Two weeks ago, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham was widely mocked for this breathless, fearmongering tweet: This morning, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, demanding passage of…
Two weeks ago, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham was widely mocked for this breathless, fearmongering tweet:
This morning, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, demanding passage of the USA Freedom Act, said something quite similar: “I have never seen a time of greater potential danger than right now.” After issuing her scary warning, Feinstein claimed: “I’ve never said that before.” That’s very strange, in light of this 2013 headline following a joint appearance she made with GOP Rep. Mike Rogers on CNN:
Earlier this month, NSA chief Michael Rogers made the same claim when discussing Patriot Act reauthorization: “‘It just can’t be the government doing this all by itself’ because the number of threats has never been greater.”
For the fearmongers in the West and their allies, it’s always the scariest time ever; that “the threat has never been greater” is basically a slogan they reflexively spew. In March, the right-wing Canadian defense minister, Jason Kenney, arguing for new surveillance powers, announced: “While few believe full-scale conventional war is likely any time soon, the threat of terrorism has never been greater.”
In February, former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell, arguing for renewal of the Patriot Act, warned that “the ‘lone wolf’ terrorist threat to the United States has never been greater.” In January, an anonymous senior aide to U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron argued for a new “snooper” bill by saying that “the terrorist threat has never been greater.” In mid-2014, U.K. Prime Minister Cameron himself raised the threat level to “severe” and announced that “Britain faces the ‘greatest and deepest’ terror threat in the country’s history.”
In September of last year, chief of New York state’s Homeland Security department, Jerome Hauer, warned New Yorkers: “I think the threat has never been greater since prior to 9/11.” When discussing ISIS in June of last year, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer told viewers that “the jihadist threat has never been greater.”
In early 2013, Daily Telegraph’s national political editor, Simon Bensen, warned against cutting intelligence spending on the ground that “the truth, as demonstrated in Boston, is the array of threats has never been greater.” At the same time, India’s Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai gave a speech warning “that terrorism is and will remain a pre-eminent security challenge … and the nature of the threat in our region has never been greater.”
In 2010, “the U.S. government issued a warning Sunday that said al-Qaeda might target transport infrastructure and the British raised the terrorist threat level in its advice for citizens travelling to France and Germany” while “Bernard Squarcini, chief of the French internal intelligence agency, told reporters that the threat ‘has never been greater.’”
In 2007, “the UK’s new Security Minister warned that the threat against the UK has never been greater. . . . He said the current threat from terrorism was greater now than six months ago when the former head of the intelligence agency MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, warned her office was tracking 30 terror plots and 200 networks totalling more than 1,600 individuals.” In 2006, German Interior Minster Wolfgang Schäuble told his country that “the threat has never been greater.” In 2004, The Sun’s Senior Crime editor Mike Sullivan warned his readers that “Heathrow has been a major target for terrorists for years — and today the threat has never been greater.”
Throughout the Bush years, scaring Americans by telling them that the threat has never been greater was so routine as to be hard to overstate. As John Mueller wrote in Foreign Affairs back in 2006, in an article entitled “The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy”:
For the past five years, Americans have been regularly regaled with dire predictions of another major al Qaeda attack in the United States. In 2003, a group of 200 senior government officials and business executives, many of them specialists in security and terrorism, pronounced it likely that a terrorist strike more devastating than 9/11 — possibly involving weapons of mass destruction — would occur before the end of 2004. In May 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft warned that al Qaeda could “hit hard” in the next few months and said that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on U.S. soil were complete. That fall, Newsweek reported that it was “practically an article of faith among counterterrorism officials” that al Qaeda would strike in the run-up to the November 2004 election. When that “October surprise” failed to materialize, the focus shifted: a taped encyclical from Osama bin Laden, it was said, demonstrated that he was too weak to attack before the election but was marshalling his resources to do so months after it.
He added that “on the first page of its founding manifesto,” the Department of Homeland Security warns: “Today’s terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon.” Bush officials raised their color-coded terror alerts and issued similar warnings so many times that it became a running joke. It was a particularly beloved tactic in the run-up to the Iraq War:
Years later, the face of that joke, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, admitted he was pressured to issue warnings for political gain.
Here we are 14 years after 9/11, and it’s still always the worst threat ever in all of history, never been greater. If we always face the greatest threat ever, then one of two things is true: 1) fearmongers serially exaggerate the threat for self-interested reasons, or 2) they’re telling the truth — the threat is always getting more severe, year after year — which might mean we should evaluate the wisdom of “terrorism” policies that constantly make the problem worse. Whatever else is true, the people who should have the least credibility on the planet are the Lindsey Grahams and Dianne Feinsteins who have spent the last 15 years exploiting the terror threat in order to terrorize the American population into doing what they want.
Photo: Senators Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, Dianne Feinstein: Susan Walsh/AP
And we haven’t secured our southern border because, we TRUST everyone on the other side of it? Stupid. We are going to pay for not locking it down. Pay hard.
I agree with Useful Idiots.Once it’s off the front page, it’s buried.The only reason I’m here, is b/c of twitter.
@johnjoechad tweeted it.
I was published on Tuesday, now it’s Saturday Night.
Why not (gasp!) publish it in newpaper-form, like nyt
(and the guardian used to)?
Is there some risk to security?
Sigh. One reason it is so IMPORTANT to fix the format and commenting issues on this site is because articles that are only a few days old already get pushed off the front page, there’s no way to track comments, and of course once they’re off the first page, people consider it apparently done, gone, and buried. That’s not a dialogue, that’s escape.
Obama started another dangerous concept after the Snowden revelation: “the need to balancing security with privacy” I balked when he said that in a news conference. I knew that media pundits and others would quickly adopt that concept. What they don’t realize id that privacy == freedom.
Re- Cindy and GG
I think it’s safe to say that many regulars here are pleased to have calm, cool and collected journalists plugging away at the establishment… who are both careful in not releasing any documents that could be shown to cause harm (as that would, as I believe Snowden himself said, be used against both whistleblowers and those informing the masses) and not losing the respectability platform by getting frantically accusatory in a manner that causes people to tune out rather than consider the arguments and information.
So, keep on keepin on, as some of the “radicals” in the generation before mine say.
However, despite the successes, growing awareness, minor congressional victories and whatnot, there are many who are frustrated by the ongoing policies of the establishment, the ignorance and widespread acceptance of the false justifications for rights violations and national and foreign policies causing more harm than good, and absence of pitchfork wielding mobs.
So, maybe there is a solution to address the gaping chasm?
Maybe TI or GG in particular could promote a link to activist events in a regular blog post, organize cross-platform events with other heavy hitters like Democracy Now, TomDispatch, and the numerous others quoted so often in the comment section, sponsor poster, bumper sticker or online activist art contests, organize alternate events to coincide with the listening tours of our corrupted politicians in both parties…
… something.
Rally the troops beyond the limits of journalism now and again… even if it’s just an intern doing the legwork to maintain that separation of advocacy that critics like to jump on to avoid debating the message.
I’m sure others will have better ideas, but you get the point.
Helping to channel the anger many of us feel and succumb to now and again toward productive endeavors.
And I’m not talking about leadership, just a thumb on the scale here and there.
It’s just not in the purview of TI to create what doesn’t exist, to wit: A cohesive movement against the Big Picture Establishment. That was Occupy, and it died.
Glenn did supportively write about Occupy when it was happening, and participate as well:
People like Cindy need to read the whole thing: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/17/ows_inspired_activism/
But while there are some separate movements out there now (e.g., BlackLivesMatter, BDS), there just isn’t a Movement. And neither Glenn nor this site can generate one.
OWS didn’t die, it was killed, or rather targeted for termination, but in reality just temporarily stunned into hibernation… but I agree with your argument in general.
That said, my suggestions didn’t say anything about creating a movement.
Helping to bring together the birds of our feather on occasion is different and possible.
And while it is, like I said, outside the realm of journalism and as you say the purview of TI, there isn’t a law against doing it… as an organization or individuals.
I am also aware that GG and the whole gang here are working plenty hard, and may not have time for such matters, but their earned admiration can be an asset that could be used to nudge here and there in a manner different than journalism. Like I said, not leadership, but more akin to morale boosting.
If you are saying it can’t be done, or shouldn’t be done, we will just have to agree to disagree.
And, really, sponsoring a political poster contest is about drawing attention to, and sharing information about the issues of our day.
Not exactly that far outside the purview.
There are a lot more of us out here than the establishment wants to acknowledge. And I think more than many of us are aware of too.
It may not be a named movement under a single umbrella, but our numbers are vast.
In any case, while my original comment was clear that I don’t think GG should follow Cindy’s advice, I think her heart is in the right place.
Whoever said If you’re not outraged you’re not paying attention had it right, and the occasional outburst in the comment section isn’t hurting any of us.
Well, yes, it died at least in part because it was killed. Very true, and a point I’ve made myself.
Whether it is a sleeping giant waiting to return, I don’t know. But eventually the masses are going to be so immiserated some level of rebellion is inevitable. Capitalism has wrought some good things, but it is now cannibalizing the working and middle classes.
Where Cindy is concerned: 1. It is more than occasional, and 2. her rage is misdirected; indeed, it is absurdly directed.
Atheist pretty much covered what I would have said in response.
I understand you take all attacks on GG personally, which is adorable and all, but is not reading something that much of a chore?
In no way is this a comparison, but I rescued a shelter dog over a year ago now, and he is the friendliest, cuddliest little guy you will ever meet. But for the first four months, my arms and legs were a bloody mess because he thought jumping on me and scratching and chewing on me was great fun. I don’t think he had been physically abused, just neglected and untrained because he had a shit eating grin on his face the whole time. There were times during that period when I thought I may have made a mistake, because he wanted to “play” with me like that 20 times per day, but he is now the greatest dog ever. So, maybe my idea of “more than occasional” and “misdirected” has been tarnished… not to mention my concept of harm.
“Where Cindy is concerned: 1. It is more than occasional, and 2. her rage is misdirected; indeed, it is absurdly directed.”
1. And so? You’re pretty confrontational in most of your posts. I’d daresay even angry to the point of fuming mad at times. We still accept your comments. Why should everybody’s comments not be accepted? Isn’t that sort of, I dunno, favoritism at best and censorship at worst, otherwise? Are people NOT supposed to get angry at all of this? Leading to 2->
2. If commenting here is misdirected, or absurdly directed, what do you suggest she do? You’re advocating precisely the sort of quashing/chilling of speech you claim, somehow, to think you believe in. I don’t see how the two can coexist. Without expression we get violence. Are you saying she should just be chucked into some corner on the internet, unlike you, and be unable to post here? (or that I should? Or that only you or people you like should be able to be upset? Occasionally lash out at people? Is speech harmful? If you don’t want people to “misdirect” their anger, maybe you should give some ideas on how to direct that anger “appropriately”?
*correction, advocating the same sort of quashing/chilling of speech you claim, somehow, to think you do NOT believe in.
Mona,
I agree that The Intercept in its current existence cannot create a cohesive social movement, but does that mean that there should be no attempt at directing active dissent?
If GG believes this,
“I continue to be astonished by people who regard themselves as worldly and radical and yet think the key metric for how much has changed is the LEGISLATION THE US CONGRESS enacts. As I wrote last year, that’s the least important metric, not the most important metric, for understanding how much has changed from these revelations.”
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/02/fear-mongers-always-scariest-time-ever/#comment-137171
then I would be genuinely curious to hear his suggestions at dismantling the US intelligence agencies’ massive apparatus. Not to diminish from the awareness and education that he brings, which cannot be overstated in importance, I am just curious. I know there have been numerous articles on this site about encryption, TOR, TAILS, etc, which has been great.
This quote from the Salon piece you linked:
“…one of the most significant aspects of the Occupy movement: that it is not devoted to voicing grievances as much as it is finding a model to solve them.”
and this one about OO:
“It did not merely complain about the prevailing landscape, but rather provided an alternative form of existence and community to the one it was protesting.”
really make me wonder what GG thinks people ought to do about the complete corruption of essentially every institution in the US. It is obviously not his sole responsibility, nor the The Intercept’s, to solve the world’s problems, but the more informed ideas, the better!
R
I think Cindy will never be satisfied. And I think that’s a great thing. The way Glenn views Cindy’s approach (“adolescent fantasy designed to be unfulfilled”), I’m sure is the way the establishment view’s Glenn’s. But it’s because of people like Cindy and Glenn, that the pressure towards this “fantasy” persists. And I think that’s fantastic.
I most decidedly do not think Cindy is behaving in anything remotely like a “fantastic” manner. What is fair or productive about “Fuck you, Greenwald” and a statement that this site is merely “the establishment”?
Moreover, I elaborated on her almost clinically significant antics here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/02/fear-mongers-always-scariest-time-ever/#comment-137346
And how many more times will she dramatically announce her departure? pffft
What, we can’t tell Glenn to fuck off when we’re pissed? I love Glenn to death. I think people like him are the reasons that people like myself continue to enjoy the rights we do in the west. But I absolutely believe Cindy’s “Fuck you, Greenwald” adds to the discussion. She’s pissed, and she’s expressing herself. It’s another point of view. I thought her rage was funny. And I’m sure Glenn can take a “Fuck you” from a sincere reader, and doesn’t require our defense. It’s not like she’s trying to malign him with lies, as some people do. What the hell is a “Fuck you?” It’s nothing.
I hope Cindy never leaves. Every time she announces that she’s leaving, I’m filled with dread. Her expression of her rage may have something to do with her youth, but most of her comments and her perspectives reveal wisdom beyond her years. And I do think her participation on the GG Network is fantastic. As I think yours is.
Well, we’ll just have to disagree.
It’s certainly not that Glenn “can’t take” a “fuck you.” He gets it all the time — from many quarters –and often delights in it. But I expect better from intelligent people who know his work; it offends my sense of fairness for Cindy to hurl that for such unsupported and unsupportable reasons.
But again, we’ll just have to disagree.
Okay, we can disagree. I have no problems with disagreements. I quite like them. But let me make one point on Cindy’s behalf:
You and I had a disagreement on the Canadian law that says that a licensed broadcaster of “News” can be sued by the government if they knowingly lie about the news. You thought this was an abridgment of free speech. I will contend that it is not, that it is an extension of “fire” in a crowded theater law. You cannot be sued by the government if you lie. You can only be sued if you lie if there is an expectation that what you say is “News” is the truth. Because the Canadian government believes this to be in the public interest, just as not allowing someone to yell “fire” in a crowded theater is. To me, your position is a “fantasy,” in that it’s not ideal. Your position leads to Fox News and then to Iraq War. To you and to Glenn, Cindy’s position is a “fantasy.”
To me, Cindy’s position is also a fantasy, as some of Glenn’s positions are. I find some of Glenn’s positions (while I’m sympathetic to them philosophically) to be too idealistic and unworkable. So I’m even more removed from Cindy’s position than you or Glenn is. But I think that her point of view is ABSOLUTELY necessary to argue with, and not to dismiss, as a “fantasy,” even if it’s as curt as a “fuck you.”
And it’s okay disagree :). It’s all good.
Aside from the fact that nothing the government says can be believed, the ordinary decent person should be terrified (pun intended) that the clear desire on the part of these same government officials to retain and continually expand their surveillance powers could become the basis of a self-fulfilling prophecy by their concocting a terrorist incident or allowing one to happen – or by doing both, with a little artificial negligence for good measure. MIHOP (Made it Happen on Purpose) and LIHOP (Let it Happen on Purpose) are the common acronyms summarizing the questioning of the official story of 9/11. These acronyms may be usefully generalized to incidents that have not yet occurred. Perhaps such attacks will arise out of the myriad of military “drills” that constantly take place “in preparation” of whatever conflict or attack may be forecast in the aggressive and violent imaginations of those in power (Yes, I’m a conspiracy theorist, you can get it out of your system if you need to sputter it. But only about real conspiracies). Who knows? But one may be sure that upon the next attack (there will be one, unfortunately), all these self-appointed national security yahoos now yammering about the irresponsibility of those who oppose the surveillance state will point to this attack and say “See! See! See!” F them, F their mendacity, their megalomania, their ambition, their terror. They are the real terrorists. That’s right. You heard it here.
All this talk again about terrorists Can someone help here ?.? What does a terrorist look like?,? Short? Tall? Fat? skinny? average? Man? Woman? Child? Dressed How?? Black – White – Green – Pink – Purple?? NEXT would be where these people live? Bomb Shelters under every building in Washington….Sorry Again – –
Land of the FREE …..Home of the BRAVE?? I know next is: street paved with gold and the way Congress spends money on the military it couldn’t last long…
Every-time I have to drive across a bridge I have to thin about our crumbling infrastructure – of course that’s followed by POT-HOLE heaven roads…
C-mom people admit it : you’re really safer today?? Torture – Gitmo – Secret Prisons
Well, I kind of have to agree with the senators on this one. On their own terrorsts aren’t that big a deal, but, armed with modern American weaponry, the are much more dangerous.
“In addition to the Humvees (2300), Iraqi forces previously abandoned significant types and numbers of heavy weapons to Islamic State. For example, losses to Islamic State include at least 40 M1A1 main battle tanks, as well as small arms and ammunition, including 74,000 machine guns, and as many as 52 M198 howitzer mobile gun systems.”
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/02/dude-wheres-my-humvee-iraqi-equipment-losses-to-islamic-state-are-out-of-control/
I wish I could afford a Humvee. Don’t really need the machine guns or howitzers. Just agood bike rack.
If you look at history objectively, It is clear that the threat from governments is much greater than the threat from terrorists. Perhaps we should insist on limited government EVEN IF that puts us in greater danger from terrorism and crime.
Being logical, I am more afraid of my bathtub than terrorism. And I understand that the government needs to monitor all of my activity lest my bathtub sneak up on me. Furthermore, it is clear that overfilling bathtubs has avoided over 50 imminent slips. So I’m glad to have the government to keep me safe, and I’d rather be dirty than free.
You are right. America is a big country and if something bad happens, odds are it will happen to someone else and not to you. So feel entitled to be cynical and apathetic…
Statistically, you’re more likely to be killed by any number of things (such as being struck by lightning) as an American citizen than a terrorist. Avoid travel to the hotspots in the Middle East and North Africa and this reduces that even further. “Terrorists” are boogeyman. The only reason this continues to exists is because people are afraid, and U.S. military adventurism has a tendency to piss people off on the other side of the world.
The record of terrorist activities proves no demographic slice of the American population has a more gluttonous and misguided sense of entitlement, and is more reckless, cynical, and apathetic about their country’s welfare, than the nat sec state, it’s contractors, and it’s pridefully ignorant supporters in the electorate.
it’s not it’s… it’s its
the point is you are the cynic, not the ones you don’t scare
Are you correcting yourself, or is that a different Stan?
“He added that “on the first page of its founding manifesto,” the Department of Homeland Security warns: “Today’s terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon.” ”
So….they’re basically omnipotent. Great. Now we’re gonna need actual superheros to defeat them.
“Today’s terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon.”
They should know.
“For Terrorist Fearmongers Its Always the Scariest Time Ever”
That is because they belong to a genus of proto-fascists, fascists, and authoritarians of various sorts. As a semi-retired ancient historian one of my specialized fields has always been fear in the ancient world. It fascinated the ancients, and was one of the key aspects of the character of the tyrant in antiquity. Both ancient historians and philosophers, from Herodotus to Plato to Tacitus, are full of kings, tyrants, and emperors whose chief quality is cruelty motivated by fear, and who rule with an iron grip by the instilling of fear in their citizens.
Cicero (to cite just one example) writes in his Laws, his Republic, and On Duties, that caritas – the mutual bonds of affection that hold together and unite fellow citizens and those who govern and those who are in turn governed – is key to a free and vibrant society. He further argues that those who rule through fear are fundamentally terrorists (he was thinking of Julius Caesar, in particular in his work On Duties [De Officiis]). Tacitus’ Annals is about nothing if not about the grinding and corrosive effects of fear during the reigns of the early Roman emperors on Roman society and institutions. It is a lesson has long since been learned. I doubt FDR had Cicero or Tacitus in mind (but who knows!) when he said the only thing we had to fear was fear itself. But to this day it remains a profound and true observation, one with which they would have concurred.
There is a direct line from the hyper-aggressive civilizations of Classical Antiquity and our own. The only problem is that from an evolutionary standpoint, the authoritarians have not evolved sufficiently to understand that this is not a reality to be embraced, but one to be resoundingly rejected.
I appreciated your comment almost more than the article I think. I think the fundamental cause of almost all of our modern woes is probably our loss of history. I think the majority of people in our society have no knowledge of or feeling of connection to our history, and I think the result is that we’ve lost all context.
Thanks Jessica. I actually have come to hate the term “ancient”. Rome and Greece are not ancient. They just happened and their impact on our societies is still felt in a powerful and vivid manner – to drive this home, there is arguably a direct line from the Roman suppression of two rebellions in Judaea (66-71 and 135-6 AD) and 9/11 (the Romans effectively ended Jewish inhabitation of their sacred city Jerusalem and some scholars date the Jewish diaspora from this date – you can fill in the results of the attempt to re-establish a new Jewish state in the “modern” era [where a Jewish state only possibly existed for 300 years in the so called Dark Ages that encompassed the eastern Mediterranean from 1150-850 BC] for yourself). That is why history is perhaps of over-arching importance.
Students ask me my politics. I say there is no such thing. There is history, economics, science, medicine, sociology, and the law, and either you know them and will set policy around them to maximize the full potential of society and the individual, or you don’t and won’t. Either you can look at the science of climate change and conclude there is a crisis or you are willfully ignorant. Either you can look at the statistics from pediatricians that tell us childhood hunger is a crisis in the US and absorb them and conclude there is a serious crisis, or you are willfully ignorant. Either you have the maturity to absorb that water-boarding is torture, or you take the Rush-O’Reilly-Hannity mentality and viciously explain it away as a prank, effectively undercutting little things like the Geneva Conventions. And so on. Perhaps we should stop asking people what they know about politics and instead ask what they know about history, law, and science.
Wouldn’t it have been nice, for example, if someone had pointed out that between 115-117 AD the emperor Trajan attacked a weakened Parthia (modern Iraq!) and conquered it quickly. But he thought it would be easy, didn’t secure the territory, and ended up with a massive insurgency, forcing the Romans to relinquish their conquest upon his death. Plu ca change!
“Students ask me my politics. I say there is no such thing. There is history, economics, science, medicine, sociology, and the law, and either you know them and will set policy around them to maximize the full potential of society and the individual, or you don’t and won’t.” – GrumpyWithoutCoffee
An absolutely spot on observation. It really is that simple, despite the labelers and the pigeonholers constant insistence that humans be marched into ideological categories to better observe and preordain their true motivations.
For example: ‘Why are you for smaller government across the board? Oh, because it’s been proved to be the most effective at meeting the mutually agreed on policies and laws?’ Not on your life – with this and most other subjects, particularly this ‘War on Terror’ and it’s ancillary fall-out of misguided secret policies that violate the already well set-out principals of our constitution and a democracy.
For an interesting example of one of our nations well-documented (by them) yet wildly unproductive and unsupported-by-the-evidence wasteful programs in fear-mongering, check out the FBI’s site on counter-intelligence.
! wonder if they found all those Needles in the Haystack, Glenn?
More like iron filings in a hayfield.
Why Spy on Everybody?
Because “You Need the Haystack To Find the Needle..” -General Keith Alexander (Aspen Security Forum)
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/19/why-spy-on-everybody-because-you-need-th
A That’s Right He’s A Real Sidler Production
ht`elaine
I’ve heard that they are planning co-ordinated attacks in all 50 states, some time in the next five minutes they say, using fresh fruit as weapons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w
My advice : totally fucking shit yourself.
I done told you, F.W. … I’m not going to totally fucking shit myself until I see Russian tanks rolling down flatbush ave.
*and that’s final!
“Wolverines..!!!!”
http://gawker.com/5793684/pooping-mailman-caught-in-the-act
A Johnny Pooparazzi Anderson Production
Myers gets it : ) Perfectly.
“We have never seen more threats against our nation and its citizens than we do today.”
Well, in a sense not intended by Graham or other ruling class operatives, Graham is correct. It’s the class that he serves that is threatening, and not just threatening, but actually attacking “our nation and its citizens” and many “other nations and many billions of citizens” around the world.
The US Carried Out 674 Military Operations in Africa Last Year. Did You Hear About Any of Them?
http://www.thenation.com/article/204145/us-carried-out-674-military-operations-africa-last-year-did-you-hear-about-any-them
Syria Becomes the 7th Predominantly Muslim Country Bombed by 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate
firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/23/nobel-peace-prize-fact-day-syria-7th-country-bombed-obama/
US “Grand Strategy” for war against China laid out
wsws.org/en/articles/2015/05/02/chin-m02.html
Peace Negotiations or War Preparations? Colombia, Iran, China, Cuba, Ukraine, Yemen and Syria
petras.lahaine.org/b2-img/Petras_PeaceNegotiationsOrWarPreparations.pdf
Washington’s Two Track Policy to Latin America: Marines to Central America and Diplomats to Cuba
petras.lahaine.org/?p=2035
Britain needs to pass a Ladder and Staircase Prevention Act to stop innocent people being hideously killed falling downstairs or off ladders. Because, statistically speaking, you’re more likely to pop your clogs tumbling down the apples and pears than you are by terrorist hand.
I’m scared the terrrists coming to get me. Save me NSA, please! The threat against me has never been greater. Ever. Never ever. Until now. It’s great right now against meee and my famileee.
I was reading recently “The Devil’s Disciple,” a play written in 1897 about the American revolution. I was stunned at the language
The comment was made about Americans by the British General Burgoyne. Propaganda never changes. It’s always the most dangerous time. And “they” always love death, more than than “we” love life.
Add a few virgins to that and you’ve got the modern day definition of a Muslim.
What frustrates me is that even among the dissidents, who is willing to say the obvious — that the September 11th attacks really weren’t that bad? I mean, if you flew in September of 2001, it was still as safe as driving. We accept many times more fatalities from yearly flu outbreaks as we had in the World Trade Center attacks, and that doesn’t spur us to modernize flu vaccine production to make it faster or to develop technologies – published in the 1990s and 2000s – to make vaccine that works against all flu. Because, well, budgets are limited. But there’s never any limit on budgets to grope people on airplanes and drop bombs on Iraq.
Terrorism violates “our sovereignty”.
The Flu is freedom.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/capitalism-and-slavery-an-interview-with-greg-grandin/
The sky is always falling with these people. They’ll say anything to get their way. Even at the expense of our way of life. I don’t consider them Americans.
You survived the past. But you will die in the future. It is only a matter of time. So obviously, the future is more threatening than the past.
As usual, the politicians are right.
But they are claiming it is the present that is the danger, not the future! A politician always tells you the future is golden if only you vote your conscience (which always turns out to be the one talking).
Tiime … and pressure, benitoe.
“For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all” … Act 3, scene 1
Glenn, any thoughts on how alterations differentiating the Freedom Act from the Patriot Act will affect or be affected by the TPP? I think it’s very curious such heavyweight agendas are going through concurrently.
Fuck you, Greenwald. I’m more ‘adversarial’ than you, and I’m just a nobody. The Intercept IS the establishment, people. It is a part of the theater.
A round of applause for Cindy, ladies and gentlemen!
A nobody doing nothing who believes she’s doing something ‘adversarial’ by complaining.
Isn’t she wonderful? She’ll be back……..
Well at least I call Obama a sociopathic lunatic (ever hear Greenwald say that?) and don’t promote the whimsies of Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders as relevant (unlike Greenwald), nor do I claim some kind of ‘symbolic’ victory in the ‘Freedom Act’ which entrenches surveillance and merely makes token gestures toward accountability – unlike Froomkin and Greenwald and the ACLU and the effing EFF whatever.
Do you not see how this is all theater which does not CHALLENGE THE ESTABLISHMENT BUT MERELY MOANS SUBMISSIVELY ABOUT IT? Even Greenwald distancing himself somewhat from claiming this is a ‘big deal’ while simultaneously hoping everyone thinks it’s a ‘big deal’ is theater (of course he’s maybe just preserving his ego – he could be merely a seasoned twit hoping for the best, who knows… BUT IT’S STILL A FARCE.)
(Apologies if this post is doubled, I had a ‘problem with your comment’ notification.)
As I stated in a comment of yours in a different article a few minutes ago, I agree.
However, I am willing to bet that GG went into this really thinking he could make a difference and really had a chance. He probably overestimated the public and underestimated the apathy, as well as, perhaps, his own guts (and most of us do care about self-preservation — I think we can agree that at a certain point governments will declare people a terrorist merely for speaking too loudly (certainly there have been increasing numbers of indictments merely for doing stuff like tweeting). The NSA spies on news agencies. The NSA almost certainly spies on //TI.
And then there’s the fact that most people underestimate the long-range hellish grind that challenging this sort of fascism really is, psychologically, physically, and on a personal level; maybe the first year it seems to give one a charge, but gradually your entire life becomes infiltrated with spies, lies, stress, and press (among other things) — and TPTB are experts at demonising people and tying all of their time up with crap, innuendo, misdirection (a great tactic when the biggest problems to the ‘establishment’ are playing out — you’re studying psych — I highly suggest you read Cass Sunstein’s (limited) publicly available “work”).
The shitty, bitter truth is that no single person, or even a small or reasonably sized group of people, can do much about this crap, especially if you can’t get the numbers behind you that are willing to stick their necks literally out along with you.
Which is to say, I agree that //TI is a farce, but I think you may be underestimating how difficult all of this probably is for GG — I have no idea what his real beliefs are about TPTB (maybe he does indeed think they’re horrendous fascistic twats) — but I do know that if he said he thought they were horrendous, fascistic twats he’d be skewered quickly. I suspect GG is trying to be angry but reach moderates. Which only works if moderates get angry and become willing to act. The problem comes when there’s little or nothing beyond moderation that doesn’t reach into the terrortory (sic) of “being a target” or worse.
As to the people who came after GG… I have a bit less sympathy.
All of this is clearly theater, but I guess the question is how can it be more than theater if people don’t ACT instead of tilting at the easiest available windmill and hoping for the best. You can’t force people to question the lies they’ve been taught and will ardently fight to keep — or maybe you can but then you become just another flavour of the same exact problem you say you’re trying to combat.
Anyway, yes, it is a farce.
To be clear, my comment with the video link was directed at Cindy. I have nothing to say to “Useful Idiots” except that your comment a rambling, boring bunch of self indulgent crap.
You are living in an alternate reality (as is Cindy).
This is just one of several occasions when Glenn has functionally called Alan Dershowitz and Michael Hayden twats — in the context of the Munk Debates:
He has changed since the Munk debates. In my opinion. That’s the Greenwald I want to see now.
“Self indulgent”, huh? Yet I didn’t say a single thing about myself.
Theater works well if there’s a crowded theater full of participants. If this site wants people to actually ACT on this stuff, it’d help if it managed to engage people to PARTICIPATE — I don’t mean in this site. I mean in the world, and the changes that are going on.
But hey, it’s all about me. What the fuck do I know.
BTW, maybe stop attacking me. I was one of GG’s earliest, strongest supporters. I actively encouraged people to pass him information as a journalist. Saying he isn’t the same person he used to be isn’t an attack on him. The fact that you’re attacking me for suggesting people change, or maybe just need to get their spark back up, kind of proves my point.
Actually, the reality is exactly the opposite.
If, sitting in Hong Kong, I had to predict what the outcome of all this would be, it would have been infinitely less – universes less – than what it has been. I continue to be astonished by people who regard themselves as worldly and radical and yet think the key metric for how much has changed is the LEGISLATION THE US CONGRESS enacts. As I wrote last year, that’s the least important metric, not the most important metric, for understanding how much has changed from these revelations.
Finally, none of this new. Literally since the day I began writing, people have pronounced that my impact is inconsequential because it’s not single-handedly spawning revolutions. I guess if that’s really your bar, then the conclusions are warranted, but there’s nobody who meets it. It’s an adolescent fantasy designed to be unfulfilled.
Cindy continues in her alternate reality:
You mean the debate that occurred when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, a whole 13 months ago?
Cindy, what you “want to see” is unimportant, given your wild mood swings here and your frankly freakish anger and aggression that comes out of nowhere — alternating with pontificating about the joys of calming Zen activities and philosophies with large dollops of Hallmark sentiments.
Glenn Greenwald has been shockingly successful, especially given that he started with just a modest blogspot site ten years ago, and no corporate support at all. His advice to, and advocacy for, Edward Snowden has resulted in positive attitudes toward Snowden (with a great assist from Snowden’s manifest intelligence and sincerity).
And you, Cindy? Who and what are you? An unpredictable (in mood) crank who keeps announcing she’s leaving these comments, but doesn’t.
pfffft I don’t care what you want from Glenn, and don’t see why he should, either.
Glenn: your impact is inconsequential? Maybe. So was Zola’s. So was Ida Tarbell’s. So was that of Jacob Riis or Fremont Older. It matters, some way, somehow.
Keep accusing.
@Glenn:
Thank you very much for your reply. I hope you might have five minutes or so to give me a quick answer to a couple of questions directed at your response?
You wrote: “and yet think the key metric for how much has changed is the LEGISLATION THE US CONGRESS enacts. As I wrote last year, that’s the least important metric, not the most important metric, for understanding how much has changed from these revelations.”
…But what really changes if not through law? A lot *has* changed, but only (from what I’ve seen) an increasing sense of anger, apathy, and (hate this word) “doom”. I think one of the things we need to start asking, more than anything else, is “at what point do our laws need to stop being about abridging liberties and start being (as they, I think?, were meant to be) about enabling liberties?”
OTOH I cannot argue that merely changing the laws will make no difference. We need to be willing to *enforce* the laws against our own governments — and (since the US insists it has the right to enforce laws against other people, peoples, countries, and so forth) somehow force our leaders (and our appointed “leaders”, a la Clapper) to be held accountable to the same standards. For that matter, I’d argue other countries should have the right to call foul at having their own rights abridged. One of the things to come out of this that has disturbed me the most is that the dialogue is still somehow firmly entrenched in exceptionalism — is it okay to argue for our rights but abridge the rights of everyone else? If so, why?
You also wrote: “Finally, none of this new. Literally since the day I began writing, people have pronounced that my impact is inconsequential because it’s not single-handedly spawning revolutions. I guess if that’s really your bar, then the conclusions are warranted, but there’s nobody who meets it.”
…and I think I understand where you’re coming from. I’m guessing you’re saying you wanted to be a journalist but not a civil rights leader (and I use that term strictly, fully embracing there are many ways to be a leader, especially a thought leader) — and from what I’ve been reading in other comments, your friends seem to keep reinforcing this ‘hands-off’ policy as a gospel. And I can get that. The problem is, I don’t really think we have an equivalent of a ‘leader’ right now — we have some people who are vocal, yes, but nobody that I’ve really seen a majority of people willing to get behind (other than you and ES). This obviously creates a gap, and it’s why I, and other people here, have been suggesting a more active role for the site — it doesn’t have to be ‘rah rah rah’ — but providing a central location with information on stuff like protests, and maybe some sort of daily update on all the news would help — maybe then a more MLK-like leader might emerge. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing, but I’m pretty sure we’re pretty much powerless without some sort of organisation. The anger is out there. I’m not trying to tell you what to do but I’m guessing that if the anger doesn’t get shaped in some direction, productively, then it’ll wind up boomeranging back to the people/places that got the ire up to begin with. That said, I realise I’m not really ‘part of the solution’ by saying all of this. But I think it’s important that it get said (and I doubt I speak for everybody).
PS: I’m not sure why you allow your friends to post ad hominems here but they seem to want to speak for you, and basically strike down other peoples’ freedom of expression. I understand you cannot tell them what to do or how to do it, nor am I suggesting it has much to do with you, but it can split a community just as effectively, or more effectively, than outside parties coming in and doing the same. I don’t expect you to reply to this part, but I sort of wanted to bring it up. I’m not even arguing about the ad hominem (I’m an adult, maybe even a self-indulgent one ;)) — but I figure it can be destructive when you rarely reply yourself and other people come along saying what you think or how you feel (or what you do or don’t believe in). Opinions are cool but not third party ones?
@Glenn – was just going through old notes/articles and came across this quote (from BuzzFeed, not long after the ES story first broke): “Stories based on the leaked documents will continue for another few months, Greenwald said, but not, he hopes, beyond that. “I get bored with myself,” he said. “If I’m still working on these stories a year from now, I’ll probably be in an asylum somewhere.””
I just wanted to say that I, personally, am glad you’re not in an asylum somewhere. :P
Just how blunt do you need Glenn Greenwald to be. In this video he is making it clear that Obama, same as Bush and Cheney, is a war criminal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijnxnKOAqYM
Well, I guess how blunt I need Greenwald to be is “more.”
The video you linked to is from 2013. I’m saying he’s changed, mostly in the last eight months or so.
His old fiery self shines through, occasionally, but he no longer ‘fights’ as he does in his books – and indeed in the earlier appearances and articles I’ve seen. If he calls Obama a war criminal tomorrow (rather than awkwardly sounding as vaguely pleased about the Freedom Act as Obama is), I’ll be impressed. Promise.
Wow, that’s really brave, edgy and insightful.
Imagine if I had your courage and was willing to tweet that Obama was a “sociopathic lunatic”: volcanoes of revolutionary change would erupt, the Pentagon and NSA would collapse at once, hordes of protesters would gather in front of all big corporations to tear them down brick by brick.
Calling people profane names is the key to social and political change. It’s what “truly adversarial” people do.
A gg giggle I have found is … often so misunderstood./
*and lets not forget to give a Shout Out to all those … ‘tireless workers in the Vineyard who gladly labour in quite anonymity’
Greenwald calling people names might make you feel better, but it wouldn’t solve anything. Actually, it would make it worse, as it would work to discredit him. People working against him would call him out on it, and play to that versus trying to counter the actual issues he brings up. Glenn going on an emotion fueled tirade would be entertaining, but it lose him further invitations from more mainstream media and ultimately more exposure to average Americans. Matt Taibbi might be a more colorful writer, but he doesn’t have anywhere near the exposure or credibility Glenn Greenwald does. He has his Rolling Stone readers, and an occasional RT or Democracy Now! interview (I’m sure there’s a bit of crossover with those audiences).
As for the ACLU and EFF, the EFF does a lot to promote tech reforms. They’re great at recommending tools for privacy and bringing attention to issues. They also are heavily involved in Tor. The ACLU is more difficult to defend with Anthony Romero’s opinion on pardoning Dick Cheney, but I see where he was going with it. He went for a much more realistic goal, that the pipe dream of Dick Cheney actually going to prison. But they do have plenty of local chapters which people can get involved in. I know my local NYCLU has been working to fight use of Stingrays in my county.
As for a more emotional form of activism, I don’t think it would work for Greenwald, and it doesn’t seem to be his style. It works for Taibbi with a smaller audience and on a large scale, John Oliver actually does it quite well. He’s figured out how to draw people’s attention to big issues in the web 2.0 world and actually had a pretty strong impact on things such as net neutrality, civil asset forfeiture, FIFA corruption and domestic spying.
You have to pick your battles and pick your base. I’d rather see slowly uniting a large group of people against a lesser, attainable goal than get the much fewer Cindys of the world really fired up about something, and have no impact whatsoever on the population at large. Cindy what you want is more like Greenpeace or Peta, angry, as a well as largely ineffective, outdated, and obnoxious. Throwing paint on fur coats might feel like a productive, direct action, but it doesn’t help with increasing support or awareness, or coming up with real solutions.
Cindy,
I agree with much of your criticism of TI, but your comment on being more adversarial, even if sarcastic, only diminishes the importance of education. People cannot know what they do not know, and despite the fact that Greenwald may not go so far in his journalism as to somehow magically change corrupt power structures, his journalism HAS brought light and cogent analysis to many facets of our current society.
What level of compromise would you make in watering down your political rhetoric to gain a platform large enough to make what you would consider a difference? Just curious, I am not sure how I would answer.
R
I don’t think Greenwald should water it down, I think he should go for the throat like he used to.
This doesn’t change corrupt power structures directly, but it worries them. Mass movements in that light have more power. I ignored Greenwald for years, even though my friends called his “With Liberty and Justice For Some” a sort of ‘Occupy’ Bible. When I finally relented to the lure of politics, I found that his energy matched mine in tone. He was just leaving the Guardian. Honestly, he was giving off veritable sparks at the time!
As for education, I wish people could be educated in critical thinking above all. Thanks for your questions, they’ve made me think.
Cindy,
I think TI worries power structures still, despite your valid criticisms. I won’t bother to link them, but there were stories on here about the US military banning personnel from viewing the site, and one of the reporters of the site was recently prohibited from entering some surveillance industry convention.
As for critical thinking, I could not agree with you more. You might be interested in the book: “Teaching As a Subversive Activity,” by Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner.
R
@Cindy-I too have been expecting a sharper silver tipped tongue from GG. I’ve also expected more people to understand Snowden and his sacrifice but they haven’t. If most people have their heads up their asses, and they do, it doesn’t matter how sharp GG’s tongue is.
Personally, I’m sick of talking about how the politicians are perfect turds. Now I want to physically remove them from DC and I was hoping GG would inspire others to do the same. Maybe he is burning out?
@Phil, I know you weren’t talking to me, but you brought up a subject I’ve been pondering a lot, as of late, when you said “I’ve also expected more people to understand Snowden and his sacrifice but they haven’t. If most people have their heads up their asses, and they do, it doesn’t matter how sharp GG’s tongue is.”
I’ve been wondering how much the ‘everyone [unless you’re American? :/] is special’ movement has inadvertently caused this? Maybe by making any performance an ‘achievement’ and more or less equivalent from a reward perspective, we’ve encouraged our kids to see all suffering and sacrifice as more or less equivalent, severity-wise and temporally, among people…
If you can’t relate to the possibility of this sort of loss, maybe it all seems too strange to really understand it — they just think “oh, I’d never do THAT” or underestimate the fact that it’s a ‘forever’ kind of decision or something like that. I doubt many people can really comprehend what that level of loss/sacrifice even is. If you can’t relate, how can you do more than just relate? I’m starting to think a lot of people have basically depersonalised Ed Snowden (and the concept of ‘whistleblower’) in their minds — ie, more object/symbol than person — which is what he said he didn’t want to be…
Just a theory I’ve been batting around. Input welcome.
Correction, should have read ‘unless you’re not American’.
(FWIW the logical extension of this argument, in the context of this article, is that all ‘threats’ wind up being processed or perceived as functionally fundamentally equivalent, too. I don’t remember who it was that commented (don’t have time to look for it) about our ancestors and predators, but it was pretty much spot-on. Having lost our real threats, we become those threats — or see them in everything.)
These guys are all shills for the defense contractors. Lindsay Graham is a joke; with no credibility.
Yet who graces the Sunday “Newstalk” shows almost weekly?
Politicians and cops are the biggest pants-pissing babies in the world.
Recall this recent statement from the Baltimore police union saying that the police are “under seige” and “can go to jail for following Supreme Court decisions.” They don’t feel “respected.” Jesus fucking Christ, they are terrified because they have been told they cannot kill people at will!
https://twitter.com/deray/status/604040927712149504/photo/1
And then we have a culture where people feel the need to bring a frikkin shotgun to the grocery store.
All of these saber-rattling, fist-pumping idiots think they are viewed as courageous. So wrong, so very wrong.
We have become a nation of bed wetters, easily scared by every manufactured threat by the FBI, Feinstein, or whatever opportunistic politician happens to need some votes. The best thing I can do for many of my countrymen and women is to give them a voucher so they can go buy some Depends.
Sobering thought: the aggregate police politic concludes they’re doing the job they have been told to do. And now they’re catching heat for following orders. Citing Ludlow? Equal parts terror and fascist resentment. Heady brew that.
http://dcpost.org/florida-law-officer-planting-evidence-lying-part-of-the-game-exclusive-interview/
Faux Media TSA report….
Build that fear.
Since the threat has never been greater, now is the time for US citizens to be able to defend themselves. Even more reason to support National Concealed Carry Reciprocity! Spread the word: WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR SAFETY ALSO! Contact your US congressional representatives and let them know that we need, and you support, the following Bills: H.R.402, H.R.923, H.R.986, and S.498. Also, let them, especially the Democrats, know that:
Citizens with a Concealed Handgun License:
o Have no felony convictions.
o Have never been convicted of domestic violence.
o Have no history of mental illness or drug addiction.
o Have passed a background check and have their fingerprints on file with the Authorities.
o Have passed mandatory training in both the use of a firearm and the applicable law.
The 11 to 12 million civilians with concealed carry permits (who have voluntarily submitted to background checks and licensing) are among the best most law abiding segments of the population. Better than politicians, judges, and police officers. US DOJ figures show that civilians who use guns in defense are less than 20% as likely as police to use guns wrongly or cause undue harm (2% vs 11%). However, The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons: the “qualified law enforcement officer” and the “qualified retired law enforcement officer”; to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions, but National Concealed Carry Reciprocity bills have been stalled in the US Congress for at least the last 6 years due to blockage by the Democratic Party.
Currently there are 3 National Reciprocity Bills in the House: H.R.402 with 90 sponsors = 2 Democrats & 88 Republicans, H.R.923 with 31 sponsors = 0 Democrats & 31 Republicans, H.R.986 with 163 sponsors = 3 Democrat & 160 Republicans and a duplicate of H.R.923 in the Senate as S.498 with 28 sponsors = 1 Democrat & 27 Republicans. We need a 2/3 vote in both houses because the threats are now and we can’t let the Democrats continue to violate the United States Constitution and prevent us from protecting ourselves. Our right to defend ourselves does not end at States’ borders! We also can’t wait and hope for a non-Democratic Party President in 2016.
This is excellent work, how can we echo this message louder? Our culture of cowardice will spell the end of our free society, unless we can learn to live again with trust and courage and love to our fellow humans. Thank you Glenn
The real terrorists that are spreading terror….
The gang making these pronouncements coincidentally are the same ones who decided to fund and arm al Qaida and what is now Isis to take down Assad in Syria.
Somebody may have to check my math, but I believe giving terrorist nutjobs over a billion dollars (and tolerating our “allies” like the Saudis throwing in billions more) might actually be in the second “counterproductive policies” category GG mentioned.
Now, the evidence suggests that the “don’t attack us or Israel” strings we attached to those gifts are being honored so far, thus the threat levels are being exaggerated badly, but how much can you ever trust mercenaries?
Sure, we just agreed to spend another $400 million for a new batch of jihadis to be trained in Turkey, but if the money ever stops flowing, they could easily turn on us…
… so, I guess the threat has never been greater…
… at the expense of US citizens… again.
‘Security’ is a category error. Who’s “we”, Batman?
Corey Robin persuasively traces the liberal tradition (negative liberty) deforming its conception.
Yours, Mine, but Not Ours
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/12/yours-mine-but-not-ours/
Snowden’s leak makes certain liberals squirm. It controversialized something that was previously assumed to be uncontroversial. Happily, Silicon Valley is a key constituent. Embarrassed, there’s political space for controversy. But Empire is holistic. Beyond controversy. Less war or more war. All the relevant constituencies are benefactors. As Robin says in the piece:
Robin’s piece on Holmes offers a good companion. “Falsely shouting fire in a theater” is commonly known as the test for free speech, but most aren’t aware of its historical context: the “fire”, in Holmes’ formulation, was the imminent threat of anti-war socialism.
http://coreyrobin.com/2013/02/17/falsely-shouting-fire-in-a-theater-how-a-forgotten-labor-struggle-became-a-national-obsession-and-emblem-of-our-constitutional-faith
Speaking of Edward Snowden, I was watching Democracy Now today with Amy Goodman and she had a clip of Josh Earnest flat out lying through his teeth when he said, “The U.S. government and the Justice Department want Edward Snowden to come back to the United States to face the charges against him where he will have a fair trial and the right to make his case to the American people.”
Glenn, I wish you would get that lying tool’s clip and explain that if Snowden flew back to the U.S. where he would promptly be arrested and put in solitary confinement would NOT have a “legal” right to tell his story to the American people due to the nature of the charges.
I believe I am correct but it would take a lawyer like you to explain to everyone what a big, fat liar Josh Earnest is.
Thanks.
Oh, and BTW, the sooner we get an honest and open investigation into the controlled demolitions at WTC 1,2 and 7 the quicker we will be able to call out the perps on future false flags (the next will probably be blamed on Iran to give Israel the war it is itching the U.S. to be forced into).
I see where now Bill Binney has signed on to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.
The TRUTH about the past and present is what we need and it is the Feinstein’s and Graham’s that are preventing us from getting it.
I am sick of being constantly lied to and manipulated with all the B.S.
Glenn has addressed that numerous times.
“Ever since Snowden revealed himself to the public 20 months ago, he has repeatedly said the same exact thing when asked about his returning to the U.S.: I would love to come home, and would do so if I could get a fair trial, but right now, I can’t.
“His primary rationale for this argument has long been that under the Espionage Act, the 1917 statute under which he has been charged, he would be barred by U.S. courts from even raising his key defense: that the information he revealed to journalists should never have been concealed in the first place and he was thus justified in disclosing it to journalists. In other words, when U.S. political and media figures say Snowden should “man up,” come home and argue to a court that he did nothing wrong, they are deceiving the public, since they have made certain that whistleblowers charged with “espionage” are legally barred from even raising that defense.” –GG
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/04/snowden-wants-come-home-stories-case-study-media-deceit/
Speaking of which:
http://news.yahoo.com/boston-police-officer-shoots-kills-possible-terror-suspect-175503467–abc-news-topstories.html
OMG!! He was brandishing a “military-style knife”!!!
Technically a Swiss Army knife could be interpreted as military style.
“The threat of attacks has never been greater” … and then you realise how little regard the people making those comments actually have for human life, how little they care if innocent people die in police custody, if permissive gun laws promote violent deaths, if minorities are pushed into poverty, drugs, criminalization. What do they really care if a few dozen people are killed or maimed because some idiot straps a bomb to themselves or runs amok with a gun? If they really felt that strongly about such things, their policies would put life ahead of power and profit.
Power and profit. That’s what they’re afraid of losing. Not human lives.
“The threat of attacks has never been greater”
I’d say that too if I had just spent the last dozen years butchering several hundred thousand people, then forgetting to kill all the witnesses.
And they’re still successfully hiding the state-sponsored stalking and harassment that is taking place from coast-to-coast. We have a Stasi-like apparatus in the U.S., but who would believe it?
If these guys don’t stop crying “wolf”, the Chicken Littles might start to ignore the howls. Then the CIA will have to fix things again.
You mean them “fixing” things ever stopped and isn’t a continual, ongoing process? Or do you mean ONLY the CIA will be doing it, again? ;)
Selective reporting indeed. Posting about this when clearly there is….um…. some… conspiracy or something…. um, yeah… involving your tech staff going to see Gaspar Noe’s film which, if you were responsible and not hiding something, you would be covering live. Totally negligent reporting.
But since you did write about this, it’s an interesting statement on human nature, I think. I read a study saying that when people live in low-threat environments, they simply react to small threats in the same way they were programmed by nature to react to charging tigers. In some ways this is probably a good thing – we are forever raising the bar on what constitutes peace and safety. On the other, as we rarely get to enjoy this because we simply recalibrate every time the threat level is lowered, it can skew our judgement.
Yep, that completely explains why Rogers and Feinstein speak as they do. The are utterly terrified by the low level of the threat.
That’s very cynical. What I meant was, what were your odds of living to old age 2,000 years ago (to give kind of an extreme example)? What were the odds you would personally be the victim of burglary, assault, violence, murder, etc., at that time? Perhaps to those people suburban America would look downright insane for worrying at all or wanting any increases in healthcare, safety standards, etc. Stricter seatbelt laws? Security vs. freedom? The goalposts have already been moved 10,000 miles away, how can you possibly be having any debate? But things don’t look this way to us, we don’t consider that a sort of ‘valid, original’ frame of reference – we simply find the standards of 2,000 some years ago dire and continue with the point of view from here. So I don’t think we have to judge how people currently feel about threats based on historical standards, those standards can in good faith shift very rapidly – it’s just that good faith or no, I think we should be aware of the balance in that shift. If the expectation of security is too high then it puts people in the role of fragile, whiny and overprotected child who is never allowed outside lest they get a skinned knee. It’s more a matter of remembering what else is important. I think Greenwald makes an important point in highlighting the fact that we are not necessarily talking about overall (in terms of numbers) risk, more like perception of risk in the current zeitgeist.
Accurate. People seem to forget the power that chemicals have on the human body, not the least of which cortisol and adrenaline. Constantly retraumatising “one’s people” is a cowardly, abusive, terrorist act.
Fantastic article, Mr. G.!
Of course, when one goes back to one to two years prior to 9/11/01, we find the then-DIA analyst, Julie Sirrs, going on a fact-finding mission in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and returning with evidence to the financing and arming of the Taliban (and, by extension, al Qaeda) by Unocal and the CIA. She also returns with a warning of an impending attack on US soil (9/11).
Her evidence is confiscated and her security clearance immediately pulled; she is forced out of the Defense Intelligence Agency by its director back then, Gen. Patrick Hughes.
Later, we see intrepid FBI agents, Coleen Rowley, Harry Samit, Kenneth Williams, and several others, warning again and again of jihadi students form the Middle East training at American flight simulator schools, yet the feeb management of the FBI ignores and abandons such warnings!
At the CIA, Alfreda Bikowsky Silverstein would order her co-workers not to divulge information about the soon-to-be 9/11 hijackers roaming free in America (thought by CIA to have been earlier involved with the two embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole on the coast of Yemen).
Today, we have the sorriest excuse for a super-loser formerly with the useless and money-guzzling CIA, Mike Morell, prancing about the country spewing such nonsense that he is reamed a new one by professional lightweight, Chris Matthews, on his Hardball show!
What is wrong with this picture?
Immediately after 9/11, the CIA, DIA and FBI should have been immediately shut down, with the vast majority of their personnel purged, and a forensic audit done on each organization to ascertain where all those monies disappeared to?
I do enjoy the comments made re: the subject of fear mongering, but I’m left with a bit of a helpless feeling about how to get people grouped together in a big enough group to force ‘our’ gvt. to pay sufficient attention to us. Nothing seems to even be getting to our congressional employees that is an indication that they actually hear our point of view. What is it going to take to get through to them? jar047
“What is it going to take to get through to them?”
That’s not likely to happen. All change these days is happening from the bottom up, and by folks animated by justice and public service. That’s the future. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/19/open-source-revolution-conquer-one-percent-cia-spy
Sit ins.
There were big protests about TPP and its implications on the food chain in Europe, and everything else, in a lot of places. Maybe it’s best to start with demanding the media cover such things (clearly they aren’t). I have no idea if it’d work at this point but saying you’d use stuff like AdBlock and NoScript on their sites to cut their revenue if they don’t, and/or outright boycotting, and letting them know the cause and effect MAY at least help this. I think one reason more people don’t protest is because people are pack animals — if they don’t see a lot of something going on then they assume it’s not going on, and thus isn’t “acceptable”. Occasionally something seems to break through in small ways, though usually to skew other events (Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, etc) and stir up unrest/push other agendas, but what’s really needed is to force the media to cover the protests that DO happen thus letting people understand that they actually do happen. Then again, grassroots is pretty firmly entrenched with informants now and it’s almost impossible to put together anything sizeable that doesn’t devolve into something else.
I must respectfully agree: The current situation is nothing like it was in, say, 1942 with the US at war and losing on two fronts, or during the height of the cold war when the US and USSR had their fingers on the triggers of more than 10,000 thermonuclear weapons, the minimum yield of which was more than 15 times the weapons that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is worse not because of the threat that about the equivalent of one infantry brigade’s worth of ISIS fighters, but rather because of the astounding greed, selfishness, and sheer stupidity of our politicians, our press, and apparently the majority of our citizens. There is no sign, except at the fringes – and the Intercept and its community are on the fringes, believe me – of any possibility of a recovery.
What is ironic is that those who shriek loudest about the severity of the threat are themselves its greatest enablers and symbols.
The left loonies will one day bitch the loudest,when they are attacked. Watch your back,cuz ISIS are.
Curtis, it’s the authoritarian loonies in our own government (in both current ruling parties) that I fear more, as they are more numerous, more entrenched, more powerful, and much, much closer. ISIS is still nothing compared to the destruction Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union wreaked upon their own people and the rest of the world. I’d like to stop our own country from heading down that path first (if it isn’t already too late), non-violently and through the polls and protests preferably.
Poor Lindsay, his meal ticket is tuckered out. There’s only so much killing we’re willing to do for you, copper baron.
It’s amazing how this kind of ludicrous rhetoric goes on year after year in the name of national security, but, as Glenn has shown, it’s a long-running show. Time for some more analysis.
– – –
Please, never stop.
Nice.
Kardashianites! Laughed out loud at this post, coram nobis.
…
You might know this, but since you mentioned the Pétain Foundation… William Shirer’s “The Collapse of the Third Republic” is an interesting description of how the Foundation helped engineer a quick defeat in order to take over and save the country — along with its coalition partners, of course.
Collapse of the Third Republic by Shirer is vivid reading, even more so than this Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Check it out.
FDR said “theory thing we have to fear is fear itself”. Lindsey Graham says “the only thing we have to fear is everything”
We should also fear the power of autocorrect.
There is some truth to the observation that things are getting worse in various areas. I don’t know about Middle East sentiment, but in the US there has been a steady increase in anti-Muslim animus. This has been accompanied — probably not by coincidence — by a substantial rise in police brutality against minorities. If the trend continues, the results will be horrendous one way or another.
This kind of theatre would be morbidly amusing save for the fact that someday, some how, some threat will be real, and our fat, overfed, complacent and too dependent on the tech, largely non-functional, Keystone Kop/Cowboy (take your pick) mentality of our alphabet-soup agencies will utterly fail to see it coming.
It’s becoming ever more clear that these yahoos are incompetent. We know they’re incompetent because they’re unfocused. They’re loudly and enthusiastically (rabidly?) defending that which has not succeeded to date which means they are all “out of position,” and “looking for ‘love’ in all the wrong places.” This really ought to be worrisome. The fact that we haven’t, as Americans, experienced more attacks tells us more about the ineptitude of terrorists, than it suggests the superiority of our programs or agencies. The terrorists who might actually want to do us harm can’t, but it’s increasingly apparent that it’s not the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, or god help them, our TSA** who are stopping them. But, the ineptitude of these current terrorists, should not be assumed to be representative of the future circumstance.
We could give up every civil liberty we have, forfeit them, sign them off, consign them to the dustbin of history, and our current methodologies, under out current agencies, with their current operational plans (moved to the power of 10 as they’d wish), could not/would not stop any intelligent and determined individual from wreaking havoc. I absolutely believe we would be as well off if we piled up every dollar we currently spend on “security” and set it on fire. All these mealy mouthed, cleverly commercially marketed representatives want is to be sure that when the BOOM comes, they can’t be accused of doing every single thing (no matter how pointless, how stupid, how inapt, how wasteful) to prevent it. And, their determined desire to be held harmless ought to tell us a lot about ourselves as citizens.
**http://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-director-reassigned-wake-security-failures/story?id=31458476
In the 90s I frequently stated that somebody was doing their jobs right given the dearth of terrorist attacks in the U.S. And I believed that.
But now, with all the arrests and prosecutions of “terrorists” the FBI manufactures — and the Keystone Kops antics you refer to — I really doubt it.
And please never forget the facts surrounding that “underwear bomber” of a few years back: French security denied him boarding the airliner in France because he had no passport, yet someone (CIA) from the American embassy overrode their decision and helped him aboard.
Now why was that?
Also, please never forget that fellow how FOIA’d the government for any and all paperwork affiliated with the so-called raid, firefight and burial at sea of Osama bin Laden — and none was forthcoming as none existed!
Anyone who has ever served in any branch of the US military (and I’ve served in several branches) knows paperwork is generated for everything!
Regarding the Detroit “Underwear Bomber”…
Does anyone recall the testimony of the Detroit lawyer, Kurt Haskell, who, along with his wife, witnessed the “Underwear Bomber” attempt to board the plane in Amsterdam with NO passport and a man in a tan suit talked to the boarding supervisor and got the bomber on the plane.
Although Mr. Haskell and his wife never got the chance to testify in the trial, Mr. Haskell went before the court and testified as to what he witnessed.
Here is the statement he made:
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-kurt-haskell-exposes-government-false-flag-operation-during-underwear-bomber-sentencing/
Just like any major military command though, every such agency has a use it or lose it paradigm to their annual existence, as I’m sure you know, where you don’t get an increase next year if you don’t find a way to use all this year’s budget. Also, you can’t just ignore the influence defense/IC/HS contractors have not only within their respective agencies – but also through their lobbyists to perpetuate funding. I don’t disagree that much of what these agencies do is largely incompetence – accompanied by considerable pretense it’s not. But what I’m additionally suggesting is that both those agencies and their prime contractors often find incentive to enable each other’s “appearance of some” incompetence, to the degree it might maximize any benefit$ for both. Many a maintenance program pays engineers to occupy seats of busy work just in case something serious comes up, you don’t want a major program failing because nobody understands the code any longer. And a good friend once told me about a program in Florida where he actually got in trouble multiple times with management for engineering solutions to their documented problems. After a year he couldn’t take it anymore though, so he and family moved back to the mountains and defense work here.
“This kind of theatre would be morbidly amusing save for the fact that someday, some how, some threat will be real …”
And that will be used to “prove” they were always right, and to institute a new laundry list of oppressive powers.
Perhaps it is true that “the threat has never been greater.” The threat has always been low. It continues to be low. I’m reassured.
Considering how useful it is to stoke fear, but how doubly effective it is to occasionally let people let their guards down only to amp it up again with an actual “event” (manipulation at its worst), maybe we should actually be afraid when they say they think there’s a little bit less to worry about.
Thanks, Glenn, for another great article. The two choices you offered 1) Fear mongers exagerating or 2) Truth telling that the threat has never been greater, don’t have to be mutually exclusive. I’m looking forward to the nationally televised interview where you get the chance to ask both the fear mongers and the truth tellers. If only.
“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.” – Adolph Hitler
And Glenn is looking only at the post-9/11 “greatest threat(s) ever.” Everyone recall the “yellow economic peril” Japan represented in the 90s? Much less the great Communist pending apocalypse that ran for decades (and lives on in inflated nonsense about Russia and Putin)?
Good roundup of links, Glenn. Must’ve taken some work, since “official hysteria” probably doesn’t google easily, either because it isn’t easily defined — or maybe because it gets too many hits.
– – –
Oh — this just in.
coram, hot damn man, you should write for John Oliver or someone like that. You are just seriously talented.
As Will Rogers said, “It’s easy being a comedian when you have the whole government working for you.” And he died in 1935. How he would have loved being on with Jon Stewart or John Oliver.
“How he would have loved being on with Jon Stewart or John Oliver.” – coram nobis
First: what Mona and others said regarding your satiric interludes here. Well done and much appreciated.
Second, I encourage Mr. Greenwald and other staff at The Intercept to take advantage of the platforms that Mr. Stewart and Mr. Oliver offer in getting their message across – it is a lost opportunity if they choose not to.
“I heard this for years about Jon Stewart – how he’s so effective at messaging and reaching all these people that nobody else is. What were the results of that exactly?” – Glenn Greenwald
and,
“Do you think that John Oliver has stopped renewal of the Patriot Act?” – Glenn Greenwald
Regarding Glenn’s assertions: – 1) Jon Stewart has been effective, and 2) Yes. John Oliver did his part.
“A man who called everyone a damn fool is like a man who damns the weather. He only shows that he is not adapted to his environment, not that the environment is wrong.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Hilarious!! I could use a little mojito right about now.
I used to drink Singapore Slings back in the 70’s…
Those were the days…
@ Glenn
The state of the American political system really is becoming an embarrassing and incredibly dangerous “bad joke”. Statistically speaking an American has a greater likelihood of dying by any of the following–hitting a deer with their car, being stung by a bee, being unarmed and killed by an American police officer, slipping and falling in the bathtub, being struck by lightning, being killed by a drunk driver, medical malpractice, the flu, food poisoning . . . than they do from a “terrorist act” on American soil. And you sure as shit don’t see the American government spending a trillion dollars a year, year in and year out, trying to stamp out those “threats” to American lives.
I mean it really is getting quite unnerving that the very people we elect to represent us in this country are a) either statistically illiterate morons, or b) so fundamentally craven and morally bankrupt, that they have no business running a lemonaid stand much less wielding the levers of power in the most militaristic nation on the globe (assuming active conflicts and money spent on “defense” is a reasonable proxy for “militarism”.)
I’ve said it before, if any American wonders how something like Nazi Germany could ever come to pass, they only need to look in the mirror. Irrational fear combined with dire economic prospects combined with a political and military elite willing to immorally and shamelessly exploit those fears–in pursuit of domestic power and economic expansionism or conquest–is about all it takes. And while there are many key differences that set Nazi Germany apart, historically and in practice, they are differences in degree more than they are of kind.
@rrheard…
I completely agree with the first two paragraphs of your reply. However, as a military historian myself, your comparisons to Nazi Germany is somewhat off the mark. To begin with there were several factors that allowed for the rise of the “National Socialists” (The term “Nazi” was never used in Germany since it is primarily American slang.).
On the one hand, the intervention of the US in World War I initiated a series of events, which led up to the Versailles Treaty that dismembered substantial parts of Germany, when in 1917 she had already won the entire conflict. Had the US stayed out and let the Europeans work things out on their own, historians believe things would have been a lot different.
Two, the attempt by the US and Europeans to suddenly convert what had been historically an autocracy into a democratic republic in the guise of the Weimar government.
Three, the world-wide depression that was primarily continued by FDR’s policies who insisted that loans from the allies be paid back to the US (a first in military conflict for all of history).
Four, the internal disruption in Germany between the Communists and the rising National Socialists.
In 1933 the National Socialists came to power “CONSTITUTIONALLY” so there was never any coup in the fashion that Americans like to think of. Even then, the National Socialists were rather weak. However, with the continued depression and the ongoing problems with the German Communists, Hitler was able to gather political strength in the Reichstag after which he set about towards setting in motion plans that would eventually return Germany to full employment; something FDR and all his policies could not do and in fact never achieved prior to WWII.
Yes, I know all about German anti-Semitism and most Americans’ views towards that part of German history. Guess what!?!? The entirety of Europe was anti-Semitic with Poland actually being the utter worst case of the major European nations. Hitler was in fact fairly typical in his views towards Jews. Nonetheless, none of this has anything to do with the history in question.
In fact, just the opposite has happened in the United States. Up until Reagan in 1980, the United States was a fairly stable nation economically, though politically it was showing signs of stress. But with the advent of Reagan came the increasing political incursion by Christian-Zionists, Christian Right Wingers, and the “Chicago School Boys” with their completely idiotic neoliberal economics based upon the Straus Philosophy, who even here misinterpreted some of his theories to suit their own narcissistic agendas. All this Human Waste then subsequently enabled the election of the moronic loons you mentioned until the Congress was swamped with them.
This “Fascists”, which in relation to the original Italian definition fit very nicely, undid all that would have allowed the United States to evolve even further than it had by the 1960s and 1970s.
So while National Socialist Germany rebuilt am exhausted and somewhat failed state into an economic powerhouse, the current array of idiots and their predecessors have torn down every stable foundation that the United States had, which were keeping the country as a major creditor to the world instead of the now world’s largest debtor.
So no, the current situation in the United States is nothing like the rise of National Socialist Germany in the 1930s. In fact, it is far from it…
And Hitler and his Third Reich was financed, or at least partially heavily financed, by the richest families in America and Europe (in America they were the Rockefeller, Morgan, du Pont, Mellon, Harriman and Ford families). We know this today from the congressional investigations of the 1940s into these matters!
Just as today in America the Fourth Reich is being heavily financed once again by the super-rich!
That list includes Prescott Bush, grandfather to GW…
Honestly I blame FDR for the mess we are now in as a country due to the machinations of a coup against him by the biggest U.S. industrialists. The DuPont’s, the Colgate corporate trust etc. led by Gen. Smedley Butler.
He went along with the scheme to get 500,000 veterans to storm the White House and as soon as he had the goods on them he went to Congress.
There were committee hearings on all this with all the transcripts still in the Library of Congress.
And what did Roosevelt do when the plot was uncovered?! Were all the richest corporatists involved arrested and tried and convicted and executed under the law?!
No!!! Roosevelt was too concerned that to arrest them all would destroy the economy!
Now here we are!
They got their coup without firing a shot. They re-grouped and decided that by simply buying all the Congress and presidents and judges and media they could STILL run the show andake tons of money.
What do the historians here know of this?!
@ Steve
My point wasn’t that there was an exact parallel to the rise and fall of Nazi Germany and the USA. My point was that the conditions–economic uncertainty (whether as the result of losing a war, or the specific engineering of a collapse of the middle class) and immoral politicians and generals willing to exploit that are about all it takes for a nation to go outside its borders and do horrible things.
Thus the caveat(s). But I think the point remains notwithstanding the historical and flip flopped trajectories of Nazi Germany and USA, the effect on others, loss of domestic rights, and the tools used (war, mass surveillance, “otherizing” a portion of the domestic populace) differ in degree not kind.
It is a very dangerous course to be on for a nation. And it is particularly disconcerting that it is my nation which I believe can be better. Although I could be mistaken about that as I don’t believe American society, legal system or its people are any more “exceptional” than any other putative “democracy” or “representative republic”. America could easily fail just as many societies before it have failed.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice — won’t get fooled again!
Yeah, right. It’s hard to believe any differently, when all one hears is the same ol’ same ol’, over and over…
This is exactly what fascist states do; but now, today, especially in the U.S. and the rest of the Western countries, they are hyping the threat(s) and seeking to get everyone to live in fear so they can eliminate our liberty(ies) and freedom(s) by getting us to voluntarily give up the rights to them, and successfully build a totalitarian militarized police state all around us. And what are most of the “Amerikan” people and the people of the West doing, voluntarily giving up their liberty(ies), freedom(s) and rights just as designed by the powers-that-be who are intentionally hyping the threats and fear, using it to incrementally lock us down more and more, and make us “live” with less and and less rights, and less and less liberty(ies) and freedom(s).
The Reich and Stasi were always warnings of what could be done, they just happened a little too early to be able to be done “right”. Clearly now the technology is in place to enforce the destruction of liberty and freedom at minimal cost or effort with only the occasional show of bloodshed (real or implied) spiked into the conversation to show what’ll happen if you don’t comply. Never mind about all those dead bodies you don’t see, of course, or the genocides and atrocities that are being performed on Muslims instead of Jews. Fascist exceptionalist nationalism plus profit, made possible by advanced technology, is clearly “superiour” to what came before it.