The errors of Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald

The NSA disclosures are disturbing but they don’t portend a totalitarian state

by George Packer / May 22, 2014 / Leave a comment
Published in June 2014 issue of Prospect Magazine

Edward Snowden is a child of the internet and at the same time an old American type—the solitary individual whose religion is conscience, and who follows his own regardless of where it takes him. The type goes back to the English Protestant dissenters who settled the New World in the 17th century. Its most eloquent exemplar was Henry David Thoreau, who wrote in “Civil Disobedience” (1849): “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.” Thoreau withdrew to a cabin on Walden Pond, and he refused to pay taxes in protest against the Mexican War and slavery. Snowden lives in the hyperconnected isolation of the internet, and in June 2013 he committed what might have been the largest breach of state secrecy in American history, exposing the extent of internet and phone surveillance by the US National Security Agency (NSA).

In the famous hotel-room interview in Hong Kong that revealed his identity on video, Snowden said: “If living unfreely but comfortably is something you’re willing to accept—and I think many of us are, it’s the human nature—you can get up every day, you can go to work, you can collect your large pay cheque for relatively little work, against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows.” It sounds like the quiet desperation Thoreau attributed to most of his fellow men. But if, like Snowden, you can’t rest until you’ve tested the courage of your conviction by taking radical action, then “you realise that you might be willing to accept any risk and it doesn’t matter what the outcome is.” As things turned out this proved not to be quite true—instead of returning to the US to face trial and the possibility of a long jail term, Snowden fled to Russia and sought asylum. But what matters more is that this is the kind of person he wanted and imagined himself to be.

It is great to see that you are enjoying the Prospect website.

You have now reached your allowance of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
Don’t worry—to get another 7 articles absolutely free, just enter your email address in the box below.

You are in complete control of which 7 articles you choose to read. Register now to enjoy more of the finest writing on politics, economics, literature, the arts, philosophy and science.

When you register, we’ll also send you our free Blueprint for Britain e-book which considers how the nation should now run itself AND we’ll send you our free weekly newsletter. (If you prefer not to receive the newsletter you can unsubscribe at any time).

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party.
You can unsubscribe from the Prospect e-mail newsletter at any time.

DEBUG messsage: regular

Edward Snowden: This year you may own your identity

Lucy Webster / January 22, 2014

For many in the world of political journalism, 2013 was characterised by the Edward...

Moving pains

James Crabtree / February 28, 2009

Obama's people are finding it hard to take his "movement" with them to Washington

Share with friends

Comments

Mona Holland
May 17, 2014 at 07:45
Mr Packer, there are a great many misrepresentations in your article, and for all its eloquence, it fails to convey the truth about Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Snowden. (Disclosure: I am Greenwald's former law partner and long-time friend.) Some examples. You write: 'nor indeed is Greenwald ever “pro-war columnist Glenn Greenwald,” though the preface to his first book says that he did initially support the war in Iraq, before changing his mind after the invasion.' Glenn Greenwald never was a "pro-war columnist." He did not emerge into public life and opinionating until late 2005, by which time he wrote always and only against the invasion of Iraq. When he acquiesced to that war he was a private citizen and attorney practicing law 70 hours a week, and had not yet immersed himself in politics to develop what came to be more definitive views. John Burns, by contrast, was a cheerleader for the Iraq war. He did this publicly and professionally, unlike Edward Snowden who, as with Greenwald, held pro-war views as a private citizen, and has never publicly advocated for the Iraq war. Snowden was against it long before he leaked and thereby became a public figure. That would be why in Greenwald's book Snowden is never: “pro-war leaker Edward Snowden”.' As to this: 'Greenwald asserts that Snowden “had not taken all possible steps to cover his tracks because he did not want his colleagues to be subjected to investigations or false accusations.” But he doesn’t mention the Reuters article showing that Snowden borrowed logins and passwords from colleagues in order to gain access to more files. The article reported that “A handful of agency [NSA] employees who gave their login details to Snowden were identified, questioned and removed from their assignments.' You clearly have no idea, at all, what happens to people suspected of being NSA leakers, and to their families. I would commend to you the Frontline documentary, "U.S. of Secrets," part I of which aired this past Tuesday, and part II of which concludes this coming Tuesday on PBS. There you may learn how the FBI terrorized and pillaged the homes of NSA emnployees J. Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, Ed Loomis and several other innocent individuals who did *not leak the warrantless wiretapping program to the New York Times. (The pursuit of this leaker caused Wiebe to say he felt as if he were living in the Soviet Union. Loomis became a recluse.) Edward Snowden knew what had happened to these (internal) NSA dissidents, and did not want any other individuals to endure such horror. For that reason, he wanted to quickly make his identity known; there would be no Soviet-style pursuit of supsects. Whatever employment sanctions may have been levied against several NSA employees whose passwords Snowden may have used, are simply nothing in comparison. Edward Snowden protected his fellow NSA employees from the worst that the NSA and FBI can inflict. I disagree with your views especially of Greenwald, and could dispute other claims, but the above will do for now.
Reply
Terence Hale
May 17, 2014 at 16:22
Hi, “The errors of Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald” It’s something to do with looking at thing through the wrong end of the telescope. Mr. Snowden and Greenwald are men of honor the former for ideology the later for business. A symbiosis of what ever which elude the reason why we need surveillance. It started with Adam and Eva when Sid and Lilly came along. Surveillance is biological, a Tom and Gerry law, Catch Me If You Can of nature. We may be dealing with showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality.
Reply
a guest
May 18, 2014 at 03:06
This longwinded review is narrow minded. No, the documents revealed in Snowdens leak do not portend a totalitarian state, but these programs are barely a decade old. Had it not been for Snowden, it's likely these programs would have continued to expand. Where that would lead is for the individual to interpret, but a totalitarian state certainly ins't outside the realm of possibility.
Reply
Rick
May 19, 2014 at 13:54
We all, I'm sure, wish Mr Snowden a long and happy retirement somewhere east of Moscow.
Reply
Douglas Pauling
May 19, 2014 at 17:17
Mr Packer, this is a bias and narrow article which is suspect of being state propaganda!
Reply
John Ellis
May 19, 2014 at 19:14
This article is more to do with process than product. What does the UK think about all this? It is never discussed as something to be analysed intellectually: instead it is, Hague-like, kicked into the long grass as something that anyone obeying the law should not be frightened about. But it is precisely that worry about where the law becomes amorphous that should worry people. We already know that the UK (and the US) go after environmental campaigners, to the extent that the hunt is increasingly preemptive by virtue of all sorts of surveillance ranging from high-end GCHQ to police infiltration. No it is not Iran/Russia/China but it is certainly not what we expect from peace-time Western democracies.
Reply
Visitor
May 20, 2014 at 06:26
As an overseas student enrolled in a graduate program in the UK a number of years ago, I had an opportunity to attend a lecture by visiting professor Philip Zimbardo of Stanford. He spoke on the topic of lessons learned from the Stanford prison experiment that he conducted, 9/11, the war in Iraq, and his insight gained from testifying for the defense of Sargent Ivan Frederick of Abu Ghraib fame. The mood of students after the lecture demonstrated a predictable, but understandable strain of anti-Americanism (the Iraq war was quite fresh at the time) that went against Mr Zimbaro's assertions. While walking back to our college I asked a colleague, who had remained conspicuously silent, for his reaction. He hailed from an influential country and influential family in the Middle East, and he was not known for his pro-Western tendencies. However, this time he quietly informed me that he was aware of comparable evils carried out by his government that had never been (and will probably never be) revealed. He pensively stated that, at least in the West such distasteful things regularly come to light which allows for corrective action to be debated and taken. Taking past experience into account, the US will likely continue to have a series of whistleblowers that get their message out to the public (it seems to be a very 'American' thing to do). This being said, I wonder what some of the more secretive states of the world are up to....
Reply
John Ellis
May 20, 2014 at 10:21
In addition to my previous comment, I do sometimes wonder what Prospect is up to. I stopped my subscription some years back when Goodhart was becoming increasingly strident about immigration.
Reply
Bill Jones
May 23, 2014 at 06:41
I have rarely seen such a parade of lies. For a good dismantling of Packers lies see this: "George Packer Is Good at Fellatio But he calls it "journalism"" http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/05/22/george-packer-is-good-at-fellatio/
Reply
phacepalm
May 23, 2014 at 09:44
I am honestly shocked why anyone would take neocon George Packer seriously, much less give him space to pontificate on anything. Just when you think the prospect could no go any lower, they mange to surprise you.
Reply
Arth
May 23, 2014 at 12:12
Hey, I found this great thing at Antiwar.com. I believe it's a pretty cool assessment of what we are seeing here: "Here is a man whose entire "journalistic" career has been one long act of fellatio in service to the Powers That Be – whether they be the neocons he sucked up to during the Bush years or the "progressive" gang presently inhabiting the White House"
Reply
Chris Crossland
May 23, 2014 at 12:25
An enjoyable well written article that left me disappointed of it's somewhat narrow view. If libertarianism is a such a waste of a point of view, if breach of a countries constitution is ok In name of national security, if nothing positive could not come from reckless direct action, how do such ideas appear in front of a backdrop of the NSA security reform bill passed yesterday? To the chap that is in disbelief that prospect could publish such an article, you seem to miss the point. Airing ideas, foolish or otherwise induces discourse.
Reply
Janos Szabo
May 23, 2014 at 16:06
One wonders what it would take to convince Mr. Packer - or Mr. Snowden, for that matter - that there is no Federal Government of the United States. It's just Tom, Dick, and Harry, their bag men, Moe, Larry, and Curly, and they're running a bankrupt multi-trillion dollar Ponzi corporation, extortion racket, FDA/DEA drug cartel, and international T-Bill floating scam.
Reply
Haig Hovaness
May 23, 2014 at 16:35
Mr. Packer's piece is a model of pro-government propaganda, mixing condescending disparagement of Greenwald and Snowden with fatuous rationalizations about NSA surveillance being less noxious than that of the Stasi. Greenwald's critics seem reduced to using the "we are better than Stalin" argument when dismissing the foibles of the national security state and its captive commercial media. The secret goals of the NSA are explicitly stated in the documents revealed by Snowden: COLLECT IT ALL. The fact that Mr. Packer remains oblivious to the importance of this revelation is much more revealing that his feeble criticisms of Greenwald and Snowden.
Reply
SteveJ
May 23, 2014 at 22:26
"Greenwald asserts that Snowden ‘had not taken all possible steps to cover his tracks because he did not want his colleagues to be subjected to investigations or false accusations.’ But he doesn’t mention the Reuters article showing that Snowden borrowed logins and passwords from colleagues in order to gain access to more files." Even if the latter statement were true, (and the most basic research shows it is in dispute), it doesn't affect the truth or falsity of the former statement. You don't have a legitimate [If P then Q] line of reasoning here. Perhaps you should study sections of the LSAT in your spare time or engage in other logical reasoning tasks to bring this area of your brain up to speed. Your article is riddled with this kind of problem. But then, what does a normal person like me from the hinterland know about basic logic, right George? With regard to the second statement see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/12/16/an-nsa-coworker-remembers-the-real-edward-snowden-a-genius-among-geniuses/ paragraph 6 to the end.
Reply
Salty Pickles
May 23, 2014 at 22:40
"pole dancing girlfriend"? Stay classy bro.
Reply
TB
May 24, 2014 at 01:13
"betrays the demanding but necessary principle of civil disobedience—from Thoreau to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King—which requires that conscientious dissenters who act against an unjust law must be willing to pay the price" Exactly right. Had Snowden stayed in the US he really would be a hero. As it is he is anything but.
Reply
Kris
May 24, 2014 at 02:40
In the current climate of anti-Russian hysteria, I think it's important to correct Mr. Packer's statement that Snowden "fled to Russia". Snowden is only in Russia because the US government rescinded his visa en route from Hong Kong to his eventual destination.
Reply
Mike
May 24, 2014 at 04:41
I think some of the authors logic is flawed. The suggestion that Snowden didn't exchange his personal freedom for a lifetime in a cage somehow debases the seriousness of his convictions seems a bit harsh. He gave up a six figure salary, citizenship of his home country, and the wrath of a very powerful United States elite. Agree or disagree, what he did took a lot of guts. More guts than any person I have ever met and probably anyone you have met. For the most part, I trust this government with my information. The problem I have with unlimited data collection is that I don't know what future U.S. governments are going to be like. Though I think it unlikely a malevolent government could take power in a future United States, it is not impossible. I doubt anyone in Weimar's Germany thought that collecting unlimited data would be a big deal until that government was replaced by Hitler's government. We just don't know the future. Another concern is who is to say the person doing the collecting doesn't save some of that data to sell to a criminal or a foreign government for the purpose of blackmail. This massive data collection idea is likely to be used for malevolent purposes by someone someday. Too bad Mr. Packer doesn't seem to understand human nature. I would also add that Greenwald is a reporter and that as a reporter his purpose is to report news. I don't find it wrong for him to be "giggle" in excitement as he is being handed the most important story of the decade. Like him or not, he is an outstanding journalist and takes his work seriously. The press should not be an arm of government but in practice the U.S. media has become a part of government. They can pretend they are not, but it's pretty clear nearly all of them play ball.
Reply
Robert Bagg
May 24, 2014 at 19:01
Hello, George. You'll recognize my name. Others above have pointed out the flaws in your attack on Snowden & Greenwald. I'm wondering if the difference between your views and mine on the merits of Snowden's revelations and Greenwald's book derive from the differences between Yale and Amherst; Amherst required all its students to give a fair hearing to both the premises and logic of our opponents before attempting to refute their arguments. You also haven't taken into account the bearing the 1st and fourth Amendments have on this controversy.
Reply
GStorm
May 25, 2014 at 18:12
What do the messengers - Snowden, Greenwald - have to do with the facts? If a doctor you didn't like told you you had cancer would you just scoff? This whole article is a pathetic attempt at some kind of want-to-be intellectualism.
Reply
Nate Bowman
May 26, 2014 at 06:26
Mr. Packer tells us: " A friend from Iran who was jailed and tortured for having the wrong political beliefs, and who is now an American citizen, observed drily, “I prefer to be spied on by NSA.” The sense of oppression among Greenwald, Poitras, and other American dissenters is only possible to those who have lived their entire lives under the rule of law and have come to take it for granted." It is not surprising that Mr. Packer finds the revelations from the Snowden documents to be no big deal. When the comparison is to someone jailed and tortured in Iran (rather than the Constitution) I guess the status quo doesn't seem too bad.
Reply
Nate Bowman
May 26, 2014 at 06:52
On two other related points: Mr.Packer juxtaposes the biases that all people have against the journalistic objectivity he thinks solves the problem. I have only heard Mr. Greenwald discuss the topic in terms of providing FACTS in a transparent manner, and allowing this to make an argument. Relatedly, Mr. Packer tells us that "by some accounts" Mr. Snowden leaked close to two million documents. This is purposefully misleading in several ways and gives lie to his claim of objectivity, especially as he presents it as a superior journalistic technique than Mr. Greenwald's. 1. The highest claim I have heard of is of 1.7 million documents. Mr. Packer rounds up to make his case seem stronger. 2. Several officials have told the press that they have no idea what Mr. Snowden took. The ones that make those claims have no way of knowing what they claim. 3. If "some accounts say" X, it is incumbent on Mr. Packer to include that other accounts say Y. Also, most journalists who care about their work would tell us who "some accounts" and "other accounts" are so that the reader can make an informed decision about level of confidence in one or the other claim. 4. Mr. Greenwald has repeatedly said that the documents are in the tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands.
Reply
David Bensman
May 27, 2014 at 01:17
While I support what Snowden did, I don't think his views are above criticism. And while I vehemently disagreed with Packer about invading Iraq, I have also admired much that he has written While I don't agree with some of this piece about Snowden and the NSA, I think it was worthwhile and doesn't merit some of the wild attacks among these comments.
Reply
Kit
May 27, 2014 at 04:26
You write that Snowden fled to Russia. You purport that after the leak, he had two choices: to flee (bad) or to face charges (noble). In fact he had three, the third being to stay out of jail and keep fighting for his conscience. This is the one he took (and it seems to me the most noble, not to mention practical), not either of the two you present. You choose to use the ever-increasing, now "two million documents leaked" figure. WTF? From everything I've read, this number is way off the mark. Oh wait, I see, it helps your argument. Regarding Snowden's choice to avoid the New York Times, he did so knowing that this paper had sat on part of the *very same* NSA story for eight months, through a presidential election, and had only finally published it when it was about to get scooped by one of its own reporters in his new book. Isn't this reason enough to go elsewhere? Why do you make Snowden's motives out to be more confusing and/or complicated? Snowden did trust the Washington Post, our nation's *second* leading newspaper, however. This is an inconvenient truth that your review omits. The NSA story was published by the Washington Post on the same day as the Guardian. Washington Post reporter Bart Gellman was also the first to interview Snowden in person after he was granted asylum in Russia. You don't mention this, why? Regarding new scoops, does the NSA secretly recording every phone call made in a small friendly country for years count as a big one? Despite the NSA's protestations of, "We only collect metadata," is it not clear from this new disclosure that their aspirations are in fact much higher? What's that big new data center in Utah going to be used for, anyway? In your list of "Absences of intellectual integrity," you imply that anonymous government sources who provide contradictory information Snowden are credible, yet these sources are intelligence operatives trying to do damage control. (You can tell because when these guys "leaked," no one got upset.) I don't think telling the truth is their goal nor their forte. In fact, I'd say that deeming them credible lacks...wait for it...intellectual integrity. Besides these quibbles and a few other small things, nice writing! Really smooth. I'd hire you to handle PR and communications for my company any day.
Reply
Zinc
May 27, 2014 at 04:36
The simple fact remains that IF the NSA did NOT have their hands firmly in the cookie jar, the Snowden leaks would either not have been made at all, or we would likely all agree their release was unwarranted and traitorous. But that's a story for some alternate reality in a parallel universe in which none of us happen to actually live. Barack boasted of transparency and the rule of law, which has turned out to be a similar fantasy world. A government's willingness to obey its own laws sets an example for its people. What kind of example do you set with, "do as I say, not as I do."?
Reply
theod
May 27, 2014 at 23:54
Why does anybody give a fig what George Packer says, given that he was so absolutely certain about Saddam Hussein's big bad weapons and therefore so spectacularly wrong about the Bush/Cheney Adventure in Mesopotamia?
Reply
Substantia Nigra
May 28, 2014 at 20:34
'—Greenwald asserts that Snowden “had not taken all possible steps to cover his tracks because he did not want his colleagues to be subjected to investigations or false accusations.” But he doesn’t mention the Reuters article showing that Snowden borrowed logins and passwords from colleagues in order to gain access to more files. The article reported that “A handful of agency [NSA] employees who gave their login details to Snowden were identified, questioned and removed from their assignments.”' This seems like a very criminal sort of negligence whatever the position one takes on surveillance
Reply
Bob Roberts
May 28, 2014 at 21:39
So now seeking asylum is ignoble? You would support him if he were sitting in solitary for the rest of his life? Sure.
Reply
Bob Roberts
May 28, 2014 at 21:40
"they don’t quite reach the level of the Stasi" I think this should be our new national motto, to replace "E Pluribus Unum" and "In God We Trust". "Not as bad a the Stasi"
Reply
Fife
May 29, 2014 at 00:43
Are we supposed to take seriously an article that starts out by deliberately misquoting the person it claims to profile? The argument, from the second paragraph onward: '…if, like Snowden, you can’t rest until you’ve tested the courage of your conviction by taking radical action, then “you realise that you might be willing to accept any risk and it doesn’t matter what the outcome is. … There are many reasons to criticise this ethic and the uncompromising Thoreauvians who wear it as a badge of honour … The dire consequences for disclosing top secrets would have deterred anyone who hadn’t arrived at the Manichean either/or that drove Snowden to plan his massive document leak methodically over many months.' Aren't you clever, George! But Snowden is describing how he doesn't care about the outcome *as it pertains to his own life and well-being*--as you know, having heard and read the interview. Maybe don't take out the context and then pretend he's saying something else? (Maybe an editor for this rag could have pointed this out, too?) "nearly two million documents, by some accounts…" This, too, is completely untrue--as I'm pretty sure you know. Furthermore: Snowden is not a libertarian. If you're going to write such a long screed--around two million words, by some accounts--it might make sense to look into the few interviews Snowden has given, discussing his own politics. Why do you have a job, George? People like you, who helped push the U.S. into a disastrous war of aggression, because you were so totally and utterly wrong about everything you wrote, should just stay home and get a hobby.
Reply
Chris OConnell
May 29, 2014 at 05:51
It is an interesting piece but the distortions in the early going, all bending a certain way, are disappointing. I don't think this could be published in the New Yorker. Snowden was NOT acting only on his conscience and in disregard of the law. He, and many Constitutional scholars, agree that these programs violate the Constitution. He has said that he thinks the people should KNOW. If they know and accept this surveillance regime, he can accept it. It is just wrong, and unconstitutional, for it to be done in the dark. This is an important issue which guts the main argument here. Snowden did NOT flee to Russia, that is just a misstatement of fact. You could say he fled to Hong Kong, and then to Cuba. His passport was revoked while he was on layover at the Moscow Airport, where he was stuck for weeks. It wasn't in the plan. This is just a small issue of spin and distortion but it betrays real bias. I think Packer can argue his case without the distortions and misrepresentations that appeared in the first 3 paragraphs alone.
Reply
Sam Brasel
May 29, 2014 at 12:50
'They don’t portend a totalitarian state “beyond the dreams of even the greatest tyrants of the past,” as Greenwald believes....' Um, George, in a piece this long should it not be possible to quote not just an eleven-word snippet but instead an entire sentence along with whatever other sentences provide the context? Why should anyone believe that the "portend a totalitarian state" bit you added in your own words is the correct context just because you say so? If Greenwald didn't write "portend a totalitarian state", what exactly did he write?
Reply
Sam Brasel
May 29, 2014 at 12:51
For a takedown of this silly piece, see http://crookedtimber.org/2014/05/28/george-packer-and-his-problems.
Reply
Sam Brasel
May 29, 2014 at 17:20
For a thorough demolition of this piece, which was apparently written in bad faith, see http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/the-establishment-critique-of-edward-snowden-and-glenn-greenwald/371678/.
Reply
stevelaudig
May 30, 2014 at 07:29
Unlike Kinsley, Packer gives evidence of being familiar with Greenwald. But Packer is merely a urinal for politicians.
Reply
CraigSummers
May 30, 2014 at 14:29
Mr. Packer I posted a comment to your site on May 27th which you didn't publish. There was nothing offensive in the post, but even if the subject matter represented the worst kind of hate, it was inappropriate to censor the post. For whatever reason you chose to censor the post, it was a really bad decision. Thanks craigsummers
Reply
Robert Peplin
May 30, 2014 at 17:18
A better reviewer would have been someone with first-hand knowledge of totalitarianism, war, and the Deep State. That would be journalist Chris Hedges who was a war correspondent in Central America during our covert wars there and had intimate knowledge of the Stasi while stationed in former East Germany. Hedges experienced first-hand what an all-encompassing security-state could do which is the same notion expressed by Greenwald: the mere hint or suspicion of observation changes our behavior and suppresses freedom and political dissent. What makes this more insidious is that this form of suppression becomes self-imposed by the people themselves. Further, Hedges is part of a group suing the Obama administration over the NDAA. This heinous Act has the potential to elimate Habeas Corpus as well as detaining citizens indefinitely if suspected of vaguely being a terrorist. This is the Deep State (aka the NSA): a government within a government that will exist no matter who takes office since it is entrenched and will pursue ways to maintain its relevance. Last, it is good to see the so-called America-hating Greenwald had his book printed and bound is the USA, not the PROC.
Reply
Jude Obscura
May 30, 2014 at 17:52
Illegal invasions, indefinite wars, torture, gulags, kidnappings, droning poor non-white people, pervasive thuggery among the militarized police forces, criminalization of whistleblowing and those who report it, turning American Muslims into informants a la East Germany, a few elections over-turned, a secret government created by Dick Cheney following 9/11... And much more besides. Yeah, right, the US is nothing like a totalitarian government. Absolutely nothing.
Reply
Doug Tarnopol
June 1, 2014 at 12:02
Ah, yes. Packer joins Kinsley in carrying water for the "liberals" who are only against government malfeasance when the other team is doing it. Greenwald, et al, get under their skin because he shows what real journalism is supposed to be about: not PR for the powers that be, dressed up in faux-American studies sophistication, but holding the powerful to account. Greenwald doesn't care about being in "the club." That's what makes him a good jouirnalist, among other qualities. That's why he's so virulently hated.
Reply
Flower Grrlla
June 2, 2014 at 11:04
How about now that Time has released this report: The NSA collects around 55,000 facial-recognition-quality images each day http://time.com/2804898/snowden-nsa-facial-recognition/ Don't play footsie w/ fascism. Wealth inequality is dangerously high, and the elites and their pawns the NSA, police, et. al., are putting place those mechanisms which will keep the unwashed masses in check.
Reply

You can log in to post a comment under your subscriber name.