36 votes

Glen Greenwald vs. Michael Hayden (former NSA and CIA head) surveillance debate.

This is good weekend watching if any of you missed it last week. I did somehow. Skip to 6:58 for the first opening statement.

Alexis Ohanian and Alan Dershowitz also joined in the debate.

Vote results: http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/state-surveillance

Pre-Debate Results
33% Pro
46% Con
21% Undecided

Post-Debate Results
41% Pro
59% Con
Con wins with 13% vote gain.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Dershowitz is giving Hayden indigesgtion here.

He keeps saying, "we have too much surveillance, but.."

In his closing he says (paraphrased), "who knows how many liberties those bastards will strip from us if another 9-11 happens!"

I expected Hayden to shush him and say, "Stop helping!"

Hayden was very effective here. I couldn't imagine anyone still standing after going toe-to-toe with GG, but he didn't give much ground. He just kept describing GG's argument as fanciful, and describing the NSA process in nice, benign ways. His fluency with the terms and data issues helped him do it well.

Ironically, he would never have described it in any way, let alone with so much detail, without the ongoing debate and discussion forced primarily by Edward and Glen.

Keep sticking it to them, Glen. You da man!

I'm voting for Peace.

Loved listening to this!

Loved listening to this!

You Could Substitute Gun Rights For Privacy Rights

And the arguments still hold.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Opinions are mixed about Greenwald's character

Opinions are mixed about Greenwald's character because of affiliations in his new news organization and the fact that he is rolling Snowden data out so slowly. People have questioned Greenwald. And this includes many people "on our side;" people on these forums, and James Corbett and Boiling Frogs Post.


I'm skeptical of GG

I haven't watched the video but I'm sure he has some great lines. However why didn't he have the big document release soon after receiving from Snowden. Instead we get dribs and drabs of stuff we kind of already knew. And now he's just trying to sell books (after already having sold out to Pierre Omidyar) - ugh!

The fact that the cons only

The fact that the cons only win with 13% is even more terrifying..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Glenn Greenwald should run for President

Glenn Greenwald is just outstanding!

There is no one else out there that can articulate the issues so well, with such precision, and just rip the mask off behind the giant U.S. Security State, and reveal the lizard face of its real & dark intentions, and its purposeful deceit, and high crime.

Glenn Greenwald should run for President of the U.S.

This is the kind of spokesman that we need to finally turn peoples heads around in the other direction and finally wake-up the American public from their own sleep-walking into the mouth of slavery.

Nobody does it better than Greenwald, and he does not back down. He simply hands their own propaganda right back at them, and exposes it for all the World to see what it really is.

Glenn Greenwald for President!
The best voice out there .....

They picked two "unoffensive looking" characters

They picked two "unoffensive looking" characters to represent evil.

Good news here

If Hayden and Dershowitz is the best the establishment has to offer for debate then the establishment is now completely intellectually bankrupt and the liberty internet generation is now the supreme intellectuals in America.

The biggest problem the establishment has on all of this is that most now know that the official 9-11 story is not factual and large segments of Americans know that the militant elements (skull and bones/Carlyle group/Iran contra boys) of the CFR's NWO agenda were behind the planning, setup and execution of 9-11 terrorist attacks. It didn't take the NSA to figure this out and some us knew they were planning some kind of an attack on America years before 9-11. Anyone paying attention to the Iran Contra boys(Neocons) and CFR/Trilateral commission had all the information necessary to know that their agenda included a paradigm shifting domestic terror attack for the execution of the IMF/Bank of International Settlements world domination plans. Alex Jones and Bill Cooper even successfully predicted exactly the chosen event months before 9-11 due to the intel that was all publicly available. I personally was warning every one I knew from 1998 on that they were planning to "transform" America and would do so through violent attacks on America. Many people knew something violent was likely from them because of extreme amounts of detailed facts that a normal criminal investigation would pursue to its end but have been intentionally ignored. So, as always the issues around this debate, but not addressed, inevitably goes back to the fact that 9-11 was never properly investigated like any other criminal investigation and now facts point to the predicted circle of culprits who are the same ones who established the Total Information Awareness programs after 9-11 and are the contracting companies the NSA is working with. The pattern of crime has specific people in specific positions doing specific things who made all of this happen and many of these individuals have publicly exposed operational ties to the illegal drug and weapons trade, fractional reserve banking, intelligence services, war, defense contractors, financial conquest, establishment training and weaponizing of Islamic terror groups and all out world empire barbarianism, all of which has absolutely nothing to do with the American people who just want to be left alone and live in peace.

In short, we need to cut through the fuzzy 'safety' bs and discuss the real facts that need to be pursued to find the real threats to America which are not only being ignored but there has been extreme efforts to cover up the real facts so that the establishment's excuse for their political spying and control grid aka the NSA is seemingly justified to find the dangerous phantom cave dwellers while the actual terrorists are sitting in 'government' and corporate offices with publicly available corroborated facts that openly demonstrate criminal acts or elements that would warrant search and deeper investigation. BUT NO we have to keep everything about keeping us safe from the boogy man. Nothing but Total intellectual bankruptcy from the establishment.

Humpty Dumpty has taken the great fall. These two hacks is all the establishment has to offer for debate. The only real question is are We the People actually going to bring the criminal usurpers to justice.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Dershowitz Mentions...

...balancing the legitimate need for surveillance against the equally legitimate need for privacy.

The needs of each are not remotely equal in legitimacy.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

How Would The Colonists Have Felt

If the British soldiers invaded their homes, copied all their papers, and left saying "Don't worry. We're not reading them. We're just saving them in case we ever need them in the future."?

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Post Munk Debate Show

I hate torture I'm against all of that?

Alan Dershowitz said at 35:00 into the video:

"I'm a liberal democrat who voted against president Bush and voted for Obama, I hate torture, I hate rendition, I'm against all of that"


Actually Mr. Dershowitz, you're not! You actually argued that both of these "tools" of tyranny should be legalized in some way in order to allow their use "within the law"...

Alan Dershowitz on Legalizing Torture:

In my new book, "Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age," I offer a controversial proposal designed to stimulate debate about this difficult issue. Under my proposal, no torture would be permitted without a "torture warrant" being issued by a judge.

An application for a torture warrant would have to be based on the absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it.

The suspect would be given immunity from prosecution based on information elicited by the torture. The warrant would limit the torture to nonlethal means, such as sterile needles, being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life.

It may sound absurd for a distinguished judge to be issuing a warrant to do something so awful.

But consider the alternatives: Either police would torture below the radar screen of accountability, or the judge who issued the warrant would be accountable. Which would be more consistent with democratic values?

Want to torture? Get a warrant
Alan M. Dershowitz - Published 4:00 am, Tuesday, January 22, 2002


Alan Dershowitz on Legalizing Extraordinary Rendition:

Introductory heading from The Independent:

The United States' Supreme Court has ruled that military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay breach the human rights of inmates. But in an age of suicide bombings and mass civilian casualties, do our laws themselves need to be rewritten? Are we just ignoring the unpalatable truth: that the survival of our society may depend on the legalised torture of terror suspects? Here, America's leading liberal lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, presents the case for radical reform:

There is today a vast "black hole" in the law. It is this hole that accounts for Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions and other phantom places and actions about which we know nothing. As a lifelong civil libertarian, I strongly oppose such gaps in the law. The rule of law requires that all governmental action be subject to legal constraints. The refusal to change old laws that do not fit new situations is bad for human rights and dangerous to democratic accountability.

Nor does it help the situation when Amnesty International and other human-rights groups exaggerate the problems and cast all the blame on democracies that are seeking - sometimes by questionable means - to keep their citizens safe from terrorists. Anne Fitzgerald of Amnesty recently compared the alleged terrorists being detained by the US and its allies to the "disappeared" in Argentina during the Junta. The comparison is obscene. The disappeared in Argentina were mostly political opponents of the Junta, many of whom were tortured to death and dropped into the ocean from aircraft. Credible sources estimate that as many as 30,000 people may have been killed. Pregnant women had their babies ripped from their wombs so they could be adopted by childless friends of the Junta. There is no evidence of anything even close to this being done by the United Sates today in its sometimes excessive efforts to prevent terrorism. The problems are bad enough without the need to exaggerate them for political and ideological purposes.

Human-rights groups undercut the real interests of human rights when they exaggerate the faults of democracies and minimise the faults of terrorists. Most democracies seek to operate within the rule of laws, and laws must realistically reflect the desirable balance between the legitimate needs of security and the equally legitimate claims of human rights. Striking this balance is a daunting task, and it is in the nature of such balances that few are ever satisfied that it has been properly struck. It is far easier to stick with the comfortable old ways, even if it produces hypocrisy and gaping holes in the law.

Alan Dershowitz: Should we fight terror with torture? - Published Monday 03 July 2006


Great contribution to this

Great contribution to this thread!

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

SteveMT's picture

Debate results here: Con wins with 13% vote gain.

Be it resolved state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedoms....
Pre-Debate Results
33% Pro
46% Con
21% Undecided

Post-Debate Results
41% Pro
59% Con
Con wins with 13% vote gain.

SteveMT's picture

Go to the 1:12:35 mark for the crucial winning point.

The legal mind of Glenn Greenwald makes Alan Dershowitz into a bumbling idiot.

Water board the two liars on the left of the stage.

They seemed to like torture and rendition. I would feel a lot safer if the government would comply with the written words of the constitution.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

Joη's picture

For those who'd like Alexis' literal point instead of a metaphor

Groups in and out of government discover code exploits, and don't tell anyone, thinking it gains them an upper hand in various situations.

One of these groups should probably be helping patch flaws instead of exploiting them.




"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Never mind...found it.

It is the debate of the moment. In a risk-filled world, are democracies justified in turning to large-scale state surveillance, at home and abroad, to fight complex and unconventional threats? Or is the emergence of the surveillance state and the awesome powers it derives from information technology a new and pervasive threat to our basic freedoms? For some the answer is obvious: the threats more than justify the current surveillance system, and the laws and institutions of democracies are more than capable of balancing the needs of individual privacy with collective security. For others, we are in peril of sacrificing to state surveillance and exaggerated terrorist threats the civil liberties that guarantee citizens’ basic freedoms. To engage this global debate our spring 2014 contest moves the motion:

Be it resolved state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedoms....
Debate Results
Pre-Debate Results
33% Pro46% Con21% Undecided
Post-Debate Results
41% Pro59% Con

Con wins with
13% vote gain.
Michael Hayden

“It is the security practitioners, those rarely in the headlines but whose craft and energy quietly break new ground, who keep us safe or put us in peril.”
Read bio
Alan Dershowitz

“The state now is moving much more from reacting to violence to a proactive, preemptive, preventive mode of intelligence gathering.”
Read bio
Glenn Greenwald

“Surveillance equals power. The more you know about someone, the more you can control and manipulate them in all sorts of ways. That is one reason a Surveillance State is so menacing to basic political liberties.”
Read bio
Alexis Ohanian

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey referring to ISIS

Great but, what was the score.

Pro or con?

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey referring to ISIS