Why I Can No Longer Defend Glenn Greenwald as Merely a Dupe in the Snowden Psyop

by Scott Creighton

On a pleasant Sunday afternoon, sitting comfortably in his home in Rio de Janeiro with a nifty little green-screen at his back (what self respecting journalist doesn’t have one of those), Glenn Greenwald admitting he was well aware of his star witness’ potentially fatal character flaws prior to publishing his overly hyped article on NSA “secrets” that the world already knew about. Glenn then deliberately misrepresented the nature and scope of the NSA’s spying program and perhaps  inadvertently offered up a glimpse of the real motivation behind the Snowden Psyop for anyone who cared to listen.

Over the past week and a half that I have been covering this story, my position has been that Glenn was probably just fed a bit of information on some knew “Deepthroat” type whistle-blower and the promise of a Big Story … something on the lines of his work back in 2006 on the first (and the real) spying scandal leak when he went from being an obscure blogger to the toast of the town in the alternative media. I figured he was probably a dupe who had been set-up by his own paper, the Guardian, in order to lend this Snowden psyop some more credibility and in the end, to destroy a journalist viewed as the “professional left”.  I concluded that Greenwald was not an active participant in the overall psyop strategy.

I cannot in good faith support that conclusion any longer.

Form 94-95, Greenwald was employed by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, one of the most influential law-firms in New York, specializing in mergers and acquisitions. Their client list includes the likes of JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Larry Silverstein just to name a few. Bernard Nussbaum, former White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton, was a partner in the firm. To say he worked for a leading globalist law-firm would be fair I suppose.

He started his own firm and ran that till about 2005 when he reportedly got tired of it all, broke up with his boyfriend, and went down to Rio and met his current boyfriend walking along a beach. His sexuality isn’t an issue until he makes it one. He is a rabid supporter of Bradley Manning and entire Wikileaks psyop as well and he went on record with OUT magazine saying he didn’t think Manning would have blown the whistle and leaked all that stuff had he been straight (Manning is gay as well)

It should also be noted that Glenn Greenwald has supported various globalist landmark events like the bombing of Libya (in his round-about way) or more directly his support of the Citizen’s United ruling which basically upheld the notion that corporations are people entitled to the use of money as free speech. He claimed he didn’t like the application of the law but that it was constitutionally sound. He was silent for the most part on the recent S.C. ruling on the constitutionally of the individual mandate which is key to the effectiveness of the Obamacare insult (though he did note at one time the person who wrote it, with the help of various insurance company insiders, left government service to take a lucrative position in the insurance world)

With regard to Libya and Benghazi, he chastised some of the Obama administration’s reactions to the CNN leak of the 3 page “journal” they “found” lying on the floor, but for the most part, he did his part to prop-up that psyop as well…

“I’m not particularly impressed with the criticism that the Obama administration should have better secured the consulate. It is always easy retroactively to demand greater security when an attack occurs, and it is impossible to safeguard against all potential threats.” Glenn Greenwald

It should be noted that Amb. Stevens was also gay. For someone who is supposedly as bright as Greenwald is reported to be, he didn’t end up questioning anything about Stevens being sent there with no security detachment to speak of after various warnings nor did he wonder about the terrorist mercenaries Stevens himself worked with being the ones to supposedly off him after training for the little project months in advance. His lack of curiosity about certain aspects of this subject was also disturbing to me at the time I was writing about it. In that same article, Glenn props up the all important “blow back” meme, which serves the interests of those who wanted to put drones in the skies of Libyan villages to take out those who do not support our neoliberal efforts.

“Yet again, western military intervention spawns vast instability and leads to the proliferation of weapons into the hands of extremists deeply hostile to the US.” Glenn Greenwald

He recently appeared with Bill Moyer talking about the Boston Bombing psyop and again, ignoring all the serious problems with the case itself and the behavior of the police state imposing martial law in search of an unarmed 19 year-old boy, Glenn again turned to the “blow back” meme to explain this case and many others since 9/11. “They (the “terrorists”) have not only the right, but the duty to attack America back

The fact that most of the supposed “terrorists” who have that duty were and are contractors for the United States via the CIA or other secretive organizations completely slips his mind apparently. The fact that the trials of these individuals are closed and the prosecutors are allowed an amazing latitude in presenting evidence in court that would never be admissible in real courts, eludes our liberal hero for some reason.

From his seat in what is portrayed as the “far left” section of the allowed dissent stadium, Glenn consistently cheer-leads the globalist agenda or conveniently ignores some of it’s most blatant and reprehensible crimes of state. For a man from a globalist mega-firm of mergers and acquisitions ghouls who just so happens to miss the bigger picture, that really isn’t all that surprising.

Glenn probably enjoyed one of the fastest rises to liberal stardom of any blogger turned journalism hero.

Rachel Maddow did it so did Arrianna Huffington. And we see what they are now; mouthpieces for the Washington Consensus selling neoliberalism as “centrist pragmatism”

Is that what Glenn has become?

Glenn started his own little blog after moving to Rio in Oct. of 2005. By Feb of 2007, not a year and a half later, Glenn was proudly hosted by Salon magazine and getting face-time on various MSM outlets on a range of subjects, not one of them terribly critical of what was really going on. He now works for the primo globalist propaganda rag, the Guardian.

During his recent interview, Glenn makes it perfectly clear that the Snowden psyop has been managed from the beginning, not just by institutions like the Guardian and the Washington Post, but by him as well. He stated during the interview that he and Snowden were fully aware of the pending personal attacks that were going to eventually discredit him and those who support his point of view by association:

“One of his big concerns with coming out,” Greenwald said, “really his only one, was that he knows political media loves to dramatize and personalize things, and he was concerned that the focus would distract away from the revelations of about what our government was doing on to him personally.”

“The other problem is that whenever there’s whistleblower, someone who dissents from our political institutions, the favorite tactic is to try to demonize him and highlight his alleged bad personality traits. That’s one of the reasons why we wanted to present him in his own words to the world, so that they could form their own impression before these smear campaigns began.” Mediaite

It was a conscience decision to get a leap on the narrative with the generally positive appearing Snowden before his brand was tarnished by inconvenient facts about his personal life. This is a marketing strategy, not the role of a journalist. As a journalist, his job would have been to accurately report the misgivings about his story and his life prior to trying to turn him into some kind of hero before a more accurate picture of the man was formed.

Glenn accurately describes the typical marginalization tactics used to discredit whistle-blowers and anyone else who steps outside the parameters of allowable debate (I wonder how many of us he has called “conspiracy theorists” in the past) but he completely ignores the fact that if the NSA had planned this psyop for whatever reason, they would certainly be aware of that fact and picked Snowden because he lends himself perfectly to it. Also surprising is the fact that he apparently knew all of this prior to publishing, and yet didn’t try to get control of that potentially damaging side of the guy before promoting him as a self-less expert giving up $200 k a year for the good of the people.

Glenn then goes on to misrepresent or at least allow the interviewer to misrepresent what the NSA spying program actually does:

In response to criticisms that Greenwald misrepresented the PRISM program, portraying the nine major internet companies as giving the NSA direct access to their servers when they in fact just allowed access to a remote dropbox, Greenwald said, “I think it is significant that the PRISM story in particular was published by Bart Gellman, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, and vetted by all the Washington Post editors, as well as the editors in the Guardian and me as well.” Mediaite

Does he take the time in this televised interview to correct the pundit on that mis-characterization of the NSA program’s reach into our personal data? No. He simply points the finger to others who vetted the information as if to say “I’m not the only one”

As William Binney has been reporting for quite some time, a real whistle-blower who isn’t “on the run” in a country with strong ties to American and British financial systems and even the CIA, the NSA has DIRECT ACCESS to all of our information and can pull it up and search anyone at anytime, even going back in time to archived personal communications.

Does Greenwald go into that fact during the interview? No.

He went on a rant about one critisism of his work which said that Glenn does this internet sweeping technique looking for articles about him and attacks those that are critical of his work. He claims that’s just fine without addressing the fact that it would seem that it may not necessarily be him doing the sweeping and perhaps someone else is protecting their Glenn Greenwald product. Laughably, he says that journalism is changing toward those (presumably he means himself) not working for “these well connected big old style institutions” that stifle real debate. I laugh at that considering the Guardian is about as “alternative” as Fox News is these days.

But then, admit much self-aggrandizing, Glenn finally got  around to explaining the purpose of the Snowden psyop and it’s important to note it is almost WORD FOR WORD the exact same thing Obama had to say about it when the story broke “We have to have the debate”

“I first started writing about politics in late 2005, and I focused almost exclusively on the NSA scandal back then,” Greenwald said. “The way that I developed a platform was almost every progressive, liberal, democratic blogger, media outlet, person with a platform would promote the work I was doing…they were all cheering for the condemnations I was issuing…Uniformly, I bet you cannot go back and find a single liberal or progressive or democratic pundit taking Alberto Gonzalez’s side or condemning the source who blew the whistle on that program.”

Greenwald also told Kurtz that there were documents Snowden had given him that he would not publish out of security concerns.

“There are things that we’ve already held back,” Greenwald said. “He didn’t want us just dumping documents that would, for example, enable other countries to copy the massive surveillance scheme that the NSA is building and impose that on their own citizens. We didn’t want to print blueprint guides for other countries and intelligence services as to how to replicate what the NSA is doing. We just want to inform the American people about what their government is doing so they can democratically decide if that’s what they want.Mediaite

For a constitutional expert and advocate, that’s a rather amazing statement isn’t it? We have to democratically decide if we want our constitutional protections and civil liberties? Curious as well that Obama is also billed as a constitutional expert.

As far as I know, I’m no constitutional expert like Mr. Greenwald is, but as far as I know the constitution isn’t up for debate though there are certain various factions who would like it to be so. I’m no constitutional expert, but then again, I also never worked for a major globalist mergers and acquisitions firm either and unlike Mr. Greenwald, I still live in this country where Glenn is suggesting this whole effort of his was to put up the constitution itself for debate.

I’ve also never gotten paychecks from Fox News, CNN, MSNBC or any other MSM source. They tend to shy away from asking journalists like me my opinion on the neoliberal news of the day.

I also never supported the “blow back” theory of stage terror apologists like Mr. Greenwald does.

Yes, Mr. Greenwald “developed a platform” as a constitutional lawyer and left wing champion of all things progressive. But oddly enough, when the crap hits the fan, he tends to lean to the centrist in favor of the very things he pretends to oppose and in so doing, his left cover drags many right along with him.

Did he develop that platform or was he aided in those efforts which made him such a rising liberal star? Is he really that liberal?

Wasn’t there another fake liberal constitutional expert who rose from relative obscurity around the same time, a guy who worked for Kissenger and Associates yet was billed as a champion of the little guy in late 2004?

I seem to remember something about that guy giving a speech at a convention…  who was that CHANGE guy I’m thinking of?

So, short story long, no… I can’t trick myself any longer into thinking somehow Glenn Greenwald isn’t on board with this constitution shredding psyop. He was a plant, manufactured like Obama from the start, at a time when the oligarchs of the financial masters of the universe knew damn well that the plan for the Obama regime would be the continual assault on our constitutional rights. And Glenn has propped up that assault from day one while all the time pretending to be our advocate. Like Obama, he isn’t.

That said, he’s just as complicit in this Snowden psyop as anyone else. When I’m wrong, I admit it. I gave him too much credit.

About these ads

17 Responses

  1. scott, i was suprised you defended him at all. i know you don’t like the 9/11 litmus test, but applied here, it could have saved you a lot of time and energy. greenwald is also pro-julian (9/11 is a false conspiracy) assange. since greenwald is pro-official 9/11 fairy tale, and pro-assange, that’s about all i need to know to write him off completely. throw in all the major mass media coverage and it’s all pretty obvious that greenwald is part of the problem..
    –d

  2. 1st paragraph nothing

    2nd paragraph. He graduated from NYC Law School and and from what I read started out as a trial lawyer who focused on free speech cases. I don’t think connect with certain law firms are should stigmatize our understanding of a person. I have lawyer friends. They all started out at big firms where they go their feet wet. Corporate law is where the money is for many. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. That firm is associated with NYU law school

    3rd paragraph nothing

    4th paragraph. See 2nd paragraph. You using the same kind of smear tactics that your argue against so often.

    5th paragraph pure ad hominem and smear by association

    6th paragraph His position on Citizens United is complicated. His issue is the application of the first amendment. http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/
    http://www.alternet.org/story/145610/dennis_kucinich_vs._glenn_greenwald%3A_is_citizens_united_a_deathblow_for_democracy_or_a_1st_amendment_victory

    on libya and Iraq
    http://www.salon.com/2011/08/22/libya_13/
    http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/the_human_rights_success_in_libya/
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/14/free-speech-libya-drones

    The famous preface referenced by any left leaning blogs
    http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812
    I

    7th paragraph Again ad hominem. I don’t really see the how this paragraph really supports your deep distrust of him.

    8th paragraph Greenwald did in fact address the marshall law:
    Well, it was political because it was infused with all kinds of political messages about Muslims, about radicalism, about what the proper role of the police and the military are in the United States. There were instantly these calls for greater surveillance, there was a lockdown of Boston in a very extraordinary act on a major American city, would be completely locked down. What you could see in how people were observing, what it was that they were watching, was their political impressions about the world, about their government, about political debates being formed, based on the very few incidents that they really pay attention to.
    And I think that’s the reason why incidents like this are incredibly significant in an enduring way, because it shapes how people who don’t pay much attention to politics regularly really think about the world.

    9th paragraph is supposition. I’ve read many your posts on this subject There information you bring together is commendable but I’m not as certain as you about your conclusions.

    10 11 paragraphs pure ad hominem

    12th paragraph is guilt by association

    13th and 14th paragraphs, ad hominem and a an assertion about the nature of Guardian. I’m not convinced everything about the Guardian is to forward a globalist enterprise. But that’s a whole other discussion

    15th paragraph I don’t see it that way at all. From the other perspective, these are seasoned individuals that know how government work. From this perspective it appears like Greenwald is building a public case much like he would a case in a court.
    There was a Q and A with Snowden today that was useful in understanding more about the capabilities of the NSA program.
    I’m concerned about government overreach and so I’m hopeful that this reveal while somehow drive the public to seek answers and demand changes. Hope is at the basis of every system of belief including yours. Built into the department of hope should always be a office of doubt. So I’m aways trying to understand how this all might be a propaganda operation but I don’t really don’t see how you can be so certain and I don’t see your list of evidence of insuring certainty.

    16th paragraph I’m not at all convinced of this.

    17th parapraph, Greenwald wrote this about the dropbox:
    If, as NSA (and Silicon Valley) defenders claim, Prism is nothing more than a harmless little drop-box mechanism for delivering to the government what these companies were already providing, why would Yahoo possibly be in court so vigorously resisting it and arguing that it violates their users’ Fourth Amendment rights? Similarly, how could it possibly be said – as US government officials have – that Prism has been instrumental in stopping terrorist plots if it did not enhance the NSA’s collection capabilities? The denials from the internet companies make little sense when compared to what we know about the program. At the very least, there is ample reason to demand more disclosure and transparency about exactly what this is and what data-access arrangements they have agreed to.

    The point was that Snowden didn’t want one reporter t hagve the story.Regarding Bart Gellman he wrote this:They are wrong. Our story was not inaccurate. The Washington Post revised parts of its article, but its reporter, Bart Gellman, stands by its core claims (“From their workstations anywhere in the world, government employees cleared for Prism access may ‘task’ the system and receive results from an Internet company without further interaction with the company’s staff”).

    This is the exchange you excerpted:KURTZ: Speaking of polling data, a number of polls show that either a bare majority or plurality agree with Edward Snowden’s decision to make this material public but also majorities or pluralities think that somebody who breaks the law in that fashion should be prosecuted.

    Let me ask you about the “Washington Post” Bart Gellman who reported on the Internet surveillance aspect of this story about the same time you and “The Guardian” did. And he says Ed Snowden told him, Bart Gellman, he could no longer have the story exclusively once “The Washington Post” wasn’t agree to publish all the documents he was turning over.

    Were you aware Snowden was dealing with Bart Gellman at the same time he was dealing with you?

    GREENWALD: I was. Mr. Snowden told me he thought it was a good thing to have another media outlet, especially one at the heart of Washington, invested in these leaks, namely “The Washington Post.” He told me that Bart Gellman was working on one of the stories, which was the prison story and that turned out to be true and we were going to work on all the others. If we wanted to, we could work on the PRISM story as well.

    But I think it is significant that the PRISM story in particular was published by Bart Gellman, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and vetted by “The Washington Post” editors, as well as the editors at “The Guardian”, and me as well. And, yes, the source did want “The Washington Post” involved in that part of story.

    18th paragraph The whole point of the Snowden release to ghow that the capablilities of NSA are growing. They didn’t always have this extensive access. It’s not only the access but also how the info is being used and why the arguments by the Gov don’t hold water.

    http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

    19th paragraph Perhaps you should read these:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/edward-snowden-worst-fear-not-realised

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/glenn-greenwald-security-liberty

    20th paragraph Perhaps read this on kinds of journalism http://pressthink.org/2013/06/politics-some-politics-none-two-ways-to-excel-in-political-journalism-neither-dominates/

    21st paragraph Don’t agree with this evaluation. The big issue for Wikileaks was that they released info that the gov should use to build a case that the info threatened national security. It’s just possible that Greenwald and company are releasing a little at a time in systematically to build a case against the government. I see why you have your doubts but I also see it from the another point of view.

    22nd paragraph is ad hominem.

    23rd paragraph is guilt by association

    24th paragraph There is nothing I’ve read that suggests he thinks Boston is all about blowback. But I too think that there could eventually be blow back while I do know that the gov will use that as a means for false flag operations.

    25th paragraph I think his focus is civil liberties. He’s trying to decent them against gov. abuse.

    26th paragraph There’s no way to know what’s behind him. But I don’t get the feeling he’s part of a larger conspiracy from reading his entries and from his debates with others.

    27th paragraph to the end I don’t see the support for this: “He was a plant, manufactured like Obama from the start, at a time when the oligarchs of the financial masters of the universe knew damn well that the plan for the Obama regime would be the continual assault on our constitutional rights. And Glenn has propped up that assault from day one while all the time pretending to be our advocate. Like Obama, he isn’t.”

    By the way, here’s another tack down of Greenwald:http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

    • what is your point? He worked for a globalist mergers and acquisitions firm for over a year when he was just starting out as a lawyer. You can say you “think” his focus was one thing or another, but that’s what he did.

      As too his “complicated” position on Citizens United and corporate personhood, of course he’s going to tell his “alternative” base it’s”complicated”… and then he’s going to tell them the s.c. decision was correct, which it wasn’t. A corporation is not a person and not protected by ANY constitutional rights.

      “But I also think that whatever solutions we try and find for that need to be consistent with the clear constitutional prescriptions of the First Amendment, and allowing the government to ban or regulate corporations from speaking out on elections, to me, seems very problematic.”

      Allowing the government to ban or regulate corporations from speaking out on elections?

      Think about that for a second… who “allows” the government to do jack shit? Us? Did we allow Bush to bomb Iraq or Clinton to starve half a million kids? did we allow Obama to sign the NDAA 2012 in the middle of the night on new years eve? What do we “allow”? And I hate to say this, but his quote sounds a lot like neoliberalism/libertarianism, doesn’t it? we can’t allow the government to regulate big business?

      Chew on that.

      Corporations don’t speak out on anything. Their owners and CEOs do.

      Lastly on this point, the way they were “speaking out” was to flood the airwaves with TONS of CASH which as you and I know for a fact in the last election cycle, have POLLUTED the political process completely, and here is Greenwald saying it’s “problematic” to stop all those corporations from exercising their free speech rights, which an inanimate object doesn’t actually have.

      I’m not going through line by line, word by word, of my opinion of Glenn Greenwald. I don’t know if you have to attack me because of my opinion of him or Snowden or because of my aspersions cast on this whole psyop.

      But you cannot argue (and I notice you pick apart everything but) that they have BOTH parroted Obama’s line about “we have to have the discussion” as basically the entire POINT of this whole fake leak (which by the way he seems to be backtracking from his original statements if you bothered to go read his live chat interview)

      Question:

      So far are things going the way you thought they would regarding a public debate? – tikkamasala

      Answer:

      Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.

      He also contradicted himself more than once in the interview, at one time tacitly evading a question about whether or not he could wiretap anyone all the way up to the president of the united states and then later admitting that congress has special immunity from these taps. Congress can’t be touched, but he can listen to the president’s calls? bullshit.

      ah, he’s a libertarian… that explains a lot actually since libertarianism is the same as neoliberalism. Thanks for the point.

      • 1st paragraph. My point is yes. You can’t think that because he world for a law firm out of law school that he’s some sort of globalist.

        2nd paragraph Yes it’s complicated. I think you’d better chew on this stuff. Take a look at this from the harvard law review:

        “By holding that corporations may make independent expenditures from their general treasuries advocating the election or defeat of political candidates, Citizens United v. FEC unleashed a torrent of popular criticism, a pointed attack by the President in the State of the Union address, a flurry of proposed corrective legislation in Congress, and various calls to overturn the decision by constitutional amendment. Political uproar over a 5–4 Supreme Court decision upholding a controversial free speech right is not new; the Court’s two 5–4 decisions upholding a right to engage in symbolic flag burning, for example, elicited widespread public condemnation and efforts in Congress to overturn the Court by statute and by constitutional amendment. But Citizens United surely marks the first time a controversial victory for free speech rights emanated from a majority of Justices conventionally viewed as conservative, over the dissent of four Justices conventionally viewed as liberal, with virtually all political criticism arising from the political left.

        Does Citizens United mark a reversal in the political valence of free speech? Have liberals grown weary of First Amendment values they once celebrated? Have conservatives flip-flopped and now become free speech devotees? This Comment argues that support for First Amendment values in fact cuts across conventional political allegiances, and that both sides in Citizens United are committed to free speech, but to two very different visions of free speech. Where the two visions align, lopsided victories for free speech claims are still possible. For example, last Term in United States v. Stevens, the Court voted 8–1 to invalidate the criminal conviction of a purveyor of dogfight videos, reasoning that a federal criminal ban on depictions of animal cruelty was overbroad. But where the two visions diverge, divisions like that in Citizens United become sharp.

        In the first vision, discussed in Part I, free speech rights serve an overarching interest in political equality. Free speech as equality embraces first an antidiscrimination principle: in upholding the speech rights of anarchists, syndicalists, communists, civil rights marchers, Maoist flag burners, and other marginal, dissident, or unorthodox speakers, the Court protects members of ideological minorities who are likely to be the target of the majority’s animus or selective indifference. A vision of free speech as serving an interest in political equality also endorses a kind of affirmative action for marginal speech in the form of access to government subsidies without speech-restrictive strings attached. By invalidating conditions on speakers’ use of public land, facilities, and funds, a long line of speech cases in the free-speech-as-equality tradition ensures public subvention of speech expressing “the poorly financed causes of little people.” On the equality-based view of free speech, it follows that the well-financed causes of big people (or big corporations) do not merit special judicial protection from political regulation. And because, in this view, the value of equality is prior to the value of speech, politically disadvantaged speech prevails over regulation but regulation promoting political equality prevails over speech.

        The second vision of free speech, by contrast, sees free speech as serving the interest of political liberty. On this view, discussed in Part II, the First Amendment is a negative check on government tyranny, and treats with skepticism all government efforts at speech suppression that might skew the private ordering of ideas. And on this view, members of the public are trusted to make their own individual evaluations of speech, and government is forbidden to intervene for paternalistic or redistributive reasons. Government intervention might be warranted to correct certain allocative inefficiencies in the way that speech transactions take place, but otherwise, ideas are best left to a freely competitive ideological market.

        The outcome of Citizens United is best explained as representing a triumph of the libertarian over the egalitarian vision of free speech. Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, articulates a robust vision of free speech as serving political liberty; the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, sets forth in depth the countervailing egalitarian view. Neither vision, however, entirely eclipses the other in Citizens United; each of the principal opinions pays lip service to the other by invoking the other’s theory in its own cause. And, as Part III illustrates, neither side appears to have fully thought through how its position in Citizens United fits with the broader views its members have expressed about First Amendment rights in other contexts, causing seeming inconsistencies with positions taken in other First Amendment cases last Term. The upshot is that each vision retains vitality for use in other First Amendment contexts.

        The tension between these two competing visions — of free speech as serving equality and of free speech as serving liberty — is illuminated by analysis of four possible political reforms that might be considered in the aftermath of the Citizens United decision: first, invalidating limits on political contributions directly to candidates; second, allowing independent electoral expenditures by nonprofit but not for-profit corporations; third, increasing disclosure and disclaimer requirements for corporations making expenditures in connection with political campaigns; and fourth, conditioning receipt of various government benefits to corporations on their limiting political campaign expenditures. The first seems initially attractive to libertarians but not egalitarians; the second to egalitarians but not libertarians; the third to both libertarians and egalitarians; and the fourth to libertarians but not egalitarians. As addressed in Part IV, however, a closer look at each alternative reveals significant complexities.

        The best view of freedom of speech would combine the free-speech-as-liberty perspective with the egalitarian view’s skepticism toward speech-restrictive conditions on government benefits. Under such a capacious approach, the first and third reforms are preferable to the second and fourth, and any new regulation of political money in the wake of Citizens United should abandon source and amount limits or increase disclosure requirements, not distinguish among political speakers or make speech restrictions a price of government largesse.”

        It’s my take that he agrees with you in principle but it has to be dealt with legally. ” I understand and sympathize with the argument that corporations are creatures of the state and should not enjoy the same rights as individuals. ”

        I wrote that i don’t agree with his position on personhood. I personally don’t think money is speech. I think money is a constraint on speech. Did you read his analysis. It’s not about allowing them. His concern is first amendment rights work that same way for everyone.

        3rd paragraph. That’s true. There are a number of amendments proposed to fix Citizen’s United. Go read them. See if you agree with any.

        Here’s a thought on it from commonblog:
        http://www.commonblog.com/2012/01/20/the-best-way-to-fix-citizens-united-is-a-constitutional-amendment/
        The best way to force the court to adopt new rationales to evaluate limits on campaign contributions and spending and prevent corporations from abusing shareholder rights is through a constitutional amendment that explicitly spells out those rationales. This is why Common Cause is calling for Congress to propose amendment that would

        make clear that corporations shall have only the privileges bestowed upon them by their charters; by state and federal law; and the inalienable rights of the real people who are their shareholders or members. Further, the amendment shall clarify that money is property, it is not speech, and that in order to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, have an opportunity to express their views to their follow citizens and to their government on a level playing field, the amount of speech than any one citizen may purchase with their property should be limited to levels that do not overwhelm other citizens.

        One example:We Move to Amend.
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/71154073/A-Constitutional-Amendment-to-Reform-Campaign-Finance

        4th paragraph, Read the Supreme Court decision. They tied corporate person to the 1st amendment.

        5th paragraph Greenwald wrote:

        ” I’m deeply ambivalent about the court’s ruling. There are several dubious aspects of the majority’s opinion (principally its decision to invalidate the entire campaign finance scheme rather than exercising ”judicial restraint” through a narrower holding). Beyond that, I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture. But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities from spending money to express political viewpoints.

        Critics emphasize that the Court’s ruling will produce very bad outcomes: primarily that it will severely exacerbate the problem of corporate influence in our democracy. Even if this is true, it’s not really relevant. Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn’t. In general, a law that violates the Constitution can’t be upheld because the law produces good outcomes (or because its invalidation would produce bad outcomes).

        If the Constitution or other laws bar the government action in question, then that’s the end of the inquiry; whether those actions produce good results is really not germane. Thus, those who want to object to the Court’s ruling need to do so on First Amendment grounds. Except to the extent that some constitutional rights give way to so-called “compelling state interests,” that the Court’s decision will produce “bad results” is not really an argument.

        Then there’s the always intellectually confused discussions of stare decisis and precedent. It’s absolutely true that the Citizens United majority cavalierly tossed aside decades of judicial opinions upholding the constitutionality of campaign finance restrictions. But what does that prove? Several of the liberals’ most cherished Supreme Court decisions did the same (Brown v. Bd. of Education rejected Plessy v. Ferguson; Lawrence v. Texas overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, etc.).

        Beyond that, the central principle which critics of this ruling find most offensive — that corporations possess “personhood” and are thus entitled to Constitutional (and First Amendment) rights — has also been affirmed by decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence; tossing that principle aside would require deviating from stare decisis every bit as much as the majority did here. If a settled proposition of law is sufficiently repugnant to the Constitution, then the Court is not only permitted, but required, to uproot it.

        I tend to take a more absolutist view of the First Amendment than many people, but laws which prohibit organized groups of people — which is what corporations are — from expressing political views goes right to the heart of free speech guarantees no matter how the First Amendment is understood.

        What is overlooked in virtually every discussion I’ve seen over the last 24 hours is how ineffective these campaign finance laws are. Large corporations employ teams of lawyers and lobbyists and easily circumvent these restrictions; wealthy individuals and well-funded unincorporated organizations are unlimited in what they can spend. It’s the smaller non-profit advocacy groups whose political speech tends to be most burdened by these laws. Campaign finance laws are a bit like gun control statutes: actual criminals continue to possess large stockpiles of weapons, but law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

        In sum, there’s no question that the stranglehold corporations exert on our democracy is one of the most serious and pressing threats we face. I’ve written volumes on that very problem. Although I doubt it, this decision may very well worsen that problem in some substantial way. But on both pragmatic and Constitutional grounds, the issue of corporate influence — like virtually all issues — is not really solvable by restrictions on political speech. Isn’t it far more promising to have the Government try to equalize the playing field through serious public financing of campaigns than to try to slink around the First Amendment — or, worse, amend it — in order to limit political advocacy?

        As for the question of whether corporations possess “personhood,” that’s an interesting issue and, as I said, I’m very sympathetic to the argument that they do not, but the majority’s ruling here did not really turn on that question. That’s because the First Amendment does not only vest rights in “persons.” It says nothing about “persons.” It simply bans Congress from making any laws abridging freedom of speech.

        6th and 7th. Yeah I agree but there is something called case law , juriesprudence. We are a nation of laws, even if some of those laws are wrong and need to be rewritten.

        8th paragraph. He asks the question, was that not the case before Citizen United. Money has aways flowed for political elections. He’s the first to admit the corporate control is out of control:

        “I’m also quite skeptical of the apocalyptic claims about how this decision will radically transform and subvert our democracy by empowering corporate control over the political process. My skepticism is due to one principal fact: I really don’t see how things can get much worse in that regard. The reality is that our political institutions are already completely beholden to and controlled by large corporate interests (Dick Durbin: ”banks own” the Congress). Corporations find endless ways to circumvent current restrictions — their armies of PACs, lobbyists, media control, and revolving-door rewards flood Washington and currently ensure their stranglehold — and while this decision will make things marginally worse, I can’t imagine how it could worsen fundamentally. ”

        9th paragraph: I’m not attacking you. I’m disagreeing with you.
        I’m interested in your point of view but I I’m not convinced. NSA is an important subject. I’m not going to dismiss Snowden as a operative that easily.

        10th paragraph I just tried to respond to each paragraph because there was a lot going on including a lot of anger and frustration. I wanted to convey that I read it all and isolate those things that I thought worth looking at more closely.

        My interpretation is that Greenwald was contacted by Snowden and that with the release of the documents he assered that the program had greatly expanded under Obama in secret and that Prism was a new program. The point of the release by Snowden was to encourage public discussion.

        Obama simply kept quiet until the Snowden release. Here’s Obama’s response was on June 7 http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-obama-said-on-nsa-controversy/

        The Greenwald story was on the 5th.

        11th paragraph Perhaps examples. I don’t see the contradictions
        Below are the q and a that I thought were related. In first he talks about technical details of access and oversight. In the second policy and again details. That last was about who is and is not targeted.
        =================================
        Anthony De Rosa
        11:27am ET

        1.) Define in as much detail as you can what “direct access” means.

        2.) Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?

        Snowden’s Answer:

        1.) More detail on how direct NSA’s accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on – it’s all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

        2.) NSA likes to use “domestic” as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as “incidental” collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of “warranted” intercept, it’s important to understand the intelligence community doesn’t always deal with what you would consider a “real” warrant like a Police department would have to, the “warrant” is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.

        Glenn Greenwald follow-up:

        When you say “someone at NSA still has the content of your communications” – what do you mean? Do you mean they have a record of it, or the actual content?

        Snowden’s Answer:

        Both. If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets saved for a very long time – and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.

        ======================
        MonaHol
        11:55am ET

        Ed Snowden, I thank you for your brave service to our country.

        Some skepticism exists about certain of your claims, including this:

        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 email.
        Do you stand by that, and if so, could you elaborate?

        Snowden’s Answer:

        Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it’s important to understand that policy protection is no protection – policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection – a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the “widest allowable aperture,” and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn’t stop being protected communications just because of the IP they’re tagged with.

        More fundamentally, the “US Persons” protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicion-less surveillance does not become okay simply because it’s only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal.”

        ==================

        Final question from Glenn Greenwald:
        12:43pm ET

        Anything else you’d like to add?

        Snowden’s Answer:

        Thanks to everyone for their support, and remember that just because you are not the target of a surveillance program does not make it okay. The US Person / foreigner distinction is not a reasonable substitute for individualized suspicion, and is only applied to improve support for the program. This is the precise reason that NSA provides Congress with a special immunity to its surveillance.

        Last paragraph. I don’t think so.

        • what are you doing? you know how rude it is to copy and paste full papers in comment sections don’t you? what are you doing? are you so determined to prop-up Greenwald you actually feel like you have to defend his dense of Citizens United? Guess I hit a nerve with that one, huh? Not like all those ad hominem attacks I’m guilty of.

          and yeah, if it’s fair game to say that Obama wasn’t really the champion of poor people in Chicago when he was really working for Kissinger and Associates and then later in Chicago working for real estate developers and they just SPUN his time to make him appear “liberal”, then you are GD right it is fair to do the same to Greenwald.

          And you notice, I don’t need to copy and paste the Library of Congress to make my points. No one’s sitting back with a nice cup of joe waiting here for you to come along and school them on the right way to think of Citizens United

          I don’t care what “3 dimensional chess” you say they are playing with that support, fact is WHERE ARE WE NOW?

          Look at what has happened since. We didn’t move in the direction that LONG diatribe spoke about… in fact, we are steadily moving in the OTHER DIRECTION… the attacks aren’t on whether or not corporations have to redefine their personhood, ITS ABOUT US HAVING TO REDEFINE OURS …

          … and part of that process, yes indeedie, is “having the conversation” about the right to 100% security or 100% privacy…. but you can’t have BOTH… so lets have that conversation…

          and in case you haven’t quite noticed… we just so happen to be “having the discussion” about the 4th amendment right around the time we are having the discussion about the 2nd (gun grabbing Bloomberg) and… yes… the 1st (AP story and new CISPA)

          do you notice a kind of a trend developing here?

          and it just so happens at the time when all of this is going down, the guy, the hero who had decided to speak out IN 2008.. waited all this time… to see what Obama would do?

          And Obama is a constitutional scholar… and Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer… what a nifty coincidence.

          (cut it out with the 10 page copy and pastes please. choose a relevant quote a paragraph or so and provide the link. People don’t want to scroll through a dissertation. thanks.

          • You think there is some more than coincidental connection between Obama’s educational background and Greenwald’s? That’s ridiculous!

            I deliberately pulled the contend because it conveyed the complexity of the subject. Dig?

            Greenwald didn’t wait. He was one of the first to attack Obama for his policies that didn’t match is rhetoric way back in 2009.

            You didn’t appreciate anything I tried to offer you. You see me as attacking you and coopting your comments. I took the time to address your paragraphs and provide substantive information for reconsideration.

            You didn’t make any reasonable points in this post. You used smears and character assassinations in abundance thought. Always a bad sign.

            I just don’t the your take down of Greenwald as either valid or worth your time. He’s on your side from all that I’ve read. He studied law and tries to understand dynamic between policy, law and the constitution as they relate to civil rights.

            I r don’t think he’s a globalist.

            Maybe you should ask yourself if you are losing it. You are so caught up in some unified field theory that sucks up everyone and everything.

            I really appreciate your focus on neoliberalism the Snowden stuff and and Greenwald seems a stretch.

            • Hey DB… Do you have a blog of your own? Or, do you write somewhere?

            • Oh c’mon it would look like Greenwald was set up, but he’s not stupid he has just joined another league , the ALL STAR TEAM: http://rt.com/usa/assange-obama-snowden-elsberg-963/
              either that or he was retired all along – but look at the All Stars and how they lionize him into one of their own – not suspicious.
              I think I am going to use that link once more on the recent Tarpley upload here – for other reasons.

            • fair enough.

              “You think there is some more than coincidental connection between Obama’s educational background and Greenwald’s?”

              It’s not their education that I was talking about, it’s how they have both been marketed as something they were not. Do you not agree that Obama was no champion of the little man in Chicago? Is that how his time working on the privatization of public housing was portrayed or not? Whenever someone talks about or introduces Glenn, it’s always with the “civil rights lawyer and constitutional expert” and yet there he is, on the critical issues, backing anything but. In the case I pointed out, Citizen’s United, he backed the unconstitutional position of it being legitimate to make sure corporations don’t lose their 1st amendment rights. Sorry if you think that is on “our side” but I don’t. You might also recall he was pretty quiet on the matter of the “constitutional” healthcare mandate when it went up to the S.C. I think he stayed more in the background on that one because it was even harder to defend than corporate person-hood. which is what he did defend.

              “I deliberately pulled the contend because it conveyed the complexity of the subject. Dig?”

              Well, most people don’t post links to cartoons here to make their points. Sometimes they get a little complex too, dig? In the future a link is enough otherwise people might start thinking things like “blind em with bullshit” when your comments come up. Dig?

              “You see me as attacking you and coopting your comments.”

              I see you defending something you’re emotionally invested in. That is what I meant by “identity politics”. I don’t take any of this personally. It’s a discussion, not a trial.

              “He studied law and tries to understand dynamic between policy, law and the constitution as they relate to civil rights.”

              Typically I agree with you on the subject of Glenn. But like all assets, they are only effective if they have the trust of their readers. I also should note, that I was VERY supportive of Dennis Kucinich for the longest time. You may be one who has been here long enough to know that and also long enough to know, when he betrayed us on Obamacare after saying it was “worse than doing nothing” just two days before, I let him have it as well.

              I am loyal. It’s not that. I am loyal til I’m not. What Glenn is doing right now, in my opinion (which by the way looks more and more like I’m right everyday) is not in our best interests, it’s in his. Same thing Kucinich did. Doesn’t mean they’re bad people, doesn’t mean they were plants from the start, but it is something to consider. The firm that he got his start with works with Larry Silverstein for God’s sake and the principal partner was a political asset of Bill Clinton’s.

              That, by the way, is not an attack on Glenn by association, that shows how he cut his teeth in this business early on, and we all know that what you learn early in your career, defines who you are and what you do. It’s fair to mention that because would a real civil rights lawyer want anything to do with a major mergers and acquisitions firm in the first place? So yes, that is fair when considering who Greenwald is. At least it’s more accurate than just buying into the hype his publicist writes for his intros.

              “Maybe you should ask yourself if you are losing it. You are so caught up in some unified field theory that sucks up everyone and everything. “

              come on man, you’re trying to use that on me? “losing it”? Why don’t you just call me a crazy conspiracy theorist and be done with it? “unified field theory”? What do you think, they just run one op and then haphazardly run another and they have no thru-line planned out? You think they just HAPPENED to get here today from the Lewis Powell Memo of 1971 or do you think there was a process they laid out and CAREFULLY followed in order to do all of this in the time they have? Or maybe you think it’s all a coincidence. That the natural evolution of every society is back to neo-feudalism. Personally, yeah, there is a unified field theory at work here coming straight out of the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce and the Bank for International Settlements. The meet all across the world at big conference tables to hash out action item reports on how their efforts are progressing.

              But you know all that. You don’t think they would do it here when they need to end the constitution? Someone recently wrote an article about how these guys have been working to demolish constitutions around the world, constitutions written after the New Deal which provided way too many protections for the citizens and way to many regulations for them. Well, yeah, I think they pay people a lot of money to sit around in Think Tanks (Center for American Progress, Heritage Foundation, Project for a New American Century) and come up with ways to transition countries, in this case ours, into neoliberal havens for their free market capital.

              So yeah, there is a general plan here. Ties right in with the American Gladio op and a number of others if you want the truth of it. If you can’t see it, that’s unfortunate but I still appreciate you coming here. I certainly don’t mind people disagreeing with me as long as they really hold that belief. You do. It’s ok with me. We can agree to disagree on this one.. for now… :) … but you will come around in the end. I’m just that arrogant.

            • “Greenwald didn’t wait. He was one of the first to attack Obama for his policies that didn’t match is rhetoric way back in 2009.”

              Holy crap. Now you’re just flat out lying.

              Greenwald did not criticize Obama on anything until summer 2012, and even there the “criticism” was programmatic criticism of the kind where Greenwald implies that “bad apples” are ruining an otherwise honorable administration or one of its operative branches.

              Throughout Obama’s 1st term, Greenwald repeatedly urged people to keep supporting Obama. Even when the 2012 elections neared, Greenwald split his “support” statements between Obama and the pseudo-Green candidate Jill Stein. And even when he “supported” Stein, it was mealy-mouthed.

              Greenwald has never led the charge on anything of note. He always waits until numerous minor (meaning, relatively unread) writers and bloggers have exhausted themselves arguing a cause. When that’s happened, Greenwald jumps on the cause and argues it as if it began with him, as if he never read others on the subject, as if it was all along his own idea originating in his allegedly prescient mind.

              He is one of the biggest frauds working today. You can tell he is a Yellow Kid Weil of a liar because mainstream media repeatedly call him an “expert” and a “constitutional lawyer” when he is not an expert on anything, and when there is no such thing as a certification as “constitutional lawyer” in any state Bar among the 50 states.

              It’s obvious that “DB Schell” is Glenn himself using a sock puppet.

              What a sad little whinger that Glenn is.

    • Wachtell Lipton does not give new associates “free speech cases” to litigate.

      A new litigation associate at Wachtell is given research and occasional discovery work. Trials? Maybe by 3d or 4th year, and even there, only as 2d chair.

      It would help if you knew something about legal work, before you commented with so much false authority.

      How long have you been using the “DB Schell” sock puppet handle, Glenn?

    • ‘Martial’ Law, dipstick…not “Marshall Law” !

  3. […] Why I Can No Longer Defend Glenn Greenwald as Merely a Dupe in the Snowden Psyop […]

  4. I lost interest in DBShell’s comment somewhere around the “17th paragraph” of the rebuttal. Yawn. I so appreciate someone, in this case Mr. Creighton and his elves [oh yes, there must be elves], who can cut through the BS engulfing us all rather then someone who obfuscates over relative minutia because they apparently cannot grasp the larger picture… or simply don’t want to. Whatever…. Greenwald’s a shill IMHO. Rock on Scott.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 794 other followers

%d bloggers like this: