{"id":75041,"date":"2013-06-14T06:32:08","date_gmt":"2013-06-14T06:32:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2013\/06\/14\/stasi-of-america-hait-autant-greenwald-que-snowden\/"},"modified":"2013-06-14T06:32:08","modified_gmt":"2013-06-14T06:32:08","slug":"stasi-of-america-hait-autant-greenwald-que-snowden","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2013\/06\/14\/stasi-of-america-hait-autant-greenwald-que-snowden\/","title":{"rendered":"Stasi-of-America<\/em> hait autant Greenwald que Snowden"},"content":{"rendered":"

Stasi-of-America<\/em> hait autant Greenwald que Snowden<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\tUn \u00e9l\u00e9ment important dans l’affaire PRISM\/NSA\/Snowden, certainement pour une affaire de cette importance, c’est la tendance \u00e0 l’implication du journaliste qui a servi de correspondant \u00e0 Snowden pour la diffusion de ses r\u00e9v\u00e9lations. C’est une tendance nouvelle, assimilant le journaliste \u00e0 ses sources jusqu’au niveau p\u00e9nal. Cela implique une nouvelle d\u00e9finition qu’on pourrait qualifier d’officielle<\/strong> du journaliste, et l’on pourrait estimer selon nos conceptions que cette d\u00e9finition est absolument sugg\u00e9r\u00e9e par le Syst\u00e8me… D\u00e9finition-Syst\u00e8me, donc : pour m\u00e9riter de l’\u00eatre avec toutes les protections qui s’attachent \u00e0 la profession, un journaliste doit non seulement appartenir \u00e0 la presse-Syst\u00e8me par le biais du m\u00e9dia o\u00f9 il publie, mais il doit se conformer strictement aux consignes du Syst\u00e8me, comme l’on pointe en arrivant \u00e0 son travail, et entretenir quotidiennement sa capacit\u00e9-Syst\u00e8me d’autocensure et d’autocritique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCette nouvelle situation est largement substantiv\u00e9e par une intervention du d\u00e9put\u00e9 Peter King, r\u00e9publicain de New York, qui pr\u00e9side la commission sur le renseignement \u00e0 la Chambre des Repr\u00e9sentants. King demande l’inculpation de Greenwald au m\u00eame titre que celle de Snowden. (King, avec son alter ego<\/em> du S\u00e9nat, la s\u00e9natrice d\u00e9mocrate Dianne Feinstein, pr\u00e9side une commission \u00e0 l’acc\u00e8s extr\u00eamement contr\u00f4l\u00e9 et limit\u00e9 \u00e0 ses membres qui sont tenus par des r\u00e8gles draconiennes de confidentialit\u00e9 d\u00e9pendant des services qui les informent [CIA, NSA, etc.]. Les autres membres du Congr\u00e8s, sauf les chefs de partis, sont tenus compl\u00e8tement \u00e0 l’\u00e9cart des informations que re\u00e7oivent ces commissions [on s’en aper\u00e7oit actuellement : voir le 13 juin 2013<\/a>, le cas du d\u00e9put\u00e9 Pascrell]. Cela limite \u00e0 1% des membres du Congr\u00e8s une information effective des activit\u00e9s de renseignement, de surveillance, d’espionnage, etc. On peut dire que ces 1% forment aujourd’hui une caste \u00e0 part au sein du Congr\u00e8s, et jouent au nom du Syst\u00e8me dans sa composante Stasi-of-America<\/em>, un r\u00f4le de surveillance et de contr\u00f4le de la conformit\u00e9 de la conduite de leurs coll\u00e8gues, et de leur \u00e9tat de sous-information pour ce qui concerne Stasi-of-America<\/em>. Ainsi et tr\u00e8s symboliquement, existe \u00e9galement au Congr\u00e8s le rapport 99%-1% caract\u00e9risant la situation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de fortune et du rapport \u00e9lite-Syst\u00e8me versus<\/em> population aux USA.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe site WSWS.org<\/em> du 13 juin 2013<\/a> publie un article sur cette attaque du d\u00e9put\u00e9 King contre Greenwald.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abRepresentative Peter King of New York said late Tuesday that he supports prosecution of journalist Glenn Greenwald who published material leaked last week by Edward Snowden. The leaks exposed two secret and unconstitutional programs run by the Pentagon-based National Security Agency that collect the electronic communications of tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions more around the world.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbKing, a Republican, said in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper: If they [journalists publishing leaked material] willingly knew that this was classified information, I think actions should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude. Asked directly whether he would support punishment of journalists, King replied, The answer is yes, to your question.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbOn Wednesday, King was asked whether he thought Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman, who has also been in contact with Snowden and has written on the leaks, should be prosecuted. I’m talking about Greenwald, King told Fox News, claiming without any foundation that the journalist was threatening to release the names of CIA agents. The last time that was done in this country, we saw a CIA station chief murdered in Greece. King added that the leaks released so far are putting American lives at risk and this is clearly done to hurt Americans.<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb…King’s remarks signal the intensification of the witch-hunt against whistleblower Snowden to a broader attack on press freedom and democratic rights. They also come only a month after revelations that the Justice Department alleged that Fox News journalist James Rosen had engaged in criminal activity as part of newsgathering activities in obtaining classified documents from a government source. These allegations were used to secure an order from a judge to seize Rosen’s emails.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDans sa chronique du 12 juin 2013<\/a> sur Antiwar.com<\/em>, Justin Raimondo alimente indirectement l’appr\u00e9ciation de cette situation nouvelle qui est d’attaquer le journaliste avec la m\u00eame vindicte que sa source, d’attaquer le messager autant que l’auteur du message. Il d\u00e9veloppe le cas de Greenwald \u00e0 partir d’une chronique ou l’autre qui a mis en cause ce journaliste, qualifi\u00e9 par le New York Times<\/em> de \u00abblogger of a British website<\/em>\u00bb (le Guardian<\/em> devenu British website<\/em>)… Raimondo ne le fait pas sans une certaine ironie jubilatoire, compte tenu du cadre-Syst\u00e8me g\u00e9n\u00e9ral d\u00e9veloppant une campagne-turbo<\/em> \u00e0 la gloire des homosexuels. Greenwald lui-m\u00eame est gay<\/em>, et un journaliste dissident, et de quelle dissidence, qui s’av\u00e8re \u00eatre gay<\/em>, est par cons\u00e9quent implicitement fustig\u00e9 pour \u00eatre gay<\/em> \u00e9galement, et la situation de gay<\/em> devient alors la cause de l’opprobre de type petit-bourgeois qu’on conna\u00eet bien, que le Syst\u00e8me reprend \u00e0 son compte. (Comme pour le soldat Manning<\/a>,bien entendu.) Raimondo, gay<\/em> lui-m\u00eame et farouchement dissident, peut donc exercer toute sa verve et mettre la campagne-Syst\u00e8me de lib\u00e9ration des gays<\/em> au niveau qui est le sien, celui du ramassage des ordures…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe funniest one although this is admittedly a hard choice to make has got to be this piece by one William Foxton, a rather pathetic Tory moderate who claims to care about civil liberties, Internet freedom, that sort of thing. So you see he’s one of us but he’s never liked Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the story. Well, why not? Greenwald, after all, has been one of the staunchest advocates of those very causes, almost single-handedly responsible for calling foul on the foulest attack on civil liberties since the era of J. Edgar Hoover.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFoxton is coy on this point: he says maybe it’s because Greenwald’s pieces are enormous, not to mention turgid although this doesn’t appear to deter Glenn’s numerous readers. Oh, but you see, they’re a cult although he doesn’t let us in on the secret ceremonies, complete with Satanic altars and Druidic incantations, that no doubt figure prominently in the activities of the Greenwaldian sect. So then how do Greenwald’s many admirers myself among them qualify as cult members? Well, you see: The last time I criticized him I got a barrage of online abuse including memorably a 24-slide PowerPoint presentation explaining how the American security services had got’ to me, and how Greenwald was their number-one target. Maybe, as his adoring public have suggested, I’m either a homophobe or in the pay of the CIA. Perhaps both.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe poor baby: his feelings were hurt! But really he should be flattered that anyone is reading him at all, never mind taking the trouble to create an entire Power Point presentation proving him wrong. Of course, being a homophobe is a crime in Britain: you can be jailed for calling somebody a faggot and so discretion is mandatory. It’s enough to simply mention somebody’s sexuality in a seemingly casual aside. The dogs can hear the whistle: he’s a poofter. Wink, wink.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbOr maybe I’m jealous of the success he’s had, of the stories he’s broken, an admission that makes Foxton seem like a jolly good bloke, really an honest and essentially nice guy an impression easily dispelled in the next sentence, where he takes the opportunity to repeat the haughty disdain of the New York Times profile of Greenwald describing him as a blogger for a British web site.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbSo, you see, Greenwald is just a gay blogger, not really a journalist that’s the core of the message we’re supposed to be getting. He’s just a blogger oh, and did I mention’s he’s gay he’s not legitimate, he’s a deviant. No, it’s not jealousy, says Foxton, not really: What I think is more likely is I dislike him because he has built a huge platform with opinion writing, and now he’s blurring the line between opinion pieces and straight reporting. That huge platform he’s built means sources come forward to him from his vast base of followers, with real hard news stories, and then he insists on reporting them.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe link Foxton thinks somehow proves his point takes us to a tweet in which Greenwald admits to having opinions. What’s difficult for Foxton and his fellow Praetorians to finesse, however, is that the bare facts reported by Greenwald and ably articulated by Snowden condemn the regime in and of themselves. That the whole spying operation was done in secret, and on such a grand scale with DNI James Clapper all the while denying it to Sen. Ron Wyden’s face is all we need to know. Whatever opinions Greenwald has on the matter don’t enter into it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe only way to get over this enormous disadvantage is to focus on the messengers Greenwald and Snowden in hopes everyone will forget about the revelations and their import. So we are told Glenn Greenwald is gay, he’s just a blogger for crissakes, and worse! he has opinions, and so can’t really qualify as a bona fide journalist in Foxton’s league. He’s a gay blogger with opinions who insists on reporting real hard news stories. Imagine! Well well, my good friend, That could be a serious problem in my opinion, because his own self-described status as an activist’ and an advocate’could cast doubt on the accuracy of that reporting.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbWhy, the bloke doesn’t know fact from opinion: He’s an unabashed polemicist. Which is why, Foxton says, I often feel when reading a Greenwald article there are valid explanations for some of the things he’s reporting on, but that’s often hidden behind his apparent loathing of the West in general, and the US in particular. For him, no state surveillance can ever be justified and almost anything he gets hold of can be turned to make America look like a vicious Police state.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbA gay blogger with opinions who loathes the West, and especially the US, is clearly someone not to be trusted: there’s got to be something he’s not telling us. He isn’t reporting all the perfectly good reasons why the US government should have access to the details of every phone call ever made, and the contents of my email, all of it done in the dark without public knowledge or debate. Clearly Greenwald loathes the West and its traditions of the rule of law, democratic discourse, and individual rights: why else would he be so opinionated about the efforts of Senor Foxton and his co-thinkers in the US government to traduce them?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbYou can’t really blame Foxton who has apparently been assigned to run interference with Greenwald for the paucity of his arguments. Our wise rulers have been caught with their pants down, this time, on both sides of the Atlantic. Character assassination is their only option: anything to change the subject.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

dedefensa.org<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Stasi-of-America hait autant Greenwald que Snowden Un \u00e9l\u00e9ment important dans l’affaire PRISM\/NSA\/Snowden, certainement pour une affaire de cette importance, c’est la tendance \u00e0 l’implication du journaliste qui a servi de correspondant \u00e0 Snowden pour la diffusion de ses r\u00e9v\u00e9lations. C’est une tendance nouvelle, assimilant le journaliste \u00e0 ses sources jusqu’au niveau p\u00e9nal. Cela implique une… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[7046,8672,3285,7614,12228,4082,3871,4741,12212,4337,12224,3489],"class_list":["post-75041","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-7046","tag-autocensure","tag-congres","tag-feinstein","tag-greendale","tag-king","tag-nsa","tag-presse-systeme","tag-prism","tag-raimondo","tag-snowden","tag-stasi"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75041","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75041"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75041\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}