Do you have anything decent on the impeachment of Rousseff in Brazil?

Everything I've come across is quite irreconcilable with Glenn Greenwald's comments on this matter. He's probably biased in this regard, but all the reporting over here is either devoid of any useful information or plainly full of shit.

Edit: I removed a largely unhelpful post I made. I apologise if someone was meaning to reply to it. It would have brought the discussion somewhere I don't really want it to go, and was almost devoid of content despite it's word count.

Instead, having thought a bit more, I think I'm going to try and restate your position to see if I understand it. Watching a few Greenwald interviews helped me to understand it. Please correct me if I'm off base here.

You feel that the current state of the Islamic religion is largely a result of past and current colonialism and interventionism from (mostly) the west. You're saying that we hold a lot of the blame, and that their religion has morphed into it didn't use to be, and has become violent in response to worldly grievances and zeitgeist.

If that is your stance, then we only disagree on the degree that the religion has changed. I think it has stayed more true to its roots than you do. Sounds like a good excuse for me to go on a history reading binge

Your video, glenn greenwald-how to be a media "terror expert", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'citizen four, edward snowden, laura poitrus, glann greenwald, robert scheer, truthdig' to 'citizen four, edward snowden, laura poitras, glenn greenwald, robert scheer, truthdig' - edited by eric3579

I dunno, I think that he was asking an (unfortunately) common question in a way that gave Greenwald a fair and friendly environment to respond to it -- which he did in spectacular style. I thought that his response was definitely the highlight of the Q/A at the end, and arguably a highlight of the entire speech/video.

If he went on Bill O'Reilly or some other Fox News show, the same question would be asked, and then he be interrupted during his response rather that allowing him to point out the ridiculousness of that line of thinking... So, I think that between A) playing Devil's Advocate and getting that question out of the way, and B) kind of "lobbing" the question to him instead of really going full-tilt, it was a good way to allow Greenwald to respond to that issue without having it seem like they were avoiding pressing him with the "tough questions". Pretty well done, I think.

Your video, TED: Glenn Greenwald -- Why Privacy Matters, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It sure does, cheers for the heads-up. The footage itself begins around the 22 minute mark.

Wierd as hell to see Schmitz and Greenwald on the same stage...

Interesting : http://www.straight.com/blogra/689256/nbc-reverses-decision-pull-correspondent-ayman-mohyeldin-gaza
"It's safe to say that Glenn Greenwald is probably the most influential journalist in the world these days."

That Dershowitz guy is a total rat. He's the one who brought state power down on Norman Finkelstein.
He's a cynical, self serving dishonest psychopath playing at respectable academic.
It does not surprise me at all he's the MAN's choice to try to shout down Greenwald. Harvard's credibility is shot to pieces.

I agree that what Snowden is saying here is important -- and I personally agree with the concept fully. BUT, that being said, I don't necessarily think that NBC is guilty of "censoring" him here as a result of some hidden nefarious agenda.

The whole interview posted here is 43 minutes long. I'd guess that it is has been trimmed of some comments from Greenwald and probably the other journalist that it was mentioned made the trip to Russia with NBC. Tack commercials on top of that and you have what I'd assume is a 1 hour show on TV.

I'm sure that NBC recorded *way* more interview footage than could be crammed into a single hour, and I'd wager that his comments here didn't make the cut not because of censorship or in an effort to alter the thrust of his message, but rather simply in an effort to fill the time allotment of the show with the most interesting and relevant content possible (as judged by NBC).

So, while I'd jump at a chance to legitimately criticize the media in general and NBC specifically here, I don't think that accusing them of censorship is particularly fair. On the other hand, I might disagree with NBC's choice to cut this particular content because I do find it very interesting and relevant personally... And that in turn makes me wonder what *other* interesting stuff didn't make the 1 hour cut!

It only seems amateurish because it's not supposed to be taken seriously. This "exclusive" isn't a big deal since you can go anywhere and find much more in depth interviews, or simply the product of his leaks which is what's really important. I don't really care what Snowden has to say, but NBC news does because that's what they're trying to do.

If you make it about the person, it's easy to turn around, it's easy to dismiss this one guy. If he ever slips up, looks stupid or something whatever he did and the people that support what he did can be ignored easily.

So this is all about a distraction. Act like this "exclusive" is a big fat hairy deal, and only bring up useless everything, nothing of value or substance really.

Let's look at the News websites right now. CNN first.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/us/edward-snowden-interview/index.html?iref=allsearch

This about how he sees himself, so it's about ego, do you see yourself as a patriot. The title is immediately meant to draw a line, who agrees who doesn't, read the article with your feelings. Next NBC themselves.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/nsa-officials-snowden-emailed-question-not-concern-n118011

First NSA disputing his claims, people calling him naive and basically presenting no evidence just like the NSA hasn't. Then Kerry and some other guy saying he doesn't have to stay in Russia, that it's not the US's fault for him being there. Completely absurd bullshit, and no one would be allowed to take Snowdens side in these talkbacks. It's useless. On to Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/29/kerry-tells-snowden-to-man-up-and-come-home/

Focussing on Kerry acting like a tough idiot.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/29/glenn-greenwald-new-book-no-place-to-hide-tells-how-nsa-spies-on-us/

And a surprisingly decent opinion piece on Glenn Greenwald from Judge Napolitano.

Well, Greenwald's latest story on GCHQ's JTRIG seems to be actively suppressed on reddit. Which is just the kind of manipulation the story was about in the first place.

https://pay.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1ywspe/new_snowden_doc_reveals_how_gchqnsa_use_the/cfohbrc

First two comments.

Booyah!

https://firstlook.org/#/blog/MattTaibbi

Greenwald, Scahill, Taibbi -- now we're talking.

I know you're kidding but I have someone on that. Greenwald made the point that everyone has a bias, so it doesn't matter. What matters is what you can prove, how good your journalism skills are. If you present a good argument and support it with enough research that it can't be knocked down, it doesn't matter what personal view you had of the situation. You came at it from all sides if you did your work, because you have to to challenge yourself and your thesis.

So David Gregory and other mainstream journalists are just lazy. Why? Because they're always looking for concision, their medium demands it.

Actually, the proof that something did not end up in the hands of the Chinese, the Russians, or myself for that matter, is quite difficult, given that evidence of absence is impossible to obtain. However, the absence of evidence to the claim that they have gained access to information through Snowden himself is reason enough for me.

You want proof that nothing was transfered to them? Might as well try to prove the non-existance of the famous tea pot in orbit.

So the basic argument boils down to motivation as well as credibility of claims.

His motivation to keep access to his material restricted to the selected group of journalists is apparent from his own interviews. They are supposed to be the check on the government, they lack the information to fullfil the role, they need access to correct (what he perceived to be) a wrong, namely a grave breach of your consitution on a previously unheard of scale.
Providing access to Russia or China would instantly negate all hope of ever not drawing the short straw in this mess, as the US is the only country on the planet who can provide him with amnesty and therefore safety.

So why would he do it? For a shot at asylum? You know as well as I do that (permanent) asylum in China/Russia is worthless if the US is after you. Europe could guarantee one's safety, but given the lack of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US, it would not be an option.

That leaves credibility of claims. And that's where my first reason comes into play, the one you put down as "naive". His opponents, those in positions of power, be it inside government or the press, have a track record of being... let's not mince words here, lying sacks of shit. James Clapper's act of perjury on front of Congress is just the most prominent manifestation of it. The entire bunch lied their asses off during the preparation of the invasion of Iraq, they lied their asses off during the revelations triggered by Chelsea Manning and they lied their asses off about the total und unrelenting surveillance of American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights.

If you think supervision of the NSA by the Select Committee on Intelligence is actually working, I suggest you take a look at statements by Senator Wyden. The NSA even plays them for fools. Hell, Bruce Schneier was recently approached by members of Congress to explain to them what the NSA was doing, because the NSA refused to. Great oversight, works like a charm. By the way, it's the same fucking deal with GCHQ and the BND.

So yes, the fella who "stole" data is actually a trustworthy figure, because a) his claims were true and b) his actions pulled off the veil that covered the fact that 320 million Americans had their private data stolen and were sold out by agencies of their own government in conjunction with private intelligence contractors.

What else...

Ah, yeah. "Sloppy" and "stupid". Again, if he was sloppy and stupid, what does that say about the internal control structure of the intelligence industry? They didn't notice shit, they still claim to be unaware of what precisely he took with him. Great security, fellas.

"He could have allowed the press to do it's job without disclosing a much of what has been released."

He disclosed nothing. He is not an experienced journalist and therefore, by his own admission, not qualified to make the call what to publish and how. That's why he handed it over to Barton Gellman at the WaPo, Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian and Laura Poitras, who worked closely with Der Spiegel.

If Spiegel, WaPo and Guardian are not reputable institutions of journalism, none are. So he did precisely what you claim he should have done: he allowed the press to do its bloody job and released fuck all himself.

As for the cheap shot at not being an American: seventy years ago, your folks liberated us from the plague of fascism, brought us freedom. Am I supposed to just sit here and watch my brothers and sisters in the US become the subjects of total surveillance, the kind my country suffered from during two dictatorships in the last century?

Ironically, that would be un-American, at least the way I understand it.

And there's nothing gleeful about my concerns. I am deeply furious about this shit and even more so about the apathy of people all around the world. You think I want Americans to suffer from the same shit we went through as a petty form of payback?

Fuck that. It's the intelligence industry that I'm gunning for. Your nationality doesn't mean squat, some intelligence agency has its crosshairs on you wherever you live. It just happens to be an American citizen who had the balls to provide us with the info to finally try and protect citizens in all countries from the overreaching abuse by the intelligence industry.

In fact, I'd rather worry about our own massive problems within Europe (rise of fascism in Greece, 60% youth unemployment, unelected governments, etc). So can we please just dismantle all these spy agencies and get on with our lives?

Sorry if this is incoherent, but it's late and I'm even more pissed off than usual.