Shenanigans are afoot.
Matt Osborne of Osborne Ink has the story:
On December 10th an unknown spammer posted a selectively-edited video of Senator Carl Levin at YouTube and proceeded to tweet the link 45 times over 24 hours. The link is now dead (video deleted by user), but it has already been copied to accounts on various video sites. To find out what Senator Levin actually said, you can go watch the full C-SPAN clip at PoliticusUSA.
The video set off an online freakout of epic proportions. Recipients of this ‘reply message spam’ included a Bradley Manning account, Occupy accounts, and assorted hacktivist accounts. It was like squirting lighter fluid onto a smoldering flame, feeding paranoid memes of right and left. Indeed, “Joe Fangorico” was nonpartisan, including FOX News’ own Joe Napolitano and Ron Paulites on his or her list.
That’s because spammers are mainly looking for clicks. They make money from the first click, and so have incentive to obtain as many clicks as possible. A certain subset of netizen culture is eager for outrage, and therefore prone to pass disinformation. Video evidence that President Obama has evil designs on habeas corpus? That’s traffic gold, which is why so many different sites featured the video.
Joe Fangorico is not just a spammer, he’s also a hacker. You can see the Twitter account here:
https://twitter.com/#!/JoeFangorico
Who was taken in by and helped spread this tale? Need you even ask?
Given what Allan Brauer uncovered this morning — a website fraudulently leveraging the names of journalists Josh Harkinson (Mother Jones) and James Kerchick (The National Review; Wall Street Journal) to spread misinformation about the NDAA, calling President Obama a “serial liar” and accusing him of treason — I’d say there seems to be a concerted effort going on to stoke the flames of anti-Obama discontent among those who have fears about the odious detention provisions in the NDAA — whether real or imagined — through the purposeful dissemination of half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies.
Now why would someone do that?
Hmm?
[via Osborne Ink]
RELATED POSTS:
- The NDAA is Not A Detention Bill by ABL
- NDAA Facepalm Induction by Matt Osborne
- ABL’s Blargh on the Veto Blargh by ABL
- #NDAA: A Perspective by rkref
- There’s No Such Thing As an ‘Indefinite Detention Bill’ and Other ProLeft Lies by Milt Shook (PCTC)
- NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed by Benjamin Wittes (Lawfareblog)
- The Defense Bill Passed. Now What Does it Do? by Adam Serwer (Mother Jones)
- Why I Won’t Engage Glenn Greenwald by Benjamin Wittes (Lawfareblog)
- Exposed: A Spammer Fooled MSM & America with Edited NDAA [Carl Levin] Video by Sarah Jones (PoliticusUSA)
Is Glenn Greenwald an ignorant tool whose chain is easily jerked, or is he a conniving smear artist, or both?
Great illustration, BTW.
Coming of age as I did during the Nixon years, I think we on the Democratic side ought to simply presume that any interesting stuff that happens from here on out is, until clearly proven otherwise, a classical, Segretti/Haldeman/Liddy-style “dirty trick” – and we need to (somehow) educate people to this Republican tradition.
Add in the Lee Atwater-styled racism and you have the teabaggers of today. Carefully cloaking themselves, of course, in “Libertarian” drag.
This shit is already being wormed around the progressive talk shows and the black progressive talk shows, I’ve heard people bring this up on Rev Al, Ed Schultz, and maybe others, and still on the old language
For those conspiracy nuts who walk around with their Ron Paul decoder rings, this was great red meat for them to serve up
Carefully cloaking themselves, of course, in “Libertarian” drag.
And, when they pretend to be “progressives”, further cloak themselves as “civil libertarians”
At this point, “libertarian” = “confederate”, afaic.
Anything to deflect from the fact that Obama has become WORSE than his predecessor, and that’s really saying something since the previous President was just a few IQ points above being completely retarded.
So, I guess the ACLU is wrong when they say that our civil liberties are WORSE now than under Bush-? Sure, what do they know anyway, right…..
Obama was going to end these wars,. “You can take that to the bank” yet we are currently bombing what, like, 8 different nations now?
He’s extended the ‘evil’ tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of our population, even after campaigning against them, he’s folded on the public option that he campaigned for, and he’s embraced all of the civil liberty killing policies of Bush/Cheney, and then went far above where even Bush and his stupid crew went…. Yes, claiming the authority to murder anyone, yes including US citizens, for crimes that remain secret, thus never having to be explained.
Defending the indefensible, that’s what you do when you defend this President, one of the absolute worst in American history.
I feel sad for all of you
Hahahaha. He hates Obama so much, he laps up quotes from fake videos. Next up?: Greenwald quotes James O’Keefe’s work regarding Obama.
Fake videos? You could perhaps argue that it was taken out of context, but the words did come out of Levin’s mouth. Also, the rhetoric in the bill is so vague that the fears expressed by Greenwald and the ACLU (and numerous other organizations) are quite legitimate. If it were Bush who was preparing to sign a piece of legislation like this, the left would (rightfully) be outraged. I am ashamed of the Obama apologists, we should be equally critical of our own as we are of the other side.
First of all, you got your sights on the wrong target, because it wasnt Obama who demanded this legislation, this was the Republicans and scared democrats who put this mess together. And it doesnt matter who the president is, but if you got a Congress and Senate that keeps making this bullshit, then you need to change the legislators so they can make bills that wont be laced with fuckery
‘you got your sights on the wrong target, because it wasnt Obama who demanded this legislation’
Sure, but Obama has the ability to veto any legislation that comes to his desk. Also, he has been utilizing the powers granted already, so it is really redundant to pass such a bill anyway. I’m not claiming that Obama is behind the bill, I’m simply stating that he should take a principled stance against indefinite detention (which he is showing no signs of).
‘the Republicans and scared democrats who put this mess together.’
Joe Biden authored the Patriot Act, and the majority of the Democrats voted for it, including Barack Obama. I wouldn’t be so quick to differentiate between Republicans and ‘scared democrats’.
‘but if you got a Congress and Senate that keeps making this bullshit, then you need to change the legislators so they can make bills that wont be laced with fuckery’
I agree 100%.
And what happens when he vetos the NDAA because of the detention provision and Congress overrides the veto? What happens when he is cast as defunding the troops? How does that bode for 2012? How does that bode for a Gingrich presidency? What then? What happens to all the troops who are coming home who rely on the NDAA for survival? What about the military pay raise? What about government contractors?
You want to shut down the military for a month, maybe more for a vote that will make you feel good but will have no practical value whatsoever.
A symbolic veto vote is about as useless as a fart in a spacesuit. Sometimes pragmatic politics must trump purist ideology. This is one of those times.
Greenwald is fear-mongering. Stop allowing him to scare you.
The NDAA was not — repeat not – going to be vetoed.
Full stop
Also, he has been utilizing the powers granted already, so it is really redundant to pass such a bill anyway.
There is not a single terror suspect who has been put into military detention under President Obama. Zero. None.
Every single terror suspect detained under this president has been arrested by the FBI, tried in federal court, and sentenced to federal prison.
This, despite the fact that Congress has been trying to force him to use military detention.
Obama is the good guy in this story. He has refused to put terrorists military detention, and has pushed back against Congress when they tried to revive the practice.
The next time someone tries to blow up a plane with his underpants, he will be treated the same way as the last guy: arrested by law enforcement, held a a criminal, tried in the real courts, and sentenced just like a regular defendant. The reason this is so, the reason he will not be sent to Gitmo, is because of the steel in Barack Obama’s spine over the issue.
Fake videos? You could perhaps argue that it was taken out of context, but the words did come out of Levin’s mouth.
so you’re pleading the romney defense then? nice. also, fail!
p.s. greenwald doesn’t know what he’s talking about or is deliberately misinforming people to suit his anti-government anti-obama agenda. if you want to inform yourself, read this and then read this. stop drinking greenwald juice. it’s not good for your critical thinking skills.
‘so you’re pleading the romney defense then? nice. also, fail!’
Congratulations! You caught me. Actually, if you read what I wrote, I was simply noting that the statement was taken out of context and was not a ‘fake video’. But no, you’re right. We shouldn’t be critical of Obama, and we should trust every piece of pro-endless-war legislation that comes out of the government. And, golly-gee, if lawfareblog.com says that the bill doesn’t authorize the indefinite detention of civilians, then I guess that means that the ACLU is just entirely off-base. I suppose the Bush administration was quick to consult with lawfareblog.com to understand what they were and were not authorized to do under the AUMF. Again, Obama apologists are pathetic.
Idealism only works in the movies, not in real life
And the lesser of two evils is still evil. Objecting to Obama’s continuation of the Bush/Clinton foreign policy and Hillary’s endorsement of SOPA while preaching abroad about the importance of internet freedom is not at all unjustified.
the Bush/Clinton foreign policy
When you think there is no difference between the Iraq War and no Iraq War, you don’t really have anything useful to say on the subject.
‘When you think there is no difference between the Iraq War and no Iraq War, you don’t really have anything useful to say on the subject.’
So we should disregard the Clinton-era sanctions that may have led to the deaths of over 500,000 children? And Madeline Albright’s graceful statement that the costs were justified, even if there was such high collateral damage? Clinton waged a covert war, that is the only difference.
You’re just a fountain of misinformation, aren’t you?
The UN sanctions did not kill 500,000 people, and Albright has stated over and over that she did NOT intend to agree with Leslie Stahl’s assertion that the cost was 500,000 children.
‘You’re just a fountain of misinformation, aren’t you?’
You need to hone up on your reading skills. I used the conditional ‘may’, therefore implying that the issue was not resolved (I personally do not believe the number was that high, what is more important is how it is perceived in the Muslim world e.g. America does not care about the deaths of Muslims).
Albright can attempt to retract her statement or claim that she did not intend to agree, but then we should extend this professional courtesy to every politician who has ever said or agreed with something controversial.
“Obama apologists are pathetic”.
Fail.
I am not buying your version of ‘idealism’. Congress wrote and passed those provisions. Not the president. If you have a problem with those provisions, take it up with them.
Again: the NDA was not going to be vetoed.
Thank you for proving my point about Obama apologists.
Oh dear, we’ve got a live one. So I take it you believe that the ACLU is infallible? Thus spake the ACLU, eh? I notice that you resort to snark rather than make an argument as to why Wittes is incorrect and Greenwald is? Did you read the Wittes piece? What do you find so troubling about it that it prompted a “golly-gee” reaction? Care to respond substantively, or no?
As for my Romney snark. Your argument leads to the same result. “The words came out of Levin’s mouth!” Who cares if other words came out of his mouth that directly contradict the point of the video (and the point you seem to be wholesale adopting), which was to provide some manner of proof that Obama wasn’t going to veto the bill because he affirmatively wants to be able to detain Americans because he’s the devil.. And never mind that the bill was changed thus negating the purpose for the veto threat. Care to comment on any of that?
As for your statement that “we shouldn’t be critical of Obama” you should be careful — those strawmen can be verrah flammable around the holidays.
Oh. And never mind that you fail to address my points above about what would happen if Obama were to veto the bill.
If you want a symbolic gesture to tickle your purity taint, than that’s fine, but at least be honest with yourself. “Obama apologists are pathetic” is not a cogent argument, no matter what you’ve learned at Greenwald U.
-ABL
/not proofread
‘So I take it you believe that the ACLU is infallible?’
Not at all, I am simply stating that the sections of the bill in question have sparked controversy from varying ends of the political spectrum.
‘I notice that you resort to snark rather than make an argument’
Actually, I only resorted to snark once it became clear that the only argument anyone has around here seems to be ‘Fail!’. I skimmed the article, my point is merely that there is no such thing as an objective source on such issues, and what is more important is how the law is interpreted.
‘Who cares if other words came out of his mouth that directly contradict the point of the video’
Again, I was merely commenting on the fact that the video was out of context. It could not be considered ‘fake’, but rather a gross misrepresentation of what the speaker was intending upon saying.
‘he affirmatively wants to be able to detain Americans because he’s the devil’
I never said Obama was the devil, or that he wants to be able to detain Americans.
‘what would happen if Obama were to veto the bill’
Obama could utilize the same techniques Bush did; pass the bill, but leave a note saying that the indefinite detention portion is unconstitutional and therefore will not be enforced whatsoever.
‘If you want a symbolic gesture to tickle your purity taint, than that’s fine, but at least be honest with yourself.
No, I don’t need a symbolic gesture. I would like to see the president work proactively towards dismantling the military-industrial-complex, and frankly, this president has done nothing towards that end. Charles Davis offers a nice rendition of my beliefs:
‘But for too many liberals, it seems partisanship and the promise – not even necessarily the delivery, if you’ve been reading Obama’s die-hard apologists – of infinitesimally more spending on domestic programs is more important than saving the lives of a few thousand innocent women and children who happen to live outside the confines of the arbitrary geopolitical entity known as the United States.’
“Obama apologists are pathetic” is not a cogent argument, no matter what you’ve learned at Greenwald U’
It was never used as an argument. I was simply noting the hostility towards anyone that offers the slightest criticism of the president, his administration, or his policies. Instead of welcoming dissent, and offering a forum for discussion, any and all criticism is simply dismissed as a failure to understand the situation. This is what I find so repugnant about those who will stop at nothing to defend Obama.
Obama could utilize the same techniques Bush did; pass the bill, but leave a note saying that the indefinite detention portion is unconstitutional and therefore will not be enforced whatsoever.
‘If you want a symbolic gesture to tickle your purity taint, than that’s fine, but at least be honest with yourself.’
No, I don’t need a symbolic gesture.
Lol. Good thing you don’t want a symbolic gesture.
How about a meaningful action instead, such as not putting any terror suspects into military detention? Oh, wait, Obama’s already done that, and it means nothing to you. So, we’re left with the empty symbolic gesture.
I love people who are so passionately concerned about military detention that it just doesn’t matter in the least to them whether or not people are being put into military detention. That’s how you know they’re really, really principled.
When you said:
“…my point is merely that there is no such thing as an objective source on such issues”
…you do in fact realize that (a) there are such things in life as verifiable facts, and (b) you make an (and in fact, your only) excellent argument – for us discounting anything you say on the matter because we therefore cannot trust you to be “objective” in this?
‘(a) there are such things in life as verifiable facts’
Sure. But bills such as the one in question are purposefully written with a lot of ambiguity; as I already stated, what is most important is how it is interpreted. There are no verifiable facts as of right now as to how the laws will be used.
Your second point speaks for itself.
Since we’re past the nesting point:
Well, sure, I mean, if you choose to ignore the language of the bill and the practice President Obama and DoJ have of arrest and trial in a normal manner, then I suppose your assertions hold a drop or two of water (at the most).
As for the “objectivity” drivel you’re trying to pass off, you really have to have worked quite hard at missing a point so thoroughly. Congrats on being so good at something there’s no good reason to be good at, Sparky. Your mother must be proud.
Or not. After all, a kid like you? BLARGH!
(Let’s see, the old “ad hominem” whiny-thing is coming next, isn’t it? Well think on this one. You have not made an argument in any real sense – at least not a valid one. And since I have no respect for you, I don’t feel particularly obliged to reply to you in a manner of your choosing. I’ll disparage you, what you say, your family, your dog, or your choice of rental movies if I feel like it.)
‘Well, sure, I mean, if you choose to ignore the language of the bill and the practice President Obama and DoJ have of arrest and trial in a normal manner, then I suppose your assertions hold a drop or two of water (at the most).’
Bradley Manning has been in military custody since May of last year, under conditions that many would consider to be torturous. Obama essentially declared him guilty publically, and his trial is only beginning. The head of the prosecution works for the DoJ, which happens to be chasing after Wikileaks and Julian Assange (even though Obama campaigned on government transparency and protecting whistle-blowers). If this is the standard practice, and someone such as Manning or Assange could be charged with ‘aiding the enemy substantially’ and therefore subject to indefinite detention, then there truly is something to be feared. Obama has already established a new precedent; the president can order the assassination of an American citizen (along with his 16 year old son) without a trial.
I don’t want or need your respect.
Thank you for proving my point about Obama apologists.
I don’t recall you accusing us of knowing how the different branches of government work, but you’re welcome.