←
→

Lazy Saturday Reads

Posted: May 31, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Crime, FBI, Hillary Clinton, metadata, morning reads, NSA, National Security Agency, Rape Culture, Real Life Horror, U.S. Politics, Violence against women | Tags: , , , , , |34 Comments

Snowden4

Good Morning!!

I stole the above Dave Granlund cartoon from JJ’s Friday night post, because it perfectly expresses my viewpoint on who and what Edward Snowden is. I’ll have the latest Snowden news for you in a minute, but first a personal update and some breaking Boston bombing news.

I’m in Indiana visiting my mom for a couple of weeks. The weather is gorgeous here, and I’m really enjoying it. It’s great to be out of the drizzly cold weather the Boston area has been having. I’m looking forward to doing quite a bit of yard work, helping my mom buy a new bed, celebrating her 89th birthday with her, and just generally enjoying her company.

As usual, I drove my car out here, and I made great time. The speed limits have been increased to 70 mph in Ohio and Indiana, and everyone in Massachusetts and New York routinely drives at least 10-15 miles over the 65 mph limit. So I probably averaged around 70-75 mph on the trip.

My mechanic told me that I need to start using premium gas in my car. I hated to do it, but to my surprise I got much better mileage with the expensive gas. I used 2-1/2 tanks of gas to go more than 900 miles. Usually it takes 3 full tanks and a little more to make the trip!

As I mentioned above, some Boston bombing news broke last night. From The Boston Globe: Man charged with obstructing bombing probe.

A cab driver from Quincy who was close to the two suspected Boston Marathon bombers was arrested Friday on charges of lying to investigators and destroying evidence, allegedly obstructing the ongoing investigation of the 2013 attack that shocked the city and the nation.

Khairullozhon Matanov, a 23-year-old Kyrgyzstan national, allegedly contacted Tamerlan Tsarnaev 42 minutes after the April 15, 2013, bombings, and he bought him and his younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, dinner at a restaurant that night. Matanov visited Tamerlan, whom he knew from playing soccer and from places of worship, at the suspected bomber’s Cambridge home two days later.

Over several days after the bombings, he also called the brothers repeatedly.

Authorities alleged in a sweeping indictment unsealed Friday that Matanov realized the FBI would want to interview him about his relationship with the suspected bombers, but that he deleted files from his computer and tried to get rid of his cellphones. They also allege that he lied to investigators about his encounters with the brothers in the days after the bombings.

Matanov discussed his friendship with the Tsarnaev brothers with others in the days following the bombing, but he claims that they didn’t confess their involvement to him. Apparently, the FBI knew about all this a year ago; it’s not clear why they waited until now to charge Matanov. I’ll be keeping my eye on this story.

Now the latest on the Snowden Operation.

Snowden1

Edward Snowden has been dominating the news for the past few days because of the interview he gave to NBC’s Brian Williams and the recent release of Glenn Greenwald’s book on his collaboration with Snowden in releasing classified NSA files. I have to admit up front that I haven’t yet been able to force myself to watch the interview. Frankly, I doubt if Williams asked any of the questions that I think Snowden should be asked; but I promise I’ll watch the thing today to find out for sure. Meanwhile, I’ve gathered some reactions from people who have watched it.

Frankly, I admit up front that I think Edward Snowden is a defector as well as an arrogant, grandiose, narcissistic jerk. But I think you all knew that already. With that said, here are the latest Snowden (and Greenwald) stories from my very biased point of view.

Last week there were a couple of high-profile negative reviews of Glenn Greenwald’s book No Place to Hide, one by George Packer and the other by Michael Kinsley. As you know, Greenwald doesn’t take criticism well, and he and his fans were not happy with either review. Packer’s review was the most scathing and carefully argued, but Kinsley is taking most of the heat from the Greenwald fan base, probably because the review was quite snarky. For example:

Greenwald was the go-between for Edward Snowden and some of the
newspapers that reported on Snowden’s collection of classified documents
exposing huge eavesdropping by the National Security Agency, among
other scandals. His story is full of journalistic derring-do, mostly set in
exotic Hong Kong. It’s a great yarn, which might be more entertaining if
Greenwald himself didn’t come across as so unpleasant. Maybe he’s
charming and generous in real life. But in “No Place to Hide,” Greenwald
seems like a self-righteous sourpuss, convinced that every issue is
“straightforward,” and if you don’t agree with him, you’re part of
something he calls “the authorities,” who control everything for their own
nefarious but never explained purposes….

Throughout “No Place to Hide,” Greenwald quotes any person or
publication taking his side in any argument. If an article or editorial in
The Washington Post or The New York Times (which he says “takes
direction from the U.S. government about what it should and shouldn’t
publish”) endorses his view on some issue, he is sure to cite it as evidence that he is right. If Margaret Sullivan, the public editor (ombudsman, or
reader representative) of The Times, agrees with him on some controversy,
he is in heaven. He cites at length the results of a poll showing that more
people are coming around to his notion that the government’s response to
terrorism after 9/11 is more dangerous than the threat it is designed to
meet.

Greenwald doesn’t seem to realize that every piece of evidence he
musters demonstrating that people agree with him undermines his own
argument that “the authorities” brook no dissent. No one is stopping
people from criticizing the government or supporting Greenwald in any
way. Nobody is preventing the nation’s leading newspaper from publishing
a regular column in its own pages dissenting from company or government
orthodoxy. If a majority of citizens now agree with Greenwald that dissent
is being crushed in this country, and will say so openly to a stranger who
rings their doorbell or their phone and says she’s a pollster, how can
anyone say that dissent is being crushed? What kind of poor excuse for an
authoritarian society are we building in which a Glenn Greenwald, proud
enemy of conformity and government oppression, can freely promote this
book in all media and sell thousands of copies at airport bookstores
surrounded by Homeland Security officers?

Snowden2

And so on . . . After Kinsley’s piece was published the Snowden cult, of which NYT public editor Margaret Sullivan is a charter member, reacted as usual with an over-the-top firestorm of rage. I’ll let Sullivan speak for the cult. She questioned the choice of Kinsley as reviewer and accused the long-time book-reviewer of arguing the only the government should decide whether classified government materials should be published. She apparently also felt that Kinsley showed insufficient deference to her idol Glenn Greenwald. I’d like to quote from Sullivan’s piece, but for some reason I can’t copy and paste from it. But here’s a reaction to the kerfluffle from Jonathan Chait: Times vs. Sullivan vs. Kinsley vs. Greenwald. Chait agrees with me that the Packer review is “more devastating.” Chait thoroughly skewers Margaret Sullivan, and she can’t attack him because he didn’t do it at the NYT.

It’s certainly true that Kinsley is more effective [than Packer] at poking a hole in Greenwald’s argument than in making the case for his own (obviously problematic) alternative. That would seem to be fair enough given that he’s writing a review of Greenwald’s book. Not to Sullivan, who sprung into action, using her public editor’s column to scold Kinsley. His review “expressed a belief that many journalists find appalling,” she wrote, aghast. Also, “there’s a lot about this piece that is unworthy of the Book Review’s high standards, the sneering tone about Mr. Greenwald, for example.” No sneering in the book review!

Paul writes back to Sullivan — in a rebuttal posted at the bottom of Sullivan’s item — to say, more or less, “let me explain to you what what a book review is”:

It seems there is a lot of confusion on the Internet, especially among those who do not work in the media but even — disturbingly — within the media, about the differences between an editorial and a book review, between what “The New York Times” says and what a reviewer for The New York Times Book Review says. …

For a reviewer to address how a writer comes across, particularly in a memoir or first-hand account, is entirely fair game for a book review, and by no means an ad hominem attack.

The notion that it’s wrong for the book review to print abhorrent reviews, let alone to poke fun at no less a hero than Glenn Greenwald, is an artifact of the culture of smugness that Kinsley is writing about here. If there’s one thing objective journalists are allowed — indeed, expected — to hold extremely strong opinions about, other than the importance of reducing the budget deficit, it’s the importance of journalists themselves. How dare a newspaper publish a review expressing skepticism about special rights for journalists?

Snowden3

Just for balance, here is a fairly non-judgmental summary of the overall “controversy” at the Neiman Report.

Finally, Kinsley’s response to Margaret Sullivan

Since I haven’t yet watched the Snowden interview with Brian Williams, I’ll give you what I think is the best response I’ve seen so far from Kurt Eichenbaum at Newsweek: 16 Questions Edward Snowden Wasn’t Asked. This article is must-read–if only I could quote the whole thing! Here’s a small sample:

1. Most of the information that has been revealed from the documents you obtained dealt with the abilities, rather than the actions, of the NSA. Did you see or do you have any evidence that the agency was, in fact, spying on Americans who were not linked to terrorist organizations through what is known as the “three-hop” standard? (Under this rule, one of 22 NSA officials must give approval to an analyst who believes a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” exists that a number is directly linked to terrorists. Then the analyst is allowed to determine through searches of metadata which phone numbers were called by the first number. The NSA can then determine the numbers called by the second phone, and the numbers called by the third. The intent is to see if numbers called in the United States by phones directly connected to terrorists will reveal terrorist operatives inside the country.)

5. Did you see or do you have evidence of the NSA reading content of emails sent by Americans or listening to phone calls of Americans without meeting the standards required by the national security courts known as FISA courts?

10. Do you believe that surveillance in foreign nations is intrinsically wrong?

11. You say that you do not believe your actions damaged United States security and that the government has failed to reveal instances where it did. Two questions: What kind of analysis did you conduct to be sure that the information you were taking did not compromise security? And, secondly, given that journalists do not have security clearances, why did you think they were the best placed to Click here and determine what would compromise national security and what didn’t?

Please go read the rest. It sounds like Brian Williams pretty much avoided asking Snowden any hard questions at all.

A few more quick headlines:

NBC News (Irony alert!): Russia Web Journalism Award Named For Edward Snowden.

More horrendous gang rapes in India–from Reuters India: Home minister seeks report on grisly rape, hanging of teens in Uttar Pradesh.

Exclusive: The Daily Banter’s Investigation Helps Catch Sandy Hook Memorial Thief.

Hilarious must-read from Politico: NSA releases Snowden memo.

Oliver Willis: Republicans already handing the White House to Hillary Clinton.

Those are my offerings for today. What are you reading and blogging about? Please share your links on any topic in the comment thread.http

34 Comments on “Lazy Saturday Reads”

  1. bostonboomer says:
    May 31, 2014 at 9:03 am

    Have a wonderful weekend, everyone!!

    • JJ Lopez Minkoff says:
      May 31, 2014 at 10:32 am

      BB…what a deep set of links to go through. I found this one though in addition to the other Eichenwald post: 13 more unanswered questions for Edward Snowden – The Week

      • JJ Lopez Minkoff says:
        May 31, 2014 at 10:34 am

        4. It’s said that you took as many as 1.7 million documents from NSA files. You’ve hinted that that number is high and exaggerated. If, on the low end, you took only 100,000 separate documents from the NSA, can you affirm that each and every document was personally reviewed by you in advance to determine, at least in your mind, if, once disclosed, it would cause damage to legitimate American national security interests? What tests did you use? What does harm or damage in this context mean to you?

        5. Assuming that you absconded with several documents to use as collateral in case your life were endangered or the stories not published, can you affirm today that, say, 99 percent of the documents you took, if published with only the redaction of specific countries and targets, would not damage national security?

        6. By identifying the journalists to whom you gave the documents, aren’t you putting a lifetime target on them for priority collection by foreign intelligence services? If you were part of the People’s Liberation Army’s 2nd Directorate, wouldn’t you assign, say, 20 people whose full-time job it was to target Bart Gellman’s home, office, mobile, and cloud internet usage? Obviously, leaking the information to journalists implies that the journalists’ identities would become public. But why imply, or say, that they now have full possession of hundreds of thousands of classified documents?

  2. Fannie says:
    May 31, 2014 at 10:03 am

    Luv these cartoons – only two wars! Just about done planting our veggies. Will have plenty to share. Will be teaching young mothers how to preserve and can veggies. So many things can be put in freezer. I’ve done this all my life, and had cupboards full of food. Jun 11, will be getting cherries………here we go, love cherry jam and jelly. Too sweet for me, but great to give out at holiday time with fresh breads.

    I am beside myself what they the GOP is doing to Michelle’s Food Program. She’s been the best with let’s move, and eating healthy, and the kids are learning and losing weight. This is not about government taking over the schools, this is about helping poor kids to step up and eat good foods that will help them with that spelling test, that math test, and overall good mood and behaviors at school and at home. The behavior of the GOP is unacceptable, and every body needs to do what the children have done, step up and tell them no to French fries!

  3. Fannie says:
    May 31, 2014 at 12:09 pm

    Hot off the press: Bowe Bergdahl of Hailey Idaho, has just been released today from Afghanistan after 5 years imprisonment. Pres. Obama exchanged him for 5 Gitmo prisoners. Thank you Pres. Obama. You might recall that he either walked away or was captured. He will be debriefed before coming home. Carole King (singer) had been planning or did do several concerts to raise funds, as she lives in nearby Hailey, Idaho.

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/31/3211763/us-solider-freed-from-captivity.html

  4. RalphB says:
    May 31, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    NYT: Doctor Shortage Is Cited in Delays at V.A. Hospitals

    Media is in terrible shape when you have to congratulate the Times for publishing a story which makes an obvious point about the VA problems.

    • Fannie says:
      May 31, 2014 at 9:25 pm

      They need to reduced doctor student loans so that more of them are attracted to the V.A. hospitals, and will work to reduce debt.

  5. RalphB says:
    May 31, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    BB, I watched the Snowden interview and came away with very distinct impressions. I’m looking forward to your appraisal of it.

    • bostonboomer says:
      May 31, 2014 at 2:28 pm

      I forgot to put up the analysis by the body language expert.

      BODY-LANGUAGE EXPERT: I Would Not Trust Anything Snowden Said To NBC

      Before Edward Snowden’s interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, body-language expert Dr. Nick Morgan considered Snowden a young guy who got a hold of a bunch of classified documents and was just telling his story about exposing intrusive American surveillance.

      “I came away [from the NBC interview] with a very different impression,” Morgan, a top U.S. communication theorist and best-selling author, told Business Insider. “As a body-language expert, I’d say this is a disingenuous performance, which surprised me.” ….

      A particularly telling moment came when Brian Williams asked Snowden, “What is your relationship with the host government?” Morgan, who didn’t previously know that Snowden’s Moscow lawyer is a Putin loyalist linked to the FSB, was struck by Snowden’s lack of eye contact and the slowing of his voice as he denied having any relationship with the Kremlin.

      “He was obviously lying,” Morgan said.

      • RalphB says:
        May 31, 2014 at 2:53 pm

        My impressions are a lot like that. He seemed more an actor playing a role than someone being interviewed to me. Maybe that’s the norm, but I don’t think so unless Snowden is particularly bad at it.

        The roving eyes. hand gestures, hiding behind his hands when answering are all things which tell me he lied his ass off during that interview.

  6. RalphB says:
    May 31, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    Raw Story: Police unaware Santa Barbara shooter had firearms before killings: report

    Authorities did not know that Elliot Rodger, whose shooting rampage left six dead and more than a dozen injured in a California college town, owned firearms despite three interactions with the police within the year, the Los Angeles Times reported.

    Rodger had legally purchased three firearms leading up to the shooting spree, a fact that authorities could have discovered by searching law enforcement databases, the Times reported on Friday.

    “The issue of weapons did not come up,” sheriff’s spokeswoman Kelly Hoover told the Times. “We had no information that he had weapons or reason to believe he had weapons.”

    The news comes a day after the sheriff’s office revealed new details about a welfare check the police conducted on the night of April 30 on Roger outside his apartment, following a concerned call from a county mental health worker.

    That night, just weeks before the killings in Isla Vista, California, a half dozen officers responded to the call and asked Rodger about disturbing videos he had posted online. Police described Rodger as shy, timid and polite, and following the 10 minute meeting, did not consider him a threat to himself or others.

    “They did not view the videos or conduct a weapons check on Rodger,” a statement from the sheriff’s office said. …

    The complete incompetence and laziness of the Sheriff’s deputies is just gobsmacking!

  7. bostonboomer says:
    May 31, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    Historian and counterintelligence expert John Schindler: When did Snowden go over to the Russians?

    What can be dismissed out of hand is the notion that, while staying in Hong Kong a year ago, Ed met with Russian spies – sorry, “diplomats” – at their consulate there and, all of a sudden, decided to hop a flight to Moscow. Espionage simply does not work that way, folks. We can only guess at what was on Ed’s mind, but those who know the Russian “special services” understand that such a scenario is so implausible that it can be ruled out altogether. The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) simply does not allow American intelligence personnel they’ve just met to jump on a flight to Mother Russia. That never happens.

    Why not, you ask? In real life, unlike in spy movies, the risks are too great. Deciding to work with a possible defector, particularly one from your main adversary, is a big step in and of itself, since both sides play sneaky operational games….

    Letting Edward Snowden move to Moscow was a major decision for the Kremlin, one with huge political ramifications. We can be certain that such a decision was not made by a mid-grade SVR officer in Hong Kong, neither was such a choice made quickly by the Russians, particularly under a president who understands counterintelligence very well. The reality is that Edward Snowden’s relationship with Russian intelligence, whatever it exactly is, predated his arrival in Moscow on June 23, 2013, probably by a considerable margin. It did not begin in Hong Kong, but before, possibly long before. It cannot be ruled out that the SVR (or possibly GRU, Russian military intelligence, which is a formidable espionage service its own) initially dealt with Ed in a false-flag operation, masking their true identity for a time, but experts who are acquainted with Russia’s “special services” understand that the Official Narrative, that Ed just up and moved to Moscow, cannot be true.

  8. RalphB says:
    May 31, 2014 at 5:51 pm

    Obama Welcomes Release Of Captured Soldier: ‘He Was Never Forgotten’

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is welcoming the release of the lone U.S. solider held in Afghanistan, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

    During an appearance Saturday in the Rose Garden, Obama says that while Bergdahl was gone, “he was never forgotten.” The president was joined at the White House by the soldier’s parents, Bob and Joni Bergdahl.

    Bergdahl was turned over by the Taliban earlier Saturday in exchange for the release of five Afghan detainees who were held at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    Obama says the U.S., quote, “does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind.”

    Bergdahl’s father thanked all those who took part in his son’s recovery, saying it was difficult to put his feelings into words.

    President Obama gets the captured soldier back,,,

    • RalphB says:
      May 31, 2014 at 5:54 pm

      And Republicans manage to complain about it. Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma are real asshats!

      ABC: GOP Lawmakers: Prisoner Exchange Violated Law

      Two Republican lawmakers on Saturday accused President Barack Obama of breaking the law by approving the release of five Afghan detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for a U.S. soldier believed held by Islamist insurgents for five years.

      The White House agreed that actions were taken in spite of legal requirements and cited “unique and exigent circumstances” as justification. …

      • bostonboomer says:
        May 31, 2014 at 6:11 pm

        Sigh . . .

        • RalphB says:
          May 31, 2014 at 6:49 pm

          Prepare for the Republican outrage at releasing super dangerous, Jack Bauer like, Al Qaeda terrorist to kill the American public. What a crock of bullshit is coming.

        • RalphB says:
          May 31, 2014 at 7:03 pm

          Daily Beast: Here are the Taliban Terrorists Obama Released to Free POW Bowe Bergdahl

          In exchange for Army Sgt. Bowe Berghdahl, the U.S. has released five senior Taliban commanders from the Guantanamo Bay prison. They are considered some of the worst of the worst.
          …
          Many in Congress will still be opposed to the swap, but lawmakers gave up their right to stop it. A small change in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which passed last December, now makes it only a requirement that the Defense Secretary notify Congress when releasing Guantanamo prisoners. Before the change, Congressional sign off on any Guantanamo releases would have been needed. …

          As night follows day, here’ round one from former moonie Eli Lake and douche Josh Rogin. Screw the Congress, every one of them, they gave up their rights.

          As an aside, it appears those Jihadi groups must have no soldiers, they’re all commanders.

      • RalphB says:
        May 31, 2014 at 7:10 pm

        Personally I think we should have released all the prisoners to any country which would take them and then closed Gitmo. May as well give the GOP something to complain about.

      • Fannie says:
        May 31, 2014 at 9:33 pm

        Inhofe has condemned everything Pres. Obama has ever done to better this country. I hate him – he went to Uganda and convinced them to put the death penalty in place for gays. He even voted against the GI Bill. I wish he would get his ass over here to Idaho and tell his folks back home how he feels. Crock of schitt for sure.

  9. JJ Lopez Minkoff says:
    May 31, 2014 at 6:50 pm

    Tonight late on TCM Born Yesterday. Love that movie, it is my favorite William Holden flick.

  10. RalphB says:
    May 31, 2014 at 10:16 pm

    Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post

    Obama’s leadership is right for today

    …
    Obama is battling a knee-jerk sentiment in Washington in which the only kind of international leadership that means anything is the use of military force. “Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail,” he said in his speech Wednesday at West Point. A similar sentiment was expressed in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a strong leader who refused to intervene in the Suez crisis, the French collapse in Vietnam, two Taiwan Strait confrontations and the Hungarian uprising of 1956. At the time, many critics blasted the president for his passivity and wished that he would be more interventionist. A Democratic Advisory Council committee headed by Acheson called Eisenhower’s foreign policy “weak, vacillating, and tardy.” But Eisenhower kept his powder dry, confident that force was not the only way to show strength. “I’ll tell you what leadership is,” he told his speechwriter. “It’s persuasion — and conciliation — and education — and patience . It’s long, slow, tough work. That’s the only kind of leadership I know — or believe in — or will practice.”

    Maybe that’s the Obama Doctrine.

  11. janicen says:
    June 1, 2014 at 8:25 am

    Sorry I missed this post yesterday. Great one, bb. I love that you are getting to spend time with your mom for her birthday. The best gift for both of you. You reminded me that I used to fill up with premium gas whenever I was taking a long car trip because I noticed that I had to stop to fill up less when I did.

    Really interesting Snowden stuff too. I can’t force myself to watch the interview. I had to leave the room the other week when my husband insisted on watching a Greenwald interview. I just can’t stand either one of the self aggrandizing narcissists.

    • bostonboomer says:
      June 1, 2014 at 8:37 am

      Thanks. I’m going to watch the interview, but I’m still procrastinating. I have to build up the energy to tolerate the nausea and disgust.

  12. dakinikat says:
    June 2, 2014 at 12:43 am

    https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/michael-kinsley-margaret-sullivan-pamela-paul-and-what-editors-are-supposed-do

    • bostonboomer says:
      June 2, 2014 at 7:00 am

      Thanks, Dak. I read most of that piece and skimmed the rest. I guess my problem with all this is that I don’t think Greenwald’s work really deserves a serious review. He has published hundreds of errors and exaggerations that have been pointed out but never corrected. His identification with his source is unprofessional and so is his angry and bitter “tone.” At least Kinsley noted that there was nothing particularly new in the book.

      As Commonweal points out the NYT had already published a quite detailed and favorable review of the book. It isn’t at all unusual for the Book Review to publish snarky, “controversial” reviews. I thought it was quite appropriate, and so did many many other people who have followed the story closely.

      Meanwhile, none of the “serious” people have even addressed Greenwald’s sellout to Omidyar! I’m sick and tired of the media’s kid glove treatment of Snowden and Greenwald. I find it fascinating that Commonweal didn’t address George Packer’s much more comprehensive review of the book, in which he scathingly criticized Greenwald.

←
→