Fed up by Glenn Greenwald's criticism, drone supporters unearth 2005 post

[Gentle-man]

As a response to Guardian UK journalist Glenn Glenn Greenwald's constant criticism of drones whose explosive contents have killed innocent civilians in the past, an insensitive 2005 post by Glenn Greenwald has been unearthed. In this post, Mr. Greenwald claimed that illegal immigration is culturally damaging to the United States.

Here's the 2005 post by Greenwald:

"The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone. Few people dispute this, and yet nothing is done."

Greenwald responded by stating his views back then do not reflect his views now. His response follows:

GG note: This post was written in 2005, one month after I began blogging. It was recently dug up by some Obama cultists trying to discredit my criticisms of the President (to understand what I mean by "Obama cultists," see this 2006 post I wrote about Bush cultists: exactly the same mentality). As my subsequent writing reflects over the next many years, this post does not remotely reflect my views on immigration. My response to someone who recently asked about it is here:

"That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I've discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time - due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I've written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I'm 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country - not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and - like so many things I thought were true then - has nothing to do with what I believe now.

That's why Obama cultists have to dig back 6 years into my archives to try to find things to discredit me."

Link: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. Oh, THIS GG? "Should an armed drone be dispatched to kill Christopher Dorner?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/chris-dorner-drones-lapd

[Gentle-man]

2. What point did Greenwald make in that piece? nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

8. Pretty much that anything threatening the government or status quo should be destroyed

by the most efficient means available, and that due process and courts of law are meaningless obstacles to our safety.

[msanthrope]

11. Dorner is a murderer on the run--he's not "threatening the status quo." Greenwald isn't that

bad a lawyer that he can't understand the difference between the laws applied to Dorner and Awlaki---he just assumes that his readers are too stupid to know the difference.

[kenny blankenship]

20. You got it completely upside down.

Erin Burnett of CNN is the one who "asked" the question about droning Dorner (she asked, as in hey, why not?)

Greenwald:
"As Cenk Uygur notes in the video clip below, this question - why not send an armed drone to kill Dorner? - was posed with obvious sincerity by CNN's Erin Burnett late last week. Given how trained the citizenry has become to think this way, this sort of approach is inevitable and therefore deserves serious discussion:"

Such a question should only be posed ironically, he implies. Posed without any tongue in cheek, it's death-squad time. Greenwald's piece is a warning about how the public's lazy acceptance of drone killing "somewhere over there...against the terrists 'n' forriners" can be rapidly mainstreamed by the Erin Burnetts into a lazy acceptance of drone killing over here.

The clear point of Greenwald's comparison of the situations of Awlaki and Dorner is not to ask fuck yeah, why not? but to show how all the excuses made for assassinating Awlaki can apply to someone like Dorner. His question is instead, since we have accepted the assassination of Awlak,i and the separate assassination of his 16 year old son as well, without quibbles, what inhibitions do we have left stopping us from doing the same to notorious criminals, terrorists, wanted desperadoes, enemies of the state over here? Burnett -or her handlers - doesn't think there should be any. It would make great TV. Greenwald on the other hand thinks we should start recovering our former inhibitions - commonly called the Constitution and the bill of rights.

Liberals must therefore check themselves before lazily going along with Obama's assassination of (at least!) Americans abroad, because as this "obvious(ly) sincere" line of questioning from Erin Burnett shows, the establishment would love to bring our drones home and the enjoy the same impunity at home as they have enjoyed abroad. All they need to make it work are ditzy viewers, fascist television personalities and some poor readers. Oh yes, and incrementalism. We will be eased into it, one nasty question at a time.

As Greenwald puts it "given the way the citizenry is being trained to think" about drones and preemptive murder, the next incremental step, the "inevitable" development of all the freer and wider use of naked murder and preemptive war abroad, will be the push by the establishment to use the same deadly force here at home. As the inhibitions of the Constitution are ignored by the Leaders without consequence, the acceptance of arbitrary brutality becomes steadily conditioned into the people.

[Mojorabbit]

56. That has been my fear. Once the door is opened then it goes downhill from there.

Just the fact she asked the question foretells our future if there is no push back now IMO.

[dreamnightwind]

69. Thank you for taking the trouble to clear that up - nt

[Luminous Animal]

76. Fantastic analysis. Thank you.

[truedelphi]

81. Thank you for your great post.

One thing to point out in addition to comments made in your post, is that much of what is said about Dorner is with regards to words and activities that he has supposedly undertaken on his Facebook page.

Facebook is notorious for security breaches. Not at all a secure site. So do we want drones flying overhead to take out a US citizen, whose crime is that a Manifesto has been made, supposedly by the named individual, on a FB page?

Yikes! I was musing over the Christmas holidays, how I had jumped on the bandwagon and condemned Jon Benet's parents for being involved in their daughter's murder. So much information came out on the internet, and I felt as an early user, that those of us using the internet knew more than the DA in Boulder did. Now it comes out that they were truly innocent. (Though the tabloids to this day still ramp up the heat on this couple.)

We are all entitled to a trial. It's a basic right, and again, although shootings by drone would make for great TV, that activity doesn't make for great democracy.

[SidDithers]

3. "Obama cultists"? Fuck Glen Greenwald...nt

Sid

[msanthrope]

5. But isn't it great that one of his apologists started this brand new thread? nt

[Drunken Irishman]

7. Wow. We had the exact same thought.

[Cha]

17. Yeah, fuck that cult leader grreenwad.

[freshwest]

18. And are the same as 'Bush cultists: exactly the same mentality.'

One group pushes 'the parties are all the same meme': Libertarians. They forget to mention to their 'leftist, liberal and progressive' fans that David Koch and Ron Paul ran for President on their ticket. If the Koch version of America with no government to obstruct 'freedom and liberty' is what they really want, so they should just get off the fence and say so.

[msanthrope]

4. I love the explanation---he didn't have many readers then, so it's okay to be racist.

But you forgot this juicy part---

But one of the most disturbing and destructive aspects of illegal immigration is that it is illegal. Indeed, that is the precise attribute which separates good immigration from bad immigration. Why should Republicans, or anyone, shy away from pointing out that illegal immigration, among its many evils, is “illegal”? That is just absurd. Moreover, it is precisely the fact that illegal immigrants enter the country illegally that spawns justifiable resentment, not only among large clusters of middle-of-the-road voters, but also among the very legal immigrant population about which Sanchez is so concerned. Emphasizing the "illegal" part of this problem is what Republicans need to do more of, not less.

You know what's so great about Glenn's column???? Not only was he racist...he was dead frackin' wrong.

[DevonRex]

30. And he can make more money by pretending not to be racist now.

See how convenient that is?

[msanthrope]

32. Well, as long as he is anti-Obama, it's all good. Read some rape apologia/Assange threads on

here sometime.

[DevonRex]

49. I did and they

made me sick. The man won't even answer questions about it in Sweden and is hiding in the Ecuadoran embassy after fabricating a big fish story about Sweden plotting to send him to the States. Even though we don't want him and Sweden couldn't care less about WikiLeaks.

But I couldn't believe that so many decided the women were lying or what had happened to them wasn't that bad. The idea of non-consent just flew out the window because it was Assange.

[msanthrope]

55. You put 'CIA' on something, and there's a certain contingent who will believe any fish story. nt

[ProSense]

51. Remember when he swore

up and down that Ron Paul was principled?

Ron "Racist" Paul, principled: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022353247

[DevonRex]

57. He said Ron Paul was principled?

Did I known that and forget it? I'm gonna be sicker.

[Luminous Animal]

78. Did you click on the link and then the other link? Zero. Nothing. Nada. Zilch

Nothing in her links supports her assertion that Greenwald said Paul is principled.

I ask you again. Did you click on the link to find out for yourself or did you reflexively take her word for it?

[Drunken Irishman]

6. 'Obama cultists...'

Fuck Glenn Greenwald. I hate hearing that shit from the right and I'll hate hearing it from the left.

That right there tells me everything I need to know about Glenn Greenwald - he's a piece of shit. It's a shame Obama isn't near the bogeyman this fucker makes him out to be or Greenwald wouldn't be allowed to spew his bullshit at the rate he does.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. This guy is a circus sideshow

He gets paid to get under people's skin, like the dude in the dunk tank. If he believes even an eighth of what he says I'd eat my hat. Of course he has contradictions left and right. He's the Glen Beck of the left, conning suckers by pumping out what they want to hear in a shiney and polished way. People who believe this shit are the dumbest people on Earth.

[msanthrope]

12. He and Jane Hamsher had a PAC that paid him, but apparently, never paid out to any

candidates.....and people are still stupid enough to pay attention to him.

[tritsofme]

10. This guy is irrelevant.

I don't particularly care what he did or not say, or why.

[AtomicKitten]

13. "Cultists" is an amusing epithet used here at DU.

Mostly heard in the context of an Obama "cultists" epithet.

However, in similar context but rarely used here ...

* The Glenn Greenwald "cultists", apologists for someone who supported the Bush Admin and the Iraq War at one time.

* The Julian Assange "cultists", apologists for someone who is ducking sexual assault charges made against him.

Funny place this is in who chooses to resort to name-calling and gross generalizations ... and who does not.

[Number23]

89. +a million. But I'd take a Greenwald cultist over an Assange cultist any day of the dang week

They're both assholes, but one of them thinks he's God too.

You should see the way the Aussie media talks about Assange. Alot of Aussies practically hide under the table when the current Prime Minister speaks and would rather have nails driven in their eyes than have to endure three minutes in a room with a member of Parliament, but even with all of that there still seems to be something special in the fury/exasperation/disgust that Assange seems to bring out in his countrymen and women.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. This is not what proves the drones are the right policy. What proves the drones are the policy

that is right is the fact that we have secret panels to decide who should be targeted. History has proven over and over and over again that the best decisions by government on who should live and who should die can only be made behind closed doors and in secret. What proves the drones are the best policy is knowing the good will that we are spreading throughout the regions where they are being used. We know this by asking the simple question, how would we feel if it was the other way around and some Middle Eastern country was attacking people inside America who they considered a threat to them? We would admire and respect them and any thoughts that we may have ever had of attacking them would be forgotten. We like them would not be resentful if children were killed. We would understand that it is in our own interest to have these strikes and we would only work harder to strive for a peaceful future together. The word drones conjures up the wrong image. Perhaps they should be called, peace capsules - no that's not quite it -- I know, let's call them, peaceplanes -- yep that's it - peaceplanes.

[Catherina]

15. More proof of how the drone supporters have nothing

Last edited Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:42 PM - Edit history (1)

This reminds me of the assholes who went digging into Obama's kindergarten and grade school years to see what they could dig up to discredit him. I know desperate times call for desperate measures but people this is too funny.

[ProSense]

16. Oh bullshit. This is racist drivel and

it's disgusting that you have the audacity to equate people to "assholes" for pointing it out.

But one of the most disturbing and destructive aspects of illegal immigration is that it is illegal. Indeed, that is the precise attribute which separates good immigration from bad immigration. Why should Republicans, or anyone, shy away from pointing out that illegal immigration, among its many evils, is “illegal”? That is just absurd. Moreover, it is precisely the fact that illegal immigrants enter the country illegally that spawns justifiable resentment, not only among large clusters of middle-of-the-road voters, but also among the very legal immigrant population about which Sanchez is so concerned. Emphasizing the "illegal" part of this problem is what Republicans need to do more of, not less.

Maybe you need to find something better to do than insulting people.

[Luminous Animal]

21. Oh bullshit. I've been hearing things like that from Democrats for decades.

Especially UNION Democrats.

What is different is that with Greenwald, through discussion with his readers, changed his mind. That means he grew as a person. Similar to Obama in regards to same sex marriage. Obama used to hold a bigoted stance but he says that he is evolving. Unfortunately he hasn't evolved as far on equal rights as Greenwald has with illegal immigration, but we can hope.

[ProSense]

26. Good for you. It's still racist drivel, and it's bullshit.

What is different is that with Greenwald, through discussion with his readers, changed his mind. That means he grew as a person. Similar to Obama in regards to same sex marriage. Obama used to hold a bigoted stance but he says that he is evolving. Unfortunately he hasn't evolved as far on equal rights as Greenwald has with illegal immigration, but we can hope.

Oh look, you admit it's racist, and then throw in "Obama did it too" nonsense.

[Luminous Animal]

27. Too bad for you that Obama has been and continues to be a bigot on marriage equaility.

I have worked on immigrant rights off and on for many years and I've heard similar from San Diego to San Francisco from Democrats. Strangely enough (although not so strange when you consider that Pols are going after votes from the Hispanic community) Democratic office seekers have been, historically, ahead of the curve from rank & file Dems.

Obama did it too is not nonsense. He actually really and truly did it and he still hold a bigoted stance by supporting "states rights" rather than viewing marriage equality as a civil right.

Greenwald was a bigot (not a racist). Obama is still a bigot (not a homophobe).

[ProSense]

33. Who really cares that you heard other people say it?

It's racist. Other people say racist shit. That's not a justification for saying it.

[msanthrope]

34. The President of the United States is a bigot, according to you? nt

[Luminous Animal]

53. On full and equal rights for the LGBTQ community? Yes.

This point has been argued on DU for years. There is now (or seems to be) a consensus on DU that marriage equality is a civil right. A civil right is a federal right. Obama is not there yet. He is still advocating for state rights. That is, he holds a belief that some states can deny a person's civil rights. That is a bigoted position.

[One of the 99]

19. You're just figuring out

that Greenwald is a racist?

[Luminous Animal]

24. I'd say that, at the time, he was at the bigoted end of the spectrum in regards to illegal

immigration. Similar to Obama in regards to marriage equality. I wouldn't characterize Obama as a homophobe but certainly, splitting hairs between civil unions and full marriage equality reveals the attitude of a bigot. Obama still would deny a constitutional remedy, preferring "states rights", so he's got a bit to go but Greenwald has evolved and fully embraces civil rights for undocumented immigrants.

[One of the 99]

29. He's a racist.

That's why he hates the President.

[Luminous Animal]

39. Ooohkay, then he must be racist against white folks, as well

because he presented many similar arguments in regards to civil rights against the Bush regime, as well. In fact, he wrote a book about it.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

http://www.amazon.com/How-Would-Patriot-Act-Defending/dp/097794400X

[One of the 99]

91. Silly Strawman arguement.

[geek tragedy]

22. Greenwald flip-flopped because the Paulbots

already had an idol and he had to chase the liberaltarian audience while taking Koch money.

[one_voice]

23. I'm neither a 'cultist' or a drone supporter...

so fuck you Glenn! Based on your statements (in 2005) you're a racist. How do you like being called shitty names? And yours are based on your own fucking words. So again fuck you!

[Luminous Animal]

25. Okay. Then based on Obama's words in regards to marriage equalty, Obama just 4 years ago

was a homophobe.

And I will state right now, that denying marriage equality is a homophobic position but I don't believe that Obama was (or is) a homophobe. I DO believe he held an ignorant and bigoted position and I DO believe him when he says he is evolving.

I DO look forward to the day when Obama believes that marriage equality is a CIVIL RIGHT and not best left to the states to decide. Similarly, I was pleased to see many many DUers evolve to reach that decision. DU and many of its members had to go through some painful growing pains to reach near consensus on marriage equality.

We grew and learned. Greenwald grew and learned. Obama is still growing and learning.

[one_voice]

28. That's great...

except this wasn't a comparison between something Obama said and something Greenwald said. This was another fucking slap from Greenwald to Obama supporters.

I'm so happy you have the warm and fuzzies for Greenwald, maybe you're a Greenwald cultist, but I'm not. I think he's a jack ass, and I'll say so.

But if it makes you feel better to defend ole Glennie by pulling out the Obama card and trying to equate the two, then have at it. Whatever floats your boat.

[Luminous Animal]

31. Hey, I appreciate everyone that learns and grows. I appreciate every single DUer

that went from advocating "separate but equal" civil unions to full support of marriage equality as a Constitutional right. I appreciate that Obama has evolved. I appreciate when anyone has evolved from a a bigot, When Obama gets to that point... dropping his bigoted "states rights" stance, I'll appreciate that, too.

I was a reader of Greenwald's from the the beginning and a participant in discussions. It was refreshing to see his engagement and evolution from a mainstream view of illegal immigration to a civil rights view of illegal immigration. It was refreshing to witness and open mind. It was refreshing to see the open minds of many DUers. It is refreshing to see the opening mind of Obama.

[ProSense]

35. Greenwald calls people "unprincipled hacks"

After his racist statements it's laughable that anyone is still defending him.

"Hey, I appreciate everyone that learns and grows. I appreciate every single DUer"

Maybe he should grow out of calling people names.

[Luminous Animal]

42. Likewise. After Obama's bigoted statements it is laughable that

anyone is defending him.

Did you support Obama's original stance on marriage equality? If not, do you currently support his bigoted stance on "states rights"?

And did you have a problem when Greenwald criticized people for being "Bush occultists"? That is, putting party over principle.

[ProSense]

50. Well,

"After Obama's bigoted statements it is laughable that anyone is defending him. "

...Greenwald and his racist ass wasn't on the ballot.

"And did you have a problem when Greenwald criticized people for being 'Bush occultists'? That is, putting party over principle. "

Was that before or after Greenwald left the "cult" of supporters of Bush's illegal war?

[Luminous Animal]

58. A candidate for the position for world leader gets a pass but

an unknown blogger doesn't? A candidate and president of the most powerful nation in the world still gets a pass for his bigoted stance whereas a person who has little influence over policy and has done a complete 180 doesn't?

Greenwald and 50% of registered Democrats supported Bush's illegal war. At least Greenwald admits to is apolitical and apathetic trust. He was much less a part of a "cult" than was Murtha (D) who, a Democrat leader fully supported the invasion and later admitted his mistake.

[ProSense]

60. Oh my

"A candidate for the position for world leader gets a pass but an unknown blogger doesn't? "

...poor "unknown blogger" Greenwald, who refers to unknown Obama supporters as "cultists" and "unprincipled hacks"

"Greenwald and 50% of registered Democrats supported Bush's illegal war."

I didn't. So fuck him!

[Luminous Animal]

66. Hillary did, so fuck her?

I didn't support the war, either. I got arrested for doing so. my 13 year old daughter was protesting, as well. She had a copy of her birth certificate and Social Security card in her pocket. We shut down the entire downtown of San Francisco for several days. But I am not willing to say "fuck you" to any Democrat who did. I take it as an opportunity to advance the argument that they were wrong then and perhaps they are wrong now in regards to drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.

[ProSense]

68. Hey, whatever.

If you want to believe that Hillary and Greenwald are the same, that's your choice.

Greenwald didn't mention Hillary. He's being a condescending hypocritical ass calling out Obama supporters (I mean, he's obsessed) for not agreeing with him.

I didn't support the war, he did.

[Luminous Animal]

74. Many powerful Democrats supprted the war. If Hillary runs in 2016 will you support her?

[ProSense]

77. Why are you

"Many powerful Democrats supprted the war. If Hillary runs in 2016 will you support her?"

...comparing Greenwald to Democratic candidates? What's the constant meme about appealing to power?

He was refering to average supporters, and overlooking his hypocrisy while claiming he was an "unknown blogger."

As for 2016, it depends on who else runs. I'll vote for the Democratic candidate.

[Luminous Animal]

80. So yes. You will support a Democratic candidate who VOTED for the war.

Yes, he was an unknown blogger... an apolitical and apathetic participant in electoral politics engaging with his readers and evolving his positions. As a result, he became an effective advocate for civil rights and a huge Bush Admin critic. A deciding factor of his promotion from his personal blog to Salon and because he remained true to his principles, to The Guardian.

On the other hand, many of our Dem leaders supported the invasion of Iraq and remain well respected within the Democratic community.

Greenwald doesn't ignore his hypocrisy. He admits his mistake.

[one_voice]

94. I don't like Greenwald...

but I don't mean to be snappy or rude, if I was I apologize.

I agree with that it's always a good thing when people grow and learn. Now if we can only figure out how to get the republicans to do that.

[NOVA_Dem]

38. They can't counter Greenwald's argument so they are trying to delegitimize him.

A lot of Union Dems held/hold the view Greenwald posited back in 2005 and if Latinos voted 71% for R's I'm sure that argument would be made a whole lot more on DU.

When you apply their standard to Obama and marriage equality they don't have anything to say.

[ProSense]

47. So

"They can't counter Greenwald's argument so they are trying to delegitimize him. A lot of Union Dems held/hold the view Greenwald posited back in 2005 and if Latinos voted 71% for R's I'm sure that argument would be made a whole lot more on DU. "

...you've decided to smear unknow union Dems to make your nonsensical argument? I mean, are you saying it's racist, but it's OK because some other people thought the same thing?

Greenwald ins't interested in debate. His spends a lot of time calling out Obama supporters. Frankly, I think the people distorting the debate are the unprincipled ones. I mean, just because they've put themselves on a pedestal to denounce everyone engaged in the debate who doesn't agree with them on one aspect of it or another, doesn't make them principled. It simply means they have an opinion.

The bullshit name calling is for lack of an argument and an unwillingness to participate in the debate. It's all about denouncing, not offering solutions, not thinking about the real issues.

I posted this in another thread.

The rhetoric is to avoid the real debate. It includes everything from portraying Obama as just like Bush only better at it to screaming that Obama is going to kill Americans. If you don't agree with the rhetoric, you're immoral. Yet organizations like the ACLU focus on the issue of trying to sort out the process, and even they will admit that there are instances where lethal force is justified. The issue is who gets to define those instances.

The issue is real and it's not going away. In 2002, another U.S. citizen was killed in Yemen, though it was originally stated that he was not the target.

Kamal Derwish (also Ahmed Hijazi) was an American citizen killed by the CIA as part of a covert targeted killing mission in Yemen on November 5, 2002. The CIA used an RQ-1 Predator drone to shoot a Hellfire missile, destroying the vehicle in which he was driving with five others.[1]

Derwish had been closely linked to the growing religious fundamentalism of the Lackawanna Six, a group of Muslim-Americans who had attended lectures in his apartment near Buffalo, New York.[2][3]

That an American citizen had been killed by the CIA without trial drew criticism.[4] American authorities quickly back-pedaled on their stories celebrating the death of Derwish, instead noting they had been unaware he was in the car which they said had been targeted for its other occupants, including Abu Ali al-Harithi, believed to have played some role in the USS Cole bombing.[4]

<...>

On November 3, 2002, Derwish and al-Harithi were part of a convoy of vehicles moving through the Yemeni desert trying to meet someone, unaware that their contact was cooperating with US forces to lure them into a trap. As their driver spoke on satellite phone, trying to figure out why the two parties couldn't see each other if they were both at the rendezvous point, a Predator drone launched a Hellfire missile, killing everybody in the vehicle. CIA officers in Djibouti had received clearance for the attack from director George Tenet.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish

Human Rights Watch issued this statement about the target:

The line between war and law enforcement gained importance as the U.S. government extended its military efforts against terrorism outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In November, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a missile to kill Qaid Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an alleged senior al-Qaeda official, and five companions as they were driving in a remote and lawless area of Yemen controlled by tribal chiefs. Washington accused al-Harethi of masterminding the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which had killed seventeen sailors. Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative. Indeed, eighteen Yemeni soldiers had reportedly been killed in a prior attempt to arrest al-Harethi. However, the U.S. government made no public effort to justify this use of its war powers or to articulate the legal limits to such powers. It is Human Rights Watch's position that even someone who might be classified as an enemy combatant should not be subject to military attack when reasonable law enforcement means are available. The failure to respect this principle would risk creating a huge loophole in due process protections worldwide. It would leave everyone open to being summarily killed anyplace in the world upon the unilateral determination by the United States (or, as the approach is inevitably emulated, by any other government) that he or she is an enemy combatant.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k3/introduction.html

It reiterates the conditions for action ("al-Qaeda role," "no control over area" and "no reasonable law enforcement alternative," but it also stresses the risk of a slippery slope, which is the argument that claims: Even if you trust Obama, would you trust the next Republican President?

Are organizations like Human Rights Watch "unprincipled hacks" for offering that position?

Remembering Bush, accurately
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022343435

[NOVA_Dem]

54. What's with the cut/paste gibberish?

Unions have grappled with the issue of immigration and you can pretend that many of them didn't have concerns.

I have a problem with ANY President giving himself the power to execute citizens without an impartial judicial review or trial.

You can't refute Greenwald's argument so you're trying to dismiss him as a racist based on his immigration position in 2005. Using your own standard we can dismiss Obama b/c of his past opposition to marriage equality.

[ProSense]

61. Really? Want

"What's with the cut/paste gibberish? Unions have grappled with the issue of immigration and you can pretend that many of them didn't have concerns."

..."gibberish"? Greenwald:

But one of the most disturbing and destructive aspects of illegal immigration is that it is illegal. Indeed, that is the precise attribute which separates good immigration from bad immigration. Why should Republicans, or anyone, shy away from pointing out that illegal immigration, among its many evils, is “illegal”? That is just absurd. Moreover, it is precisely the fact that illegal immigrants enter the country illegally that spawns justifiable resentment, not only among large clusters of middle-of-the-road voters, but also among the very legal immigrant population about which Sanchez is so concerned. Emphasizing the "illegal" part of this problem is what Republicans need to do more of, not less.

[NOVA_Dem]

64. You didn't say anything but re-post the original quote? n/t

[ProSense]

65. Yes, I did: I called it gibberish. n/t

[Bonobo]

36. I guess he evolved on the issue. That's allowed, right? nt

[Luminous Animal]

43. Apparently, the evolving thing is reserved for Obama and Obama alone.

[NOVA_Dem]

45. They knew Obama didn't "really" believe it in his "heart."

They just gave him the slack to appeal to bigoted voters.

[BlueCheese]

37. It's really weird how Greenwald strikes such a nerve sometimes.

It really feels like some people (not everyone, and not anybody in particular) protest a little too much.

[NOVA_Dem]

40. He's a like a liberal Jiminy Cricket.

He reminds some liberals of what they used to believe before it became inconvenient.

[msanthrope]

44. I never supported the Iraq War. He did. nt

[NOVA_Dem]

48. So did Obama's choice for VP. nt

[msanthrope]

52. So? Welcome to DU! nt

[NOVA_Dem]

59. Thank you! But I'm not new. And so what if Greenwald supported the war?n/t

[msanthrope]

63. 300 posts in 5 years? And so many in anti-Obama threads? Welcome! nt

[NOVA_Dem]

67. Sorry I can't rack up posts apologizing for the President.

Is this what you do when you can't defend your position?

If you could look at my posts you would see that I was an Obama supporter in the primaries and would've stayed home if Hillary and the PUMA types on the board had got the nomination.

I don't have to prove anything to you.

[Comrade Grumpy]

88. Ignore the thinly veiled intimidation from the witch hunter.

[woo me with science]

46. Yep. Same reason the corporate defenders aim attacks

so relentlessly at progressive liberals.

When you are trying to sell the lesser-of-two-evils Democratic corporate agenda as the best thing since sliced bread, it is very, very dangerous to have people around who insist on reminding Americans what they used to be able to expect in terms of policy and vision from their representatives.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
Noam Chomsky

[NOVA_Dem]

62. I swear it's like debating a horde of Ari Fleischer's n/t

[ProSense]

70. Says the poster here defending racist drivel. n/t

[NOVA_Dem]

71. Applying the same logic you're defending homophobic drivel. n/t

[ProSense]

72. Bullshit. n/t

[NOVA_Dem]

75. <Sigh> You can't even defend yourself.

Can you point out how my example doesn't parallel the standard you're holding Greenwald to?

[ProSense]

79. Nothing to defend.

"Can you point out how my example doesn't parallel the standard you're holding Greenwald to?"

Show me where the fuck I've ever supported homophobic language? You're here defending Greenwald's racist drivel, already acknowledged as such by those claiming other people say it too.

[dreamnightwind]

73. That Chomsky quote absolutely nails it. - nt

[SidDithers]

41. He's a libertarian asshat...

He's the Ann Coulter of the puritan libertarian left.

Sid

[Summer Hathaway]

82. For the record

You don't have to be a 'drone supporter' to think Greenwald is a self-promoting hypocrite and a racist. You need only read his own words to come to that conclusion - you know, the words he makes a living by.

Unearthed a 2005 post? Seriously? It's not like anyone had to send out a team of archeologists to toil in the desert for a few decades searching for a likely spot to start excavating. There's the thing called Google - and a minute or two and a few mouse clicks will usually do it.

But at least give the 'Obama cultists' their due - they had to strap themselves into the Wayback machine and go aaaaaaalllllll the way back to SIX WHOLE YEARS AGO. That's pretty much equivalent to time travel - or simply spending a few minutes on the internet. Your mileage may, of course, vary.

You haven't been here too long. So maybe you don't know that a lot of people here have been critical of Greenwald long before the drone topic was ever raised - and they've been critical of his views based on what he, himself, has written.

Funny that GG talks about 'Obama cultists'. Maybe he should write a piece on the Greenwald cultists - and DU would be a perfect place for him to start his research on the topic.

[Luminous Animal]

83. And you have to go way back to 6 whole years ago to read Obama's bigoted comments

Last edited Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

in regards to marriage equality. I believe Obama when he says he has evolved (but I won't give him a 100% pass, since he still believes in the bigoted notion of states rights) and I believe him when he says he's evolved to mostly a bigot just slightly a bigot.

I've been here for a long time and Greenwald was regularly cited and supported on DU when he criticized Bush for similar things he is now criticizing Obama. It might be an interesting study about he went from champion for civil rights (during the Bush admin), to pariah for civil rights (during the Obama admin) in a span of 7 years on a democratic discussion board.

[Summer Hathaway]

86. I had no idea

that the concept of states' rights was "a bigoted notion".

As for this being a "democratic discussion board", I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

[TheKentuckian]

95. Imagine if someone was against inter-racial marriage but then said they were evolving on the subject

but then says it should be left to the states if the marriages should be allowed and/or honored if allowed in another state.

States rights are not sole province of bigots but they have been a historically convenient refuge.

[JaneyVee]

93. But wasn't Obama's "bigotry" most likely due to religious beliefs?

Not that I'm excusing religious beliefs but religious texts play a huge part in some people's lives. Greenwald was writing as himself, not within the confines of a "sacred text".

[Cha]

90. Brava Summer.. You've answered the ridiculous

OP perfectly.. and with your usual inimatable sense of humor. "unearthed" We're researching geniuses, alright.

The hyperbole burns.

greenwald projects like the bagger wing.. accusing Obama and his supporters of what he is.

His greenham partner accused Obama supporters of being the "dumbest motherf****** on earth".. thereby rendering her the dimmest dumbest MF on earth.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

84. "Obama cultists"

Stopped right there.

[ucrdem]

85. Gotta give this one a thumbs up.

Glenn Greenwald seems to hop on the tea party train at every depot. TSA for example, right around Thanksgiving in 2011. Oh the outrage for each carefully planned ambush. Gotcha, and Fox flamed for another week. And everything was always Obama's fault, including those backscatter scanners. Funny how that works!

[Comrade Grumpy]

87. Some people really hates 'em some Greenwald.

Draws 'em like flies to honey.

[dionysus]

92. ha. Greenwald.