Greenwald's "No Place to Hide": a compelling, vital narrative about official criminality


#1

[Permalink]


#2

Is it just me, or does the entire text of the review appear twice?


#3

So good, he posted it twice...

Does sound like an interesting book though.


#4

Ah, so this why John Kerry is flailing his penis about calling Snowden a coward and telling him to man-up. He has the 'affraids' about the release of this book.


#5

Kinda doubt that. How many people actually read books anymore? Plus, Greenwald's been pretty effectively (and unfairly) marginalized as a self-serving, potentially criminal crackpot who says things that are too complicated to listen too. I love what he's doing, but I'm pretty cynical about its ultimate efficacy. It all just seems to get absorbed back into the informational blur and glut.


#6

Well you may be right, but a tiny thorn is better than a full plush carpet of rose petals.

Snowden came out and said he was a trained US spy:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-snowden-spy-20140528-story.html

That would explain the official hard-on more accurately, I suppose.


#7

Until people actually have a chance to hear him. Glenn is very articulate, very well prepared.

He's also very canny. The long "drip... drip... drip..." of this story has meant a slow, relentless penetration of the story and its implications into the public discourse. Establishing it as something that seriously matters to everyone and that needs to be acted upon - in other words, to create a groundswell of opinion - takes time; it is not a matter of the instant gratification that our media so often promulgate. The effects are going to be showing up in dribs and drabs as background "noise", but those background effects are showing up. I don't think it's any coincidence that a lot of sneaky-serious bugs in Internet security have been caught recently, after years, even, of being under the radar. I'm starting to see a consensus forming between groups of people who normally wouldn't agree about anything - even the dumbest person will start asking "Why are they spying on me?" after a while, and the average person isn't that dumb.

The main thing to remember: it took a fair amount of steady "drip... drip... drip..." to bring down Nixon, and this is a much bigger, more pervasive problem than Nixon was.


#8

Does this reek like a huge elaborate psyop to anyone??

the return of 24 coupled with the Brian Williams interview combined with the impending GRAND FINALE story Greenwald plans to drop in next month or two

why would the govt allow brian williams to air interview? why subject the american people to him if he's so bad?

seems like BS all the way around, except for Greenwald...could he have been duped???

stinks like psyops


#9

I wonder how much Laura Poitras played in helping to structure the release of information as it has been done? I think that a movie maker might have a greater understanding of how to build an arc of a story.

I think they also learned from how Wikileaks dumped information. The press only did one story and them moved on. They 24 hour news cycle needs new info because the media become bored easily. So interlaced with the technical details are the personal and policy details.

This is a long term "product rollout" and they need to both keep building support, but also be prepared for the ways that the people will come after them. The development of "Greenwald is jerk" from people is an easy way for people to dismiss the work.

The way that the media like to focus on the people can be expected, so anything that was done to keep the focus on the story is good.

The other thing that is important is to understand that the journalists (who you might think would be on your side) are not. And this is something that I think people don't understand about the modern press and I'm glad that Greenwald addresses it.

They are NOT the group holding government accountable that they might have been at one time. They are ALSO not the group that will hold corporations accountable. Especially when the messages get sent out that risk vs. reward of accountability journalism are too high. Let someone else do that work and then report on "both sides." End the stories with "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" and "we'll leave it there."

There are hundreds of stories of corporate corruption and law breaking that could have been revealed by journalism but they will not be.

This is also something that activists and the public needs to understand.


#10

The other reason is that Kerry is in no position to silence this extremely dangerous critic, meaning he is in a place of weakness. As a government official, all Kerry can do is try to act from a position of power. When that position is weaker than his adversary's, he will say and do anything to try to regain the upper hand. Name-calling, stamping feet, etc. It's the same as on a playground. They'd send a drone strike to Moscow if they could get away with it.

Snowden and Greenwald have the upper hand in this fight, so far. It would be a huge mistake for Ed Snowden to return to the US. Why would he do it? It seems bizarre to think that there is anything at all to be gained by coming back. This fight can be effectively fought from a distance.


#11

Perhaps you can offer some explanation as to how the government would in any way have a say over a journalist interviewing someone?

This is exactly the problem. Too many people have been led to believe that their rights to information, to free speech, to freedom from surveillance, are up to the government to decide.

How many more times do we have to watch the government illegally overstepping their bounds to realize that they will always do so unless we are vigilant in preventing it. And we (and our elected representatives) have to know what they are doing before those abuses can be dealt with.


#12

I suspect quite a bit, although it fits Glenn's tenacity as well. Really, this is a perfect storm of a leak, as it involves three extremely shrewd people.

If you really ask that question, you have to start looking at the motivations of surveillance, and ask who benefits, and what else are they up to. That's when you start noticing that the cover-up of malfeasance and the rise of the police state are coming from the same place - our politico-economic system in the West is devolving (has devolved) into an oligarchical kleptocracy. We are fast becoming banana republics.


#13

well, I feel hollywood and the fed govt are virtually indistinguishable. Hollywood propagates govt objectives. Brian Williams is a govt mouthpiece and the govt shapes what is said, when its said, and how its said... if they choose to do so.

if this shit is such a big deal, why wouldn't the govt squash it/cover it up/eliminate the players.

instead the govt is allowing a prominent news anchor to televise an interview with a "traitor" who will further tarnish the reputation and perception of the US govt... this makes no sense...

seems like it could be psyops conditioning

why is snowden alive? because the KGB is protecting him? no because he is still a fed agent playing a con game on the US public and the Russian govt with his principal being the US govt

You act like something can be done to stop a abstract machine... please tell us what/how

individually the govt has very little power and lacks resources to quell individual voices of dissent, the certainly can and do decide the freedoms of the collective. Methods of mass communication are 100% at control of the US govt and they do decide how freedoms of the collective population. that's Federalism

Greenwald is dropping his biggest bomb next month he says, funny that this interview and "24" coincide with it.


#14

I think you're over-thinking this, and over-estimating the power of the government. The govt has incredible power, but its not omnipotent, and this is clearly an incredible "get" for Williams and his network. The leaks were the important thing, not an interview. They've done their best to demonize Snowden and failed. And yes, the Russians are protecting Snowden because he has been a massive thorn in the side of the US government, and Putin is both enjoying protecting that thorn, and holding him as a potential bargaining chip for something he may want or need in future. Snowden is, unfortunately, not "free". That awful show 24 coming back is likely timed as a propaganda deflection of course. And Greenwald has already stated that the final big story is about who the NSA is spying on. I can't wait.


#15

I love what he's doing, but I'm pretty cynical about its ultimate efficacy. It all just seems to get absorbed back into the informational blur and glut.

I don't know about that, but let's see what happens after the big one comes soon. We're about to find out who they are spying on within the USA. It's coming very soon and it will be historic.

Also, in the meantime, this hasn't been swept under the rug. A lot of the American public has been forever changed in their knowledge and approach to mass surveillance and it's reflected all over the place.

Major opinion shifts, in the US and Congress, on NSA surveillance and privacy
Pew finds that, for the first time since 9/11, Americans are now more worried about civil liberties abuses than terrorism
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/29/poll-nsa-surveillance-privacy-pew


#16

Sounds very realistic considering all the surrounding evidence we can ignore that would tell us this is ludicrous.


#17

I wonder how much Laura Poitras played in helping to structure the release of information as it has been done? I think that a movie maker might have a greater understanding of how to build an arc of a story.

This may be another factor:

Greenwald addressed the methodology of releases directly here:

http://utdocuments.blogspot.com.br/2014/01/email-exchange-with-reader-over-first.html

and here:

http://utdocuments.blogspot.com.br/2013/12/questionsresponses-for-journalists.html

A highlight from first link above:


" ... in his Washington Post interview with Snowden last month, Bart Gellman noted "Snowden’s insistence, to this reporter and others, that he does not want the documents published in bulk." From the start, Snowden indeed repeatedly insisted on that.

Anyone who demands that we "release all documents" - or even release large numbers in bulk - is demanding that we violate our agreement with our source, disregard the framework we created when he gave us the documents, jeopardize his interests in multiple ways, and subject him to far greater legal (and other) dangers. I find that demand to be unconscionable, and we will never, ever violate our agreement with him no matter how many people want us to.

That said, we have published an extraordinary number of top secret NSA documents around the world in a short period of time. And our work is very far from done: there are many, many more documents and stories that we will publish.

Toward that end, we have very carefully increased the number of journalists and experts who are working on these documents and who have access to them. We are now working with more experts in cryptography and hacking than ever. One of the most exciting things about our new organization is that we now have the resources to process and report these documents more quickly and efficiently than ever before, consistent with ensuring that we don't make the kinds of errors that would allow others to attack the reporting.

These documents are complex. Sometimes they take a good deal of reporting to fill in some of the gaps. From the start, people have been eager for us to make serious mistakes so they can exploit them to discredit the reporting, and so we work very hard to make sure that doesn't happen. That takes time. Convincing media institutions (and their armies of risk-averse lawyers, editors and executives) to publish documents, the aggressive way we think they need to be published, also often takes a lot of time. ... "


If you have some time, read the rest here. I think it may address at least some questions people have about the release methodologies and perhaps challenges they may not have been aware of, etc.


#18

Silly boy! Don't you understand? If you're in charge of the prosecution, you did not commit a crime. Jeez, I thought we settled this with Nixon*. Remember? "If the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

*And before you all leap on the keyboard, I hasten to point out that Nixon resigned under political pressure but was never prosecuted for anything.


#19

Bear in mind that Greenwald has teamed up with Pierre Omidyar to create a new news org. The purpose of that is manifold, but to put this latest stuff into its perspective, Greenwald is also positioning himself and his org as THE PLACE for leaks and other information. Thus, scooping the big guys. He has to make every appearance of journalistic honor, so that the next leaker/whistleblower person isn't scared off. It's a good strategy.


#20

do you think that was a poor choice? the tinfoil hat trope in thread like this

anyways, how do you explain snowdens stilted speech, trained like a master politician/paid liar