Why Actual Principled People Are Difficult (Glenn Greenwald Edition)

Sometimes when it quacks and floats like a duck, it’s not a duck. It’s a hunter with duck callers and decoys. These people seem more like ducks. Beware the hunter.

But even though the cat was out of the bag, so much was made of Greenwald’s “crime” that to this day it is well known that Sanders was the victim of a rigged election and no one cares.

Most notably, Bernie himself didn’t and doesn’t care and capitulated to his “betters” within the Dem establishment under the aegis of party unity. He’ll do it again too. Watch.

What I don’t care about is the feigned care of Trump supporters for Bernie’s spinelessness.

It shouldn’t be lost on anyone Snowden’s parents are as deep state as the so-called deep state gets. Murky waters. The REAL heroes if there even is such a thing as heroes? We’ll never know their names.

Despite that, knowing how awful it would be, [Manning] chose to go to jail rather than testify.

This may seem to be a minor quibble, but strictly speaking Manning has testified and extensively. The authorities say they are seeking “information” but they are in fact in full possession of all the information Manning could have and are seeking to force her to participate in the incrimination of Assange. The theory of the case against Assange turns apparently on suppositions regarding Manning’s subjective intentions in attempting to avoid or delay detection and in her personal relation with Arrange at the time of their cooperation in her disclosures. Quite reasonably, Manning apparently expects prosecutors to attempt to elicit statements that will be used against Assange (and quite possibly against Manning herself despite the commutation). They are, in short, seeking to have her betray Assange.

I think it is worthwhile exploring the quibble, because this is what a true moral dilemma looks: a struggle of reason against power.

In school, moral philosophers sometimes pose trolley problems and the like as if those are moral dilemmas and one can determine right from wrong by dispassionate calculus, weighing or ranking the consequences of choice. In real life, power manipulates the costs and consequences to force the actor to give up their own choice, to cease to be a reasoning moral actor altogether.

In real life, in a good society, institutions of law function to prevent power from escaping the constraints of reason. The kind of law Greenwald specialized in — constitutional civil liberties — arose historically in resistance to the claims of absolute and arbitrary power, power that was not incidentally stupid and cruel as a consequence of rejecting all reason except the bare calculation of means to ends.

“In an unjust society the only place for a just man is prison.”

— Henry David Thoreau

The Brazilian prosecutors accused Greenwald despite a police investigation that found no wrongdoing by Greenwald and further despite an order from a Brazilian federal judge prohibiting any further investigation of Greenwald relative to this hacking case. Finally, Greenwald can not actually be charged with anything unless a federal judge signs off on it. This looks like an attempt to smear Greenwald, neutralize his reporting in Brazil, and likely put pressure on him to leave the country.

I have been a long standing critic of Greenwald with regard to the Snowden materials. He and Poitras dribbled out their contents. At first, this could be defended as keeping the story of the NSA’s illegal surveillance programs in the news. Greenwald even allowed other reporters to use them in preparing their own stories. But only a small portion of the files were ever released. I was one of those who militated for their release. The idea that sources and methods might be exposed was never that strong. Once you had the general gist of what the programs were doing it wasn’t difficult to guess the who’s and how’s. And as time went by, this argument got weaker and weaker. If it was important for the public to know about these programs, then why at some point could the public not see the source materials, do their own research, form their own judgments? Instead Greenwald sat on them, acted as a gatekeeper, something he used to criticize, and also parlayed them with big bucks from ebay billionaire Pierre Omidyar into starting up The Intercept. This is where the Snowden files ended up archived, except in March 2019, The Intercept with Greenwald’s blessing closed access to the archive. For an interesting take on the machinations, try the following

https://medium.com/@barrettbrown/why-the-intercept-really-closed-the-snowden-archive-e99f46bbfbbc

This is where it gets really tricky, I think. Being one of these difficult iconoclasts myself, and my longest mentor being an even bigger one, what I\’ve learned/am learning is twofold:

-Someone\’s personal problems aren\’t an excuse to ignore their commentary on what they see going on around them.

-The accuracy or helpfulness of someone\’s commentary isn\’t an excuse for them or anyone else to ignore the problems they have in their own relationships.

In the subcultures I\’m most experienced in, I\’ve witnessed far more people being guilty of the latter, especially when it comes to the charismatic leaders that put on an excellent show of integrity and compassion for their audience, but then when it comes to their private relationships can be quite sick. I think the tricky part is most people don\’t actually get to see such figures in their \”native habitat,\” but I, over the course of my life, have gotten to (either by living with them or gaining access in other ways.)

At a certain point, someone\’s ability to publicly articulate/call out injustice loses value if they\’re replicating the same injustice in their own sphere. Which isn\’t to so much say they\’re wrong or inaccurate, as to point out that there\’s nothing gained when we uncover one deception only to create another one, and often an even sneakier one. There\’ll be some good examples in my book, which I\’m still working on finishing up and getting to you by the way.

Anything I should know next time so my post doesn’t get apostrophe-geddoned? Testing’s testing’s…

Thanks to Hugh for the Barrett Brown link — he has been shamelessly persecuted and he seems to be a sometimes difficult personality and troubled individual.

Glenn Greenwald, by contrast, seems to me to be both psychologically stable and, as suits a lawyer, circumspect with regard to the law. I think he is brave, but not reckless in the way an Assange or Barrett Brown have been. He has been obnoxious enough to point out hypocritical inconsistencies in the opinions and reporting of journalists, but disliking Rachel Maddow’s stupid schtick is just good taste, as far as I am concerned.

What I do not necessarily understand is the complacency with which many detached observers regard the drama of whistleblowing. We all live in a world made by hierarchical organizations. Our personal safety, not to mention our financial and economic well-being, as well as political and personal religious/cultural freedom depend on the integrity as well as efficiency with which these organizations operate the world we live in. “Fair” would seem a value vital to survival.

That we seem to have a feckless and incompetent elite for whom “fair” has become an accessory to a highly selective “wokeness” while ranting on twitter is concerning.

I’ve always had a lot of respect for Greenwald. He was very critical of the Bush Administration and then went just as hard at the Obama Administration when it would have been easier for him, and more lucrative, to temper his criticisms of Obama.

Z

What I respect about Greenwald is that he is loyal to the truth.

Z

Bruce, what about it? I’m not engaging in whataboutism, but you are engaging in American Exceptionalism. Some American “journalists” break a nail and you and you ilk cry human rights abuses which is laughable when compared to how journalists are treated elsewhere on the planet by tyrannical regimes Donald Trump not only supports but lauds. Worldwide journalism organizations exist for a reason — to help protect journalistic freedom globally. It’s a global issue, not just a local issue.

Chelsea Manning receiving a sex change operation during her captivity is beyond bizarre. It’s insane. It’s emblematic of the insane world in which we live when I point out what Manning’s fate would have been in Russia and China and some yahoo such as yourself arrogantly and insanely says I’m engaging in whataboutism.

Twitter, if nothing else, if the deep state truly exists as Trump supporters say it does, is a deep state platform and Snowden has 4.22 million followers on that deep state platform. He’s a rock star. Guess how many followers I have and I don’t even exist on Twitter? Zero. My family has been continually surveilled and harassed by the FBI. If I wanted to gain meaningful gainful employment again I couldn’t because the FBI would prevent it — it would contact that employer and tell them not to hire me. I have received countless emails from FBI agents telling me a cabal of them are taking bets on when I will commit suicide and urging me to do so meanwhile this Hyde scumbag who was planning to have an American ambassador assassinated not only walks free but gets invited onto Chris Cuomo’s show so he can be a rock star too like the Three Musketeers — Manning, Assange and Snowden.

Glenn Greenwald is wealthy. He belongs to the 1%. He has made bank off of all of his reporting and this is why he goes light on anything Russian — because if he went heavy with a true critique of Russia from the left versus the disingenuous neoliberal critique he would lose his audience and thus his bank. He has tons of fans and followers.

This is why I say the REAL heroes, if there is such a thing as a TRUE hero, have no names. They have no following. They’ve made no bank. Wake me up when Western “journalists” start showing up brutally murdered in droves which may be sooner than we think as the West russifies like a rotisserie chicken. Until then, give me a break. Please show me the article or articles where Snowden, Assange and Greenwald take Russia to task for murdering their hard-hitting journalists. You will find no braver journalists than those in Russia who dare to speak truth to power. In fact, you won’t find any remaining because they’ve been eliminated. No sex change operations for them even if they were so inclined. Instead, the worms have eaten into their skulls as their bodies decompose six feet under.

Please consider:

Snowden pissed off the most powerful intelligence service and country in the world. He ran. Wikileaks helped him run . . .

Snowden pissed off the most powerful intelligence service and country in the world because he stole public documents that were classified. The information he removed was evidence of millions of felonies and human rights abuses by the U.S. gov’t, which had classified those documents in furtherance of its cover-up and national security. He ran escaped authorities to assist in the leak disclosure of the information and evidence he illegally removed. During his escape attempt, the U.S. Gov’t, at Barack Obama’s direction, exiled him to Russia.
Wikileaks helped him run escaped.

Still musing on Ian’s original post:

Following a link from NC, I read a boring report by Matthew Yglesias on Vox titled,
The Bernie-Biden clash over Social Security, explained
The potential return of the “grand bargain” on budgetary balance.

The “hook” for this wholly unenlightening bit of scribbling was that David Sirota had quoted Biden out of context in support of Sirota’s thesis that Biden supported cuts to Social Security. (Biden has supported cutting Social Security, as Yglesias acknowledges.)

I have seen it asserted that human short-term memory can barely handle a ten-digit phone number. That limitation among several others creates all kinds of problems for cognitive overload and a demand for highly compressed nuggets of actionable information, slogans, familiar narratives, shibboleths, repetition, as well as leveraging the power of habit and metaphor.

Abstract principles, of the kind Glenn Greenwald has dealt with as a constitutional lawyer’s stock-in-trade, work as well as they do to keep politics organized (which is mostly not very well) by law because they work with and against these aforementioned cognitive limitations. Their original context is an historical fiction, the myths of Anglo-American history — particularly the 17th century when Britain invented its version of the modern world, complete with constitutional monarchy, loyal opposition, central banks, parliaments as sovereign legislatures, and so on. Greenwald’s professional skill is to make a sharp and cutting edge from the Whig and Tory principles that formed the political language that resulted, a language with distinct dialects differentiating Britain from the U.S. from Canada from Australia and so on. (Yes, “exceptionalism” in the sense that Brazil or Germany or Russia or China or France had its own history, complete with its own political mythology and constitutional history despite the Anglo example’s global dominance.)

My point, which is probably already hopelessly lost in references no reader gets, is that people need the short version, the headline in big, bold type: Biden — favors cutting SS. Maybe, it helps to know that Biden takes such a position because Biden totally buys into the fictions of deficit-management as the proper focus of the politics of public spending. Someone like Yglesias, whose livelihood depends on the largess of corporate business and access to political officials, but who knows a lot of political detail and complexity, and feeds off endless political conflict, has to legitimate the confusion of voters. He maybe does not exactly want to do that, to effectively misinform. He wants to explain. He wants to arbitrate. But, he does not want to be good enough at telling the truth that he ceases to be useful to the PTB. So, he goes sometimes with ” it’s complicated”. It is, of course. Always.

Greenwald has taken a different role as a journalist, not entirely successfully imho, and one deriving from his experience as an attorney fighting the fine points of what is, in the U.S., “first amendment” law.

The toughest part for Greenwald may be the threat of violence from a genuine psychopath unconstrained by law. But, a close second is getting people used to obscuring all distinctions with the murky obscurity of “it’s complicated”. The “principle” he advocates is a fine distinction, as well as a thin reed to wield against arbitrary authority.

He asks people to think about how safe they will be if authority can completely control all the information they have available about public policy.

Maybe we should start a dictionary that translates Politicalese into English.

For example, “It’s complicated” — “OK, you caught me, but I’m admitting to nothing.

or

“hoocoodanode” — Lots of people knew but either it was in their interest to look the other way (Jeffrey Epstein version) or they didn’t have any power at the time and were ignored (Iraq War and 2008 Financial Meltdown version).

“leaving to spend more time with his/her family” — looks like the hookers are going to talk or the corruption scandals are about to hit the fan.

“There is nothing to see here” — the evidence is overwhelming

etc.

@450.org

Yes, Sanders capitulated. But it was a calculated political decision on his part. He didn\’t challenge the primary rigging, and even went on to stump for Clinton. These were calculated moves to not only beat Trump (obviously that didn\’t happen), but to keep Sanders public image intact both for a future run and to aid his movement building, to avoid being dismissed as \’another Nader\’ (in reality Nader has nothing to apologize for in relation to 2000).

Time will tell if it was the right move on his part. Clearly the DNC has no problem vilifying and attempting to sabotage him this time around as well (though if he hadn\’t supported the nominee in 2016 they would be fighting him even harder now, hard as that may be to imagine), but the fact that he supported them and played the good soldier in 2016 isn\’t lost on voters. Regardless of how much Clinton diehards may screech that Sander didn\’t support Clinton \’hard enough\’ (even though he went out of his way to stump for her. Fourteen appearances in five days at one point, if I recall correctly), Sanders did his part. He didn\’t play stubborn.

Again, time will tell if these were the right decisions on his part. But as of right now his strategy of not being petty, sticking to issues of policy, generally running a dignified campaign that stays above the gutter, and nurturing the image that this is all around a nice, sensible guy, seems to be working.

I definitely understand the immense frustration at Sanders in 2016 kowtowing to the people who blatantly shivved him. And I don\’t want to sound some like some Obama zombie who always framed his failures as part of some mythical \’11-dimensional chess\’ (which was itself just a reformulating of Pelosi\’s excuse for never doing anything against George W. Bush because the Dems were \’keeping the powder dry\’). But I think Sanders has actually been making strategic calculations as part of a long term plan.

We\’ll start to see if the plan was the right one over the next few weeks.

I’m sure Donald Trump and his fixer Bill Barr will come to Glenn’s aid in his existential time of need. Right? They owe you, Glenn. Trump especially owes many, many people but considering he doesn’t even pay his legitimate debts, i.e. the multiple bankruptcies, I wouldn’t expect his payment any time soon. You’re on your own with Bonesawnaro. Trump and Barr will look the other way as you’re ushered into the meat locker for dissection. Sure, that’s hyperbole but only just barely in this increasingly insane world where reality and satire fuse.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/04/04/the-irony-of-glenn-greenwald-cuddling-up-with-bill-barr-the-grand-father-of-ed-snowdens-phone-dragnet/

This statement from Marcy. My sentiments exactly.

This is the man that former critic of abusive presidential power Glenn Greenwald has chosen to trust over the public record.

This is, it seems, the strange plight of the denialist left, cozying up to the kind of authoritarians that their entire career, at least to this point, have vigorously opposed.

Is there a more direct description than “Russia,Russia,Russia nonsense” ?

I mean, I get it: A media overfocus on one reasonably important issue (at least it would have been back in Nixon’s time) to divert public attentions away from vastly more important and wide-ranging issues (like the american dream being slid backwards to robber baron / child slavery days.

According to his presentation in his Frontline interview, Steve Bannon got it. With elites managing the American decline to their globalized satisfaction and the far more rooted American workers demise, populist candidates will have the best chances of winning elections henceforth. I disagree with his preference for conservative solutions, since I have no idea how such things are supposed to work (not to mention his stance on global warming, how the media is to be treated, etc, etc…) but there’s another example of a guy who at least presented himself as principled but had a difficult reputation. But still, he did help to make sure that conservatives got to populism first. If only Democrats could be so strategically honest. And intelligent. It’s too bad that his guy had to be Trump, my poster child for what the elites are really like.

OTOH, outside of a couple policies, Trump sure does appear the elite player playing the workers for fools.