Salon's Glenn Greenwald Writes to The Field

Wow....

Wow...

Wow...

More and more "mainstream" people are finding out:  Don't mess with Al!!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Agree with me, or else, you can't call yourself a Progressive seems to be the theme I'm finding here.  I think we have a lot to thank Woodward & Bernstein for, but some of the next generations of journalists have been on an continuous ego romp trying to outdo the attention they justifiably received.

We used to call it mountains out of mole hills - but when the activity is to HURT the best chance we have at getting out of the hideous mess we are all in:

"That is an extraordinary claim to make -- in your desperate effort to defend Barack Obama in all that He does"

I get really, really angry.  Also, I never capitalize the pronoun when I refer to someone's name.

I never send a comment to blogs but this exchange is an important one. I'm surprised that Glenn is surprised that US government takes advantage of legal regimes outside the US to subvert the US constitution. This is not new. The essence of rendition is based on pursuing precisely this strategy. And unless I am mistaken the US has used rendition long before Bush 43 came to office. (I believe the Clinton administration made use of this strategy particularly for drug cases.) If the US government under both Democratic and Republican adminstrations would pursue rendition why would they not monitor communications outside American borders and circumvent the US constitution. They have been doing it for decades. Perhaps Al you hit a nerve because I believe Glenn lives and works in Latin American (Brazil?). Perhaps Glenn was shocked to realize his own work might have been monitored (legally).

I'm still voting for Obama for President.

If he gets the center seat he can make changes in FISA (with the help of a Democratic Congress).

Obama gave his explanation; I'm not crazy about it, but I understand it.

Mc Cain won't do anything about FISA.

What a smug self-righteous asshole this Greenwald is!

"in your desperate effort to defend Barack Obama in all that He does"

Equals:

Anyone who doesn't agree with me that Barack Obama is the biggest threat to our civil liberties (!) is clearly worshipping him as a messiah.

What a putz.

Al you are right about the crusade. Glenn is following his buddy in rightousness Krugman over the deep end of the progressive pool. While I enjoy much of both their writings, lately it seems this "crusade-a rama" has been spreading like some sort of novo-virus around certain progressive blogs. They seem to feel it is their duty to go around and bash  with their truthiness , those who don't buy into their  judgement of "progressiveness". This was going on during the primaries too, but it has gotten worse. Glenn needs to take a deep breath and see that part of his crusade is rooted in his anger that La Clinton lost the nom. He won't admit it, but it shines thru his work these days. And he is accusng others of it...How Rovian!

"Can you point to anything published -- rather than claims you now make about what secret sources tell you -- to support your claim" 

What is sad is that he is completely unaware how pathetic it is for a 'journalist' to write this.  Come on Al don't you know that the truth is the first thing to rise to the surface - no digging required - it is all coming in on the wires.

and OMG-ing all over the librul blogosphere over FISA ?

And then, of course kos and other purist trolls there blew it out of any meaningful perspective and handed over the RW talking point today.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mccain_hits_obama_on_fisa_vote.php

amk

It has been known for a long time that foreign countries can intercept traffic that our country can't.  Some of them have limits to what they can do inside their boundaries (like we are supposed to) and others don't. 

To think that these governments do not cooperate with our government for some return in kind would be the height of naivite.

All that being said, the question in hand is to what degree one feels threatened by this and who would you most trust to not take advantage of this.  Since we know that the Bush government approached telecoms before 9/11 (like in February of 2001) one really has to question their trustworthiness to only look for criminal activity in the information they receive.

I appreciate the efforts Greenwald is making to attempt to defend constitutional rights, but his current attack (and it is no hyperbole to call it that) on Al is uncalled for.  Al states specifically that he has received information from people who he can't very well quote.  Since he can't, Greenwald dismisses the claim as irrelevant.

What surprises me is that Al was not really trying to defend FISA, rather he was just saying that in the larger scheme of things it is somewhat of a lower magnitude of importance than other things that need to be dealt with and to attempt to derail Obama because he does not meet some perceived ideological purity standard which is arbitrarily applied is ridiculous.

In fact, the statement Al made was actually something that Greenwald could use to support his campaign, not to dismiss it.

I'll be kind in my understatement since Greenwald done such a nice job make a fool of himself on his own. 

Allan, you hit the nail right of the head with what this goofball was implying--"If you don't work yourself into a lather of this piece of legislation, then you are a Kool-Aid drinker!".  Obviously he doesn't know crap about Narco News and Al Giordano (and The Field, Google!) if he thinks there are any sacred cows or their worshippers among us mere mortals.

I, for one, cannot wait till the FISA vote is over so that at least these people can add a little variety to their hissy-fits.

Ay, Santa Madre, dame la paciencia!

"I hate quotations."--Ralph Waldo Emerson

This whole FISA debate is a nice little distraction, but as Al has pointed out, the wiretapping that everyone finds so objectionable will go on with or without FISA.

I'm somewhat troubled by Obama's stance on this issue, as I don't think corporations should be given retroactive immunity for conspiring with the government to break the law.  Personally, I don't think Obama should vote for the bill if it offers the telecoms immunity, but I also understand that if Obama is elected, he will be in a much better position to guard our civil liberties than if he remains a junior senator from Illinois.

The FISA/Immunity thing is a nice little pet cause for ideological puritans, but the reality is that there are far greater abuses of civil liberties that garner far less self-serving outrage.

By his standard of evidence, Bob Woodward had "no proof" that Watergate was connected to anyone in the White House. You'd think that another journalist would have some regard for the practice of confidential sourcing.

If Greenwald actually wanted to persuade you to research and provide some more direct sources, it seems like he would have used a bit more tact. Instead he seemed pretty clear he just wanted to snub out your view. And upon not receiving a source, it seems like he could have either dropped your statement as inconsequential to his investigations or investigate for himself elsewhere.

I'm a bit confused, though, and perhaps you can clear this up for me, Al. Obviously you did not want to become more intricately involved with the FISA argument and, considering his tone, it makes perfect sense for you to not run around doing Greenwald's dirty work. But it also seems like publishing this exchange also pushes you further into the FISA argument anyway. Can you perhaps explain the reasoning behind your choice to publish this?

 The Field will get more hits to it's site.

Ooh, I love a good boxing match. Al, you must have really hit a nerve with Glenn.

 Does he really live in Brazil?

I too will be glad when the FISA vote is over, but I do not think Glenn will let it go even then. This issue will probably drag on with these kinds of people for the rest of the summer.

Also - I just noticed in Greenwald's salon post today, he is frothing quite profusly. He starts out by saying that Obama won't even show up to vote for the bill, despite Halperin reporting that Obama is on Capitol Hill right now, about to vote on FISA. Hmmmm.

Greenwald really, really needs to take a deep breath because he can be a good journalist and a good writer if he wants to. He's letting emotion get the best of him.

A reader, quite on his own, doing a simple Google Search, sent me various links to already-published information that shows the pattern of unwarranted surveillance in foreign lands upon US citizens and others. One of the stories was published right here at Narco News:

http://www.narconews.com/Issue34/article1063.html

It notes:

"Sources within DEA contend Horn’s claims against the CIA and State Department are on target, adding that the Department of Justice went as far as to claim that no U.S. citizen is protected from eavesdropping by its government when overseas."

Here are some more:

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=143288

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5V-4JWFMVD-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c254dd693f3eacb377b0b63b554b18da

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct111301.html

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:OSUyJp2WaiEJ:www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles5(2)/canada.pdf+foreign+country+surveillance+and+sharing+intelligence&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us

http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n22andes.html

Not that I think that Greenwald or any lazy reporter deserves to demand that I or any other journo do his heavy lifting for him, but I sent those links along to him so that the reader's initiative might not have been a total waste of time.

Look, here's how it works: Interest groups have staff that do research. They then cultivate reporters to which to spoon-feed that research, get it published, making the reporter look good, as if he's the one that did the digging. You have no idea how many Pulitzer Prizes came out of such spoon-fed Pablum.

That's all well and good. I've done some of that myself. But I've never let it turn me into one of those reporters that has become dependent on others doing my work for me.

More troubling than the smarmy prosecutorial sanctimony of our profession's Joe Camel look-a-like in sending those emails to me this morning was that he seemed to actually expect that I would do his work for him. (And give up sources that, for reasons that ought to be obvious to anyone with a capacity for reason, can't and shouldn't be outed.)

Yeah, that's how to win a crusade, eh?

Saludos del salvaje noreste mexicano, al...

I cannot beleive how petulant and aggressive Greenwald comes across as.  Although, I understand he has also spent time living in Latinoamérica, so the issue must be close to him. If he is the kind of expat that is all too common in big cities across Mexico and Argentina and Brazil, he is scarcely aware of the imperial dimensions of US foreign policy in the region.  I have mentioned Plan Condor and El Mozote and Negropontes grim reign in Central America, and they just stare wide-eyed, incredulous that barrel fulls of cash and weapons through "aid" will have any effect on the rule of law in incipient and destabilized governments.  I link this in hope he reads these comments, and will probably mail it to him respectfully:

Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces (1994, 2004)

The leaked manual, which has been verified with military sources, is the official US Special Forces doctrine for Foreign Internal Defense or FID.

The manual directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and (under varying circumstances) the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates employing terrorists or prosecuting individuals for terrorism who are not terrorists, running false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it repeatedly advocates the use of subterfuge and "psychological operations" (propaganda) to make these and other "population & resource control" measures more palatable.

Hit'em with the facts, let them get annoyed. I think Glenn is starting to by into his 'sphere" nickname "Glennzilla". As a musician I learned a Long time ago, don't believe those accolades, it gets in the way of the process, which is really what is interesting and important!

...someone goes after the self-anointed Patron Saint of the Progressive-Supremacist Movement. Thank you, Al! Greenwald has gotten way too much credit for way too little for far too long. He's a self-righteous dogmatist with delusions of grandeur. Glad to see him finally challenged.

Al this comment was HILARIOUS: 

..More troubling than the smarmy prosecutorial sanctimony of our profession's Joe Camel look-a-like... 

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL--what would we all do without you AL???

Franco - What instrument do you play?

The reason why Greenwald's in such a tiff is that he thinks that he's the leader of a pure crusade and Al's comment about the US using other countries to pull intel for them pulled the rug from underneath him and exposed the fact that he is standing on a foundation of sand.

EVERYBODY knows that the US strongarms other countries for their intel when they can.  They've been cozy with the Canadians forever on this - its public info in Canada - and why should it surprise anyone that this happens in South and Central America too?

The fact that Greenwald is ignorant of this and is shocked shocked! at Al's matter of fact statement of obvious (and easily verified fact) speaks unbelievably poorly of Greenwald as a journalist, which I suppose he isn't.  He is an opinion writer and not a journalist so facts may not be as important to him as the appearance of leading some sort of crusade. 

Al simply punctured his balloon of ego which is why he is upset. 

Maybe you can offer an update Al, with those links so that those who aren't reading the comments can see this info that proves your statements?    

@ Suzy @ 10:55 am

It is obvious that GG was trying to make the point that people think the O-man is "God" or at least the Messiah...that's why he capitalized "He"...boo!!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

I'm beginning to think Subcomandante Giordano.

Now you know that I make such a promotion with the utmost admiration, but you may want to delete this.

Greenwald has completely nuked the fridge on the FISA issue. Hell, I agree with his position, and I still want him to shut up and take a vacation. Sorry you got locked in his crosshairs Al, but nice work on handling that with maturity and good humor.

I lived in DC for a lot of years.  In the early eigthies, there were some attorneys from Justice in my social circle(career, not appointees).  At a dinner party, the guy nearest me turned out to be a senior analyst for NSA.  I prodded him for info on "how it worked" at NSA(remember this is still cold war era). He was adept at giving non-responsive answers all evening.  Later into our cups, we talked computers, and the leaps they were taking place.  He dropped this line that burned in my memory as much as anything else in my life: " the issue isn't getting information, it's sorting it out,  We have everything we need to know whatever we want.  It's figuring it out in a timely manner."  I asked " when you say everything you need, you mean knowing how to acquire it?"

"No, we have it now.  Everything we need, foreign and domestic."

In the context of todays FISA debates this conversation 25 years ago haunts me.

On second thought, Marcos did not support Lopez Obrador

Vik writes - "Maybe you can offer an update Al, with those links so that those who aren't reading the comments can see this info that proves your statements?"

Actually, Vik, the fact that those emails were provoked by something I wrote here in the comments section makes me wonder if this isn't really the place to stick something that I really want noticed out there!

Let me first make it clear that 1) I'm not a great defender of Glenn Greenwald, although like others I occasionally admire his writing, and 2) I honestly don't know anything about this exchange and the claims that go with it, outside of this post.  BUT....

Al, your claim really was huge, and lends itself to skepticism from those who may not have deemed you credible in their own eyes.

Also, your statement was very forthright and sure in most respects (like saying that all the communications are vacuumed up), but then when listing the countries involved (again, all, with a few exceptions), your exceptions are qualified with "maybe, and/or."

On the other end of things, I think your examples regarding Mexican surveillance are excellent.

While everyone was worrying about the presidential blowjobs in the late 90s, investigative reporter Duncan Campbell was doing a spectacular job of reporting on Echelon, GCHQ, etc. [And any of us who talked about this were called conspiracy theorists.] Some links below to get you started, Glenn. Call John Young at cryptome.com in Manhattan. He's on the Upper West Side and has REAMS of actual docs, provided anonymously, going back years as proof.

I know this shit is true because I taught NSA guys how to use the American side of the system, back when it was just the NSA hanging off the national AT&T nodes. Now, Narus, an Israeli-based company (altho' they've tried to hide it) does the vacuuming as an intermediary, which it could only do as a result of 1994 CALEA, and it's what Weiss the whistleblower was talking about. These guys can suck up packets at a rate of terabytes per nanosecond (I can't remember the rate; it's in archive.org if not removed there. Narus was bragging at one point, and very specific.) Go to informationclearinghouse.com and search for the Fox News series on the left to put the connections in context.

HAVE FUN. These are starter docs. Work from here.

http://duncan.gn.apc.org/echelon-dc.htm

http://cryptome.org/echelon-cia2.htm

http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

http://jya.com/echelon.htm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/20/echelon_discoverer_gives_masterclass/

It's funny but the first time I read the FISA-related comments on the previous thread that started this whole brouhaha, Franklin's lengthy post immediately made me think that the comment was written by a writer/blogger who covers this issue -- someone like Greenwald. Just a hunch based on the content and writing style. That could be way paranoid, but if true it might explain why Greenwald had his knickers in such a bunch when he sent that email. (Franklin got schoolled.)

This is nice, if only my dreams would be fulfilled and I start hearing you debate this crap on Democracy Now!

This guy, Greenwald, has been riding high in the saddle, adored by the moderate wing of the Democrat Party for quite a while.  Next thing he knows, some slacker-slub (*who doesn't even wear a freak'n tie, dammit) with a web site called Narco News is calling his FISA campaign a waste of time--given that the US security state already gets the info they want through a variety of channels.

And Greenwald will act totally suprised and outraged when it comes out that the US government is focusing on leftists, stalwart environmentalists, indigenous rights activists, socialist, etc. instead of Islamic 'terrorists'.   A cursory review of US history in the past hundred years would inform anyone that the consistent target of the security state are democratically minded insurgents on the left of the spectrum.

I even take it as a given that they moniter this website on a regular basis.  Why would I expect anything different than this in a country where the plutocratic elites jealously guard their power?

Indeed, Al, I am sure that in six hours your could write up a pretty convincing essay giving creedence to your claims--but, as you point out, this is a relatively trivial issue compared with other issues on the plate for folks that view getting Obama and more moderate folk elected this coming November.

But, again, this PR can only bode well for Narco News and your stature as a journalist to watch at this juncture of US history.

Nice job, again.

PS: I am sending the money that Deb refunded back to me to your coffers today.

It's always been clear that Greenwald is a humorless egomaniac driven largely by his admiration of his own righteousness - this just confirms it.

The claim that he is trying to dispute seems like a perfectly plausible one, and fits pretty comfortably with what little I know of the subject.  It would be good to see some published work on the subject, to confirm it, and perhaps Greenwald has a bit of a point there.  But he's still an enormous douchebag, so I don't particularly mind.

So, in conclusion, Glenn Greenwald - enormous douchebag.

To be brutal about this: Greenwald has a strong financial incentive to keep others off his little patch of Purity Turf. If he stops being "The Guardian of Righteousness for the Pure Progressive Jihad" then he loses readers, page views, and ultimately cash. No more book deals, no more little columns in Salon banging the same tedious drum. Not that Glenn will ever admit it - but he saw his chance to achieve financially rewarding "martyrdom" - and behold, the self-righteousness and self-pity flowed.  I look at his aggression and extremism and feel that this isn't exactly progressive politics - and certainly not politics that stands a chance of winning converts.  You don't get anywhere by kicking down the frontdoor as a prelude to a debate.

In one of my comments above, I was a bit curious why you decided to publish this conversation, as it ends up pouring more fuel on the FISA debate - something you've said you don't want to do.

I just realized that silencing or embarrassing you on the issue was the entire point of Greenwood's interaction, and for you to stay silent on it would have been a "win" for him.

And perhaps a little public scrutiny of his tactics is a nice way to say to him, "Sit down, take breath, and light up a Camel."

Moreover NSA's international phone tapping operations from Menwith Hill and at Morwenstow, Cornwall, can only be legal in Britain if special warrants have been issued by the Secretary of State to specify that American intelligence agents are persons to whom information from intercepts must or should be given. This can not be established, since the government has always refused to publish any details of the targets or recipients of specific interception warrants.

1988 article, BTW.

Al, maybe you might take a deep breath and step back just a little, and try to stay focused on the issue at hand, rather than jumping up a two bit journalist turf war.  Greenwald's been doing some good work, as have you.  There seems to be no need to get into a pissing match - regardless of who might be right.

Greenwald apparantly asked for two things to back up your claim:

1. your sources for your claim

2. other published records that might detail the charges you make.

This really doesn't seem to be too onerous.  If your source(s) are confidential, then say so.  If you don't feel like doing the leg work to point him at other published information, then at least say what city and in what year it was published.  

Without sourcing, corroboration and/or documentation, what you have is an allegation.  Greenwald is wrong to characterize it as 'making it up', but sound journalism is never on the basis of 'because I say so'.

Perhaps Greenwald will assist you in gaining these charges wider distribution, corroboration and action against widespread harvesting of electronic communications.  And this might be to the ultimate benefit of yourself and NarcoNews.

What is most important here?

Personally, having had my phone tapped and being under surveillance in the good old days, I've always assumed (like you) that all communications are at risk of surveillance and proceed accordingly.  

The wording of FISA (Greenwald's latest focus) makes it clear that any communication that happens outside of the US, or not entirely within the US, is liable to electronic harvesting without any need for warrants or judicial notice or approval.

With the internet your email flows through a roundabout path of least resistance to its ultimate destination.  Sending an order for a pizza delivery could easily go through twenty nods on three continents before arriving six blocks away - making it fair game for electronic harvesting.  This is no different than folks with warrants who fly and are arrested during a layover or when the plane is diverted into the US, though they might not leave the plane.

There's too much surveillance and a lot of bad legislation out there.  FISA is particularly egregious.  Sometimes you have to fight the battles you're faced with, win or lose.  Fighting FISA doesn't mean you approve of other erosions of privacy.

Al, you know as well as I do that we're stronger when we work together.  I think it's worth seeing if that's possible with Greenwald; give it a shot.

Is this the same guy that got into it with Olberman? This guy needs to tone down his attacks just a little. Isn't this a free country? In other words-we each have a right to form our own opinion by which to make our own judgements as to whether an issue is a make or break deal for us this election season-without being verbally assaulted. Why must Glenn attack those who try to see both sides of the FISA issue? Is that progressive-or regressive? Just wondering?

 I knew this was taking place but it is hard to read the links that the Mexican savage and Alexa posted. I guess for Glenn Greenwald ignorance was bliss.

Hey Glenn--1988, this was there:

Although it is impossible for analysts to listen to all but a small fraction of the billions of telephone calls, and other signals which might contain "significant" information, a network of monitoring stations in Britain and elsewhere is able to tap all international and some domestic communications circuits, and sift out messages which sound interesting. Computers automatically analyse every telex message or data signal, and can also identify calls to, say, a target telephone number in London, no matter from which country they originate.

How do you nominate a website for the best place to be for the 2008 elections? This place deserves that award, and that still missing credential!

Steven Hunt writes - "a web site called Narco News is calling his FISA campaign a waste of time--given that the US security state already gets the info they want through a variety of channels."

Steven - I'm not saying, and never said, that campaigning against the FISA bill was "a waste of time." In fact I think it is a worthwhile activity.

Where I break with some of the folks that are doing it is in their poor tactical and strategic judgment. A vocal sector of them has made the error of thinking that, A. If only the Democratic nominee would filibuster or something the rest of the Senate Democrats will then fall in line (they won't), or, B. That the fact that one senator is running for president means that they have power to pressure him into doing what they want (in fact, they've inadvertently caused an inaccurate perception that he's unconcerned with civil liberties in a way that only puts substantial numbers of swing voters more at ease with him), or, C. That they can use this to play out their anger that their horse (Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Ron Paul, whatever) did not win a presidential nomination this year.

I think the center-column folks over at Daily Kos, for example, have been pretty darn responsible in their understanding that you can actively oppose the FISA bill without becoming so obsessive and single-issue about it that you lose sight of other goals that are equally or more important.

I've not criticized Greenwald (before he stepped into my saloon this morning) or any of the FISA activists by name. Just as I don't see the legislation as being as big a deal as they do, nor do I see their activities as that big a deal either. It's just one of those things among thousands spinning around the news cycle these days.

But I wanted to correct any impression you or others might have that I somehow consider activism around any legislation to be "a waste of time." It's time well spent. I just wish some folks could be as smart as others are being about it right now.

I've long enjoyed Glenn's writing, and I do think he's gone off the deep end in the prosecutorial attitude, but I can understand it.  He is a lawyer.  And I don't mean that in a smarmy way...he is a lawyer in the good, old-fashioned, rule-of-law-loving way...as am I.  When something that is core to your belief system is blatently attacked. as the FISA bill attacks the very notion of checks & balances and the rule of law, it can be easy to slip into the "professional litigator attack" mode.  I'm not saying he is right to do so here...far from it, but I can understand it.

This is the Constitution, damn it, and they are gutting it.  The President of the United States has committed a felony (over 30 actually) in authorizing warrantless searches, and the Congress of the United States is about to help him cover it up.  That is a crime in and of itself--misprision of a felony--and every member of Congress that votes for a bill with immunity in it is guilty.  It is a deep and searing pain to my soul to see it happen in my country to my Constitution.

Am I still going to vote for Obama?  Of course.  He is the best candidate, and a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.  I think he will be a wise, caring, and effective President.  I am disappointed he isn't going to go to the mat on this one, but I understand it.  He has his eyes on a bigger prize.

Al, you seem to look at it from a very practical and political viewpoint, and I respect that.  I am that way on a lot of things....politics is the art of the possible, and all that.  But on the core principles of our Constitutional protections, if we don't fight tooth and nail for them, they will disappear.  And I can't compromise on those.  It is true that they can grab my stuff using foreign government "partners," so it doesn't matter from a practical standpoint whether or not this bill passes.  But it does matter from the standpoint of doing our best to keep our government from violating the promises made when it was created.  Promises that many have died trying to defend.  Did that defense always work?  No, but at least they tried.  We should do the same.

Something Shawn @ 11:40 said struck me as both true and missing the point:

but I also understand that if Obama is elected, he will be in a much better position to guard our civil liberties than if he remains a junior senator from Illinois.

Yes he will be.  But our freedoms can't rest solely on the beneficence of the executive, because the executive changes with every election.  WE have to guard our own civil liberties.  We must use every tool available to force our elected representatives to honor their oaths of office.

;)  Pam - I knew what he was intending - I meant my comment as a 'snark' - but I like Allan's word better - the guy is a PUTZ!

Jon writes - "If you don't feel like doing the leg work to point him at other published information, then at least say what city and in what year it was published."

Jon - If you look at my first response to Greenwald this morning, that's exactly what I did:

"In 1998, the Mexican daily El Universal reported on the existence of a telephone surveillance headquarters in Mexico City operated by the DEA with the permission of the Mexican government that did not solicit nor honor the concept of warranting their work with court orders and such."

City! Year! Name of publication! It's all there.

What's clear is that Greenwald isn't interested in this very interesting set of facts about global surveillance because he obviously perceives it as inconvenient to the narrative he's been pushing of late. He's not likely to take up this cause or somehow help spread the word about it, even though doing so serves the same greater pro-freedom narrative that opposition to FISA ideally ought to be part of.

He got his undies into a bunch over a comment in a comments section of an online newspaper where nobody makes the kind of money he makes working for an institutional media company... and a comment that wasn't even about him or his work, but about a greater issue of public importance.

The "can't we all get along" approach to progressive writers or bloggers crashes on the rocks of that we have different levels and understandings about how change is effectively made. Even short term readers of this blog know I pick my battles and when I take them on I do so to win, and more often than not do win. That, I think, gains me the right to do things as I choose to do them, and not to let other bloggers or writers dictate what I should be reporting on.

I've said it before: I don't worry myself over what other bloggers or journalists do or think. If they worry about what I do or think, that's their problem.

(first time commenter) Al, thanks for posting this exchange! There's a lot here to think about. For one thing, I think it's a sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy or at least inadequacy that he failed to engage with the better part of what you were saying.

For another thing, this is just another symptom of the problem, the progressive-litmus-test as red-baiting, although I would also say that it parallels, in reverse, the post-9/11 heightened "dissent is unpatriotic" meme, or hell, even the mainstream Christian response to "heresy." I used to read Greenwald as well as OpenLeft, and ultimately I had to abandon them because they used the word "progressive" (or "transformative progressive") in the same way that people talk about doctrinal Christians vis-a-vis heretics, or what have you. Even when they were right on the substance, their intellectual methods (if you could call them that) were substantively of the right, as far as I see it.

Of course, it also strikes me that these folks are really just liberals who talk about how they won't back down on anything, yet have embraced a euphemism in the face of the right's entirely successful attempt to demonize the term! What does that tell you?

Al, I'm not saying your point is wrong, but... maybe, pick your battles? Greenwald is not the enemy. He's on our side. Or if you prefer, "in the grand scheme of things" Greenwald is on our side. You didn't need to publish this exchange of private emails as a blog post. I love what you do and for many months have made a point every day of visiting your site (current and Ex) to get your take on things. You're a valuable part of my reading, and of the blogosphere at large.

But by publishing your exchange with Greenwald you took up a blog slot with internal infighting, that you might have used in some other way. Instead, we have here a Left Good Guys Circular Firing Squad post making a private squabble public, for no good reason that I can see.

Let it go. Greenwald has his style and you have yours. He's more into documenting every bit and twiddle (maybe it's his legal background) while you tend to be more oriented to big-picture conclusions and observations (and generally damn good ones). Both approaches are, I think, valuable. But fighting among ourselves doesn't serve us.

FWIW my own take is that you do have a valid point when you note that it's reasonable for you to publish your conclusions while protecting your sources who, especially in Latin America, have a lot to lose by being outed. And as you also note, there's already plenty out there to support your take on this. My suggestion would have been to just say that to him privately, acknowledge to Greenwald that in his world it might not be enough for him, note your different styles of blogging, and thank him for his interest. And let it go.

Al, I love your passion. Please don't lose that. All I'm saying here is, keep it pointed where it will do the most good. Our side needs all the help it can get, and I'd be sad if your invaluable contribution got lost to infighting and bickering. Pick your battles. Let it go.

Thanks for all that you do, and truly, all the best to you.

Al, I stand corrected, it was a careless phrase.  Of course fighting vociferously to protect civil liberties is incredibly important.  However, the attack on Obama is, in my view, as you have framed it.

Having seen 'the rule of law' crapped on with regularity in my life time, I tend to be pretty jaded, especially when I see myriad laws disreguarded with the illegal attack on Iraq, which lead to a massive refugee crisis and hundreds of thousands dead. Many of the public, self-appointed guardians of 'freedom' in the US were either complict or silent.  I place no faith these folk's advancing 'freedom', in the concrete or abstract sense of the ideal/concept.

In fact, most public intellectuals (as opposed to dissident intellectuals) have tended to be hypocrites that kiss up to the biggest thugs on the block for their share of the loot.

On another level--I don't like neck-ties, and I am inclined to not trust folks that wear them as a regular part of their attire.  Hey, there are exceptions, of course.

Some other George - My long experience working toward the same goals as many progressives, or liberals, or radicals, or even libertarians, depending on the specific matter, whether they be electoral, non-electoral, or anti-electoral (each is valid at its own moment) has found it to be a Jurassic Park of conflicting egos and agendas. And from time to time a Tyrannosaur looks down at this little Velociraptor and thinks, Oh goodie! Dinner!

Well, history shows what's happened in each of those cases, and this smaller but faster creature has taken a piece out of many that thought they could push him around. And you know what happens if you don't do that? They come around more frequently to try to interfere with your own hunting expeditions.

This creature has the advantage of being one that doesn't work alone. My protection from aspiring bullies is that there are others like me and we hunt in packs. Only by bringing this exchange out into the sunlight do the big lizards see that we little ones, united, are hardly defenseless or powerless, and, to the contrary, more lethal when it comes getting things done.

Some punk wants to first try and intimidate me from speaking a gigantic truth, then when that doesn't work tries to impugn my integrity by accusing that I make things up in my journalism? Well, he's off nursing his flesh wounds now and I'm flossing my teeth and shining my claws. Jebus, it's not like I killed the guy. He'll live to write again. Maybe he'll even be more careful about it. He certainly will the next time he thinks about trying to intimidate around this neck of the forest.

One thing I learned when I lived in the jungle: in the forest, there are not "two sides." Nature is much more complicated than that.

Al, for the record, I would expect you to publish these email exchanges as a blog topic.

You're not going to make this a vendetta--but this does point up the arrogance of many of the conventional media 'stars'--folks appointed by the corporate media gate-keepers to voice an opinion on matters of importance.

This was an interesting topic, and pertinent to some of the discussion that we have been having lately.

I wouldn't apologize to Greenwald, and point out the obvious: that you have a differnt 'style'.

Greenwald I would place in the 'public intellectual' catagory that I refered to above.

No, he is not an enemy, but the accusatory tactic certainly lacked tact and decorum.

I disagree with George.

When it comes to the "Left Good Guys Circular Firing Squad," Greenwald is arguably a member of the vanguard (maybe the Forlorn Hope?). Al didn't ask for this exchange, and I don't think there's any common purpose that entitles Greenwald to have his petulance rewarded and/or corrected in private. He lives in a big old glass house when it comes to holding this form of "research" and "analysis" up to the light.

For me, the clincher is the final email that Al quotes. "You just made it up," is the conclusion of someone who doesn't want to know anything more or wants an easy escape from the burden of having to learn more by his own efforts. Even the opening email query is pretty telling as to how Greenwald approaches potential sources of information. I guess he assumes people are going to be so impressed by him that they'll ignore his officious tone?

Al: Way to go in slamming another self-righteous progressive who has his own obvious agenda.

A couple of months ago, I finally ditched Salon.com because I couldn't take anymore from Glenn Greenwald and Sidney Blumenthal.

Obama has a much shorter public record than McCain, and so his actions are watched much closer "to see what he actually is". From his primary promise to filibuster any bill that contained telecom immunity to his post-primary change of heart must be a record in the history of broken campaign promises.

Unless you have your head stuck in the sand, this reflects poorly on Obama and there is no hiding it.

Lastly, Obama said if this FISA bill is a deal-breaker, it is OK with him. So it should be OK with you, his supporters when it is indeed a deal-breaker for many of us.

"Where's your proof?!?"

"Cite chapter and verse!" [Like I can't remember stuff for years, so I have to carry proof around in my panties.]

"The only thing you talk about are conspiracies!" [Which, of course, become congressional issues ten years later, after the boil is lanced. Meanwhile, their education is the NYT Editorial page: if it ain't there, it ain't real.]

The assumption that you're making it up because you dont cough it up is jejune, to be polite and to say the least.

More than you ever wanted to know here and here.

 by a vote of 69-28.  Obama's vote would have changed it how? 68-29? I don't get it, why is this only targeted at the nominee?

Greenwald points out to everyone that HRC voted against it but Obama voted for it.  McCain did not bother to show up.

To Arun Gupta-I hope you don't mean you are voting for McCain, because that makes ZERO sense.

Ms. Walsh's behavior during the primaries... in her writing, editing and  cable appearances was self-righteous, over the top, indignant and condescending to all and any who didn't cow-tow to her ultra-important opinions and pronouncements.

One of GG's respondents wrote this:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa/permalink/2df...

And this is what we get. But is this what we deserve?

For anyone even remotely interested in a truly precise, prescient and ground level take on Obama the Politician, Obama the Hope Peddler, Obama the Realist, Obama the Pragmatist, Obama the Second Coming and Obama the Myth, then Google Charles Pierce's piece "The Cynic and the Senator" in Esquire's (yes, Esquire!) June 4 edition. For those who think "we don't deserve this" or have the desire for guilt-free Change...listen:

"There has to be confession. There has to be penance.

This is what you get...when you don't insist on

measuring the wreckage, walking through the ruins,

or counting the cost."

As someone who marched for Civil Rights in 1963; demonstrated, draft-counseled, was clubbed and ultimately imprisoned for 6 months for refusing induction in 1968 (as a member of David Harris' Resistance campaign); who harbored Nicaraguan refugees in a southern Texas safe house in 1985; who promoted civil disobedience against the "first" Gulf War and has marched, lobbied, demonstrated, screamed, petitioned, phone called and sent dollars against the ("second" Gulf) Iraq War...please let me just say, I feel in my queasy gut and my broken heart that today marks a sickening milestone, a point (of almost?) no return for our Country. Beyond tears. Beyond screaming. Beyond Hope? If not, then an immeasurable moment of mourning.

Hillary's vote was designed to make her the queen of the progressives who will now call for the Party to overthrow Obama in her favor in spite of her atrocious record.

Her operatives have coordinated the latest attack.  See last night's AC360 for a story on Hillary die-hards, today's HuffPo for a screed from Kristen Breitweiser.

Fasten your seat belts and watch out for chicken feathers!

Franco said: "Glenn needs to take a deep breath and see that part of his crusade is rooted in his anger that La Clinton lost the nom. He won't admit it, but it shines thru his work these days."

And then Al said: "C. That they can use this to play out their anger that their horse (Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Ron Paul, whatever) did not win a presidential nomination this year."

If anyone needs any immediate proof of these statements, look at Greenwald's updates about the FISA voting today. Inexplicibly, he keeps making special mention of how Clinton votes for each motion. That's really all the proof I needed to figure out what this is about.

I used to read salon but during the primaries they became insufferable.

Arun - Please note that I never tell anybody how to vote or even whether to vote. That's a personal decision that nobody needs my help with. I just write about what I consider interesting.

At the bottom of this fake debate over FISA are two very divergent motives. On one hand there are the several folks who I have had the misfortune to have to engage on this like Greewwald who are simply still fighting the primary. On the other hand are people frightened by the fact that we have to let the damn neo-cons jump out the window somewhat unscathed. It seem so unjust it is painful, (back to this in a moment).

Those people in the first category aren't really listening they just want to demonstrate they were right all along, or worse yet they want to carry on their own insurgent campaign to defeat our presumptive nominee, this is how I view Greenwald.

The people in the second category are genuine in their fear and anger and it isn't really the crappy legislation written by appeasers in the House of Reps. It's that we aren't going to lock Bush up for a hundred years. When you set out for revenge dig two graves has a lot of meaning in this context.

As far as the so called problems with FISA itself, I take the presumptive nominee at his word, and I will make him hold to it if he is elected president, that the loopholes will be closed. While he is simply one vote in the Senate I am not going to demand he run up on the sword of a losing battle just for my self-satisfaction (and ultimately against my self-interest).

I applaud those who can make a stand, and I applaud our presumptive nominee for speaking against the bill with clarity. But when the VisiGoths are surrounding his house and threatening to burn it down, in my opinion, he gets to go defend his house and the other guys who don't have VisiGoth problems can stay and fight the beautiful losers fight.

Greenwald is an arrogant poser in my humble opinion.
On topic, is Greenwald saying that he believes the intelligence community obeys the rules? That is the most naive thing I have ever heard of. And someone upthread said he made a valuable contribution to journalism? Wow am I entering the twilight zone?

The irony of Greenwald defending Clinton now is that the last time an amendment to strip telco immunity from the FISA bill came up, back in February, she didn't even bother to show up for the vote -- and this was after promising on FireDogLake the month before that she would "oppose" telco immunity.

Al,

I've been a fan of The Field, and have contributed to past fundraising. Your electoral analysis has generally been spot on. But in this case, I think you're the one who's overreacting.

Your claim was a big one, there's no getting around that. It may be true, there may be some documentation, but face it, it's a significant claim. So it's not unreasonable to ask for substantiation. It's the responsible thing to do, in fact.

I'd like to know more about this issue, and am also interested to see more documentation. That's all. Thanks.

JTD - Make sure to check out the update link from the Los Angeles Times above. As for "burden of proof," different strokes for different folks. I think the burden is on those that insist the US government would not and does not receive information from land lines, cell phones, Internet communications, etcetera, from foreign governments and companies, totally outside of the jurisdiction of the USA, to prove their fantastic claim.

Regardless, I didn't go hounding anybody else over that.

Anyway, new thread up! ...with a special invitation!

Greenwald has jumped the shark with FISA, even before this little dustup. As others have commented, that he needs to level a dig at Obama or anyone ostensibly supporting Obama (in a GE!!) in the process of his exchanges is obviously his tell.  Greenwald denigrates his own efficacy and credibility by his coupling of his FISA enthusiasm to his antipathy to Obama. Frankly, though entirely simplistic, I cannot but see this as post-primary bitterness on the part of Greenwald, like Krugman. Under a Clinton media umbrella, these two fly first class; it is all about access to power in the end, even for civil libertarians, I guess.  With Obama, they have to fly economy--and this burns them up. It really is sad that that Greenwald and Krugman have both done this to themselves as they can be good advocates. 

One should assume that foreign telecom companies are working with the US in Latin America, and elsewhere, that's how the intelligence community operates. I am sure they do not ask permission from courts or knock on people's doors asking them if they can monitor their calls and other electronic communications; it would not be a very effective method of gathering information. The rule of law historically has never effectively been applied to spying and never will; it would be foolish to think it possible for the two to operate together other than for PR reasons. Here is word byte from the NYTs' the full story can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

"To detect narcotics trafficking, for example, the government has been collecting the phone records of thousands of Americans and others inside the United States who call people in Latin America, according to several government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the program remains classified." - NYTs' 12/16/07

 We now have over 1380 signatures on the petition to get Al credentialed in Denver. If you support his work and have not signed please do so now here. We are aiming for 1500 signatures by next week.

The fact that Hillary issued a "statement" immediately following her vote on FISA (and had her web consigliere distribute it) says all you need to know about her vote.

Upthread I commented on the actual topic of this thread, but now I want to comment specifically about Obama's actions.  Let me say first that I do not like either the bill itself, nor the telecom immunity part.  However, I am not going to hold this against Obama for two reasons.

Regarding Obama's actual vote, he was in a no win situation, so he had to make a calculated decision as to the lesser of two evils.  Voting as he did, he knew he would gather the scorn of the progressive base.  However, if he voted against it hew would really leave himself open to attacks from the Republicans, but not the ones that most people would anticipate.  It would not be the soft on national security attack that would harm him.  Rather it would be, since there was no way he could muster enough Dems to vote no to defeat the bill, that how could people trust him to lead the country when he couldmn't even convince enough members of his own party to vote the way he wanted.

He obviously felt the second consequence could be more damaging and chose that one.  Remember, there was no way to get enough Dems to go along with him, even if he promised to personally bankroll all their campaigns.  I do believe that, if he felt there was only a few votes differential, he may have well tried to twist arms and go the opposite way.

Also, he was right, that the temporary fix was worse than what was voted on and that without something the administration would continue headlong on its current path.

Concerning telecom immunity, there is a loophole that nobody, or almost nobody is talking about.  IIRC, the immunity begings on actions after 9/11/2001.  It does not provide immunity for actions before that time. (After all, how could the administration push for that when they admitted they weren't paying any attention to terrorism before then.  However, according to Qwest, the government was showing up asking for the illegal cooperation in February of 2001.  So actions can be brought up for those actions and discovery can take place.

The fact that Glenn and Al are exchanging a few light blows matters little in the ongoing debate over how far American security forces may go in spying on citizens - and employing massive multinational corporations with utter impunity to do their work.

Yeah, privacy itself is yesterday's news - that horse left the big U.S. barn more than a decade ago. However, letting these big corporations off the hook for illegal activity supervised by nobody is just plain wrong. Glenn's work is deep and principled and has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.

Obama's on the wrong side of this, he just is. Just my view; maybe he'll be great after all - and I'm 90% certain he will win. I have to say that his so-called "move" to the center or the right is not exactly shocking - to anyone paying attention it's been pretty clear he's more of a centrist "new Democrat" than what many progressives thought he was.

may feel gratifying (and as an ex-employee of Verizon, it would be deeply gratifying to me), but it's a distraction from pursuing criminal prosecution of the government officials responsible.

But it wasn't, was it? Say hurrah for the internet, because without it 99% of the people in shock -- shock, I tell you -- that this has been going on for years would know nothing about it. This is called the great awakening, these past few weeks. Jim Bamford wrote The Puzzle Palace in 1982. Twenty-six tears ago. A snip from a review:

Back in 1982, James Bamford published The Puzzle Palace, which opened the National Security Agency up to a previously unknown level of scrutiny. Bamford showed that the NSA had operated with virtually no public oversight since its inception, [Tom W. take note] and that this led to predictable outcomes, including Operation Shamrock, which involved widespread monitoring of private communications between US citizens.

Twenty-six years ago and everyone is just waking up to it now? If everyone with their panties in a knot over this would be honest with themselves, they thought stories about these kinds of telecom operations were tantamount to Men in Black fiction when mentioned during the 90s. Right? Or Enemy of the State. Conspiracy stuff.

I can't tell you how many times I heard people say "Oh, they can't record everyone's conversation, how can they do that!" I was watching Feingold tonight, a guy I like, and I thought: How Can He Be So Effing Naive? He's on the right Committee, but maybe he can't talk, so he just sounds stupid.

Let me hit you with another one: the technology now doesn't even use digital. Digital is anachronistic, a process from a previous era, antideluvian, like using a donkey to haul logs. Or put music in your iPod. Entire librairies of audio and video representing a year's worth of the nation's call/email/etc/etc/whatever data can be carried around in something the size of a box of slides. Drop it in a reader and you can swipe what you see in the expanded universe around you to replay. it's holographic computing and it been around for 31 years; meaning in use. What pisses me off is that we shared our taxpayer-paid military knowledge of these processes with other countries and allowed their commercial companies to bring the technologies to market first. Or we went to other countries and set up shop because labor was cheaper there, and gave away the secrets. So much of the spying going on in this regard is not to gain military superiority, but grab the industrial commercial and technological lead, like China did ten years ago.

Enough.

I thought Greenwald was within his rights initially to ask for some evidence that all C.A./S.A governments but 3 were shovelling data to the US, but then he went off by claiming Al made it up. I'm sure those governments aren't anxious to highlight their complicity.

Personally, I can't finish a Greenwald article because he doesn't have an editor. I keep thinking "This will be great!" and then my enthusiasm peters off as he drones on.

I had a laugh this morning reading the Post online about how our Special Forces were in the thick of the hostage recovery, after Uribe claimed last week that Colombia was wholly responsible for the entire operation. Okay, you paid for the chopper fuel, Alvaro...

Six months ago I predicted on Daily Kos that Uribe would be the first world "leader" to fall if Obama gets elected. I may be wrong on that, but his government is still entirely beholden to ours.

I'm surprised that Greenwald would deny our vast domination of C.A. and S.A. govts. just to prove his point about the importance of FISA. I think FISA is more important than Al G. does, but Al is right that the eggs were broken long ago and the omelet is burnt to a crisp.

Alexa - I sincerely hope you keep commenting on this issue. Your posts bring much needed perspective and insight into a complex and - apparently - long-standing problem. Have you considered cross-posting on Kos? The idiot winds are blowing at full force over there with a crowd of born-yesterdays. Historical perspective can help quell the rampant distemper. Not your duty, of course, but a cult is in the midst of forming around FISA over there (with the subject of this post of Al's as its agitated leader). It's nothing but FISA-yodeling in an echo chamber, punctuated with quotes from or hyperlinks to Greenwald. Your wider and more comprehensive view is welcome and refreshing, is all I'm saying. 

Hasn't Al spent decades pounding the pavement (literally in some cases) as a respected journalist? His reporting has withstood lawsuits, as pointed out above. It takes years and years to develop a network of contacts and sources to generate compelling stories, and I'd imagine a great deal of danger considering Al's subject matter and areas of operation.

The New Media is great and is playing a crucial role in starting a revolution, but most of what happens in the majority of the blogosphere is much different from what Al and other journalists in the classic sense do. Bloggers often offer commentary and back up their claims with "links." Much of the "reporting" on blogs relies upon those links to journalists who are out there everyday in the field (pun intended). I hope more blogs can figure out ways to pay for their own reporters out there hitting the beats. This needs to be the next step of the evolution IMO.

So to essentially demand "links" or reveal sources from a professional journalist is somewhat insulting. Al is the "links." He has a long track record of being a responsible journalist.

And the ultimate insult to an actual journalist is to claim they are making things up.

We all bring unique backgrounds and skills to the table, and we need to remember that making this diversity work together is ultimately how we're going to restore the Constitution, and end the unnecessary killing being done in our names and with our tax dollars.

Well what i'm really craving is a more thorough analysis of the FISA issue. I'm a big obama fan, but have always realized that despite being a unique, inspiring, and unfamiliar political personality, he is part of the democratic party mainstream and as such i expected many decisions and stands from him that i disagreed with. Fine. This one however, i gotta admit, is surprising, and I don't get it. The only explaination that makes any sense to me so far was posted above

However, if he voted against it hew would really leave himself open to attacks from the Republicans, but not the ones that most people would anticipate.  It would not be the soft on national security attack that would harm him.  Rather it would be, since there was no way he could muster enough Dems to vote no to defeat the bill, that how could people trust him to lead the country when he couldmn't even convince enough members of his own party to vote the way he wanted.

I would love to see some thorough Field analysis of this move. Not just a contextualization of its relative importance, but strong analysis of why. Why the change of tune? Is it a flip flop? What would be the consequences of standing ground.

Greenwald is reading about FISA. Gets a claim, wants to know what's up. Sends terse email to Al.

Al sends back email, mentions his credentials, types of sources, one citation, and says you got attitude.

Situation devolves.

I don't fault Greenwald for asking for a citiation. Al's response did give once cite to one part - that Mexico does that intelligence vacuuming. The rest is off-the-record, common-knowledge stuff.

From what I know about Al's past reporting, I find it to be a credible claim. These are countries that have been ruled by military dictators not too long ago. South and Central America are part of our economic empire.

So on the merits, Greenwald's request is legit, imho. Al's response on the facts was fine.

And then the comments section turns to FISA, which we've been having a Field Fight about. A family has to know how to fight, I think; constructive disagreement is a goal in a broad coaltion. "Fight nice, show some class" is a good goal.

There were a bunch of people who's comments I thought were over the top. I forget the fancy rhetoric phrase for it, but you don't have to make it personal.

Can someone get this link (below) to Mr. Greenwald's attention? Seems he's still fighting a 20th Century battle in the 21st Century.

The FISA court has been rendered moot in the global economy. At least the recently passed FISA bill provides for some stronger oversight that was not part of the old 1978 law -- so we have some (though need more) hope of monitoring what Big Brother is doing with all this data. 

And long-term, what we need is a new way of thinking, new strategies, and a global alliance on the part of civil libertarians and citizens alike, to protect our rights in this new reality. Divisive bickering and childish name-calling over pet issues is no way to make progress.

But for someone to smear Al, accusing him of making things up, to me, is indicative of a mentality that is shooting at the barn in front of them while the bull is charging at their back. 

From the New York Times, June 28:

US-EU private data sharing agreement at hand: report    

Negotiators, who have been meeting since February 2007, have largely agreed on draft language for 12 major issues central to a "binding international agreement," the report said. The pact would make clear that it is lawful for European governments and companies to transfer personal information to the United States, and vice versa.    

... The Bush administration and the European Commission have not publicized their talks, but they referred to their progress in a little-noticed paragraph deep in a joint statement after a summit meeting between President Bush and European leaders in Slovenia this month.

Issued June 10, the statement declared that "the fight against transnational crime and terrorism requires the ability to share personal data for law enforcement," and called for the creation of a "binding international agreement" to aid such transfers while also ensuring that citizens' privacy is "fully" protected.

The NYT's article goes on to explain that independent agencies exist in Europe that are charged with regulating the use of private information and assisting their citizens in addressing privacy invasions. However, the United States, home of the Bill of Rights, the Times articles notes, "has no such independent agency."

Now, instead of fighting over a moot FISA court and bashing Obama or anyone else who voted for it, or against it (it's moot for crying out loud), maybe the energy of the various superstar bloggers would be better spent organizing a campaign to gain assurances from the presidential candidates that they will, in fact, support the creation of such an independent privacy rights (outside the Executive Branch) agency, that has a real set of teeth.

Not as sexy as a food fight over 20th Century legal concepts, but it might just be the right battle to be waged in this century.

Sadly. Greenwald [and his many undisputed 'sock-puppets'] jumped the shark long ago. Leaving aside his propensity to spend 100 words going on [and on and on] where five would do, he has now decided that He is more important than any subject he claims to cover. It's a shame really - instead of contributing to the solutions, Glen has become just another member of the 'circular firing squad'

This is eactly why Obama's vote is so frustrating: it was largely symbolic, and directly opposed to some of the things he has claimed are most important to him. (Including I believe a clear statement that he'd never vote for a bill which contained immunity.)

The government already has ways to get around any restrictions, has for years, and will continue to do so. There was no need to 'extend' anything; he claims (in the nice note Al copied into a previous comment--I have claimed since last year that one thing which sets Obama apart is that he is an excellent listener) this is a compromise, but *what* is the compromise?

Bad analogy: He's running on a no-butchery campaign as a doctor. But others claim to save someone's life, they need to cut off his head. After much arguing, they compromise on only cutting off the nose and ears. Even though he's promised to never do anything which would damange the nose, and there was an attempt to only cut off the ears, he goes along with cutting off the nose and ears.

When the only thing the patient needed was a haircut, or perhaps even a hair brush.

But as someone mentioned above... maybe this operation is what was needed for the crowd to think he's a real doctor.

Al,

Thanks for the reply. You mentioned a new thread, but I may be too dense to see it.

You mentioned "burden of proof" for the "fantastic claim" that the US Gov doesn't receive info from foreign govs and companies. I don't think anyone is making that claim. Clearly there is a litany of evidence in the record that that is the case. (And plainly not just of the honest policing variety either.)

Your original claim was much broader: for the wide base of countries identified, "all communications" to the US are "turned over to US agencies". The LA Times article -- granted, far from the final word on the subject -- only describes technical improvements in Mexico that are the norm here and says that Mexico is pushing to allow phone taps without warrants. It goes on to speculate about information sharing, which we can agree does happen.

I don't think that makes the case that all communications are turned over by Mexico or companies there. And I think it's a stretch to say that implies the same about Canada, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, etc. I am admittedly little informed about Echelon, though, so relevant corrections are genuinely appreciated.

With that said, I think we've wandered off the point where the FISA controversy is concerned. US telecoms chose to break US laws which are quite clear about what is out-of-bounds. Pardoning that because they were directed to by the President sets this precedent: if the President wishes to break the law, they need only ask private actors to do it for them -- ie. anything is legal to do if so "ordered" by the President. (FWIW, that also happens to be the Nuremberg defense.)

For me, anyway, privacy, real or imagined, is a secondary issue.

As for Obama, I think there's no contradiction in supporting him and objecting to his position on this bill. I'm right with you in seeing a left libertarian, far from the old Democratic mold, and am filled with hard won hope.

So, I believe that Obama's vote on this runs counter to his principles. I certainly don't buy the argument that blocking this bill would paint him or the Dems as weak. But I think he's calculated that stopping it would require a bloody fight against Pelosi and Reid, and that /that/ would be bad for the Dems and bad for his administration in 2009.

Obama was put in an ugly position and I can't wholly condemn his choice. But that doesn't mean we haven't just witnessed a bipartisan endorsement of unchecked government power and lawlessness, one that I think is increasingly out of place in the rest of the hemisphere.

Short and sweet, he has been an asshat for quite some time now.  I cannot  stand to read the sanctimonious jerk anymore.  For someone who has not even voted in the last two elections, he sure likes to make his opinions known.  While I believe in freedom of speech (he has every right to his opinion as I to mine) my father raised me to believe that voting was precious and if I did not use it, then I had no standing to criticize.

he's got to learn to smooth out The Snippy while online. true. but mocking his looks? that's just a cheap shot and you're way stronger than that, baby! 

Nezua - Have you seen this image of Joe Camel? It's, like, a separated at birth situation. Plus, the tone of Mr. Greenwald's emails to me reminded me of that of so many sanctimonious anti-smokers, that I couldn't get that image out of my head.

(*I titled this comment A Joe Camel Christmas as promotion for my upcoming children's book.) Joe Camel is handsome!

Loved that picture of Joe Camel.  Hey, isn't he the guy you see at the country club, leaning against the wall, smugly smoking a cigarette, with the beautiful woman on his arm?

if ever there was one!!!

Al,  Thank you for the clarification, and the reminder - i should have read your piece with greater attention and retention.  Your readers have also added many other citations that should satisfy Greenwald or serve as a point of departure for his further investigations.

Please don't think that I was recommending a journalism based on tummy rubs all around, nor that I would suppose to direct your work.

In the past few days there has been a bit of coverage on the vast array of data that the government surveils and harvests.  It's been going on for decades.  Carnivore was never killed.  It just went dark and sprouted new heads.  As with FISA, this should lead to indignation, action, consequences and changes to how government operates.

The objective of our efforts should be to secure our liberties, to shine light on improper activities, and to force change for the better.  There appears to be enough work for everybody, and no need to provoke or prolong schoolyard scuffles.  As Bill Conroy owns the House of Death story, I'd be pleased if Greenwald owned the FISA story, and moreso if you owned central american data harvesting.

Why is that we liberals are so much better at attacking those we basically agrre with instead of attacking those who oppose us? (Cue Life Of Brian, please, Judean People's Front vs. People's Front of Judea)

I have no doubts that the US is collecting surveilence info from most of the countries on this planet. But outside of a few stories/links/leaks, I can only prove this in a very few cases and most of the 'proofs' available can be refuted by the determined skeptic. Fine, I live my life as if someone is always listening. But it would be nice to have conclusive irrefutable proof. (For example I have a relative who works for the government who in the late 80's was developing code that would index and sort a database with over a billion entries - what would you suppose the government security agencies might have done with something like that? That's as close to 'irrefuatble' as I can get as I know my relative & he had no reason or need to lie to me, furthermore this came up in a casual conversation. Unfortunately I cannot prove this to anyone else...)

Before the Libby trial I got really annoyed by truthout.org's Jason Leopold's repeated claims that 'any day now' Karl Rove was about to be indicted - yes, on the court's website I saw an indictment labeled "sealed vs. sealed". Was that the indictment? Was that something else? We'll never know. Likewise, what has me so pissed off about the FISA bill (& Obama's support for it) is the retroactive immunity for the telcos. If this law stands and the civil suits are dismissed, once again it means that 'we the people' will never know exactly who was spied upon nor what was done with this information. Furthermore 'we the people' will never have a way to find this information, either. (Does anyone here really suspect there will be full & accurate archives of this administration's activities waiting for the next administration to discover? http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/fpds.php?reptype=a&database=fpds&mod_age...) What galls me so is that while I have to follow the law and have no say whatsoever in what becomes law (yes, I vote & have for some time, but if voting could change things they'd make it illegal), apparently if you're rich, powerful and support the 'right people', you are above the law. Furthermore I agree completely with Glenn that by changing his position Obama has made himself appear to be yet another cowardly craven Democratic candidate. Change my ass, he's doing the same damn things as every other Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter. Do you really truly think that even despite his capitulation and recent turns to the right, the r's won't keep calling Obama (and the rest of the Democrats) 'soft on terror' and 'opposed to national security'?

Yes I'm voting for Obama and all the Democrats on my ballot this November (assuming there is an election) but I'm not sure I care anymore who will win - 35 r's in the senate are enough to block anything President Obama might try to accomplish and with all the blue dogs in there, 65 Democratic senators and a Democratic majority in the House won't be enough to block his coming impeachment.

He is a rather handsome camel, though perhaps just a bit uppity. 

I wish I could think of more to say about the Barockstar that hasn't been said already by Paul Street, Arthur Silber, Dennis Perrin, and Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report. I sit in speechless fascination at the level of cognitive dissonance on display here regarding Obama. Our National Security State will not change one iota with Obama in the White House, nor will our mass-murderous war of imperial aggression in Iraq (and soon Iran) yet no one here gives a damn. 

I know, I know, let's just get Obama elected... then hope. I just ask one favor when things turn out the way those of us on the left have predicted (i.e business as usual), please spare us the rivers of tears and foot-stomping about a "movement" betrayed. Please, for dignity's sake.

Over at Salon, they now have an article about the FISA passage, titled "Betrayed by Obama," from Joan Walsh (who frequenters of that site will recall as one of the most outspoken Hillary supporters during the primary season). The point, of course, is that Obama will do anything to sell out his base, knowing they have nowhere else to go. (Strange, but I wonder if Walsh wrote anything similar about Bill Clinton when he was pushing through NAFTA, signing welfare "reform" and DoMA, etc., etc. Silly me! Of course not.)

Anyway, it makes me wonder if Salon has decided that a McCain presidency (and hence another four to eight years of disaffected liberals) will be better for its hit-count?

I don't think that Greenwald made an error in capitalization when he wrote, "That is an extraordinary claim to make -- in your desperate effort to defend Barack Obama in all that He does -- and I simply asked for your basis for the claim."  Greenwald is implying that Al regards Obama as some sort of God who must not be criticized.  Really, sort of disgusting.

http://www.radiolaprimerisima.com/noticias/22850

The FBI has also donated wiretapping equipment in the past to Panama, even though wiretapping is illegal here.

Here's a machine translation of the Spanish text at the Radio La Primerisima link  (http://www.radiolaprimerisima.com/noticias/22850).  Spanish speakers, please correct as needed:

El Comercio. From San Salvador. | December 14, 2007
Representatives of the U.S. government in El Salvador, once again recommended to the Salvadoran authorities approval of interventions such as telephone legal tool to combat gangs and organized crime.

A representative of the FBI, assigned to the U.S. embassy, said the need for the National Civil Police (PNC) can count on this research tool that should be endorsed by judges. El Salvador is one of the few countries in Latin America that does not allow the police to intrude upon telephones against organized crime.

The U.S. delegate, who asked not to mention his name, said that the telephone interception to help the Salvadoran police investigations can strengthen the structures full of gangs and also because this would complement the efforts being made at the Centre Antipandillas Transnational ( CAT).

"It's one of the things that we would like to be a legal tool that would have the Police here, the ability to intervene telephones, obviously from a court," said the official.

The telephone interventions undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI acronym in English) have discovered a series of connections among the ringleaders of the gang when orders sent from El Salvador to the United States.

"We have evidence that many of the operations there in the United States concerning the 13 Mara Salvatrucha and Mara Salvatrucha 18, come from the Salvadoran prisons where prisoners have access to cellular," he said.

Forward that the FBI works in conjunction with the Salvadoran police within the CAT in gathering information from 12 thousand gang members who commit offences in the country over the 20 thousand mareros Salvadorans who are scattered in 13 U.S. cities.

In addition, investigated several cases of gang structures that would be responsible for murders, drug trafficking, arms, illegal extortions and even between the two countries.

He explained that possess information showing that gangs call families residing in El Salvador with relatives in the United States amounts to extortion between 1000 and 10000 dollars and these cases are being investigated by the CAT. In addition they require that the money is sent via courier to the United States or otherwise can damage their relatives.

"We hope that the CAT is the answer we need to control crime gangs in the region," he said.

He assured that early next year will begin to have the first results of the Centre Antipandillas in catches and in clarifying cases of murder and extortion.

"We will try to avoid gangs are developing into powerful organizations like the Mafia", reflected the official.

Police in Los Angeles, California, and federal agencies like Customs and Immigration (ICE), Border Patrol, Arms and Snuff, have expressed interest in joining the CAT.