwithstanding). I mean I'm not discounting the ability of the "Politics: none" approach, as Professor Rosen calls it, to convey important information or to establish credibility. There's a big market for it for a reason, and it's just a matter of preference, really. That's why I think Rosen's piece is a good read, because it credibly articulates the benefits and drawbacks of each approach. I just personally - and strongly - prefer the "Politics: some" approach because I think it's more forthright and offers the reader an ability to better judge the facts knowing the bias of the source presenting them, versus the "objective" reporter who couches his bias in euphemisms, omissions and other methods which are far more difficult to discern and therefore make judging the information presented a far more challenging affair.

Just my own opinion.

You're absolutely right about

You're absolutely right about reporters with hidden biases. They're a dime a dozen.

The point is

this IS remotely healthy in a democracy. The United States is a republic. It's time we the people, the citizens of this country, work to restore our republic.

Very true uastudy, however

its my understanding that while our country is a constitutional republic, the corporate federal government is a democratic institution. Its all very confusing (on purpose I'm sure) but I think its entirely possible that our presidents and representatives are swearing an oath to the constitution of the CORPORATION of the United States of America and not the organic Constitution for the united states of America. Maybe they swear an oath to both. If so anytime they talk or make statements about "the constitution", unless we know to which constitution they are referring to...we can be easily misled.

Its another one of those qestions that no MSM reporter EVER asks when the president or any other offical speaks of our "democracy". WHY do they constantly refer to democracy when we live in a republic? Anyone ever heard an answer to that question? If so, share with me the answer that was given.


To quote Hillary:

What difference, now, does it make? Either many of the 330 million people who live on US soil stand up to the bullies, or we succumb to the bullies.

I've already declared my intentions to government officials that I'm not going to participate in Obamacare. If the government wants to put me in jail, so be it. I also refuse to obtain an RFID card. I've drawn my line in the sand.

If people didn't file their income taxes one year, what's the government going to do? Drone us? I'm older, so I get together with older people and we figure we're the only generation who can stop this. I love my country, I love my family. If my generation is not willing to reject the socialism being placed upon us, who can, who will?