home

Glenn Greenwald's New Journalism Venture

Say hello to The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald's new journalism website, published by First Look Media and funded by EBay founder Pierre Omidyar.

While announcing the formation of First Look in October, Omidyar said he is contributing $250 million to pursue independent journalism, and tapped Greenwald to lead editorial operations.

One of today's two articles is about the NSA's role in the targeted assassination program.

The list of authors and staff is impressive -- it includes Marcy Wheeler (Empty Wheel) as Senior Policy Analyst, and Peter Maass, and Dan Froomkin as senior writers. Reporters include Ryan Gallagher, Ryan Devereaux, and Murtaza Hussain.

I hope they are a great success. We need more independent journalism ventures like this.

< Targeted Killing Dilemma | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    These are excellent qualifications: (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 11:54:07 PM EST
    "known quantities with European Left drawbacks on top of their substantial talents."

    I read it today (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by shoephone on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:13:50 AM EST
    and think its going to be very influential. They're going to get hit hard by the administration, the spooks, and their benefactors. I feel certain they will be able to take it. I'm excited.

    Trevor Paglin (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:14:24 AM EST
    Darkly beautiful hi res photographs of NSA, NRO, NGA for free download. Glad that the first issue included Paglin. IMO he is doing really great work as an artist and activist. It is very rare, IMO, that Political Art ever moves into the realm of high quality art.

    My first thought while reading Jeralyn's (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:32:57 PM EST
    post was, financed by eBay profits?  How is this a superior venue for Greenwald to "The Guardian?

    I'm not up to date (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:54:48 PM EST
    on the "eBay profits" angle, and, if there's anything to be concerned about there.  But, I am concerned about another issue that I recall reading about a couple of months ago.

    I want to be careful and not give the implication that anything sinister was involved until I have a chance to research this issue more thoroughly. What I remember reading was that Omidyar got involved, and, financed some sort of "micro-lending" business in developing countries. Small businesses and entrepreneurs in poorer countries have a very difficult time trying to get funding through the traditional banking system. So, certainly there's a need for this kind of, somewhat philanthropic, venture.

    I believe Omidyar set the business up as a "not-for-profit" venture, a charity, but, the accusations in the article I read was that it turned out to be a scam. His business practices were alleged to be brutally aggressive, and, many people who had borrowed money from his "bank" ended up losing everything, including their homes.

    Again, I want to emphasize that these things were simply allegations, and, I have no idea if they're true, or not. But, I do plan to pursue my research on Omidyar mainly because he's extremely rich, he wants to be an important factor in the media business, and, we should know whether this guy is the "real deal," or not.


    Limited Optimism (none / 0) (#1)
    by koshembos on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 11:50:05 PM EST
    First and foremost, the Intercept is another step from paper to fully electronic journalism. I wish them well, yet people such Greenwald and Wheeler are known quantities with European Left drawbacks on top of their substantial talents. My knowledge of the other names in the post or links is limited. Why expect them to be drastically different?

    What (none / 0) (#4)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:26:06 AM EST
    is a "European Left drawback"?

    Parent
    What they (none / 0) (#5)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:07:40 AM EST
    are doing is courageous.

    How so? (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:39:01 AM EST
    From the FP (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:08:52 AM EST
    Do you think that this is BS?:
    Over the past seven months the journalists who have reported on these documents from the National Security Agency have been repeatedly threatened by a wide range of government officials. Sometimes, the intimidation campaign has gone beyond mere threats. These attempted intimidation tactics have intensified in recent weeks and have become clearly more concerted and coordinated.

    None of this will deter the journalism we are doing. A primary function of The Intercept is to insist upon and defend our press freedoms from those who wish to infringe them. We are determined to move forward with what we believe is essential reporting in the public interest and with a commitment to the ideal that a truly free and independent press is a vital component of any healthy democratic society.



    Parent
    Question (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:15:41 AM EST
    At the risk of jumping in here and getting you completely wound up, why do you feel it is necessary to "sound" accusatory with someone who is just asking a question?  All oculus did was ask why lentinel feels that this is courageous, and your first reaction is to try and put oculus on the defensive with a  "Do you think this is BS?"

    Why is that your initial reaction?

    You could have simply answered oculus with the part you copied from the front page and left the angry accusation out of the comment.

    JMO.

    Parent

    Accusatory? (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:06:15 AM EST
    I am also only asking a question. My approach is more direct than oculus who, IMO,  the queen of understatement and super extra dry sarcasm/humor.

    Parent
    The Internet does no one favors (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:24:55 AM EST
    When it is time to humanize someone.  I have such a different take on all oculus comments.  She is someone who asks the hard questions in few words...true.

    One recent comment she made, some individuals connected a lot of different personal emotions to.  She pointed out that even though our President came out in favor of legalizing marijuana it remains a schedule 1 drug according to federal laws.  Some individuals seemed to think she was making an attack of some kind, but she was only stating fact.

    A few days ago when I was having some telephone time with my spouse he told me that when he was in one of those hurry up and wait situations he decided to distract himself by reading an article about Colorado's legalization of marijuana.

    Because of the fed classification of marijuana, banks cannot work with the businesses.  The MJ businesses are stockpiling cash and trying to figure out what to do with it.  This known quandary has lead to break-ins, murders, and even one kidnapping at the time of the article.  As we discussed this I could not help making a mental note that oculus pointed out the discrepancy weeks ago, and because of her chosen career she quickly visualized a lot of problems to be experienced.  And it is occurring

    Parent

    The CEO of my wife's bank... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:30:36 AM EST
    ...a very "liberal" bank in San Francisco, wanted to seriously consider taking the accounts of these mj clinics/clubs/dispensaries in SF. But the CFO convinced him otherwise for just that reason. They shoulda just focused on taking accounts of little ghetto liquor stores, then it'd all be good.

    That said, how are you, mi amiga? Hope all is well your way. Peace.

    Parent

    Doing very well lately (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    Thyroid getting more squared away, not marathoning though.  I'm still stuck at 3 miles

    Parent
    That's 2.9 miles better than me right now (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    I have my usual bum right leg, and currently also have a bizarre malady on my other leg, which has me sort of waddling slowly around the house this week. If is weren't so hilarious to view in the mirror, or in the faces of my wife and son, I'd be much more depressed.

    Parent
    Sorry Dadler (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    It's no fun to not feel well.

    Parent
    Thanks, Tracy (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:17:04 PM EST
    My bum leg I deal with every day, but some days the "good" one just gets tired of pulling the load. Can't say I blame it. Toss a little blister in an unfortunate place, egad, between my wife and I the last month, and our son who's been fighting the world's worst head cold for a week, oy, we need lots of chicken soup.

    Peace to you and the family.

    Parent

    Peace to yours too Dadler (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:05:36 PM EST
    Can't wait for my husband to get home.  I'm done being without him.  This is the last one. Josh and I doing alright though, getting special mom time with him as he travels into the teen years. With Skype and there is a Korean phone app called KaKao that as long as we have data plans or internet access goes from cell phone to cell phone, we get to talk to him much more than any other deployment he has ever done.  We all talk a couple of times a day.

    He will also be home for Josh's next surgery too.  He has a very good very supportive commander.  That makes everything so much easier when you get one of those.

    Parent

    Best to Josh on that surgery (none / 0) (#72)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 01:18:39 PM EST
    I can only imagine what you go through as a parent seeing your child through so many surgical procedures. My heart goes out to you.

    Make sure you and your husband cut loose a little together while he's back. I'm sure you both could use it.

    Peace & Love.

    Parent

    this isn't an open thread (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 01:14:56 AM EST
    please stay on topic.

    Parent
    Ooops, sorry J (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    Sometimes you forget to watch what thread you're on. My apologies again.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    Her comments/questions are usually provocative, ambiguous and often have a very dry humorousness to them.

    Not a bad thing.

    Regarding this:

    but she was only stating fact

    Stating simple facts can be very provocative, given the context.
    The example you point to was classic oculus. Given the context of the comment and her enmity towards our POTUS, it was hardly just a fact...  quite provocative, IMO.

    Again not such a bad thing.

    Parent

    Stating simple fact can be provocative? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:59:01 AM EST
    I think that is something our founding fathers cherished :)

    Parent
    You did it again (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    My approach is more direct than oculus who, IMO,  the queen of understatement and super extra dry sarcasm/humor.

    I would say your approach is not direct so much as it is snarky and tried (but usually fails) to paint someone in a corner because you think it is a "gotcha!" moment.  All it really does is make people not want to engage with you.

    Parent

    Shhhh...we got squeaky to admit (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:09:49 PM EST
    That the world needs oculi too.  A gentle progress

    Parent
    Did you read that as a compliment? (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:18:18 PM EST
    Half a compliment (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:20:53 PM EST
    It wasn't the traditional (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:23:18 PM EST
    Torch and pitchfork, it was a candelabra and a dinner fork stuck in you :). It's just a flesh wound :)

    Parent
    Ah. Tosca and Scarpio. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    "Scarpia." (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:48:59 PM EST
    Your approach is confrontational, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    and has the effect of putting people on the defensive, which, in my opinion, inhibits discussion.

    But maybe that's the effect you're going for.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:35:23 AM EST
    And your comment is not confrontational?

    does not seem like my comment has inhibited discussion, while yours seems like a drive by.

    I do acknowledge that your work here as schoolmarming is tough work, a thankless job.  

    ...

    Parent

    Those steel rulers all coming (4.00 / 3) (#20)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:07:46 AM EST
    out of the top middle drawer sound like a column of Cold Stream Guards drawing sabres.

    You'll be lucky if they just make you stand in the corner, Squeaky.

    Parent

    and nun bopping too... (none / 0) (#42)
    by fishcamp on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:58:36 PM EST
    I don't think it is BS (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:17:34 AM EST
    But the best journalists have always faced such dangers.  It isn't a new paradigm.  

    Parent
    A case could be made that if they aren't (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:27:37 AM EST
    being threatened, that they aren't doing their job.

    Parent
    Sadly true (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:36:17 AM EST
    You see someone of that caliber who (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:38:26 AM EST
    Has road out the difficulties though, like Hersh, and they become trusted and a go to person to make important leaks to.

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:10:11 PM EST
    The "best" have.

    But they are few in number.
    I don't see them in the mass media at all.

    And there's a reason for that.

    I believe it is has been shown that it is dangerous to publish information that the government deems to be "secret". "Secret" -  meaning stuff that they are doing in our name that they don't want us to know about.

    So practically no one is doing it.
    Certainly not the networks.

    So, when a few people take a chance, in the name of freedom of the press and freedom of expression and the right of the public to know what their government is doing, I think they deserve some credit and a pat on the back.

    Parent

    Being a truth teller though (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:15:52 PM EST
    Is its own reward. If in their endeavor they do indeed stick with truth they become more self actualized and happier than all the rest.  And there are monetary rewards as well as other prizes to be had.

    I think some are born risk takers, they are genetically wired for it.

    Parent

    Whether (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:09:59 PM EST
    they are born, or evolve, they are indeed risk takers.

    And risk takers are, in my opinion, courageous.

    I don't understand why you are so casual about this.
    Do you really think that Greenwald et al are doing this for "monetary rewards" and "other prizes to be had"?

    Since you seem to impugn their motives, I get the idea that you are not in favor of what they are doing.

    I, for one, think they are doing us a service, and they are taking a considerable risk in doing so.

    Parent

    I am a risk taker (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:51:15 PM EST
    So is my spouse.  And it has benefits. Our nation currently believes that risk takers need to be inordinately rewarded, and we have noticed that this is leading to social degradation so we question that ingrained belief a little.

    Parent
    What (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:20:26 PM EST
    people you deem as "risk takers" - you and your husband included, have been inordinately rewarded
    by this nation?

    I don't see it.

    I see risk takers getting the short end just about every time.

    I don't deny that for the greatest of the risk takers, it is a matter of following their inner light. And so, as you said, it is its own reward.

    But the reality is, for those whose risk taking amount to a confrontation with the government, it is a dangerous undertaking. Greenwald knows this. And he went ahead. I think that takes guts.

    Parent

    Well, and Brazil helps of course (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:47:09 PM EST
    Greenwald has always followed his inner light, and spoken his mind whoever was President.  He has been well rewarded too up to now. He isn't' really doing anything new other than he is giant bankrolled now :). And he is his own editor-in-chief.

    The current inequality argument involves over rewarding "riskers", and your backbone of daily work gets peasant classification.  I am serious, my spouse and I have talked about that dynamic these past few years and we both agree too much reward for "riskers" right now.

    Parent

    Riskers (none / 0) (#81)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 04:54:24 AM EST
    like Manning and Assange?

    How have they been "rewarded"?

    Anyway - I get the distinct impression that you are really opposed to people who leak this kind of information.

    Am I wrong to think that?

    Parent

    Apparently, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:02:27 PM EST
    this is a subjective observation.

    When I read this, I felt that it took guts on their part to publish it.

    Why?
    To me, the answer is obvious.
    Scahill and Greenwald are confronting power and the powerful. And those in power whose activities are being revealed have indicated in various ways and to varying degrees that they don't like being confronted.

    Maybe if you had the means and the will to publish this kind of information you wouldn't experience any anxiety, but I personally would be looking over my shoulder.

    Parent

    Impressive images (none / 0) (#14)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:48:47 AM EST
    As a serious photographer I liked the night shots.

    The substance was even more impressive to me.  To wit the first phrase of the second article

    "The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic surveillance, rather than human intelligence"

    Obama's critics have longly and loudly complained about his distain of human intelligence and reliance on technology.

    Maybe I am too old school but I was always taught relying on human intelligence required a human who had to at least understand where folks he was spying on were coming from, even if he disagreed with where they were coming from.  That understanding will often lead to less friction between the spy and the subject being spied on.

    Disappointing Read about NSA and drones (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:56:19 AM EST
    Lots of conjecture, and that is Jeremy Scahill's forte these days.  P.S. Jeremy, JSOC doesn't deploy, JSOC has never deployed.  JSOC is a stateside instructional organization.  Nobody under the designation JSOC has killed any suspected terrorist while Obama was President unless they accidentally T-boned them at a stoplight in Tampa.  Reading that was experiencing an act of gross journalistic negligence.

    I guess I'm confused by your comment. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:23:31 PM EST
    Are you saying JSOC is not responsible for any drone operations?

    U.S. targeted killings are needlessly made complex and opaque by their division between two separate entities: JSOC and the CIA. Although drone strikes carried out by the two organizations presumably target the same people, the organizations have different authorities, policies, accountability mechanisms, and oversight. Splitting the drone program between the JSOC and CIA is apparently intended to allow the plausible deniability of CIA strikes. Strikes by the CIA are classified as Title 50 covert actions, defined as "activities of the United States Government . . . where it is intended that the role . . . will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly, but does not include traditional . . . military activities." As covert operations, the government cannot legally provide any information about how the CIA conducts targeted killings, while JSOC operations are guided by Title 10 "armed forces" operations and a publicly available military doctrine. Joint Publication 3-60, Joint Targeting, details steps in the joint targeting cycle, including the processes, responsibilities, and collateral damage estimations intended to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties. Unlike strikes carried out by the CIA, JSOC operations can be (and are) acknowledged by the U.S. government.


    Link

    So, help me out: where is Scahill wrong?

    I mean, as I read, JSOC is involved in drone operations, and it's kind of hard not to make them part of any discussion about the NSA and targeted killings, isn't it?  

    Parent

    Jeremy Scahill did a very good job of (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:14:45 PM EST
    Exposing Blackwater, but when the State Dept and DOD fixed the lawlessness by placing all contractors under the UCMJ and requiring all contractors to attend military base train ups before being able to deploy, and having all contractors easily identified with their last name on their uniform and the US flag on their arm, Scahill never reported any of that.  I no longer consider him a true journalist, he has nothing about him that doesn't scream fixed agenda and for me that isn't journalism.  And I don't even like contractors.  I like facts though.

    One of the very basic facts that LeftWing "journalists" repeatedly have wrong is just exactly what JOSC does.  There are no JOSC drone operators, there might be instructors but there are no deployed JSOC drone operators who killed anyone.  They don't deploy.  They are a training organization period.  When you get assigned to JSOC you spend all day everyday improving military understanding and training but you never pack your gear, get on a plane, deploy anyplace to kill anyone.  

    Fort Rucker doesn't deploy either so to rattle off that when you were serving at Fort Rucker you killed someone.....uhhhh no, unless it was a traffic accident.  To say that when you served with the 11th Armored Cavalry Division that you killed someone is bullshit too, because you can only imaginary kill someone while with the 11th Armored Cavalry Div because you are serving at the Army National Training Center, you don't deploy, you are the "opposing" force that everyone in the Army tries to outwit in fake wars.  JSOC doesn't deploy, they only do training, you can't kill enemy when you are with JSOC.  You can't kill the enemy when you are with the 1st Aviation Brigade either, you don't deploy, you only train people.  You can't kill the enemy with the 11th Armored Cavalry Division either, you don't deploy you only train people.

    Scahill has never understood what JSOC does, not for years and most on the left have no clue how clueless he is and why should anyone reading his stuff attempt to give him a hand?  He knows everything....sigh....he knows everything you don't.

    You wanna know else can claim JSOC affiliation and President Obama kicked most of their freakshow corrupt crony butts to the curb?  This nucking futz crowd.  All a bunch of Bush crony contractors who did get a lot of innocent people killed.

    This write up is so factually incorrect in facts that I know, I cannot entertain that anything about it is correct.  So someone got booted out of JSOC for being a heinous puke of some kind and now they hope to create some upset through Scahill.....so what

    Parent

    From the website for the (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:06:15 AM EST
    United States Special Operations Command:

    The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) is a subunified command of the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).  It is charged to study special operations requirements and techniques, ensure interoperability and equipment standardization, plan and conduct special operations exercises and training, and develop joint special operations tactics.

    Okay, so each branch of the military - Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines - has its own Special Operations Command.  My guess is that the JSOC is an umbrella command, which functions under the main umbrella of the USSOC, which oversees the whole thing.

    Now, if what is happening is that JSOC is training and planning drone operations, but the Air Force SOC, for example, is conducting them, then technically, JSOC isn't "deploying," but I think that's splitting hairs when describing the connection between JSOC and the actual drone operators.

    Once again, you've offered these definitive statements, ignored the links and information provided by both me and MO Blue, offered nothing to support your own statements other than "because I said so," and I expect you will do the same with what I am offering here.  

    I know I have and am making an effort to educate myself on these issues, and it's clear MO Blue is, too, so I fail to understand why you have once again resorted to declaring that we're all just a bunch of ignorant a-holes who refuse to accept you as the be-all and end-all of military information.

    I knew it was probably a mistake to even try to get you to address the inconsistencies in your blanket comments and speak to the specifics of the information in the CFR link/excerpt I posted, but the way you've chosen to handle a genuine request for clarification with derision and dismissiveness doesn't actually strengthen the credibility of your remarks.

    Parent

    Confrontational Approach (1.00 / 2) (#52)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:09:15 AM EST
    so I fail to understand why you have once again resorted to declaring that we're all just a bunch of ignorant a-holes who refuse to accept you as the be-all and end-all of military information.

    I knew it was probably a mistake to even try to get you to address the inconsistencies in your blanket comments and speak to the specifics of the information in the CFR link/excerpt I posted, but the way you've chosen to handle a genuine request for clarification with derision and dismissiveness doesn't actually strengthen the credibility of your remarks.

    Mirror?

    Your approach is confrontational, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    and has the effect of putting people on the defensive, which, in my opinion, inhibits discussion.
    But maybe that's the effect you're going for.

    From my reading MT's comment did not include any dismissiveness or derision toward you or any commenters here. Yes plenty of well warranted derision toward Jeremy Scahill but that is all. Attacking MT's credibility here reflects poorly on you, imo..  sounds like your ego has been wounded, not sure why..

    Parent

    Well-warranted (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by dk on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:24:15 AM EST
    Would you be able to point to research showing why derision to Scahill is well warranted?

    MO Blue has provided some information to the contrary, but I haven't seen any affirmative arguments backed by links yet.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    I guess you didn't read through all of (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:19:26 AM EST
    her comments:

    I will be God damned anymore if I am going to waste time explaining any of it to anyone.  If you guys cared about facts you would be a little more intellectually curious than you are :). I am tired of talking to anyone on this site about anything military.  I should have just kept my damned mouth shut and watch you all be easily led to lose your minds over at best half truths and smiled to myself.

    Seems dismissive and derisive to me, but perhaps there is another way to interpret it.

    And you need to look up the definition of "confrontational," because you don't seem to know what it means.

    So, MT's husband is in the military: BFD.  That doesn't make her an expert, and it doesn't exempt her from the common courtesy of providing links to any independent, outside source for all the assertions she makes.  She's been provided with numerous links and excerpts and been asked to address them, and her response is a version of "you all are uneducated and I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you."

    Can't say as I'm surprised you'd suck up to and defend that kind of attitude; birds of a feather, I guess.

    Parent

    You Guessed Right (2.00 / 2) (#77)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:10:52 PM EST
    I guess you didn't read through all of her comments:

    Not any more derisive and confrontational than any of your put downs, but I am sure that when you do it is well deserved and correct.... not

    Speaking of birds of a feather.... I certainly understand her frustrations with the Kaffee Klatch here.

    Parent

    Perhaps the problem... (none / 0) (#55)
    by unitron on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:18:24 AM EST
    ...is different people working from different definitions of exactly what does and doesn't constitute JSOC.

    Parent
    That is a distinct possibility (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:46:19 AM EST
    Having said that, there are numerous references throughout the media regarding drones and operational bases under the command of the JSOC. These articles like my previous linked article were not written by Scahill. Just to list two of the most recent references:

    Washington Post

    Beyond the CIA drone campaign in Pakistan, the United States has also carried out strikes in Yemen and Somalia. The latter involve the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command, which operates Predator and Reaper remotely piloted aircraft from a base in Djibouti.

    BBC

    But the biggest presence by far is American - there are more than 4,000 people on the base at Camp Lemonnier.

    Housed in a compound within a compound are hundreds of highly secretive Special Forces operatives from JSOC - US Joint Special Operations Command.

    They bypass normal camp authority, taking their orders direct from their own command in Florida.
    ...
    One controversial tool in JSOC's arsenal is the use of missile strikes by unmanned Reaper drones. Until last September they took off from this base but after a number of crashes and near misses the Djibouti government asked the Americans to move them out to a desert runway.

    The drone strikes have continued, sometimes killing civilians and attracting condemnation from human rights groups as "extrajudicial killings".

    Once again from JSOC's own website:

    The Command is always decisively engaged in working to fulfill its charter and typically has members located throughout the world at any given time.

    Now if that information is incorrect, I would like to have a link to verifiable data from the government or another credible source that clearly and unequivocally denies any JSCO's involvement in the activities referenced in the media.

    Parent

    You won't get one; we never do. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 11:09:33 AM EST
    (but let one of us try the "because I said so" response, and all hell will break loose).

    I'm happy to be learning more than I knew before, so it hasn't been a waste of time looking into all of this, but in terms of getting any kind of credible response, I think we probably should not hold our breaths waiting.

    Parent

    I think the fact that a certain group of (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:01 AM EST
    "Journalists" are completely unaware of what JSOCs charter is under this president speaks volumes.  I had it wrong too for a full year after the President made huge changes because I was intellectually lazy and didn't ask.  I don't even think I wanted to know given what the Bush regime did.

    Either Scahill has no insider "leaks" under this President educating him and those that coauthor with him, or they don't want YOU educated.

    Frum does talk about changes that Obama made, he even has some background on how the evolution of everything Bush had going got kicked off.  His goal though was to say that Obama's changes have failed but......his evidence of that...the attacked wedding party, after investigation is false.  And whoever trusted him before that write up , I think it is better than 50/50 they have nothing to discuss with him ever again.

    Does anybody notice either that whenever Obama kills a large group of terrorists via drone,when the terrorists want a press story subterfuge they always started out as a wedding party now?

    That is just something quite obvious right there that nobody is remotely intellectually curious about around here:). And it is comical to follow events and watch what you choose to take in and what you choose to ignore Ms. Credible.

    Talking to my husband this morning, our joint conclusion at this time?  This President has a despised drone program, we get that, but he isn't making careless mistakes and those who want this program ended or want to make a buck off the hostility towards the program or both are stuck manufacturing facts and using them to manufacture stories.

    Parent

    And my dislike of David Frum shows up (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:03:03 AM EST
    Oops.  I wish David Frum did do something with Greenwald, it might be an improvement for him.  Froomkin's story though, he has and does share information about what kicked off Obama's redo of everything he inherited in this department.  But then in hopes of proving that the President has failed, relies on a falsehood.

    And going this route is still in my mind the dumbest thing Greenwald could ever do because this administration could choose to open up and blast him soundly on any of these falsehoods in such a way that he becomes deeply discredited.  How marvelous would that be, to be able to tank the Snowden leak sharer that hard?

    Another thing my husband and I discussed, maybe Greenwald has only ever been in any of this for the money and now it is time to cash in.

    Parent

    Agreed. Jeremy Scahill did (none / 0) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:31:47 PM EST
    superb investigative reporting on Blackwater, as described in his book,  'Rise of the Most Powerful Mercenary Army.'    In a rare apologia, Jon Stewart acknowledged his inappropriately hostile interview that underestimated the book's work.  Scahill's articles in The Nation are also well done.

    Parent
    I no longer find him well done (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:35:21 PM EST
    And in to preserve Greenwald's credibility (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:40:37 PM EST
    Which I find being illogically questioned at times right now, I think he should stay away from Scahill.

    Parent
    It's always logical... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by unitron on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:15:27 AM EST
    ...to question someone's credibility, just to make sure that it's remaining intact.

    (think of it as an application of the scientific method)

    Out and out attacks on it, sans evidence, are, of course, a horse of a different color.

    Parent

    I find myself completely questioning the (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    Credibility of the Intercept now.  In Dan Froomkins piece on secrecy he links to a report of 13 civilians heading to a wedding party being mistakenly killed by an Obama drone strike in Yemen.  He uses this not fact to pummel the President with because obviously Obama's changes have failed but of course the investigation had not been finished yet.  Time magazine reported after investigation here, no civilians killed....was not a mistaken anything.

    Froomkin doesn't even address the investigation findings.  To me this is all sensationalism, not journalism.  I'm not even going to bother reading Greenwald anymore, he is on a different path...his own path, I cannot waste my time digesting and processing sensationalism.  It is a waste of life and energy, and I can't even win a real argument that could matter if I don't come possessing the facts.  I never saw Greenwald going down this path though.  His life though.

    Parent

    I don't understand. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by dk on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    Your link does not back up your assertion.

    Parent
    I fail to see how it doesn't (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:26:52 PM EST
    Considering that Time has to have at least 3 confirmations before they go to print.  The Intercept needs none....and prefers as few as possible or you can't sell the BS they are selling.

    This is hardly the first time a drone strike was investigated and the findings ignored and if you are going to just run with the Intercept's BS that this President just shoots and never looks back I have news for you.  Every single military action this President has taken was filmed to be examined however it needed to be, and deaths confirmed, full investigations.  If you can be so easily misled you have to want to be misled this way.  And if this President was truly as corrupt and vile as the Intercept is attempting to sell, you would have all the evidence you needed given that half the military politically hates him and would love to see him fry.  And you wouldn't have to read about it at the Intercept, you could read about it in the WSJ or WAPO....the establishment would be enough.

    Parent

    I still don't understand. (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by dk on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:38:28 PM EST
    You asserted that Time magazine reported that no civilians were killed, and provided a link to a Time article.  That article, however, didn't report that no civilians were killed.  It reported that unnamed government sources said no civilians were killed but failed to provide any proof:

    Two U.S. officials spoke to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss drone operations. The officials provided no specifics substantiating their claim that only militants were killed.

    Or am I still missing something.  Apologies if I am.

    Parent

    As I said before (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:48:18 PM EST
    Time has to has several confirmations before going to print.  The intercept has sadly come to life around the leaks of one man, and they are sticking to that standard :)

    Parent
    But even Time was clear (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by dk on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    that it was not reporting the assertions of the unnamed government sources as fact. It was clear that it was just reporting unsubstantiated government assertions.

    Actually, I think it was pretty responsible by Time to admit that.

    Parent

    And another reason why there is (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    No need to invest brain matter in Glenn Greenwald's endeavor now.  Who is going to talk to any of these guys after this?  Nobody trusts Scahill enough anymore to tell him $h*t.  That is why he has no clue how joint oprerations functions since Obama took office, NOBODY TRUSTS HIM OR  HIS JUDGEMENT.  Froomkin has headed right down the same road.  If you will not start with truth, those in the most need will not trust you.

    When the NSA scandal dies out I think the Intercept dies.  And some careers with it.

    Parent

    Do you have any links (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by dk on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 01:10:24 PM EST
    to support the assertion that nobody trusts Scahill?  

    Parent
    Well the Obama campaign played (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    Him very well against Hillary.  That was God awful because Hillary vowed that she was getting rid of the contractors on the battlefield but Obama would not make that commitment.  How in the hell did the outer of Blackwater come to the conclusion that he needed to publicly beat the hell out of Hillary? Only rumors but that is what Scahill goes with now, Samantha Powers played him, got him to vilify Hillary everywhere he went.

    I assume he did it for access, and then they shafted the hell out of him/who knows?

    Got any links to who does trust him that I can get three verifications on?

     I would never trust him with anything.

    Parent

    Well you said no one trusted him (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by dk on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 05:02:55 PM EST
    But you have no links to back up your assertions.  That's fine, just wanted to check.  Thanks!

    Parent
    Time will tell :) (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:48:06 PM EST
    It always does :)

    Parent
    So now you're clarifying (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by dk on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:13:42 PM EST
    that you are making a prediction based on your own opinion, rather than an assertion based on facts.  That makes more sense.  Thanks.

    Parent
    What am I saying? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 03:03:00 PM EST
    There are just some things I do not feel are a good idea to post on the internet.  And I am not a journalist, I do not get any sort of compensation for sharing anything in words.

    The inaccuracies in Schahill's story, and this is not the place I want to go into any sort of details and it does no good to do so here anyhow, it has always been a bit like pearls before swine :,) are very concerning for a whole gamut of reasons. And look, if you care you can find many on your own without having any exposure to our existing military.  But I don't see how this bodes well for Greenwald, this affiliation.  And if he isn't damned careful, it could all be easily used to discredit him and then the meaningful items he does possess if he does possess will easily lose value by being easily distrusted.

    I am not saying anything in hopes of getting into a sort of pissing match with you on a blog.  You are going to believe what you want to believe at the end of the day.  It is a genuine concern I have though, but I now do also find myself wondering how credible Greenwald is at this point since he has this willingness to team up with Scahill and put out a writeup that contains so many inaccuracies.

    Parent

    Froomkin linked to a report that (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:31:59 PM EST
    said this:

    Details on who was killed in Thursday's strike were not immediately available, and there were conflicting reports about whether militants were traveling with the wedding convoy.

    A military official said initial information indicated that the drone mistook the wedding party for an al-Qaeda convoy. He said tribesmen known to the villagers were among the dead. One of the security officials, however, said al-Qaeda militants were suspected to have been traveling with the convoy.

    I think I have to stop reading your comments, as you don't seem to hold yourself to the same standard of accuracy you demand from others.

    Parent

    Is Froomkin a journalist? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:43:54 PM EST
    The item he linked to and surrounded much of his writing around was investigated with much different findings than he represented long before he went to print.

    Maybe you do need to stop reading my comments.  There are some things that some people just do not want to know because it doesn't fit their agenda and that leads to discomfort.  When I was in college, if I had turned in such a writing it would have been returned to me with much red ink on the page and a big angry C along with the written lecture IF I WAS LUCKY.

    Silly me, I thought Froomkin had long surpassed even that and was a "professional".

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:49:45 PM EST
    And he has new standards these days (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    Different editors to be beholden to.

    Parent
    And JSOC did deploy under Bush (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:27:10 PM EST
    Obama changed all of that and I have said that many times before and had all of you completely meltdown around here.  I will be God damned anymore if I am going to waste time explaining any of it to anyone.  If you guys cared about facts you would be a little more intellectually curious than you are :). I am tired of talking to anyone on this site about anything military.  I should have just kept my damned mouth shut and watch you all be easily led to lose your minds over at best half truths and smiled to myself.

    Parent
    Actually I do care about facts and find your (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:33:46 AM EST
    statement somewhat confusing based on information contained on a military website labeled Joint Special Operations Command

    The Command is always decisively engaged in working to fulfill its charter and typically has members located throughout the world at any given time. An incredibly busy Command, JSOC accomplished its assigned missions successfully in the face of expanding commitments largely due to the quality, dedication, and patriotism of its military and civilian members and the family members who support them.

    Also Military.com News published this 2012 AP news article on its website.

    Killing Outside War Zones Focused in White House

    Excerpts from the article are as follows:

    An example of a recent Pentagon-led drone strike was the fatal attack in January on al-Qaida commander Bilal al-Berjawi in Somalia. U.S. intelligence and military forces had been watching him for days. When his car reached the outskirts of Mogadishu, the drones fired a volley of missiles, obliterating his vehicle and killing him instantly. The drones belonged to the elite U.S. Joint Special Operations Command. The British-Lebanese citizen al-Berjawi ended up on the JSOC list after a studied debate run by the Pentagon.

    The Defense Department's list of potential drone or raid targets is about two dozen names long, the officials said. The previous process for vetting them, now mostly defunct, was established by Mullen early in the Obama administration, with a major revamp in the spring of 2011, two officials said.

    Drone attacks were split between JSOC and the CIA, which keeps a separate list of targets, though it overlaps with the Pentagon list. By law, the CIA can target only al-Qaida operatives or affiliates who directly threaten the U.S. JSOC has a little more leeway, allowed by statue to target members of the larger al-Qaida network.

    I have been unable to locate any article on Military.com News or any other military site that disputes the information contained in that article. I would not normally consider Military.com a "leftist news" vehicle nor think that they were inclined to publish false information military activities.  

    Parent